Chicago Big Law Tax Forum

[Anonymous User]

Currently considering bidding on Latham, McDermott, Skadden and Sidley in Chicago for OCI I’m top 15% at a T6. I’m focused on practicing tax and my goals are either government work or transitioning in house long term. McDermott has the highest ranked tax practice but I’m wary that the prestige of the firm in general would limit exit options in-house or across the country. Skadden is the most prestigious firm but the Chicago office focuses primarily on REITS. The other firms are deal focused.

I know since I’m focused on tax i likely will not have the opportunity to decide between these firms but in a hypothetical situation which should I choose? Are the firms close enough where I should focus my decision on fit during interviews? Will focusing on deal work early in my career hamstring my ability to lateral into a more policy or planning oriented position later?

[Anonymous User]

Currently considering bidding on Latham, McDermott, Skadden and Sidley in Chicago for OCI I’m top 15% at a T6. I’m focused on practicing tax and my goals are either government work or transitioning in house long term. McDermott has the highest ranked tax practice but I’m wary that the prestige of the firm in general would limit exit options in-house or across the country. Skadden is the most prestigious firm but the Chicago office focuses primarily on REITS. The other firms are deal focused.

I know since I’m focused on tax i likely will not have the opportunity to decide between these firms but in a hypothetical situation which should I choose? Are the firms close enough where I should focus my decision on fit during interviews? Will focusing on deal work early in my career hamstring my ability to lateral into a more policy or planning oriented position later?

Kirkland??? Mayer Brown? Baker Mckenzie? Why are they not on your list? Kirkland Chi is a different beast than NY, fwiw and imo.

All of the Chicago shops have very different cultures and practice/sector focuses, even in the same subgroups across the firms. It's worth bidding on all of them and seeing which you fit best with.

With your creds I wouldn't worry too much, but it's not uncommon for people even with great school/grade combos to strike out in Chicago if you can't demonstrate ties or sincere interest.

Would push back against the idea that Skadden is the most prestigious firm in Chi - the NY reputations or (laughably) Vault rankings have little relevance here. It's Kirkland, Sidley, then everyone else. There are, of course, other very strong firms like Jenner (lit), Mayer Brown, Latham, and even Skadden. McDermott is well respected but doesn't really get the national type of cases that the others do.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah if you're interested in tax in Chicago you should be looking at Kirkland first. I interviewed with them (didn't get offer), they're a different group from the corporate groups and do interesting work. If you want to stay in Chicago, Kirkland is the prestige you want on your resume. If you're concerned about the reputation as a sweatshop, Skadden shouldn't be on your list either.

[Anonymous User]

As far as I know, Baker McKenzie and McDermott are the only tax groups in Chicago that source over, say, 80% of their work from their own tax clients (as opposed to servicing other groups within the firm). Both firms are well-respected in the planning space and service primarily clients from across the country, as opposed to clients just located in the Midwest.

[Anonymous User]

Baker McKenzie isn't the same caliber as the other firms listed. Used to compress salaries and rumor has it they hold ppl back a class year for not making hours.

[Anonymous User]

Baker McKenzie isn't the same caliber as the other firms listed. Used to compress salaries and rumor has it they hold ppl back a class year for not making hours.

Believe that Baker's tax group is highly rated (moreso than than the firm generally, where you are correct that it is not the same calibre).

[Anonymous User]

Currently considering bidding on Latham, McDermott, Skadden and Sidley in Chicago for OCI I’m top 15% at a T6. I’m focused on practicing tax and my goals are either government work or transitioning in house long term. McDermott has the highest ranked tax practice but I’m wary that the prestige of the firm in general would limit exit options in-house or across the country. Skadden is the most prestigious firm but the Chicago office focuses primarily on REITS. The other firms are deal focused.

I know since I’m focused on tax i likely will not have the opportunity to decide between these firms but in a hypothetical situation which should I choose? Are the firms close enough where I should focus my decision on fit during interviews? Will focusing on deal work early in my career hamstring my ability to lateral into a more policy or planning oriented position later?

Kirkland??? Mayer Brown? Baker Mckenzie? Why are they not on your list? Kirkland Chi is a different beast than NY, fwiw and imo.

All of the Chicago shops have very different cultures and practice/sector focuses, even in the same subgroups across the firms. It's worth bidding on all of them and seeing which you fit best with.

With your creds I wouldn't worry too much, but it's not uncommon for people even with great school/grade combos to strike out in Chicago if you can't demonstrate ties or sincere interest.

