CFPB Interviews?

[Anonymous]

Do you have ethics? If so, you may want to look elsewhere. Try the federal reserve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you have ethics? If so, you may want to look elsewhere. Try the federal reserve.

This vague of a comment is unhelpful. Can you elaborate.

[Anonymous]

It is a highly political agency that does not lawyer the same way other more established agencies do. Their lawyers have been publicly accused and found to engage in ethics violations, and it’s not unusual. They wrote they own rules of engagement when established and it vests all the power with them. It’s why they are the subject of so much litigation—no other federal agency is. They have lost moderate attorneys and staff over the years, leaving them with only true believers who care about the outcome, not the process of integrity. No other federal agency operates this way. It didn’t start this way but the current director feeds it. As an aside, if you want job security, you need to feel pretty confident that the Supreme Court isn’t going to conclude they aren’t unconstitutional (case is pending), and that Biden is going to get re-elected (because the republicans guy the organization whenever they get in — it’s why the true believers are the only ones who sign up and stay).

[Anonymous]

^^ Lots to unpack with the prior comment:

1. The idea that ethics violations are common is silly, and PP should back that up with citations. The fact is that the defense bar engages in far more ethically questionable conduct against the CFPB than vice versa, but as is true with government generally, CFPB is always reluctant to call out defense lawyers on their tactics. The defense lawyers are not as kind and will file sanctions motions for the silliest of stuff, and with the right judge, these motions occasionally work. Boohoo, CFPB lawyers objected too much at a depo, let me go crying to the judge. This isn't about the merits, it's a tactic that defense lawyers choose to strategically use because they have to bill hours and they know many judges hate the CFPB.

2. You can read all the commentary about the Supreme Court oral argument and judge for yourself whether that's a real risk. Hint: every serious commentator thinks that the CFPB is going to win.

3. Trump was supposed to have gutted the CFPB with Mulvaney and Kraninger. Like many Trump promises, it never really happened. Will it happen if Trump is elected again? Maybe, maybe not.

4. One thing that is true is that management at the CFPB is spotty. Some are really good and some are really bad. I don't think people leave because they are too moderate, but there can be a realization that there is limited opportunity for advancement (and promotion decisions are extremely political), and so talented and capable people will often find better opportunities elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^ Lots to unpack with the prior comment:

1. The idea that ethics violations are common is silly, and PP should back that up with citations. The fact is that the defense bar engages in far more ethically questionable conduct against the CFPB than vice versa, but as is true with government generally, CFPB is always reluctant to call out defense lawyers on their tactics. The defense lawyers are not as kind and will file sanctions motions for the silliest of stuff, and with the right judge, these motions occasionally work. Boohoo, CFPB lawyers objected too much at a depo, let me go crying to the judge. This isn't about the merits, it's a tactic that defense lawyers choose to strategically use because they have to bill hours and they know many judges hate the CFPB.

2. You can read all the commentary about the Supreme Court oral argument and judge for yourself whether that's a real risk. Hint: every serious commentator thinks that the CFPB is going to win.

3. Trump was supposed to have gutted the CFPB with Mulvaney and Kraninger. Like many Trump promises, it never really happened. Will it happen if Trump is elected again? Maybe, maybe not.

4. One thing that is true is that management at the CFPB is spotty. Some are really good and some are really bad. I don't think people leave because they are too moderate, but there can be a realization that there is limited opportunity for advancement (and promotion decisions are extremely political), and so talented and capable people will often find better opportunities elsewhere.

Where do these line attorneys lateral usually?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^ Lots to unpack with the prior comment:

1. The idea that ethics violations are common is silly, and PP should back that up with citations. The fact is that the defense bar engages in far more ethically questionable conduct against the CFPB than vice versa, but as is true with government generally, CFPB is always reluctant to call out defense lawyers on their tactics. The defense lawyers are not as kind and will file sanctions motions for the silliest of stuff, and with the right judge, these motions occasionally work. Boohoo, CFPB lawyers objected too much at a depo, let me go crying to the judge. This isn't about the merits, it's a tactic that defense lawyers choose to strategically use because they have to bill hours and they know many judges hate the CFPB.

2. You can read all the commentary about the Supreme Court oral argument and judge for yourself whether that's a real risk. Hint: every serious commentator thinks that the CFPB is going to win.

3. Trump was supposed to have gutted the CFPB with Mulvaney and Kraninger. Like many Trump promises, it never really happened. Will it happen if Trump is elected again? Maybe, maybe not.

4. One thing that is true is that management at the CFPB is spotty. Some are really good and some are really bad. I don't think people leave because they are too moderate, but there can be a realization that there is limited opportunity for advancement (and promotion decisions are extremely political), and so talented and capable people will often find better opportunities elsewhere.

A balanced view. What are you doing here?

[Anonymous]

Anyone know how much lead time CFPB (and other agencies for that matter) tend to give for interviews?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is a highly political agency that does not lawyer the same way other more established agencies do. Their lawyers have been publicly accused and found to engage in ethics violations, and it’s not unusual. They wrote they own rules of engagement when established and it vests all the power with them. It’s why they are the subject of so much litigation—no other federal agency is. They have lost moderate attorneys and staff over the years, leaving them with only true believers who care about the outcome, not the process of integrity. No other federal agency operates this way. It didn’t start this way but the current director feeds it. As an aside, if you want job security, you need to feel pretty confident that the Supreme Court isn’t going to conclude they aren’t unconstitutional (case is pending), and that Biden is going to get re-elected (because the republicans guy the organization whenever they get in — it’s why the true believers are the only ones who sign up and stay).

A ten old can be better than you in convincing others through evidence-based writing. You had none, all based your very biased and potentially partisan view.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is a highly political agency that does not lawyer the same way other more established agencies do. Their lawyers have been publicly accused and found to engage in ethics violations, and it’s not unusual. They wrote they own rules of engagement when established and it vests all the power with them. It’s why they are the subject of so much litigation—no other federal agency is. They have lost moderate attorneys and staff over the years, leaving them with only true believers who care about the outcome, not the process of integrity. No other federal agency operates this way. It didn’t start this way but the current director feeds it. As an aside, if you want job security, you need to feel pretty confident that the Supreme Court isn’t going to conclude they aren’t unconstitutional (case is pending), and that Biden is going to get re-elected (because the republicans guy the organization whenever they get in — it’s why the true believers are the only ones who sign up and stay).

Once again, in English please?

[Anonymous]

Anyone interviewed yet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone interviewed yet?

When did you apply? Has it been at least five months since then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone know how much lead time CFPB (and other agencies for that matter) tend to give for interviews?

In my experience, the crappier the agency, the less lead time and fewer options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone interviewed yet?

When did you apply? Has it been at least five months since then?

LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone interviewed yet?

No and I would be surprised if they are already convening panels as opposed to still going through applications. But that’s based on my experience with a different federal agency.

[Anonymous]

They started!