Top Law Schools

Any information / experience on a move like this? Other lateral options?

It’s possible. I don’t think it’s as common as people in the accounting firms want to believe. In my practice at a big 4 (roughly 50 attorneys), I knew many who wanted to go into biglaw because the salary gap is so large. They all struck out. That was two years ago. Most are still there. I want to say I know of maybe 5 that are in biglaw now.

It happens but it’s rarer than people play it out to be.

It’s also city dependent. NY and DC are probably more difficult because NYU and Georgetown are churning out HUNDREDS of tax LLMs each year.

I'm more interested in what a moves are available along the lines of big4 -> in-house. For example, I know that Amazon.com's tax department is separate from its legal department, and I see from Linkedin that both biglaw tax associates and Big4 tax people end up there. Also, I notice that in-house tax counsel positions often list biglaw experience or big4 experience.

Anonymous User wrote:It’s possible. I don’t think it’s as common as people in the accounting firms want to believe. In my practice at a big 4 (roughly 50 attorneys), I knew many who wanted to go into biglaw because the salary gap is so large. They all struck out. That was two years ago. Most are still there. I want to say I know of maybe 5 that are in biglaw now.

It happens but it’s rarer than people play it out to be.

It’s also city dependent. NY and DC are probably more difficult because NYU and Georgetown are churning out HUNDREDS of tax LLMs each year.

Currently in Big 4 M&A, non-major market office. Not sure about your location but this makes sense if you are with M&A and in NYC. In my Big4, folks at NYC M&A spend 95% of their time on diligence work, which does not necessarily help them develop a skill set that law firms are looking for (law firms don't usually do tax due diligence). In contrast, in my secondary market office, people spent less time on diligence, and also spend significant amount of time working on tax opinions/structuring that involves complicated and sophisticated research questions. A colleague who's a couple of years more senior than me said he's the only person in his class that is still with my Big4; other people (about 3 others) all went to BigLaw.

I guess the point I am getting at is that it depends on what skills you ended up developing.

First anon here.

I’m assuming the person above me is from a smaller city. It’s all supply and demand. I have former classmates in Boston/Philly and they had no problem moving to law firms during the past two years or so because the tax market was hot (pre-election).

I don’t know if I necessarily agree that it’s a skills thing, also. I tend to think tax associates at law firms do more diligence than structuring.

I’ve read this before, but biglaw partners have told students they don’t hire from big 4 that often because they prefer their junior associates to be generalists and by year 3, many big 3 associates are extremely specialized. May have been a cop out answer, though.

As for other exit options, I’ve heard of people going to clients to work for their tax teams (many banks have huge tax departments). I think the most common thing is to go to another big 4 accounting firm or other good firm.

Anonymous User wrote:First anon here.

I’m assuming the person above me is from a smaller city. It’s all supply and demand. I have former classmates in Boston/Philly and they had no problem moving to law firms during the past two years or so because the tax market was hot (pre-election).

I don’t know if I necessarily agree that it’s a skills thing, also. I tend to think tax associates at law firms do more diligence than structuring.

I’ve read this before, but biglaw partners have told students they don’t hire from big 4 that often because they prefer their junior associates to be generalists and by year 3, many big 3 associates are extremely specialized. May have been a cop out answer, though.

As for other exit options, I’ve heard of people going to clients to work for their tax teams (many banks have huge tax departments). I think the most common thing is to go to another big 4 accounting firm or other good firm.

I am pretty sure not a lot of BigLaw firms do tax due diligence (they definitely do legal diligence, but tax due diligence are way less common). And if they don't, it makes sense that they are not interested in people doing almost nothing but TDD all day.

As for structuring, I am not sure how common it is for law firms to do that, but I have some structure decks from Skadden sitting on my desk now.

I am under the impression that if you are in international/SALT, exiting to big name company's in-house positions will be easier. I personally know a guy who spent about 4 years in my Big4's international tax group and now works at Amazon.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:First anon here.

I’m assuming the person above me is from a smaller city. It’s all supply and demand. I have former classmates in Boston/Philly and they had no problem moving to law firms during the past two years or so because the tax market was hot (pre-election).

