Salary question -- fed lawyer transitioining to law firm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think many of you are missing the fact that this person -- clerkship, top school -- could have gone to big law, but spent ten years doing actual trials. Tenth year associates make 250 and barring stellar credentials are not that likely to make parmter or to have trial experience. They major around 250-300. It may not seem "fair" to you but many of the partners in big law are not long term former associates but rather come over from gov.

Good point, when I look at my law school friends who went DOJ, they had a very high quality first five+ years with more actual responsibilities than us cogs in the wheel.

Op - leverage the crap out of your court hours, discovery trips, various state or fed or appellate cases and work experience. Go in high and have your transaction sheet ready and list of value add qualities. Job searches are a chance to show them what you know and what you can do for them!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think many of you are missing the fact that this person -- clerkship, top school -- could have gone to big law, but spent ten years doing actual trials. Tenth year associates make 250 and barring stellar credentials are not that likely to make parmter or to have trial experience. They major around 250-300. It may not seem "fair" to you but many of the partners in big law are not long term former associates but rather come over from gov.

Obviously the add'l info provided is relevant, but simply the fact that someone has been in govt for 10 years is not by any means a guarantee that they are attractive to firms (and some firms actually are not inclined to take on someone like that because it can be risky to take on someone who has never had to bill time or develop business).

Exactly this. Federal government -> big law partnership may have been an easy path pre-crash, but these days firms are very reluctant to bring on anyone who isn't bringing a revenue stream with them from day one, and are even less likely to make them partners or pay them big salaries until they've proven they'll be able to pay for themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The debate re whether or not it is a possibility is specious -- it occurs on a semi regular basis and I know several acquaintances in similar positions. The question is specifically about salary.

I posted earlier but I'll say it again....

I made a similar move a few years ago. Salary depends upon where you can get a job, which can vary greatly in this economy. Being a government attorney at DOJ for ten years, while great, is not the same as being an attorney at a firm for ten years, and so job opportunities may not be as great as you think. You may have better trial experience but this may not translate directly to being in private practice. Or it may. This does impact on salary because 1) there is no guarantee to land at big law even with the credentials, 2) you may have to take a big step back in your year, which will also impact salary. So this is all speculation until you have an opportunity.

If, however, the switch is to biglaw 10th year associate, I think the high 200/low 300 is right.

[Anonymous]

OP, I think you are putting too much focus on salary. You really need to be focused on negotiating on what you need to do to make partner. You want specifics. You want to know the number of years you need to be at the firm to be considered. If they will not guarantee to consider you in two years, move along.

[Anonymous]

Yawwwnnn.. You are all overpaid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The debate re whether or not it is a possibility is specious -- it occurs on a semi regular basis and I know several acquaintances in similar positions. The question is specifically about salary.

I posted earlier but I'll say it again....

I made a similar move a few years ago. Salary depends upon where you can get a job, which can vary greatly in this economy. Being a government attorney at DOJ for ten years, while great, is not the same as being an attorney at a firm for ten years, and so job opportunities may not be as great as you think. You may have better trial experience but this may not translate directly to being in private practice. Or it may. This does impact on salary because 1) there is no guarantee to land at big law even with the credentials, 2) you may have to take a big step back in your year, which will also impact salary. So this is all speculation until you have an opportunity.

If, however, the switch is to biglaw 10th year associate, I think the high 200/low 300 is right.

.

Yep, this sounds right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think many of you are missing the fact that this person -- clerkship, top school -- could have gone to big law, but spent ten years doing actual trials. Tenth year associates make 250 and barring stellar credentials are not that likely to make parmter or to have trial experience. They major around 250-300. It may not seem "fair" to you but many of the partners in big law are not long term former associates but rather come over from gov.

Obviously the add'l info provided is relevant, but simply the fact that someone has been in govt for 10 years is not by any means a guarantee that they are attractive to firms (and some firms actually are not inclined to take on someone like that because it can be risky to take on someone who has never had to bill time or develop business).

Exactly this. Federal government -> big law partnership may have been an easy path pre-crash, but these days firms are very reluctant to bring on anyone who isn't bringing a revenue stream with them from day one, and are even less likely to make them partners or pay them big salaries until they've proven they'll be able to pay for themselves.

As I've said several times now, numerous colleagues have left recently making similar switches and have gone as of counsel or partners. Arguing about whether or not it is an option is beside the point.

