SEC SK-17 — why would anyone be one?

[Anonymous]

New to the SEC and just realized that in DC, SK-17s (managers) max out at $261,400 or so. While SK-16s max out at $260,000. So why on earth would anyone choose to be an SK-17 manager, with all the additional headaches that come with it, rather than an SK-16?

Or am I misreading the pay tables?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New to the SEC and just realized that in DC, SK-17s (managers) max out at $261,400 or so. While SK-16s max out at $260,000. So why on earth would anyone choose to be an SK-17 manager, with all the additional headaches that come with it, rather than an SK-16?

Or am I misreading the pay tables?

Perhaps some people want to be managers and help their employees?

[Anonymous]

Being a manager in the federal government sounds like lots of fun these days. If do it for free!

[Anonymous]

Depending on your division SK-16 positions are not easy to get. Most attorney roles cap out at SK-14.

I think the SK-15 roles are actually much harder than the 17 roles because you have both production and managerial responsibilities.

Finally, if you take the SK-17 role your private sector exit options will be far greater than as a 14.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Depending on your division SK-16 positions are not easy to get. Most attorney roles cap out at SK-14.

I think the SK-15 roles are actually much harder than the 17 roles because you have both production and managerial responsibilities.

Finally, if you take the SK-17 role your private sector exit options will be far greater than as a 14.

Is sk-17 assistant director? From what I've seen, you've got to be at least an assistant director to get partnership at a biglaw firm. Anything lower translates to senior associate / counsel level at best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depending on your division SK-16 positions are not easy to get. Most attorney roles cap out at SK-14.

I think the SK-15 roles are actually much harder than the 17 roles because you have both production and managerial responsibilities.

Finally, if you take the SK-17 role your private sector exit options will be far greater than as a 14.

Is sk-17 assistant director? From what I've seen, you've got to be at least an assistant director to get partnership at a biglaw firm. Anything lower translates to senior associate / counsel level at best.

Yes, ADs and office chiefs are 17s. I know of at least one LBC (SK-15) that left and was hired as a partner. If you're a 14 with enough years of experience you will probably get a counsel title.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New to the SEC and just realized that in DC, SK-17s (managers) max out at $261,400 or so. While SK-16s max out at $260,000. So why on earth would anyone choose to be an SK-17 manager, with all the additional headaches that come with it, rather than an SK-16?

Or am I misreading the pay tables?

A lot of people do choose to stay at SK-16. The people who go for the 17s are ambitious and have their eyes on senior officer or private sector jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depending on your division SK-16 positions are not easy to get. Most attorney roles cap out at SK-14.

I think the SK-15 roles are actually much harder than the 17 roles because you have both production and managerial responsibilities.

Finally, if you take the SK-17 role your private sector exit options will be far greater than as a 14.

Is sk-17 assistant director? From what I've seen, you've got to be at least an assistant director to get partnership at a biglaw firm. Anything lower translates to senior associate / counsel level at best.

Law firms have no idea what they’re doing, then. The responsibilities and skill set of an AD/SK-17 (at least in Enforcement) bear zero resemblance to those of a junior or senior law-firm partner. A smart law firm should want to hire a hard-charging staff attorney (who’s actually been doing substantive legal work and running their cases) rather than a paper-pusher who does little more than approve HR requests and proofreads things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depending on your division SK-16 positions are not easy to get. Most attorney roles cap out at SK-14.

I think the SK-15 roles are actually much harder than the 17 roles because you have both production and managerial responsibilities.

Finally, if you take the SK-17 role your private sector exit options will be far greater than as a 14.

Is sk-17 assistant director? From what I've seen, you've got to be at least an assistant director to get partnership at a biglaw firm. Anything lower translates to senior associate / counsel level at best.

Law firms have no idea what they’re doing, then. The responsibilities and skill set of an AD/SK-17 (at least in Enforcement) bear zero resemblance to those of a junior or senior law-firm partner. A smart law firm should want to hire a hard-charging staff attorney (who’s actually been doing substantive legal work and running their cases) rather than a paper-pusher who does little more than approve HR requests and proofreads things.

Sk-17s have a lot of access and relationships to people in power. That's what the firm is paying for

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depending on your division SK-16 positions are not easy to get. Most attorney roles cap out at SK-14.

