SEC SK-17 — why would anyone be one?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If average Americans knew the pay and work life of SEC attorneys, they would be infuriated.

Good thing average Americans aren’t paying their salaries, then, isn’t it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If average Americans knew the pay and work life of SEC attorneys, they would be infuriated.

Good thing average Americans aren’t paying their salaries, then, isn’t it?

Of course they are. The SEC relies on appropriations from Congress for its budget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If average Americans knew the pay and work life of SEC attorneys, they would be infuriated.

Good thing average Americans aren’t paying their salaries, then, isn’t it?

Of course they are. The SEC relies on appropriations from Congress for its budget.

no, they aren't. the SEC is FUNDED by transaction fees. They just rely on Congress passing a budget and thus letting them know how much of the money they bring in they are allowed to use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If average Americans knew the pay and work life of SEC attorneys, they would be infuriated.

Good thing average Americans aren’t paying their salaries, then, isn’t it?

Of course they are. The SEC relies on appropriations from Congress for its budget.

no, they aren't. the SEC is FUNDED by transaction fees. They just rely on Congress passing a budget and thus letting them know how much of the money they bring in they are allowed to use.

Yeah, and those Transaction Fees just grow on trees. They’re not passed on to customers or anything. I love free lunches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If average Americans knew the pay and work life of SEC attorneys, they would be infuriated.

Good thing average Americans aren’t paying their salaries, then, isn’t it?

Of course they are. The SEC relies on appropriations from Congress for its budget.

no, they aren't. the SEC is FUNDED by transaction fees. They just rely on Congress passing a budget and thus letting them know how much of the money they bring in they are allowed to use.

Yeah, and those Transaction Fees just grow on trees. They’re not passed on to customers or anything. I love free lunches.

jesus you really have reading comprehension problems. the customers those fees are passed on to are not AVERAGE americans.

The bottom 50% of American adults hold only 0.6% of stocks. The top 1% hold 53% of stocks. The richest 10 percent of households controlled 84 percent of the total value of stocks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If average Americans knew the pay and work life of SEC attorneys, they would be infuriated.

Good thing average Americans aren’t paying their salaries, then, isn’t it?

Of course they are. The SEC relies on appropriations from Congress for its budget.

no, they aren't. the SEC is FUNDED by transaction fees. They just rely on Congress passing a budget and thus letting them know how much of the money they bring in they are allowed to use.

As your post shows, the amount of fees is irrelevant to the SEC's budget. They could bring in 10 billion in fees and allocated 1 billion by Congress or bring in 1 billion in fees and get 10 billion from Congress. So it is ultimately the American taxpayer paying for the SEC, just as at an agency where fees are less significant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If average Americans knew the pay and work life of SEC attorneys, they would be infuriated.

Good thing average Americans aren’t paying their salaries, then, isn’t it?

Of course they are. The SEC relies on appropriations from Congress for its budget.

no, they aren't. the SEC is FUNDED by transaction fees. They just rely on Congress passing a budget and thus letting them know how much of the money they bring in they are allowed to use.

As your post shows, the amount of fees is irrelevant to the SEC's budget. They could bring in 10 billion in fees and allocated 1 billion by Congress or bring in 1 billion in fees and get 10 billion from Congress. So it is ultimately the American taxpayer paying for the SEC, just as at an agency where fees are less significant.

It is the American public. It is not the average American taxpayer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depending on your division SK-16 positions are not easy to get. Most attorney roles cap out at SK-14.

I think the SK-15 roles are actually much harder than the 17 roles because you have both production and managerial responsibilities.

Finally, if you take the SK-17 role your private sector exit options will be far greater than as a 14.

Is sk-17 assistant director? From what I've seen, you've got to be at least an assistant director to get partnership at a biglaw firm. Anything lower translates to senior associate / counsel level at best.

Law firms have no idea what they’re doing, then. The responsibilities and skill set of an AD/SK-17 (at least in Enforcement) bear zero resemblance to those of a junior or senior law-firm partner. A smart law firm should want to hire a hard-charging staff attorney (who’s actually been doing substantive legal work and running their cases) rather than a paper-pusher who does little more than approve HR requests and proofreads things.

Sk-17s have a lot of access and relationships to people in power. That's what the firm is paying for

LOL. Which I guess has some minimal value until those people themselves leave the Commission. Which is every few years or less. I suspect that many law firms seriously regret certain hiring decisions, and those former 17s will be the FIRST to go in the next recession. Unless they have a significant book, which is unlikely.

