Salary question -- fed lawyer transitioining to law firm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the PP who just left govt for counsel at biglaw and I think it is crazy to say that a former govt atty has nothing to offer clients. I haven't found that to be the case at all and have already brought in some matters of my own. I'm about 9 months in. I think clients really value the govt perspective. Again, I'm in a regulatory field so I can't speak to litigation, but the across the board statement that clients won't care about govt experience is not true. Also, it is a different track. I did skip being an associate and am not immediately expected to have a ton of clients. However, I also made much less money for the past 8 years and had to scrounge for pens and make my own copies...

Of course there is value to government experience, and anyone who argues otherwise is clearly just trolling. I think more of us were arguing that because government attorneys generally won't come over with clients, the bar for them to come in directly to partner is especially high, because they don't have a track record of being able to attract and retain clients. They'll come in as counsel, but that's not necessarily a better position to be in than a senior associate from a long-term partnership prospect standpoint.

Also, depending on the firm, counsel is not necessarily making more, especially when you factor in bonuses, than a highly regarded senior associate. When my husband was promoted to partner, he came to learn that some of the counsel who were technically senior to him were making less in salary and salary + bonus than he'd made his last two years as an associate.

I'm PP you quoted. I will just say that "partnership prospect" isn't the biggest, or even a big, consideration for everyone. I'm not clear whether it is for OP or not. Where I ended up, I could continue as counsel forever and have a pretty decent job at a good salary, or I could decide in a year or two that I want to try to become partner and could push for that. Not sure what I want to do yet. But I do know of a number of other attys who left my agency who either went in directly as partners in biglaw or became partners after a few years. So I don't think it is an outrageous aspiration if that is someone's end goal.

You're right, it's not everyone's goal. It seems to be the OP's goal, and since we're ostensibly giving him advice in this thread, that's what my comment was directed toward.

I didn't see that anyplace in the OP.

Have you read the entire thread? OP specifically stated a page or so ago that prospects for partnership were definitely something he needed to consider in making a move. You don't worry about that unless you're hoping to make partner some day.

PP aside, most counsel are brought in for a trial run and its up or out after a few years. Few firms are keeping senior non-equity people around long term --far easier to continually replace with new lawyers always available.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the PP who just left govt for counsel at biglaw and I think it is crazy to say that a former govt atty has nothing to offer clients. I haven't found that to be the case at all and have already brought in some matters of my own. I'm about 9 months in. I think clients really value the govt perspective. Again, I'm in a regulatory field so I can't speak to litigation, but the across the board statement that clients won't care about govt experience is not true. Also, it is a different track. I did skip being an associate and am not immediately expected to have a ton of clients. However, I also made much less money for the past 8 years and had to scrounge for pens and make my own copies...

Of course there is value to government experience, and anyone who argues otherwise is clearly just trolling. I think more of us were arguing that because government attorneys generally won't come over with clients, the bar for them to come in directly to partner is especially high, because they don't have a track record of being able to attract and retain clients. They'll come in as counsel, but that's not necessarily a better position to be in than a senior associate from a long-term partnership prospect standpoint.

Also, depending on the firm, counsel is not necessarily making more, especially when you factor in bonuses, than a highly regarded senior associate. When my husband was promoted to partner, he came to learn that some of the counsel who were technically senior to him were making less in salary and salary + bonus than he'd made his last two years as an associate.

I'm PP you quoted. I will just say that "partnership prospect" isn't the biggest, or even a big, consideration for everyone. I'm not clear whether it is for OP or not. Where I ended up, I could continue as counsel forever and have a pretty decent job at a good salary, or I could decide in a year or two that I want to try to become partner and could push for that. Not sure what I want to do yet. But I do know of a number of other attys who left my agency who either went in directly as partners in biglaw or became partners after a few years. So I don't think it is an outrageous aspiration if that is someone's end goal.

You're right, it's not everyone's goal. It seems to be the OP's goal, and since we're ostensibly giving him advice in this thread, that's what my comment was directed toward.