Would push back against the idea that Skadden is the most prestigious firm in Chi - the NY reputations or (laughably) Vault rankings have little relevance here. It's Kirkland, Sidley, then everyone else. There are, of course, other very strong firms like Jenner (lit), Mayer Brown, Latham, and even Skadden. McDermott is well respected but doesn't really get the national type of cases that the others do.

Skadden absolutely not the most prestigious (or even that noted) player in Chicago. Below a very rough breakdown of dynamics, formed by my years of working across from (and impressions when lateraling, talking to partners all over the city ,etc).

-Kirkland and Sidley - this is not a debate. These are the top two shops in the city. They used to be tied, now Kirkland has passed Sidley by in more recent years. Kirkland is not like NY where its filled with Columbians that couldn't get Cravath or WLRK (yes being tongue in cheek) - it's where the very best students who wanted Chicago go. Very different dynamic. Same with Sidley.

- Mayer, Winston, Katten, McDermott, Jenner, maybe Katten -- these are venerable Chicago firms that are incredibly respected in the city. They have offices with 5-700 attorneys in Chi (other than Jenner, they are smaller and very focused on particular practice areas). They're not all equal but roughly on this tier in the market specifically (though Katten, McDermott do less sexy work overall than Latham and Skadden). Baker could somewhat go here too, but their business model knocks them a tier down IMO.

- Latham, Skadden, Jones Day -- obviously amazing national firms with strong practices in Chi, but it's not home to them and it shows in how the offices stand in the market.

- Baker and DLA -- they get their own spot because they have big offices in the city but aren't well respected because they're swiss vereens that churn basic paper all day.

- Venerable out of towners with medium offices (Morgan Lewis, King and Spalding, Ropes and Gray, a few others).

- Less venerable out of towners and smaller chi shops. Foley, Greenberg, ARent Schiff, Seyfarth, Chapman

Latham and Skadden are without questions better nationally than the Mayers and Winstons of the world, but in the city of Chicago they are respected but not dominant players.

[Anonymous User]

Former Skadden tax associate (non-Chi). Based on my interaction with the broader tax group, the center of activity is definitely NY and DC, but Chicago does have a pretty vibrant tax controversy practice in addition to transaction support if you are interested in that part of tax practice. I can't say what KE and SA might offer in the controversy space, all my interactions with these firms have been deal-related (and frankly pretty boring). I did both transaction and controversy, and I definitely found controversy work to be a lot more "substantive" at least early on. A lot of the transaction-related tax planning work doesn't really fall on the junior associates because of the steep learning curve.

[nealric]

Former Skadden tax associate (non-Chi). Based on my interaction with the broader tax group, the center of activity is definitely NY and DC, but Chicago does have a pretty vibrant tax controversy practice in addition to transaction support if you are interested in that part of tax practice. I can't say what KE and SA might offer in the controversy space, all my interactions with these firms have been deal-related (and frankly pretty boring). I did both transaction and controversy, and I definitely found controversy work to be a lot more "substantive" at least early on. A lot of the transaction-related tax planning work doesn't really fall on the junior associates because of the steep learning curve.

I think the key is being at a shop where you are at least involved in the transaction tax planning from the start if you want to go the planning route. You obviously aren't going to be the key player, but you need to work with partners that will give you research assignments, sit in on client calls, and generally mentor you. If you just sit around doing tax diligence all day, you career will have a limited shelf life. Even if you want to focus on controversy, it's good to have some first hand experience on the planning side.

[Anonymous User]

Baker's tax group is phenomenal and different from the rest of the firm. People shouldn't confuse Baker's general reputation with their tax group's reputation -- two different animals. The standards to get into Baker tax are much different than to get into Baker for e.g., general commercial lit. And tax attorneys at Baker are treated differently (better) because it's recognized as an elite group within the firm's overall platform.

[Anonymous User]

To echo others, why are you not bidding on Kirkland? You're obviously extremely competitive/would go so far as to say it would be shocking for you to not get an offer. Whatever you've heard about things being "sweatshops," etc., to the extent there is any truth around KE being worse than any other firm (there's not much truth to it), that's just not true of the tax group.

KE is working extremely hard to build out its controversy practice too. That's why they hired Richard Husseini in Texas. Doing controversy-only would be hard but there is absolutely work to be had and they view it as an area they can grow in because there is a sense that private equity funds are going into the audit crosshairs.

To layer on to what other people here are saying--Baker is a MUCH different tax practice than all of these other firms, and Baker tax is a different level of selectiveness/"prestige" than Baker in general. They do much more "standalone" tax work. The tax groups at all of these other firms (and Kirkland) are definitely support groups for the transactional groups + varying levels of tax controversy work.

I rarely invite people to PM me, but feel free to PM me. I'm not trying to shill, but, I will just say, I know of what I speak.

