Tax Vs M&A Forum

[ronalddonaldbobert1]

Current summer associate at a V30 in a major market (CHI/NY) deciding between the M&A and tax group at my firm.

I'm interested in the business side and M&A process generally and the idea of doing deals and interacting with bankers, consultants, and PE bros excites me. However, I have heard that WLB in M&A is hellish and the assignments given to juniors are route and mundane.

I am also interested in tax, however, I find the work less interesting and generally find the knowledge acquired from tax to be esoteric and not generally applicable to anything I could see myself doing long-term. I am aware that WLB is better in tax and I think I could stick out big law a couple more years if I join tax instead of M&A.

My long term career goals are fluid but I find the following interesting: GC at a startup, exiting to the business side (i.e., IB), and starting my own business (I know these are all unicorn outcomes).

My question is whether, given my interests, it is worth it to pick M&A over tax even though I could last longer in Big Law and potentially have a better experience in the tax group.

[dabigchina]

Tax WLB is firm dependent. Tax consistently had the highest billables at my old firm.

If you don't like tax now, you won't like it anymore doing it for 12 hours a day, every day, for the rest of your (firm) life.

One thing to consider - would you rather work on one or two huge project at a time, or juggle 10 small projects at a time. If you like juggling, tax would fit better. If you would rather focus on one or two big projects at a time, corporate is a better fit.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a V5 mid-level in M&A. The exit opps you speak of are not as easy to get as you think. The people who get into IB from law are typically people who had the credentials to get into IB without going into big law (top law school with top grades - just look at LinkedIn for people who now work at banks but attended law school). The folks who work as GCs at startups typically focused on VC work as opposed to pure PE/IB M&A, so that's also something you need to consider before you sign an offer because not all big law firms that do M&A also do VC. You should also understand that "PE bros" are the most demanding clients relative to any other client in the big law universe. Make sure you talk to folks in both groups (find a senior associate and take them out for coffee).

[papermateflair]

Current summer associate at a V30 in a major market (CHI/NY) deciding between the M&A and tax group at my firm.

I'm interested in the business side and M&A process generally and the idea of doing deals and interacting with bankers, consultants, and PE bros excites me. However, I have heard that WLB in M&A is hellish and the assignments given to juniors are route and mundane.

I am also interested in tax, however, I find the work less interesting and generally find the knowledge acquired from tax to be esoteric and not generally applicable to anything I could see myself doing long-term. I am aware that WLB is better in tax and I think I could stick out big law a couple more years if I join tax instead of M&A.

My long term career goals are fluid but I find the following interesting: GC at a startup, exiting to the business side (i.e., IB), and starting my own business (I know these are all unicorn outcomes).

My question is whether, given my interests, it is worth it to pick M&A over tax even though I could last longer in Big Law and potentially have a better experience in the tax group.

If you're not excited about tax then I think you have to go do M&A. Tax folks LOVE tax. And you will last longer in big law if you enjoy what you do than if you're trying to achieve WLB when there's no way anyone can tell you whether the WLB will be better at your firm doing tax vs. M&A (it's going to depend on so many factors). I suppose you can always re-tool if you make strong relationships at the firm (I've seen plenty of tax associates move to other groups as long as they're good associates who the firm wants to keep happy), but I'm not seeing anything here that indicates why you would pick tax.

[trmckenz]

I started in a Tax group and lateraled into a PE M&A group. I'd definitely go M&A since it sounds like you want to be in the driver's seat. There is much more personal interaction in M&A and you get to see all of the issues in a deal (including tax, IP, L&E, etc.).

[trebekismyhero]

I'm a V5 mid-level in M&A. The exit opps you speak of are not as easy to get as you think. The people who get into IB from law are typically people who had the credentials to get into IB without going into big law (top law school with top grades - just look at LinkedIn for people who now work at banks but attended law school). The folks who work as GCs at startups typically focused on VC work as opposed to pure PE/IB M&A, so that's also something you need to consider before you sign an offer because not all big law firms that do M&A also do VC. You should also understand that "PE bros" are the most demanding clients relative to any other client in the big law universe. Make sure you talk to folks in both groups (find a senior associate and take them out for coffee).

100% this. I did M&A and it sounds like you should based on your interests. No point in doing tax if you don't like it. Although, dealing with PE bros and bankers is not fun. I definitely liked the deal side of things, but you are not going to become buddies with the PE bros or bankers enough to get hired by them, at least as a junior; At my old firm, one lawyer did go to a PE fund on the biz side as senior associate but that is pretty rare. I am now at a VC fund, but as a lawyer (still like it a lot).

[nealric]

I'm in tax (now in-house). I agree with the advice that you shouldn't do tax unless you really like tax. The thing with tax is you don't know anything until you know everything (slight exaggeration, but there really is a big learning curve). You need to make it 5-6 years in tax to get anything approaching the knowledge base you need to make a career in it.

As for hours, tax is not necessarily more or less than other groups but it tends to be more steady hours rather than crunch time followed by down time. Another thing is that there are fewer easy hours where you can turn your brain off. Days where you concentrating all day are incredibly exhausting compared to just churning through diligence. However, I do think that it's rare for tax folks to be the top billers numerically. One nice thing is tax tends to have some of the highest billing rates, which means you can make the same profit for the firm with fewer hours.

As for exit options, demand for in-house tax is pretty hot. However, it helps a lot to have some accounting background as companies ideally like people who can build models and talk intelligently through tax accounting issues. It's not impossible without an accounting background (I'm living proof), but it narrows the universe of companies- only the largest companies can afford multiple tax attorneys who do not have compliance or tax accounting responsibilities. There are numerically a lot more openings for M&A folks, but there are also a lot more applicants and it's much harder for a given applicant to stand out.

[Anonymous User]

Another thing is that there are fewer easy hours where you can turn your brain off. Days where you concentrating all day are incredibly exhausting compared to just churning through diligence.

Just wanted to highlight this, as this is a critical factor. As tax lawyer who has been periodically forced into doing a fair amount of ECVC/M&A work on the corporate side (including running deals), a 60 hour tax week is orders of magnitude harder on me than a 60 hour week on the corporate side. I definitely prefer tax (no bus dev requirements ever other than occasional pitches for other partners’ prospective clients), and the WLB can be better (but not always, especially if you struggle managing a million matters), but the hours tend to be hard hours and you get next to no “easy” hours (even seemingly simple things like FIRPTA certificates can involve a maddening amount of difficult research).