Did you go from fed to law firm partnership with or without a headhunter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I realize you're being snarky, but firing an income partner and firing an equity partner work the same way (and the latter happens more and more these days).

Actually in most firms that's not true. Income partners are often, but not always w-2 employees. In most firms they can be fired. Equity partners can be counseled out, or in some cases de-equitized, but to be fired would need to be expelled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know literally a dozen section chiefs, deputy chiefs, and senior attorneys from DOJ who entered firms as partners. Also the head of enforcement at several agencies, which is below the gc level. Also the head of policy at some of them. Anyhow, I agree it's a tiny fraction of gov't attorneys who can do this, but it's a much bigger group of people than other posters are implying, and OP probably has some clue about his or her resume.

This probably indicates that the revolving door factor at SEC is comparatively higher than other agencies, and that there's more at stake, more connections to be worked. Yuck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I realize you're being snarky, but firing an income partner and firing an equity partner work the same way (and the latter happens more and more these days).

Actually in most firms that's not true. Income partners are often, but not always w-2 employees. In most firms they can be fired. Equity partners can be counseled out, or in some cases de-equitized, but to be fired would need to be expelled.

You may be right as to "most." In the two specific examples I am aware of, it is true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know literally a dozen section chiefs, deputy chiefs, and senior attorneys from DOJ who entered firms as partners. Also the head of enforcement at several agencies, which is below the gc level. Also the head of policy at some of them. Anyhow, I agree it's a tiny fraction of gov't attorneys who can do this, but it's a much bigger group of people than other posters are implying, and OP probably has some clue about his or her resume.

This probably indicates that the revolving door factor at SEC is comparatively higher than other agencies, and that there's more at stake, more connections to be worked. Yuck.

I know this is the common "revolving door" rhetoric, but it's really ridiculous. SEC and DOJ are huge agencies with ever-shifting groups of people in power. Any "connections to be worked" are going to be stale within a couple of years as the decisonmakers at the agencies change. What is actually valuable about attorneys with SEC and DOJ experience is that those are the agencies whose investigations generate the most work for government investigations and white collar lawyers in private practice. If I'm a client under investigation, I'm going to want someone who has experience prosecuting people like me or companies like mine and who knows firsthand where the potential weaknesses of those cases are and what arguments prosectors find persuasive.

I'm a NP, but I also know many senior government lawyers who've gone back to firms relatively easily (though not nearly as easily as a few years ago probably). Most of them did have prior law firm experience because law firm associates are the main group of people who get hired by DOJ and SEC, but I can promise you that it wasn't their prior experience as fourth-year associates that made them attractive when they sought to leave government and go back to firms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know literally a dozen section chiefs, deputy chiefs, and senior attorneys from DOJ who entered firms as partners. Also the head of enforcement at several agencies, which is below the gc level. Also the head of policy at some of them. Anyhow, I agree it's a tiny fraction of gov't attorneys who can do this, but it's a much bigger group of people than other posters are implying, and OP probably has some clue about his or her resume.

This probably indicates that the revolving door factor at SEC is comparatively higher than other agencies, and that there's more at stake, more connections to be worked. Yuck.

I know this is the common "revolving door" rhetoric, but it's really ridiculous. SEC and DOJ are huge agencies with ever-shifting groups of people in power. Any "connections to be worked" are going to be stale within a couple of years as the decisonmakers at the agencies change. What is actually valuable about attorneys with SEC and DOJ experience is that those are the agencies whose investigations generate the most work for government investigations and white collar lawyers in private practice. If I'm a client under investigation, I'm going to want someone who has experience prosecuting people like me or companies like mine and who knows firsthand where the potential weaknesses of those cases are and what arguments prosectors find persuasive.

I'm a NP, but I also know many senior government lawyers who've gone back to firms relatively easily (though not nearly as easily as a few years ago probably). Most of them did have prior law firm experience because law firm associates are the main group of people who get hired by DOJ and SEC, but I can promise you that it wasn't their prior experience as fourth-year associates that made them attractive when they sought to leave government and go back to firms.

+1.

People don't hire DOJ attorneys just for their connections. They hire them because clients understand they know how investigations and prosecutions work and know that DOJ attorneys often have massively more trial, appellate, and other meanignful experience than folks who have worked only in a firm.