INTRODUCTION dvocacy is an important construct in research on the judgment and decision-making of tax professionals, particularly given this major distinction in role requirement from that of auditors. Extant research has either examined advocacy’s effects directly e.g., Johnson 993; Mason and Levy 2001; Kahle and White 2004; Stephenson 2007 or inferred that biases in udgment were due to this advocacy role e.g., Cloyd and Spilker 1999; Hatfield 2000 . However, iven other research evidence to the contrary, some tax research does not find a direct link etween measures of advocacy and tax advice e.g., Kadous and Magro 2001; Barrick et al. 2004 . In order to provide insights into these mixed findings, Bobek et al. 2010 examine whether dvocacy is an inherent characteristic exogenous as has been assumed by prior research, or if nstead it may be partially influenced by characteristics of the client endogenous . Specifically, obek et al. 2010 allow advocacy to vary based on both the inherent advocacy attitudes of tax rofessionals and client characteristics. Further, they examine how advocacy influences several rocessing and outcome variables. Results indicate that advocacy is not completely exogenous. pecifically, advocacy is found to be partially dependent on client-specific characteristics, with ower levels of client-specific advocacy displayed for riskier clients. These results suggest that a ailure to account for the client-specific portion of advocacy may lead to inaccurate conclusions egarding its effects. Further, by examining advocacy’s influences on several processing and outome variables, the authors suggest that research can better differentiate biased decision making rom purposeful utility-maximizing consideration of client characteristics. Bobek et al. 2010 contribute to the tax literature by highlighting two advocacy perspectives general and client-specific , potentially resolving mixed results of prior research and by providing framework for future research that examines advocacy. My comments will focus primarily round two main issues: the current emphasis of endogeneity versus exogeneity in the paper and he appropriateness of the model of hypothesized relationships as it pertains to future research.