Anyone have info on being an attorney on the staff of an NLRB member?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Best thing would be to do it for a year, bail, and go back to the firm. That said, it takes at least a year to get comfortable in the job. Any stereotypes about gov work don't apply to this agency. Attorneys work very hard and very well. If you are unfamiliar with the subject area, you will need to get up to speed very, very quickly.

OP here. I've been a labor attorney for 10 years. The person who reached out to me is very well known in the labor law world and is probably only contacting people he is confident has pretty deep knowledge of/experience in labor law. I think lack of familiarity with the subject matter would pretty much be a nonstarter for this job.

You are right, to a degree, about attorneys at the NLRB. They typically work hard and know their stuff, but I've come across my share of layabouts in some of the regional offices (people who have the stereotypical "govt employee" mindset).

I sincerely doubt going back to my firm after a year would be a possibility. Partner I get most of my work from (and is going to be the force behind me getting elevated to partner myself) wouldn't be open to that. In fact, he'd tell me how stupid I was for torpedoing my career in private practice when I'm so close to making partner.

Well, that would arguably be stupid. But there are zero guarantees when it comes to making partner.

[Anonymous]

Are you interested in public policy? Government service? It's hard to tell from your posts. If you are, you might enjoy this job.

[Anonymous]

This is an interesting post -- I am a labor attorney as well and curious about the OP because this is an extremely small niche field!

I have known people who worked on Board member staffs -- I think the job would be very interesting, but there is a major risk, especially if you are close to making partner. I have heard from ex Board members themselves that when you go back to a firm after being on the Board -- yes there is a honeymoon period and everyone is happy you are there, but after awhile you have all of the same financial pressures about rainmaking etc that any partner does. If you can't bring in the business, you'll be out the door (albeit gently). Look up some of the prior Board members -- you will see much movement. Not all of this was voluntary. I imagine this problem would only be enhanced if you are only a staff member -- how many prior chief counsels can you name off the top of your head?

If you truly want to do public service and work for the Board, and could see yourself there for a long time, then go for it. If you fit in there, they will find you a job even when your mber rolls off in five years. But if you like private practice, have a good chance of making partner, and have a rabbi who is willing to help you across the finish line (and hopefully give you some of his business long-term) you are probably better off staying put.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is an interesting post -- I am a labor attorney as well and curious about the OP because this is an extremely small niche field!

I have known people who worked on Board member staffs -- I think the job would be very interesting, but there is a major risk, especially if you are close to making partner. I have heard from ex Board members themselves that when you go back to a firm after being on the Board -- yes there is a honeymoon period and everyone is happy you are there, but after awhile you have all of the same financial pressures about rainmaking etc that any partner does. If you can't bring in the business, you'll be out the door (albeit gently). Look up some of the prior Board members -- you will see much movement. Not all of this was voluntary. I imagine this problem would only be enhanced if you are only a staff member -- how many prior chief counsels can you name off the top of your head?

If you truly want to do public service and work for the Board, and could see yourself there for a long time, then go for it. If you fit in there, they will find you a job even when your mber rolls off in five years. But if you like private practice, have a good chance of making partner, and have a rabbi who is willing to help you across the finish line (and hopefully give you some of his business long-term) you are probably better off staying put.

I can't think of a Bd Member in recent history who has had trouble landing comfortably at a firm. Republicans tend to come from firms. Democrats take a different path.

[Anonymous]

You have kind of a shitty view of a "typical government employee" for someone who wants to go into the govt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an interesting post -- I am a labor attorney as well and curious about the OP because this is an extremely small niche field!

I have known people who worked on Board member staffs -- I think the job would be very interesting, but there is a major risk, especially if you are close to making partner. I have heard from ex Board members themselves that when you go back to a firm after being on the Board -- yes there is a honeymoon period and everyone is happy you are there, but after awhile you have all of the same financial pressures about rainmaking etc that any partner does. If you can't bring in the business, you'll be out the door (albeit gently). Look up some of the prior Board members -- you will see much movement. Not all of this was voluntary. I imagine this problem would only be enhanced if you are only a staff member -- how many prior chief counsels can you name off the top of your head?

