Government to Big Law Partner?

[Anonymous]

I transitioned from a government GS-15 to private practice as counsel to a top firm with a lot of experience transitioning government attorneys. Took 2 years to get to NEP and 2 more for equity partner. Just a question of putting in the work (hours and non-billable marketing time), but have seen lots of former government attorneys struggle to make the transition. Firms can really help the process through mentoring, which most DC firms seem to recognize.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Going from private practice to government is an easy transition bc no billable hours, no expectation of building a book of business, and no expectation to work very hard. The workday is over early, they're often working remotely, and they feel no need to work beyond that. It feels like a part-time job compared to a law firm. Productivity is just not measured in the same way as if you are documenting every .10 of time. For these reasons and more, I think career government attorneys would not particularly enjoy a law firm unless they really wanted to change course. It is hard to imagine some govt attorneys flourishing in a law firm where money is the bottom line and a high level of productivity is expected.

lol you must not have experience in big firms. In my practice area (antitrust), we rotate people in and out of the DOJ and FTC constantly. We've had four lateral partners from the federal government just this year.

Non-equity? How are they doing?

Most take a 1-3 years non-equity before being up for equity. Though the heavy hitters get equity right away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Going from private practice to government is an easy transition bc no billable hours, no expectation of building a book of business, and no expectation to work very hard. The workday is over early, they're often working remotely, and they feel no need to work beyond that. It feels like a part-time job compared to a law firm. Productivity is just not measured in the same way as if you are documenting every .10 of time. For these reasons and more, I think career government attorneys would not particularly enjoy a law firm unless they really wanted to change course. It is hard to imagine some govt attorneys flourishing in a law firm where money is the bottom line and a high level of productivity is expected.

lol you must not have experience in big firms. In my practice area (antitrust), we rotate people in and out of the DOJ and FTC constantly. We've had four lateral partners from the federal government just this year.

Non-equity? How are they doing?

Most take a 1-3 years non-equity before being up for equity. Though the heavy hitters get equity right away.

How are govt attorneys "heavy hitters"? Are they somehow coming with a client base, a skill that no one else has, or money for a buy-in? Can't imagine equity being handed over without one or all three.

[Anonymous]

Everything in a firm has to translate to $. I would pay a government attorney less because they're used to making less, so anything is a significant step up. If they price themselves, fine.

What some people going to law school don't realize is that the important skill is business development / making it rain. This is harder to find than a knowledgeable attorney, as what we do is not rocket science and can be learned. It is hard to find someone who can perform at an actual trial and it is hard to find someone with the skills to develop clients. This is because of the tyoe of people who are seeking out top law schools to begin with. If they're independently wealthy and connected, they don't need to toil away at Big Law in the first place -- and generally won't. If they went to law school because they're risk-averse / studious / introverted with a liberal arts degree, they may or may not have the skills to build a client base. Especially with AI, most top law students (and government attorneys) can crank out a decent enough motion for summary judgment. It