I didn't see that anyplace in the OP.

Have you read the entire thread? OP specifically stated a page or so ago that prospects for partnership were definitely something he needed to consider in making a move. You don't worry about that unless you're hoping to make partner some day.

PP aside, most counsel are brought in for a trial run and its up or out after a few years. Few firms are keeping senior non-equity people around long term --far easier to continually replace with new lawyers always available.

+1

Nine months in a firm isn't long enough to have truly figured out expectations and long-term prospects.

[Anonymous]

I recently left a fed agency after 8 years. Not DOJ, very specialized regulatory area. I got 3 biglaw counsel offers. Ranged 295-325, one included signing bonus. Counsel is not up or out where I ended up (top 3 DC firm). Hope that helps. I would call a HH, they can really help looking and negotiating at this level.

I think the salary range given here is helpful, and pretty representative of biglaw. However, I would be cautious about thinking that you will be getting a "not up or out" position. It might not be up or out NOW, but unless you are a partner, that can change. (In fact, can change even if you are partner, although there is considerably less risk of that in the partner situation). I'd also be cautious about the advice of calling a HH. I would pursue the opportunities that you have already WITHOUT a HH (who, after all, will add expense to bringing you on). You are probably best off, to the extent you can do this, using your existing contacts for a new gig. If you do call a HH, be clear about the firms where you already are pursuing opportunities to avoid problems down the line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the PP who just left govt for counsel at biglaw and I think it is crazy to say that a former govt atty has nothing to offer clients. I haven't found that to be the case at all and have already brought in some matters of my own. I'm about 9 months in. I think clients really value the govt perspective. Again, I'm in a regulatory field so I can't speak to litigation, but the across the board statement that clients won't care about govt experience is not true. Also, it is a different track. I did skip being an associate and am not immediately expected to have a ton of clients. However, I also made much less money for the past 8 years and had to scrounge for pens and make my own copies...

Of course there is value to government experience, and anyone who argues otherwise is clearly just trolling. I think more of us were arguing that because government attorneys generally won't come over with clients, the bar for them to come in directly to partner is especially high, because they don't have a track record of being able to attract and retain clients. They'll come in as counsel, but that's not necessarily a better position to be in than a senior associate from a long-term partnership prospect standpoint.

Also, depending on the firm, counsel is not necessarily making more, especially when you factor in bonuses, than a highly regarded senior associate. When my husband was promoted to partner, he came to learn that some of the counsel who were technically senior to him were making less in salary and salary + bonus than he'd made his last two years as an associate.

I'm PP you quoted. I will just say that "partnership prospect" isn't the biggest, or even a big, consideration for everyone. I'm not clear whether it is for OP or not. Where I ended up, I could continue as counsel forever and have a pretty decent job at a good salary, or I could decide in a year or two that I want to try to become partner and could push for that. Not sure what I want to do yet. But I do know of a number of other attys who left my agency who either went in directly as partners in biglaw or became partners after a few years. So I don't think it is an outrageous aspiration if that is someone's end goal.

You're right, it's not everyone's goal. It seems to be the OP's goal, and since we're ostensibly giving him advice in this thread, that's what my comment was directed toward.

I didn't see that anyplace in the OP.

Have you read the entire thread? OP specifically stated a page or so ago that prospects for partnership were definitely something he needed to consider in making a move. You don't worry about that unless you're hoping to make partner some day.

PP aside, most counsel are brought in for a trial run and its up or out after a few years. Few firms are keeping senior non-equity people around long term --far easier to continually replace with new lawyers always available.

+1

Nine months in a firm isn't long enough to have truly figured out expectations and long-term prospects.

I agree. But there are certainly other ways to know how a firm handles senior lawyers with specialized expertise. I have been at my firm for less than a year but others, from my former agency and other agencies, have been in a counsel role for years and have excellent job security. I personally would not have left govt if I was going to an up or out position and I was very clear about that - and still received multiple counsel offers. Believe me or not, I don't care, but unless you have moved to a law firm from the govt or are on a firm's management committee, I don't know how you can speak with any expertise about the options available for senior government attys.

