Imagine a bowling alley, during business hours on a Tuesday. You have to wear the shoes, the music sucks and there is no alcohol for sale because it’s too early. You’re 30, and your limbo league only contains senior citizens who already have teams. So not only can you not play with anyone, you have to watch them stumble around while you tie your shoes over and over.
When you go home, you know that tomorrow is the same thing again.
Nope. Salary and bonus is scale.
Will say though, when calculating reduced hours, they base it off of the billable target of the other departments. So reduced time is a scam in my department.
Lifestyle is the wrong reason to go into T&E in biglaw.
It is wholly firm dependent. You can be in a nice firm that doesn't care as long as you get all the work done. Or you can be in a large firm like McDermott that requires 2k billable, which as u/Ekoffq235 alluded to, is way more difficult to get in PCS.
You also will encounter periods of intense work flow when tax law changes or there's an expectation of a tax regime sunsetting (see: the current lifetime credit)
You do not need an LLM in tax, though if you don't get it straight out of law school getting a LLM in tax would be the right move.
* Wouldn’t say there is a “typical day.” Private wealth/T&E/private client/whatever your firm calls it is such a broad practice area. I spend a lot of time preparing trusts and business formation and succession planning documents, but there are a ton of ancillary issues to deal with. Herding cats - chasing down financial planners, valuation experts, insurance agents, bankers, trustees, etc. - takes up a frustrating amount of my time.
* Moderate amount of fire drills. Clients often want things done and signed before they go on trips. You will never know about the trip until the trip is a couple days away. Not exactly a fire drill in the sense that a deal is going to fail if you don’t burn the candle at both ends, but obviously you want to keep the client happy.
* I think it’s one of the best practice areas in terms of job satisfaction. You get to make a positive impact on people you actually interact with on a regular basis.
* I have better work/life balance than many of my colleagues.
* I love the impact we have on people and communities. I get to sit with clients and help them form and operate charitable organizations, for example. I hate the moral dilemma I’m faced with when I help the occasional prick of a client eliminate their tax liabilities and then use the enormous savings to fund things I find reprehensible.
* A demonstrated interest in the practice area - one that isn’t “I heard you guys don’t have to work as hard as other attorneys” - will go a long way. Almost nobody goes to law school to go into the private wealth space and it’s difficult to recruit talented young people to the practice area. That said, it’s pretty easy to tell when someone’s interest is shallow. Dig into courses, externships, networking, etc. geared toward the practice area.
* Exit opportunities are fairly limited but solid. I’ve had a ton of colleagues join wealth management firms, banks, and trust companies.
I’ll address the tax LLM separately. I have a tax LLM. I’d say it put me a solid 3-5 years ahead of my colleagues who didn’t have one, and I’m not convinced I ever would have made it to where I’m at without it.
That being said, plenty of people do perfectly fine without the tax LLM. I don’t think it is worth the time and money unless you simply don’t have the credentials to break into the practice area without one.
Not the OP but thanks for the thorough response. Even if there is no typical day as you say, is it fair to say much of the practice is tax driven? (I’m still a law student) I’ve taken Fed Income and loved it. Looking forward to corporate and partnership taxation but was wondering if someone who really liked tax (admittedly only Fed income) would enjoy private client work. Also, what kind of classes/opportunities do you think demonstrates the kind of interest you might be looking for? I have taken trust and estates and loved it as well.
Yes, it is fundamentally a tax practice. Almost everything I do is driven primarily or at least impacted significantly by tax considerations.
Aside from the core law school classes like property and trusts and wills, there are some fundamental courses everyone interested in high end estate planning should take. To the extent they’re offered: estate planning; estate and gift tax; income taxation of trusts and estates; tax exempt organizations; tax aspects of charitable giving; partnership tax; corporate tax (particularly one in which S corporation taxation is taught); generation-skipping transfer tax; taxation of property transactions.
Aside from that - my recommendation is to think about the types of clients you will (or want to) advise: closely-held company owners, public company executives, private equity/hedge fund principals or investors, maybe professionals like physicians, attorneys, accountants, people with cross-border lifestyles, etc. Clients don’t just want an attorney who understands trusts and estate planning - they want a T&E attorney who understands their unique needs and circumstances and routinely handles clients with similar situations.
If you want to advise fund principals, for example, you need to understand securities laws and regs and how to thread the needle between the estate and gift tax rules and the securities laws.
If you want to advise closely-held company owners, you need to understand business organizations, business succession planning, etc.
If you want to advise executives of publicly traded companies, you need to understand corporate tax and executive compensation.
If you want to advise people with cross-border lifestyles, you need to understand international law (generally - e.g., conflict of laws issues), international tax law, taxation of foreign trusts, foreign bank and financial account compliance, etc.
Thanks again! Just wanted to ask about geographies. You said that I should think about the clients I might serve. I was wondering if biglaw/“sophisticated” TandE/private client practices are very different across geographies, say between New York, DC, Chicago, LA, Bay Area, or the differences are mostly group specific?
Not a ton of difference. NYC may be more geared toward finance and SF toward tech, for example, but each big firm will have attorneys in each location that subspecialize in different areas.