I don’t know if I necessarily agree that it’s a skills thing, also. I tend to think tax associates at law firms do more diligence than structuring.

I’ve read this before, but biglaw partners have told students they don’t hire from big 4 that often because they prefer their junior associates to be generalists and by year 3, many big 3 associates are extremely specialized. May have been a cop out answer, though.

As for other exit options, I’ve heard of people going to clients to work for their tax teams (many banks have huge tax departments). I think the most common thing is to go to another big 4 accounting firm or other good firm.

I am pretty sure not a lot of BigLaw firms do tax due diligence (they definitely do legal diligence, but tax due diligence are way less common). And if they don't, it makes sense that they are not interested in people doing almost nothing but TDD all day.

As for structuring, I am not sure how common it is for law firms to do that, but I have some structure decks from Skadden sitting on my desk now.

I am under the impression that if you are in international/SALT, exiting to big name company's in-house positions will be easier. I personally know a guy who spent about 4 years in my Big4's international tax group and now works at Amazon.

It probably varies from firm to firm. Also if you’re going to consider drawing ovals and rectangles on a slide deck structuring, then sure, that skill is probably more transferable.

I 100% agree with your last point, though. I don’t know if it’s because tax associates at biglaw generally do m&a/corporate tax (so the companies just hire them), but a lot of huge companies are always looking for either ITS or SALT associates.

I’d appreciate any and all information on the assertion that SALT/Int’l are the best two groups to go in-house from. My main goal out of doing Big4 would be to go in-house. I think I wouldn’t mind the pay difference between biglaw if I could end up in-house as a tax counsel at the end of the line.

Anonymous User wrote:I’d appreciate any and all information on the assertion that SALT/Int’l are the best two groups to go in-house from. My main goal out of doing Big4 would be to go in-house. I think I wouldn’t mind the pay difference between biglaw if I could end up in-house as a tax counsel at the end of the line.

Excuse me for any typos - typing on my phone while taking a shit at work.

I’m currently at Big4 NY Int’l tax. It’s very easy to land an in-house gig after 1-3 years. People always switch back and forth between big4 and the clients (ranging from banks, funds to multinational corporations).

That being said, going biglaw is much harder. I have seen a few people jump ships, but it usually occurs if you already would have been an eligible candidate (T14/T20 with good grades + NYU/Gtown Tax LLM), or you are extremely technical after a few years of solid practice, or if you have really good connections.

The type of skills that biglaw demands of its junior tax attorneys are not exactly in line with what Big4 tax associates are accustomed to. For example, a typical big4 junior associate would generally be involved in putting together structuring decks for maximizing tax effeciency for both US/non-US investors using a hybrid double-tier treaty structure, whereas a biglaw junior associate would be drafting tax related matters in a LPA for the US/non-US investors to come into such structure. Big4 would review these LPAs or PPMs, but are not eligible to draft then cause of Sarbanes-oxlaey. Hence, I see more partners making the shift to biglaw from big4 (and vice versa, of course) because they have a general understanding of strucutring they can delegate to biglaw junior associates to draft since they would have reviewed such documents as associates, but for a junior big4 associate the skillsets in demand are not really similar in that regard.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I’d appreciate any and all information on the assertion that SALT/Int’l are the best two groups to go in-house from. My main goal out of doing Big4 would be to go in-house. I think I wouldn’t mind the pay difference between biglaw if I could end up in-house as a tax counsel at the end of the line.

Excuse me for any typos - typing on my phone while taking a shit at work.

I’m currently at Big4 NY Int’l tax. It’s very easy to land an in-house gig after 1-3 years. People always switch back and forth between big4 and the clients (ranging from banks, funds to multinational corporations).

Are these positions as in-house tax counsel, or tax specialists? (To the extent it even matters - tax seems to have different options than the other practices. For example Amazon's entire tax department isn't even grouped with their legal department).

How does Big4 M&A/ITS experience play into the "major firm experience required" statement that so many biglaw lateral listings include?

