CFPB attorney

[Anonymous]

The pros: amazing compensation and benefits. The pay scale is high, and the pension plan is better than FERS. Routine telework two days per week. Really really very smart colleagues and interesting work

The cons: still feeling the growing pains of a start-up. Supervisors, while brilliant, may not be the most skilled at supervising. A faction of Congress hates that the Bureau exists, so there is a lot of politics and lack of certainty about every move, a generally high-stress environment and a lot of in-fighting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are openings for CFPB Enforcement on USAJobs. Can anyone post an update how things are there now? I have heard it is not particularly family-friendly (long hours, travel) -- is that true?

I would also like to know. I've definitely heard that some of the non-enforcement sections have very long hours, but not sure about enforcement.

Me, too. I noticed these vacancies, too, and would appreciate any insights into quality of work, work/life balance, office culture, and any tips on navigating the hiring process (helpful to have connections at the agency? still tough as nuts to get a job in enforcement? any easier to get a job as an attorney advisor? what sorts of experience is most helpful for someone wanting to work there?)

I'm not sure what you mean by "attorney advisor." Technically Enforcement attorneys are attorney advisors. Do you mean, attorney positions outside of Enforcement? If so, the competitiveness is fairly uniform.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are openings for CFPB Enforcement on USAJobs. Can anyone post an update how things are there now? I have heard it is not particularly family-friendly (long hours, travel) -- is that true?

I would also like to know. I've definitely heard that some of the non-enforcement sections have very long hours, but not sure about enforcement.

Me, too. I noticed these vacancies, too, and would appreciate any insights into quality of work, work/life balance, office culture, and any tips on navigating the hiring process (helpful to have connections at the agency? still tough as nuts to get a job in enforcement? any easier to get a job as an attorney advisor? what sorts of experience is most helpful for someone wanting to work there?)

I have heard that connections are very helpful. I think they are also going to be looking for either an excellent litigation record as well as a real commitment to consumer issues. I think it's less like other agencies where you can waltz in from BigLaw and a good degree. Everyone I know who got hired in recent memory had experience in another consumer agency, doing consumer protection work privately, or extensive pro bono in the area. That's not to say that they won't hire sharp people without that background (especially now when the hiring pool might look different) but CFPB is an agency that believes it its mission. If you think it's "mean" to sue the big banks then it may not be the place for you. As for the quality of the work, as somebody who keeps a close eye on this stuff, I can say that the CFPB enforcement actions so far have been aggressive and groundbreaking. So if that's what you mean by quality, it's there. I doubt they are going to be sticking any enforcement attorney on crap work; no time for that.

Groundbreaking? Have they even litigated anything yet or is it all consented-to settlements?

If you don't understand why they are groundbreaking and exciting, probably not the place for you.

I agree. I actually had an offer from the CfPB when they were just starting out and turned it down. My question was a serious one though, has the agency litigated any cases yet?

Sure, they have cases actively in litigation and I am sure many more active investigations and CIDS we dont know about. Not sure if any dispositive motions yet, but I believe everything slowed way down until cordray was confirmed, which was not even a year ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is CFPB's litigation handled by Justice like most other federal agencies, or does CFPB handle its own litigation?

They file their own cases to enforce their consumer protection laws. If they get sued DOJ defends them.

Not true. CFPB handles their own defensive litigation.

Yikes, probably a bad idea! I wonder why that got in there. Always better not to be your own lawyer ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are openings for CFPB Enforcement on USAJobs. Can anyone post an update how things are there now? I have heard it is not particularly family-friendly (long hours, travel) -- is that true?

I would also like to know. I've definitely heard that some of the non-enforcement sections have very long hours, but not sure about enforcement.

Me, too. I noticed these vacancies, too, and would appreciate any insights into quality of work, work/life balance, office culture, and any tips on navigating the hiring process (helpful to have connections at the agency? still tough as nuts to get a job in enforcement? any easier to get a job as an attorney advisor? what sorts of experience is most helpful for someone wanting to work there?)

I'm not sure what you mean by "attorney advisor." Technically Enforcement attorneys are attorney advisors. Do you mean, attorney positions outside of Enforcement? If so, the competitiveness is fairly uniform.

Yes, sorry, that's what I meant. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

PP that turned down an offer from CFPB, you need to 100 percent believe in the mission -- which is that people need to be treated as children with no responsibilities for their own actions and it's all the banks' fault. If you are good with that, it's the right place for you.