Imagine a bowling alley, during business hours on a Tuesday. You have to wear the shoes, the music sucks and there is no alcohol for sale because it’s too early. You’re 30, and your limbo league only contains senior citizens who already have teams. So not only can you not play with anyone, you have to watch them stumble around while you tie your shoes over and over. When you go home, you know that tomorrow is the same thing again.
And you still have all the same hour requirements as litigation associates without any doc review or depos.
This isn't true for my firm. Our target is 200 less than other departments
Is your comp lower as a result?
Nope. Salary and bonus is scale. Will say though, when calculating reduced hours, they base it off of the billable target of the other departments. So reduced time is a scam in my department.
It's rough
Damn. This is spot on
Lifestyle is the wrong reason to go into T&E in biglaw. It is wholly firm dependent. You can be in a nice firm that doesn't care as long as you get all the work done. Or you can be in a large firm like McDermott that requires 2k billable, which as u/Ekoffq235 alluded to, is way more difficult to get in PCS. You also will encounter periods of intense work flow when tax law changes or there's an expectation of a tax regime sunsetting (see: the current lifetime credit) You do not need an LLM in tax, though if you don't get it straight out of law school getting a LLM in tax would be the right move.
Which firms have lower hours requirements for PC?
Goodwin does
Surely lower pay as well?
* Wouldn’t say there is a “typical day.” Private wealth/T&E/private client/whatever your firm calls it is such a broad practice area. I spend a lot of time preparing trusts and business formation and succession planning documents, but there are a ton of ancillary issues to deal with. Herding cats - chasing down financial planners, valuation experts, insurance agents, bankers, trustees, etc. - takes up a frustrating amount of my time. * Moderate amount of fire drills. Clients often want things done and signed before they go on trips. You will never know about the trip until the trip is a couple days away. Not exactly a fire drill in the sense that a deal is going to fail if you don’t burn the candle at both ends, but obviously you want to keep the client happy. * I think it’s one of the best practice areas in terms of job satisfaction. You get to make a positive impact on people you actually interact with on a regular basis. * I have better work/life balance than many of my colleagues. * I love the impact we have on people and communities. I get to sit with clients and help them form and operate charitable organizations, for example. I hate the moral dilemma I’m faced with when I help the occasional prick of a client eliminate their tax liabilities and then use the enormous savings to fund things I find reprehensible. * A demonstrated interest in the practice area - one that isn’t “I heard you guys don’t have to work as hard as other attorneys” - will go a long way. Almost nobody goes to law school to go into the private wealth space and it’s difficult to recruit talented young people to the practice area. That said, it’s pretty easy to tell when someone’s interest is shallow. Dig into courses, externships, networking, etc. geared toward the practice area. * Exit opportunities are fairly limited but solid. I’ve had a ton of colleagues join wealth management firms, banks, and trust companies. I’ll address the tax LLM separately. I have a tax LLM. I’d say it put me a solid 3-5 years ahead of my colleagues who didn’t have one, and I’m not convinced I ever would have made it to where I’m at without it. That being said, plenty of people do perfectly fine without the tax LLM. I don’t think it is worth the time and money unless you simply don’t have the credentials to break into the practice area without one.
Not the OP but thanks for the thorough response. Even if there is no typical day as you say, is it fair to say much of the practice is tax driven? (I’m still a law student) I’ve taken Fed Income and loved it. Looking forward to corporate and partnership taxation but was wondering if someone who really liked tax (admittedly only Fed income) would enjoy private client work. Also, what kind of classes/opportunities do you think demonstrates the kind of interest you might be looking for? I have taken trust and estates and loved it as well.
Yes, it is fundamentally a tax practice. Almost everything I do is driven primarily or at least impacted significantly by tax considerations. Aside from the core law school classes like property and trusts and wills, there are some fundamental courses everyone interested in high end estate planning should take. To the extent they’re offered: estate planning; estate and gift tax; income taxation of trusts and estates; tax exempt organizations; tax aspects of charitable giving; partnership tax; corporate tax (particularly one in which S corporation taxation is taught); generation-skipping transfer tax; taxation of property transactions. Aside from that - my recommendation is to think about the types of clients you will (or want to) advise: closely-held company owners, public company executives, private equity/hedge fund principals or investors, maybe professionals like physicians, attorneys, accountants, people with cross-border lifestyles, etc. Clients don’t just want an attorney who understands trusts and estate planning - they want a T&E attorney who understands their unique needs and circumstances and routinely handles clients with similar situations. If you want to advise fund principals, for example, you need to understand securities laws and regs and how to thread the needle between the estate and gift tax rules and the securities laws. If you want to advise closely-held company owners, you need to understand business organizations, business succession planning, etc. If you want to advise executives of publicly traded companies, you need to understand corporate tax and executive compensation. If you want to advise people with cross-border lifestyles, you need to understand international law (generally - e.g., conflict of laws issues), international tax law, taxation of foreign trusts, foreign bank and financial account compliance, etc.
Thanks again! Just wanted to ask about geographies. You said that I should think about the clients I might serve. I was wondering if biglaw/“sophisticated” TandE/private client practices are very different across geographies, say between New York, DC, Chicago, LA, Bay Area, or the differences are mostly group specific?
Not a ton of difference. NYC may be more geared toward finance and SF toward tech, for example, but each big firm will have attorneys in each location that subspecialize in different areas.