OP, best of luck. I'm sure you will do great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the PP who just left govt for counsel at biglaw and I think it is crazy to say that a former govt atty has nothing to offer clients. I haven't found that to be the case at all and have already brought in some matters of my own. I'm about 9 months in. I think clients really value the govt perspective. Again, I'm in a regulatory field so I can't speak to litigation, but the across the board statement that clients won't care about govt experience is not true. Also, it is a different track. I did skip being an associate and am not immediately expected to have a ton of clients. However, I also made much less money for the past 8 years and had to scrounge for pens and make my own copies...

Of course there is value to government experience, and anyone who argues otherwise is clearly just trolling. I think more of us were arguing that because government attorneys generally won't come over with clients, the bar for them to come in directly to partner is especially high, because they don't have a track record of being able to attract and retain clients. They'll come in as counsel, but that's not necessarily a better position to be in than a senior associate from a long-term partnership prospect standpoint.

Also, depending on the firm, counsel is not necessarily making more, especially when you factor in bonuses, than a highly regarded senior associate. When my husband was promoted to partner, he came to learn that some of the counsel who were technically senior to him were making less in salary and salary + bonus than he'd made his last two years as an associate.

I'm PP you quoted. I will just say that "partnership prospect" isn't the biggest, or even a big, consideration for everyone. I'm not clear whether it is for OP or not. Where I ended up, I could continue as counsel forever and have a pretty decent job at a good salary, or I could decide in a year or two that I want to try to become partner and could push for that. Not sure what I want to do yet. But I do know of a number of other attys who left my agency who either went in directly as partners in biglaw or became partners after a few years. So I don't think it is an outrageous aspiration if that is someone's end goal.

You're right, it's not everyone's goal. It seems to be the OP's goal, and since we're ostensibly giving him advice in this thread, that's what my comment was directed toward.

I didn't see that anyplace in the OP.

Have you read the entire thread? OP specifically stated a page or so ago that prospects for partnership were definitely something he needed to consider in making a move. You don't worry about that unless you're hoping to make partner some day.

PP aside, most counsel are brought in for a trial run and its up or out after a few years. Few firms are keeping senior non-equity people around long term --far easier to continually replace with new lawyers always available.

+1

Nine months in a firm isn't long enough to have truly figured out expectations and long-term prospects.

I agree. But there are certainly other ways to know how a firm handles senior lawyers with specialized expertise. I have been at my firm for less than a year but others, from my former agency and other agencies, have been in a counsel role for years and have excellent job security. I personally would not have left govt if I was going to an up or out position and I was very clear about that - and still received multiple counsel offers. Believe me or not, I don't care, but unless you have moved to a law firm from the govt or are on a firm's management committee, I don't know how you can speak with any expertise about the options available for senior government attys.

OP, best of luck. I'm sure you will do great.

Wow, you are as clueless as OP. I spent more than a decade in BigLaw and have seen many government types come and go. You seem totally out of touch with how Biglaw works or perhaps you believe that everything a law firm tells you during the recruiting process is true. When time gets tough, the nonequity senior folks are the first fired. But you don't have to take my word for it, there are plenty of counsel types kicked the curb during the 2008-2009 time span who could vouch for it themselves.

[Anonymous]

The amount of animosity on this thread is a little crazy, but as a lawyer who has done big law, I get the frustration. My husband went to a top 2 law school, graduated with honors, did 2 clerkships, did doj honors, rose to a title position in his section and first chaired trials, led investigations, grand juries, etc. He went to a firm as a partner after 12 years. He had about ten times the experience the litigation associates that had been at the firm for ten years had. I'm sorry if that really pisses you all off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The amount of animosity on this thread is a little crazy, but as a lawyer who has done big law, I get the frustration. My husband went to a top 2 law school, graduated with honors, did 2 clerkships, did doj honors, rose to a title position in his section and first chaired trials, led investigations, grand juries, etc. He went to a firm as a partner after 12 years. He had about ten times the experience the litigation associates that had been at the firm for ten years had. I'm sorry if that really pisses you all off.