I think the SK-15 roles are actually much harder than the 17 roles because you have both production and managerial responsibilities.

Finally, if you take the SK-17 role your private sector exit options will be far greater than as a 14.

Is sk-17 assistant director? From what I've seen, you've got to be at least an assistant director to get partnership at a biglaw firm. Anything lower translates to senior associate / counsel level at best.

Law firms have no idea what they’re doing, then. The responsibilities and skill set of an AD/SK-17 (at least in Enforcement) bear zero resemblance to those of a junior or senior law-firm partner. A smart law firm should want to hire a hard-charging staff attorney (who’s actually been doing substantive legal work and running their cases) rather than a paper-pusher who does little more than approve HR requests and proofreads things.

Sk-17s have a lot of access and relationships to people in power. That's what the firm is paying for

LOL. Which I guess has some minimal value until those people themselves leave the Commission. Which is every few years or less. I suspect that many law firms seriously regret certain hiring decisions, and those former 17s will be the FIRST to go in the next recession. Unless they have a significant book, which is unlikely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depending on your division SK-16 positions are not easy to get. Most attorney roles cap out at SK-14.

I think the SK-15 roles are actually much harder than the 17 roles because you have both production and managerial responsibilities.

Finally, if you take the SK-17 role your private sector exit options will be far greater than as a 14.

Is sk-17 assistant director? From what I've seen, you've got to be at least an assistant director to get partnership at a biglaw firm. Anything lower translates to senior associate / counsel level at best.

Law firms have no idea what they’re doing, then. The responsibilities and skill set of an AD/SK-17 (at least in Enforcement) bear zero resemblance to those of a junior or senior law-firm partner. A smart law firm should want to hire a hard-charging staff attorney (who’s actually been doing substantive legal work and running their cases) rather than a paper-pusher who does little more than approve HR requests and proofreads things.

You sound bitter

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depending on your division SK-16 positions are not easy to get. Most attorney roles cap out at SK-14.

I think the SK-15 roles are actually much harder than the 17 roles because you have both production and managerial responsibilities.

Finally, if you take the SK-17 role your private sector exit options will be far greater than as a 14.

Is sk-17 assistant director? From what I've seen, you've got to be at least an assistant director to get partnership at a biglaw firm. Anything lower translates to senior associate / counsel level at best.

Law firms have no idea what they’re doing, then. The responsibilities and skill set of an AD/SK-17 (at least in Enforcement) bear zero resemblance to those of a junior or senior law-firm partner. A smart law firm should want to hire a hard-charging staff attorney (who’s actually been doing substantive legal work and running their cases) rather than a paper-pusher who does little more than approve HR requests and proofreads things.

Problem is that sec staff attorneys are a dime a dozen.

[Anonymous]

OP u mad you have to go in 2x every two weeks?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depending on your division SK-16 positions are not easy to get. Most attorney roles cap out at SK-14.

I think the SK-15 roles are actually much harder than the 17 roles because you have both production and managerial responsibilities.

Finally, if you take the SK-17 role your private sector exit options will be far greater than as a 14.

Is sk-17 assistant director? From what I've seen, you've got to be at least an assistant director to get partnership at a biglaw firm. Anything lower translates to senior associate / counsel level at best.

Law firms have no idea what they’re doing, then. The responsibilities and skill set of an AD/SK-17 (at least in Enforcement) bear zero resemblance to those of a junior or senior law-firm partner. A smart law firm should want to hire a hard-charging staff attorney (who’s actually been doing substantive legal work and running their cases) rather than a paper-pusher who does little more than approve HR requests and proofreads things.

Sk-17s have a lot of access and relationships to people in power. That's what the firm is paying for

LOL. Which I guess has some minimal value until those people themselves leave the Commission. Which is every few years or less. I suspect that many law firms seriously regret certain hiring decisions, and those former 17s will be the FIRST to go in the next recession. Unless they have a significant book, which is unlikely.

I think you are right, but the chance that you will be able to generate a book of business will be better if you had a higher title/position at the agency. It's not guarantee you will from that senior role or that you won't from a line attorney role, but it would help in pitches.

[Anonymous]

Bump.

I thought OP's question had been really more.about salary compression given how being a 17 doesn't really pay more than a 16?