Law firms have been bringing on senior SEC folks for decades. If it didn't add value, they probably would have stopped, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depending on your division SK-16 positions are not easy to get. Most attorney roles cap out at SK-14.

I think the SK-15 roles are actually much harder than the 17 roles because you have both production and managerial responsibilities.

Finally, if you take the SK-17 role your private sector exit options will be far greater than as a 14.

Is sk-17 assistant director? From what I've seen, you've got to be at least an assistant director to get partnership at a biglaw firm. Anything lower translates to senior associate / counsel level at best.

Law firms have no idea what they’re doing, then. The responsibilities and skill set of an AD/SK-17 (at least in Enforcement) bear zero resemblance to those of a junior or senior law-firm partner. A smart law firm should want to hire a hard-charging staff attorney (who’s actually been doing substantive legal work and running their cases) rather than a paper-pusher who does little more than approve HR requests and proofreads things.

Sk-17s have a lot of access and relationships to people in power. That's what the firm is paying for

LOL. Which I guess has some minimal value until those people themselves leave the Commission. Which is every few years or less. I suspect that many law firms seriously regret certain hiring decisions, and those former 17s will be the FIRST to go in the next recession. Unless they have a significant book, which is unlikely.

Law firms have been bringing on senior SEC folks for decades. If it didn't add value, they probably would have stopped, no?

LOL. And most law firms are such astute, well-run business operations!

How many senior SEC staff have GOOD firms, like Wachtell, Cravath, and Williams Connolly, etc, hired over the last 10 years? Like maybe 3? That tells you something. It’s usually the mediocre firms that blindly hire them, without thinking rigorously about the value proposition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depending on your division SK-16 positions are not easy to get. Most attorney roles cap out at SK-14.

I think the SK-15 roles are actually much harder than the 17 roles because you have both production and managerial responsibilities.

Finally, if you take the SK-17 role your private sector exit options will be far greater than as a 14.

Is sk-17 assistant director? From what I've seen, you've got to be at least an assistant director to get partnership at a biglaw firm. Anything lower translates to senior associate / counsel level at best.

Law firms have no idea what they’re doing, then. The responsibilities and skill set of an AD/SK-17 (at least in Enforcement) bear zero resemblance to those of a junior or senior law-firm partner. A smart law firm should want to hire a hard-charging staff attorney (who’s actually been doing substantive legal work and running their cases) rather than a paper-pusher who does little more than approve HR requests and proofreads things.

Sk-17s have a lot of access and relationships to people in power. That's what the firm is paying for

LOL. Which I guess has some minimal value until those people themselves leave the Commission. Which is every few years or less. I suspect that many law firms seriously regret certain hiring decisions, and those former 17s will be the FIRST to go in the next recession. Unless they have a significant book, which is unlikely.

Law firms have been bringing on senior SEC folks for decades. If it didn't add value, they probably would have stopped, no?

LOL. And most law firms are such astute, well-run business operations!

How many senior SEC staff have GOOD firms, like Wachtell, Cravath, and Williams Connolly, etc, hired over the last 10 years? Like maybe 3? That tells you something. It’s usually the mediocre firms that blindly hire them, without thinking rigorously about the value proposition.

Dude, what happened to you? Did your wife cheat on you with an SEC attorney? You have to way too much pent-up aggression for a forum topic this benign.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depending on your division SK-16 positions are not easy to get. Most attorney roles cap out at SK-14.

I think the SK-15 roles are actually much harder than the 17 roles because you have both production and managerial responsibilities.

Finally, if you take the SK-17 role your private sector exit options will be far greater than as a 14.

Is sk-17 assistant director? From what I've seen, you've got to be at least an assistant director to get partnership at a biglaw firm. Anything lower translates to senior associate / counsel level at best.

Law firms have no idea what they’re doing, then. The responsibilities and skill set of an AD/SK-17 (at least in Enforcement) bear zero resemblance to those of a junior or senior law-firm partner. A smart law firm should want to hire a hard-charging staff attorney (who’s actually been doing substantive legal work and running their cases) rather than a paper-pusher who does little more than approve HR requests and proofreads things.

Sk-17s have a lot of access and relationships to people in power. That's what the firm is paying for

LOL. Which I guess has some minimal value until those people themselves leave the Commission. Which is every few years or less. I suspect that many law firms seriously regret certain hiring decisions, and those former 17s will be the FIRST to go in the next recession. Unless they have a significant book, which is unlikely.

Law firms have been bringing on senior SEC folks for decades. If it didn't add value, they probably would have stopped, no?