[Anonymous User]

OP here - thanks for the responses.

Concerning Kirkland, what tax planning opportunities are available at the firm? I know they deal primarily with PE deal support, would this affect my exit opportunities compared to working at a firm like Baker which brings in most of its own tax work, or Skadden which deals more with public companies?

If things don't work out at Kirkland how sought after is a Kirkland tax lateral? If I leave after two years will I still be junior enough to move into a more tax planning-centric firm like Baker?

[Anonymous User]

There is not a meaningfully substantive difference between “public” and pe tax work. You run into the same issues. Tax free spin-offs and reverse Morris trust transactions more common in public deals but still not “common” and Kirkland does it’s fair share of it.

Frankly, it’s relatively rare for ch ke tax people to leave and be looking for another firm in the tax practice, but when they do they have no issue. Baker’s practice is unique but there will be no real difference whatsoever between skadden, kirkland, etc in terms of lateral considerations.

[Anonymous User]

I was very confused why Baker McKenzie wasn't on OP's original list, but seems like you've gotten that point from others here now. If you're wanting to focus on tax you should really give them more consideration.

[Anonymous User]

Where does crowell fall on the chicago reputation list?

[Anonymous User]

Where does crowell fall on the chicago reputation list?

Who? Is that your nan's nickname?

[trebekismyhero]

Where does crowell fall on the chicago reputation list?

Not in the top 20. Can't speak about tax, but they just basically renamed a boutique IP firm. I think if you were IP it might be higher, but never dealt with them in any capacity on deals or the like

[Anonymous User]

Interested in the absence of Perkins on the list. Thought their Chicago office was strong (not for tax per se but for Chicago).

[Anonymous User]

Interested in the absence of Perkins on the list. Thought their Chicago office was strong (not for tax per se but for Chicago).

I didn’t know Perkins even had an office in Chicago

[Anonymous User]

I truly don't see why anyone in OP's position would be considering any firms other than KE, Baker, Skadden, Latham, and maybe Sidley. Should bid on all of them, interview with all of them, and then make a decision.

[Anonymous User]

OP here - thanks for the responses.

Concerning Kirkland, what tax planning opportunities are available at the firm? I know they deal primarily with PE deal support, would this affect my exit opportunities compared to working at a firm like Baker which brings in most of its own tax work, or Skadden which deals more with public companies?

If things don't work out at Kirkland how sought after is a Kirkland tax lateral? If I leave after two years will I still be junior enough to move into a more tax planning-centric firm like Baker?

I'm not sure how much tax planning work (as opposed to deal support work) Kirkland's tax group brings in. If I had to guess, I would guess very little as a percentage of overall tax work.

IME, working with a tax planning practice (as opposed to deal support) has made me very employable for in-house jobs. Tax planning attorneys spend all day talking and working side by side with their clients' in-house tax teams, which is priceless for networking purposes. AFAIK, deal support attorneys don't typically and repeatedly work side by side with clients' tax groups. As long as you're still in biglaw, planning work IME also has way better work-life balance than deal support work.

I imagine that if a tax planning firm were looking to make lateral associate hires, they would be interested in a Kirkland associate, even if that associate had done primarily deal support. But there's really only two firms that I can think of in Chicago that are planning focused (Baker and McDermott), and they have incredibly small tax groups, and they aren't always hiring.

[Anonymous User]

Interested in the absence of Perkins on the list. Thought their Chicago office was strong (not for tax per se but for Chicago).

It's a satellite office. No better than any other Chi satellite v50ish.

[Anonymous User]

OP here - thanks for the responses.

Concerning Kirkland, what tax planning opportunities are available at the firm? I know they deal primarily with PE deal support, would this affect my exit opportunities compared to working at a firm like Baker which brings in most of its own tax work, or Skadden which deals more with public companies?

If things don't work out at Kirkland how sought after is a Kirkland tax lateral? If I leave after two years will I still be junior enough to move into a more tax planning-centric firm like Baker?

I'm not sure how much tax planning work (as opposed to deal support work) Kirkland's tax group brings in. If I had to guess, I would guess very little as a percentage of overall tax work.

IME, working with a tax planning practice (as opposed to deal support) has made me very employable for in-house jobs. Tax planning attorneys spend all day talking and working side by side with their clients' in-house tax teams, which is priceless for networking purposes. AFAIK, deal support attorneys don't typically and repeatedly work side by side with clients' tax groups. As long as you're still in biglaw, planning work IME also has way better work-life balance than deal support work.