If you truly want to do public service and work for the Board, and could see yourself there for a long time, then go for it. If you fit in there, they will find you a job even when your mber rolls off in five years. But if you like private practice, have a good chance of making partner, and have a rabbi who is willing to help you across the finish line (and hopefully give you some of his business long-term) you are probably better off staying put.

I can't think of a Bd Member in recent history who has had trouble landing comfortably at a firm. Republicans tend to come from firms. Democrats take a different path.

Nobody said that they cannot land at a firm. It is what happens after you land -- you have all of the same business development and partnership expectations that anyone else has, in an extremely competitive environment with a shrinking unionized workforce. The same would certainly be true of any Board staff member, even a chief counsel. The point is -- if you want to be in private practice ultimately, is going to the board and working as a staff member going to change your fortune in a significant way? I think it's a tough case if you are already on the cusp of making partner anyway and work for someone who will feed you work. Otherwise you will have to come up with that work on your own afterwards which is no easy task

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an interesting post -- I am a labor attorney as well and curious about the OP because this is an extremely small niche field!

I have known people who worked on Board member staffs -- I think the job would be very interesting, but there is a major risk, especially if you are close to making partner. I have heard from ex Board members themselves that when you go back to a firm after being on the Board -- yes there is a honeymoon period and everyone is happy you are there, but after awhile you have all of the same financial pressures about rainmaking etc that any partner does. If you can't bring in the business, you'll be out the door (albeit gently). Look up some of the prior Board members -- you will see much movement. Not all of this was voluntary. I imagine this problem would only be enhanced if you are only a staff member -- how many prior chief counsels can you name off the top of your head?

If you truly want to do public service and work for the Board, and could see yourself there for a long time, then go for it. If you fit in there, they will find you a job even when your mber rolls off in five years. But if you like private practice, have a good chance of making partner, and have a rabbi who is willing to help you across the finish line (and hopefully give you some of his business long-term) you are probably better off staying put.

I can't think of a Bd Member in recent history who has had trouble landing comfortably at a firm. Republicans tend to come from firms. Democrats take a different path.

Nobody said that they cannot land at a firm. It is what happens after you land -- you have all of the same business development and partnership expectations that anyone else has, in an extremely competitive environment with a shrinking unionized workforce. The same would certainly be true of any Board staff member, even a chief counsel. The point is -- if you want to be in private practice ultimately, is going to the board and working as a staff member going to change your fortune in a significant way? I think it's a tough case if you are already on the cusp of making partner anyway and work for someone who will feed you work. Otherwise you will have to come up with that work on your own afterwards which is no easy task

I'll take your word for it. But ex Bd Members can dine out in that status for decades, even if they bounce around a bit. I agree that if one truly was on the cusp of making partner, walking away from that would be...odd.

[Anonymous]

Op here. I've always been drawn to the idea of moving over to the Board someday and think this would be a really interesting and challenging job but think the timing is pretty bad given how close I (supposedly) am to making partner and the fact that there are no guarantees about what would happen to me after.

(This may be moot/academic as I haven't heard anything and may never even get a call...)

[Anonymous]

It's not even clear that there will be a Republican majority on the Board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not even clear that there will be a Republican majority on the Board.

By statute the administration in power gets to place the majority of members on the Board.

[Anonymous]

At the moment there are 2 Rs and 2 Ds. Another R is up for the single open seat in September. At this point it looks pretty certain that there will be a Republican majority.

Perhaps more importantly, what did that comment have to do with OP's questions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not even clear that there will be a Republican majority on the Board.

By statute the administration in power gets to place the majority of members on the Board.

By statute? You sure about that?

[Anonymous]

Well if you consider the constitution a statute then pp is more or less correct

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well if you consider the constitution a statute then pp is more or less correct

I hate when people are snotty and wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well if you consider the constitution a statute then pp is more or less correct

The Constitution is the Constitution. It's not a statute.