[Anonymous]

PP, I threw out the high 200s and low 300s number. OP, I'm sure you will find a job with a firm, but I think you are a bit out of touch with the way firms work. No one makes equity partner without a book of business or a near guarantee of one. You'd be in a better position if you had spent a few years with a firm and then gone to the DOJ because you would have had experience with the expectations of a law firm, how their cases are structured, etc.. . Nearly every firm has had government attorneys come in who don't work out because they don't like the particular strictures of law firm litigation. A little humility will go a long way in the interviewing process. Your credentials are impressive but so are the credentials of pretty everybody else that manages to get a job in BigLaw these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP, I threw out the high 200s and low 300s number. OP, I'm sure you will find a job with a firm, but I think you are a bit out of touch with the way firms work. No one makes equity partner without a book of business or a near guarantee of one. You'd be in a better position if you had spent a few years with a firm and then gone to the DOJ because you would have had experience with the expectations of a law firm, how their cases are structured, etc.. . Nearly every firm has had government attorneys come in who don't work out because they don't like the particular strictures of law firm litigation. A little humility will go a long way in the interviewing process. Your credentials are impressive but so are the credentials of pretty everybody else that manages to get a job in BigLaw these days.

I hear you, and trust me, I have humility. It just seems silly to argue about what goes on at an anonymous poster's husband's firm, you know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, I threw out the high 200s and low 300s number. OP, I'm sure you will find a job with a firm, but I think you are a bit out of touch with the way firms work. No one makes equity partner without a book of business or a near guarantee of one. You'd be in a better position if you had spent a few years with a firm and then gone to the DOJ because you would have had experience with the expectations of a law firm, how their cases are structured, etc.. . Nearly every firm has had government attorneys come in who don't work out because they don't like the particular strictures of law firm litigation. A little humility will go a long way in the interviewing process. Your credentials are impressive but so are the credentials of pretty everybody else that manages to get a job in BigLaw these days.

I hear you, and trust me, I have humility. It just seems silly to argue about what goes on at an anonymous poster's husband's firm, you know.

Wow OP. You're a dick. I hope you work with me now and you actually leave.

[Anonymous]

What's the problem? OP asked a reasonable question and has impressive credentials. Hope it works out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:not meaning to be snarky, but the legal market is awful. Do you have a valued portable asset that would warrant a law firm bringing you on as senior or special counsel?

+1

All of the of counsel at DH's firm have been let go post 2008. Unless you are bringing clients or have a significantly unique specialty, you're not going to find anything even in the twos.

What's your problem? His initial post said 10 years at DOJ but didn't mention even Criminal Division. I was at Main DOJ too. I want to know if he has a special skill set to sell. Lots of DOJ people get in and never move. If he's just been a paper pusher or policy persosn or even criminal appellate he may have difficulty selling himself to a firm. My old firm (top name in city) is moving everyone out and those that come in as special counsel, senior counsel, of counsel, etc. etc. have a particular expertise (engineering for patent work, say) that the firm needs. Everyone else is out.


If you are not actually an attorney, I am not sure what you are even trying to be snarky about. Career fed prosecutors obviously have a significantly unique specialty and equally obviously, most of them don't have clients.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think many of you are missing the fact that this person -- clerkship, top school -- could have gone to big law, but spent ten years doing actual trials. Tenth year associates make 250 and barring stellar credentials are not that likely to make parmter or to have trial experience. They major around 250-300. It may not seem "fair" to you but many of the partners in big law are not long term former associates but rather come over from gov.

He hasn't said (as of this post) that he does trial work. Many in criminal just write briefs or policy position papers or appellate briefs. Or they coordinate task forces. AUSAs are a whole 'nother ballgame. It's very difficult to even get those positions and then if you do, you are on your feet all the time arguing cases. Still I don't see my firm bringing in an AUSA without clients.

[Anonymous]

Sorry; yes, trial work in small section of the DOJ criminal section. First chaired several trials against big name DC firms. Also stint as an AUSA. It is very difficult to form an idea regarding possible moves because the salary structure for of counsel type jobs or senior associate positions is opaque. It seems to be one of those you don't know until you know situations, I think. Not trying to come off as a jerk at all, and am genuinely interested in others' experiences -- just have to be vague. Also, like I said, it is something that has occurred recently and often enough that I believe it is a possibility, but can't really ask those that have moved for details right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry; yes, trial work in small section of the DOJ criminal section. First chaired several trials against big name DC firms. Also stint as an AUSA. It is very difficult to form an idea regarding possible moves because the salary structure for of counsel type jobs or senior associate positions is opaque. It seems to be one of those you don't know until you know situations, I think. Not trying to come off as a jerk at all, and am genuinely interested in others' experiences -- just have to be vague. Also, like I said, it is something that has occurred recently and often enough that I believe it is a possibility, but can't really ask those that have moved for details right now.

Honestly I don't see why not. Attorneys as a group are unusually forthcoming when it comes to money matters. Why not just ask them what you asked us? You could even pose the question out of curiosity. Alternatively, why not try talking to a recruiter to get a feel? As much as I despise recruiters if you find a good one with a lot of placements they can share some of that data with you to help evaluate the move.