I imagine that if a tax planning firm were looking to make lateral associate hires, they would be interested in a Kirkland associate, even if that associate had done primarily deal support. But there's really only two firms that I can think of in Chicago that are planning focused (Baker and McDermott), and they have incredibly small tax groups, and they aren't always hiring.

I am a tax partner at one of the various firms being discussed here (and am one of the anon posters above). I will say that I completely agree that working on tax planning stuff is probably more transferrable to in-house than normal deal support stuff, though people do make those transitions. (I will say that of all the biglaw practices, tax people tend to be "happier," so exit options don't tend to be quite as important as they are elsewhere.) Baker and, to a lesser extent, McD, are just totally different practices than all of the other firms being mentioned here. It's worth noting that experience there DEFINITELY does not translate to more "normal" big firm tax practices, so you'd end up probably taking class year haircuts if you decided that kind of work was not for you.

[Anonymous User]

OP here - thanks for the responses.

Concerning Kirkland, what tax planning opportunities are available at the firm? I know they deal primarily with PE deal support, would this affect my exit opportunities compared to working at a firm like Baker which brings in most of its own tax work, or Skadden which deals more with public companies?

If things don't work out at Kirkland how sought after is a Kirkland tax lateral? If I leave after two years will I still be junior enough to move into a more tax planning-centric firm like Baker?

I'm not sure how much tax planning work (as opposed to deal support work) Kirkland's tax group brings in. If I had to guess, I would guess very little as a percentage of overall tax work.

IME, working with a tax planning practice (as opposed to deal support) has made me very employable for in-house jobs. Tax planning attorneys spend all day talking and working side by side with their clients' in-house tax teams, which is priceless for networking purposes. AFAIK, deal support attorneys don't typically and repeatedly work side by side with clients' tax groups. As long as you're still in biglaw, planning work IME also has way better work-life balance than deal support work.

I imagine that if a tax planning firm were looking to make lateral associate hires, they would be interested in a Kirkland associate, even if that associate had done primarily deal support. But there's really only two firms that I can think of in Chicago that are planning focused (Baker and McDermott), and they have incredibly small tax groups, and they aren't always hiring.

In your opinion, would it be better for someone who isn’t sure whether they would prefer tax planning or deals to start at a tax planning or deal centric firm?

[Anonymous User]

OP here - thanks for the responses.

Concerning Kirkland, what tax planning opportunities are available at the firm? I know they deal primarily with PE deal support, would this affect my exit opportunities compared to working at a firm like Baker which brings in most of its own tax work, or Skadden which deals more with public companies?

If things don't work out at Kirkland how sought after is a Kirkland tax lateral? If I leave after two years will I still be junior enough to move into a more tax planning-centric firm like Baker?

I'm not sure how much tax planning work (as opposed to deal support work) Kirkland's tax group brings in. If I had to guess, I would guess very little as a percentage of overall tax work.

IME, working with a tax planning practice (as opposed to deal support) has made me very employable for in-house jobs. Tax planning attorneys spend all day talking and working side by side with their clients' in-house tax teams, which is priceless for networking purposes. AFAIK, deal support attorneys don't typically and repeatedly work side by side with clients' tax groups. As long as you're still in biglaw, planning work IME also has way better work-life balance than deal support work.

I imagine that if a tax planning firm were looking to make lateral associate hires, they would be interested in a Kirkland associate, even if that associate had done primarily deal support. But there's really only two firms that I can think of in Chicago that are planning focused (Baker and McDermott), and they have incredibly small tax groups, and they aren't always hiring.

In your opinion, would it be better for someone who isn’t sure whether they would prefer tax planning or deals to start at a tax planning or deal centric firm?

I'm the Anon you quoted immediately above. To qualify what's about to come, let me say that I am a midlevel tax planning associate at one of the major tax planning firms, and I don't have a strong opinion on an answer to your question. With that said, if you're truly 50/50, and if I had to give an answer, then I would encourage you to pursue the tax planning opportunities.

Three main reasons for this:

• You should be able to pick up deal support work even at one of the tax planning firms, but you almost certainly won't be able to pick up true tax planning work anywhere else. At least at my [tax planning] firm, you do not need to specialize between tax planning versus deal support, and could get experience in both areas without needing to silo yourself.
• If you are looking to lateral to switch from tax planning to deal support or vice versa, it will be much easier to pivot from tax planning work [which is more difficult to find] to deal support work [which is basically what all other tax practice groups do] than vice versa.
• If you are looking to go in-house, tax planning work probably better reflects what most tax in-house positions actually look like. If you were interested in some position that was looking for more of a deal support background, then you should still be able to effectively sell yourself as a good candidate given that you have to understand all the tax mechanics in the background of those deals anyway in order to do a planning job.