SEC SK-17 — why would anyone be one?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
It's been answered, you just don't like or don't agree with the answer. 1. Some people like to manage things. Also, the SK-17 role is the next step to the senior officer role so if you really want to advance that's the next step. 2. There are better exit options as a SK-17 so some people do it for that reason. 3. SK-16 positions are not necessarily readily available and some of those positions (i.e. special counsel to the director) are fairly demanding roles. 4. I know a number of people at the SEC that have attorney spouses so at a point pay difference is no longer meaningful or the primary motivator for advancement (see #1). |
Anonymous
I’m not saying you’re wrong, I just always am amazed when someone is married to someone with money and monetary value of their work isn’t a consideration. I just can’t imagine making so much money that this isn’t a factor in any way, although I know that it’s true. Money is just not a motivator for many people for many reasons. But solely on the fact that a spouse makes a lot is the one of those reasons that seems weird to me. |
Anonymous
At a point how much more money do you need and one $200k salary + a working spouse is certainly a respectable salary for a dual income couple. As a data point we make about $250K combined and we have more than enough. |
Anonymous
Smart law firms are focused on attracting business. Whether justified or not, current and prospective clients are often impressed with the kind of credentials that SEC senior staff bring to the table. Nobody gives a f*** about a hard-charging staff attorney. |
Anonymous
This. Those staff attorneys can make great counsels at law firms and eventually become partners, but there's no value in making a former staff attorney partner right off the bat. |
Anonymous
When the next recession comes, we’ll see how long those “impressive” senior staff last. Most aren’t even equity partners — they’re essentially counsel but with a fancy title. No book, no equity — at least at good firms. |
Anonymous
What law firms want is judgment and knowledge of how the internal system works in most cases. There are plenty of people at firms to do the work. But a staff lawyer just has not seen enough matters to have the right insight. You may be the best testimony taker but most firms have someone better than you already. What the firms often needs is the insight and the judgment. That takes a lot of matters over an extended period. |
Anonymous
You are a bit off. Firsdt if there is a recession the SEC enforcment defense practice always is at its busiest. So no -- no one in that practice will be let go. Second, an Assitant Director is not senior staff. More middle management. |
Anonymous
+1 Many sk-16s & -17s were hard charging staff attorneys earlier in their careers, or had comparable experience in the private sector before going into the SEC. Combine that experience with: (i) good judgment that comes with maturity; and (ii) intimate knowledge of the SEC, including people, personalities, and policy/prosecutorial priorities, and you have a solid partner who can connect with existing clients who need his/her services. Most BIGLAW firms with institutional clients are always trying to upsell them on more services to make the relationship "stiekier". |
Anonymous
Yeah, the problem is, all that “insight” becomes obsolete every 4 years (or less). Heck, even staff AT the SEC have a hard time keeping up with all the changes, nuances, dynamics, etc. Someone who hasn’t been there for 2-4 years is like a congressman from 1840 lobbying on K street today. If clients aren’t aware of this or think otherwise, I guess they’re suckers. |
Anonymous
So your view is that clients shouldn't hire anyone with SEC experience? Like, what's your point? You can't just say, clients shouldn't hire these guys without offering an alternative. |
Anonymous
| If average Americans knew the pay and work life of SEC attorneys, they would be infuriated. |
Anonymous
In a recession, private security litigation tends to pick up because when stocks drop the plaintiff bar often argues there was some form of misconduct. But that's really very different area of practice than SEC defense work. |