LOL. And most law firms are such astute, well-run business operations!

How many senior SEC staff have GOOD firms, like Wachtell, Cravath, and Williams Connolly, etc, hired over the last 10 years? Like maybe 3? That tells you something. It’s usually the mediocre firms that blindly hire them, without thinking rigorously about the value proposition.

I dunno, ask Wayne Carlin or Eliad Roisman, but those are unfair examples given those firms' historical lack of significant lateral hiring period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depending on your division SK-16 positions are not easy to get. Most attorney roles cap out at SK-14.

I think the SK-15 roles are actually much harder than the 17 roles because you have both production and managerial responsibilities.

Finally, if you take the SK-17 role your private sector exit options will be far greater than as a 14.

Is sk-17 assistant director? From what I've seen, you've got to be at least an assistant director to get partnership at a biglaw firm. Anything lower translates to senior associate / counsel level at best.

Law firms have no idea what they’re doing, then. The responsibilities and skill set of an AD/SK-17 (at least in Enforcement) bear zero resemblance to those of a junior or senior law-firm partner. A smart law firm should want to hire a hard-charging staff attorney (who’s actually been doing substantive legal work and running their cases) rather than a paper-pusher who does little more than approve HR requests and proofreads things.

Sk-17s have a lot of access and relationships to people in power. That's what the firm is paying for

LOL. Which I guess has some minimal value until those people themselves leave the Commission. Which is every few years or less. I suspect that many law firms seriously regret certain hiring decisions, and those former 17s will be the FIRST to go in the next recession. Unless they have a significant book, which is unlikely.

Law firms have been bringing on senior SEC folks for decades. If it didn't add value, they probably would have stopped, no?

LOL. And most law firms are such astute, well-run business operations!

How many senior SEC staff have GOOD firms, like Wachtell, Cravath, and Williams Connolly, etc, hired over the last 10 years? Like maybe 3? That tells you something. It’s usually the mediocre firms that blindly hire them, without thinking rigorously about the value proposition.

Odd choice of firms. Cravath hires very few laterals, Wachtell even fewer, and last I checked, Kannon Shanmugan was the last lateral that W&C hired, and he was the first in 2 decades. You good have chosen peer firms with substantial SEC practices, like WilmerHale, which has tons of former SEC staff. And most big law firms are actually well run business operations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depending on your division SK-16 positions are not easy to get. Most attorney roles cap out at SK-14.

I think the SK-15 roles are actually much harder than the 17 roles because you have both production and managerial responsibilities.

Finally, if you take the SK-17 role your private sector exit options will be far greater than as a 14.

Is sk-17 assistant director? From what I've seen, you've got to be at least an assistant director to get partnership at a biglaw firm. Anything lower translates to senior associate / counsel level at best.

Law firms have no idea what they’re doing, then. The responsibilities and skill set of an AD/SK-17 (at least in Enforcement) bear zero resemblance to those of a junior or senior law-firm partner. A smart law firm should want to hire a hard-charging staff attorney (who’s actually been doing substantive legal work and running their cases) rather than a paper-pusher who does little more than approve HR requests and proofreads things.

Sk-17s have a lot of access and relationships to people in power. That's what the firm is paying for

LOL. Which I guess has some minimal value until those people themselves leave the Commission. Which is every few years or less. I suspect that many law firms seriously regret certain hiring decisions, and those former 17s will be the FIRST to go in the next recession. Unless they have a significant book, which is unlikely.

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.

+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".

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.

You are off. The SEC has changed over the years but slowly. Someone there in the 2000s who has an active SEC practice have what clients want. It does not change every couple of years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depending on your division SK-16 positions are not easy to get. Most attorney roles cap out at SK-14.

I think the SK-15 roles are actually much harder than the 17 roles because you have both production and managerial responsibilities.

Finally, if you take the SK-17 role your private sector exit options will be far greater than as a 14.

Is sk-17 assistant director? From what I've seen, you've got to be at least an assistant director to get partnership at a biglaw firm. Anything lower translates to senior associate / counsel level at best.

Law firms have no idea what they’re doing, then. The responsibilities and skill set of an AD/SK-17 (at least in Enforcement) bear zero resemblance to those of a junior or senior law-firm partner. A smart law firm should want to hire a hard-charging staff attorney (who’s actually been doing substantive legal work and running their cases) rather than a paper-pusher who does little more than approve HR requests and proofreads things.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Government investigations including at the SEC increase in recessions. Also the SEC always gets more funding so more investigations.