Many of the more “elite” firms require law firm experience. If they’re open to big4, they usually mention it in the posting.

Made the move from Big4 to biglaw (wasn't from tax group but advisory). Made the switch about a year and a half after starting at the Big4 and I think the earlier you do it the better. I emailed a bunch of firms regardless of whether they were hiring or not and followed up and then something came up. Took four months all in and had to take a step back in class year but it was still a significant pay bump...

It is possible, I think that persistence is key and being open to various practice areas and taking a hit in seniority is important to make a successful move.

Anonymous User wrote:Made the move from Big4 to biglaw (wasn't from tax group but advisory). Made the switch about a year and a half after starting at the Big4 and I think the earlier you do it the better. I emailed a bunch of firms regardless of whether they were hiring or not and followed up and then something came up. Took four months all in and had to take a step back in class year but it was still a significant pay bump...

It is possible, I think that persistence is key and being open to various practice areas and taking a hit in seniority is important to make a successful move.

Would you be willing to share more about your process / strategy?

nyunyu wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Made the move from Big4 to biglaw (wasn't from tax group but advisory). Made the switch about a year and a half after starting at the Big4 and I think the earlier you do it the better. I emailed a bunch of firms regardless of whether they were hiring or not and followed up and then something came up. Took four months all in and had to take a step back in class year but it was still a significant pay bump...

It is possible, I think that persistence is key and being open to various practice areas and taking a hit in seniority is important to make a successful move.

Would you be willing to share more about your process / strategy?

Sure - after about a year at the Big4 I wanted to practice. I wanted to be on the transactional side so I targeted any and all firms that had any sort of corporate practice. I had an excel spreadsheet of every firm and found alumni at each one to reach out to. I am also fortunate to have gone to a law school that has many alumni in BigLaw in NYC. Additionally, I reached out to classmates at law firms that could point me to partners to email so as to make sure my resume was making it to the folks that needed people.

It was definitely frustrating at times because of the sheer amount of no responses and flat out rejections. But, eventually came across a group that was busy and needed people and things fell into place.

I did NOT use a recruiter and I found them to be of little to no help at all. They all thought that this move would not be possible and they just didn't want to waste their time actually trying to place someone that wasn't a simple biglaw to biglaw switch.

Do not use a recruiter. They’re a complete waste of time. One told me there was no way I would get a certain job because I was at an accounting firm. I cold applied and am now working here.

Recruiters are only good if you have like 2+ years of experience or are in a very niche practice. Or if there is a firm opening up in town looking for juniors. Otherwise, no firm is going to pay 60k when hundreds of applicants are applying with no recruiter.

Anonymous User wrote:Made the move from Big4 to biglaw (wasn't from tax group but advisory). Made the switch about a year and a half after starting at the Big4 and I think the earlier you do it the better. I emailed a bunch of firms regardless of whether they were hiring or not and followed up and then something came up. Took four months all in and had to take a step back in class year but it was still a significant pay bump...

It is possible, I think that persistence is key and being open to various practice areas and taking a hit in seniority is important to make a successful move.

Were you in the advisory deal work service line? (I think at EY it's just called TAS). Also, can you detail what following up looked like?

beautyistruth wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Made the move from Big4 to biglaw (wasn't from tax group but advisory). Made the switch about a year and a half after starting at the Big4 and I think the earlier you do it the better. I emailed a bunch of firms regardless of whether they were hiring or not and followed up and then something came up. Took four months all in and had to take a step back in class year but it was still a significant pay bump...

It is possible, I think that persistence is key and being open to various practice areas and taking a hit in seniority is important to make a successful move.

Were you in the advisory deal work service line? (I think at EY it's just called TAS). Also, can you detail what following up looked like?

It was a risk and regulatory advisory group. Following up meant that when someone would tell me they'd keep my resume on file and then I would loop back to them after a couple of months or so (if I happened to see a posting for a job at that firm or heard anything from a friend at that firm). I would try not to be annoying about it (which is difficult while trying to be persistent) but you have to show interest.