How could anyone be pissed about your husband if you just introduced him into the conversation? The world doesn't revolve around you or your husband lately but thanks for the humble bage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The amount of animosity on this thread is a little crazy, but as a lawyer who has done big law, I get the frustration. My husband went to a top 2 law school, graduated with honors, did 2 clerkships, did doj honors, rose to a title position in his section and first chaired trials, led investigations, grand juries, etc. He went to a firm as a partner after 12 years. He had about ten times the experience the litigation associates that had been at the firm for ten years had. I'm sorry if that really pisses you all off.

How could anyone be pissed about your husband if you just introduced him into the conversation? The world doesn't revolve around you or your husband lately but thanks for the humble bage.

humble brag

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The amount of animosity on this thread is a little crazy, but as a lawyer who has done big law, I get the frustration. My husband went to a top 2 law school, graduated with honors, did 2 clerkships, did doj honors, rose to a title position in his section and first chaired trials, led investigations, grand juries, etc. He went to a firm as a partner after 12 years. He had about ten times the experience the litigation associates that had been at the firm for ten years had. I'm sorry if that really pisses you all off.

[Anonymous]

It's not a humble brag, I am openly proud of him. He put in 12 years making less than I made as a first year associate and worked longer hours than I did with no help and a ton of responsibility. He deserved to make partner, was my point. There is value in government work and I do think he was on a "different track" to partnership than many of the the lawyers that came in at the firm on day one.

[Anonymous]

This thread is asking for stories about gov lawyers turned private sector so I think I actually contributed unlike those asking how Ausas have clients and acting generally wildly threatened and pissed off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is asking for stories about gov lawyers turned private sector so I think I actually contributed unlike those asking how Ausas have clients and acting generally wildly threatened and pissed off.

No, you didn't contribute at all.

Glad to clear that up for you.

Now, maybe instead of posting 11 more times in a row, you can go back to your presumably important job?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not a humble brag, I am openly proud of him. He put in 12 years making less than I made as a first year associate and worked longer hours than I did with no help and a ton of responsibility. He deserved to make partner, was my point. There is value in government work and I do think he was on a "different track" to partnership than many of the the lawyers that came in at the firm on day one.

i think what other posters were saying is why in the fuck is this relevant to anything? how is anyone here "mad" about this? good for your husband, i guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not a humble brag, I am openly proud of him. He put in 12 years making less than I made as a first year associate and worked longer hours than I did with no help and a ton of responsibility. He deserved to make partner, was my point. There is value in government work and I do think he was on a "different track" to partnership than many of the the lawyers that came in at the firm on day one.

i think what other posters were saying is why in the fuck is this relevant to anything? how is anyone here "mad" about this? good for your husband, i guess.

It is relevant to the pages and pages asserting that federal lawyers cannot come in as partners, that there are no opportunities, and that there is no value to government work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not a humble brag, I am openly proud of him. He put in 12 years making less than I made as a first year associate and worked longer hours than I did with no help and a ton of responsibility. He deserved to make partner, was my point. There is value in government work and I do think he was on a "different track" to partnership than many of the the lawyers that came in at the firm on day one.

Yes, obviously he took a different path than the people who went directly to the firm. The question is whether people who come in at the 10 year mark from the government have to meet a different criteria to make partner than those associates/counsel who are homegrown. And the objective answer is no, people don't make equity partner without a book of business or an exceptional value niche practice that is difficult to replicate (and litigator with good trial experience is not difficult to replicate). Not sure if your husband came in as a nonequity or equity partner, but regardless, if he didn't/doesn't earn his keep, he's not sticking around, no matter how great you think he is. And if he has been able to convert his successful government experience into rainmaking, he'll be welcome to stay.