The firm I'm at now was actually one of the firms I reached out to first on a tip from a friend. The hiring partner said that they are not looking but would keep me in mind. A couple of months down the road I heard that this group was actually looking to hire and so I sent another email with my resume and got an interview. A lot of it is timing (and luck) - but, reaching out and following up gives you the best opportunity to be in the right place at the right time.

Interesting

1. So if you went from risk and regulatory to corporate, seems like its not a deal-breaker if the practice isn't related? (Though obviously you build general skills working in a high-pressured, client-facing environment).
2. Would never have thought to follow up with places that say they'll keep your resume on file. I always thought that was boiler-plate rejection language!

Super helpful, thanks!

Anonymous User wrote:Interesting

1. So if you went from risk and regulatory to corporate, seems like its not a deal-breaker if the practice isn't related? (Though obviously you build general skills working in a high-pressured, client-facing environment).
2. Would never have thought to follow up with places that say they'll keep your resume on file. I always thought that was boiler-plate rejection language!

Super helpful, thanks!

1. Correct, especially at the junior level, which makes sense. I mean, if you lateral into a different practice group (from a law firm), then you're starting over essentially anyway. Therefore, coming in from a consulting practice shouldn't really make a difference at the junior level. People will say that you haven't been practicing or things along that line but to be honest the skills you highlighted above put you in a good position. In my experience, it was about highlighting the skills that would be useful as an associate at a firm. The actual subject matter is not always a deal breaker.

2. True - and sometimes it is a boiler plate rejection. But it's only a rejection until the firm actually needs to hire someone.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Interesting

1. So if you went from risk and regulatory to corporate, seems like its not a deal-breaker if the practice isn't related? (Though obviously you build general skills working in a high-pressured, client-facing environment).
2. Would never have thought to follow up with places that say they'll keep your resume on file. I always thought that was boiler-plate rejection language!

Super helpful, thanks!

1. Correct, especially at the junior level, which makes sense. I mean, if you lateral into a different practice group (from a law firm), then you're starting over essentially anyway. Therefore, coming in from a consulting practice shouldn't really make a difference at the junior level. People will say that you haven't been practicing or things along that line but to be honest the skills you highlighted above put you in a good position. In my experience, it was about highlighting the skills that would be useful as an associate at a firm. The actual subject matter is not always a deal breaker.

2. True - and sometimes it is a boiler plate rejection. But it's only a rejection until the firm actually needs to hire someone.

What is your background / stats when applying, if you don’t mind sharing

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Interesting

1. So if you went from risk and regulatory to corporate, seems like its not a deal-breaker if the practice isn't related? (Though obviously you build general skills working in a high-pressured, client-facing environment).
2. Would never have thought to follow up with places that say they'll keep your resume on file. I always thought that was boiler-plate rejection language!

Super helpful, thanks!

1. Correct, especially at the junior level, which makes sense. I mean, if you lateral into a different practice group (from a law firm), then you're starting over essentially anyway. Therefore, coming in from a consulting practice shouldn't really make a difference at the junior level. People will say that you haven't been practicing or things along that line but to be honest the skills you highlighted above put you in a good position. In my experience, it was about highlighting the skills that would be useful as an associate at a firm. The actual subject matter is not always a deal breaker.

2. True - and sometimes it is a boiler plate rejection. But it's only a rejection until the firm actually needs to hire someone.

What is your background / stats when applying, if you don’t mind sharing

Sure, I was straight through; CCN grad; median; non-Ivy or equivalent undergrad (summa).

I will say that it is very common for JD/LLMs in the mergers and acquisitions and international tax Washington National Tax practices of the big 4 to move between the IRS Chief Counsel, Congress (ways and means and finance committees), Treasury, and big law. However, the work that is done at the WNTS practices of the big 4 is 100 percent opinion letter writing, obtaining PLRs for clients, drafting memoranda, structuring transactions, etc. There is no due diligence, compliance, or accounting type work done there. Consequently, the level and type of work done at the WNTS M&A and ITS practices of the big 4 is no different than the top law firms for tax law, except that the big 4 cannot draft legal agreements.