At that time, the agency was a mix of people who had come over from the FTC, and very young lawyers (no more than 1 to 2 years out of law school) from top schools. That was several years ago, so they should already have a good mix of mid-level people. I went to an ivy (but not HYS), and had worked at two different Vault 20 firms, if that helps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The pros: amazing compensation and benefits. The pay scale is high, and the pension plan is better than FERS. Routine telework two days per week. Really really very smart colleagues and interesting work

The cons: still feeling the growing pains of a start-up. Supervisors, while brilliant, may not be the most skilled at supervising. A faction of Congress hates that the Bureau exists, so there is a lot of politics and lack of certainty about every move, a generally high-stress environment and a lot of in-fighting

Is CFPB still on a special scale? I remember NTEU was upset that there was discussion (possibly proposals?) to move them back to the GS scale.

What's the pension plan like? Are they still in FERS and have something else or is it an entirely different system? What % per year of service do you get?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The pros: amazing compensation and benefits. The pay scale is high, and the pension plan is better than FERS. Routine telework two days per week. Really really very smart colleagues and interesting work

The cons: still feeling the growing pains of a start-up. Supervisors, while brilliant, may not be the most skilled at supervising. A faction of Congress hates that the Bureau exists, so there is a lot of politics and lack of certainty about every move, a generally high-stress environment and a lot of in-fighting

Is CFPB still on a special scale? I remember NTEU was upset that there was discussion (possibly proposals?) to move them back to the GS scale.

What's the pension plan like? Are they still in FERS and have something else or is it an entirely different system? What % per year of service do you get?

I believe their pension plan is not FERS but whatever program is used by the Fed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP that turned down an offer from CFPB, you need to 100 percent believe in the mission -- which is that people need to be treated as children with no responsibilities for their own actions and it's all the banks' fault. If you are good with that, it's the right place for you.

At that time, the agency was a mix of people who had come over from the FTC, and very young lawyers (no more than 1 to 2 years out of law school) from top schools. That was several years ago, so they should already have a good mix of mid-level people. I went to an ivy (but not HYS), and had worked at two different Vault 20 firms, if that helps.

This is like chastising the epa for believing in protecting the environment. Glad you don't work there!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP that turned down an offer from CFPB, you need to 100 percent believe in the mission -- which is that people need to be treated as children with no responsibilities for their own actions and it's all the banks' fault. If you are good with that, it's the right place for you.

At that time, the agency was a mix of people who had come over from the FTC, and very young lawyers (no more than 1 to 2 years out of law school) from top schools. That was several years ago, so they should already have a good mix of mid-level people. I went to an ivy (but not HYS), and had worked at two different Vault 20 firms, if that helps.

This is like chastising the epa for believing in protecting the environment. Glad you don't work there!

Not really, have you ever worked for a federal agency? Things are much more nuanced in real life -- and there is a need for balance, not populist rabble rousing. There were far too many people there with little familiarity with financial industries. A lot of smart people who were all really nice. But from what I've heard, there's a lot of going in circles and too many people who don't know what they are doing (not surprising when hiring people with little to no legal experience, expecting a brand new agency to also be able to give them great training is asking too much).

[Anonymous]

Can anyone answer the question about hours/travel?

[Anonymous]

If you were in FERS, you can stay in FERS or switch to the Federal Reserve Bank Plan (FRS). FRS is better, there is no employee contribution and the payout is 1.3% of final avg salary up to $67,308 and 1.8% of final salary in excess of $67,308. The FRS thrift plan pays automatic 1% agency contribution and matches up to an additional 7%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP that turned down an offer from CFPB, you need to 100 percent believe in the mission -- which is that people need to be treated as children with no responsibilities for their own actions and it's all the banks' fault. If you are good with that, it's the right place for you.

At that time, the agency was a mix of people who had come over from the FTC, and very young lawyers (no more than 1 to 2 years out of law school) from top schools. That was several years ago, so they should already have a good mix of mid-level people. I went to an ivy (but not HYS), and had worked at two different Vault 20 firms, if that helps.

This is like chastising the epa for believing in protecting touthe environment. Glad you don't work there!

Not really, have you ever worked for a federal agency? Things are much more nuanced in real life -- and there is a need for balance, not populist rabble rousing. There were far too many people there with little familiarity with financial industries. A lot of smart people who were all really nice. But from what I've heard, there's a lot of going in circles and too many people who don't know what they are doing (not surprising when hiring people with little to no legal experience, expecting a brand new agency to also be able to give them great training is asking too much).

Yeah, because the "balanced" bank regulators did SUCH a great job preventing the financial collapse!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP that turned down an offer from CFPB, you need to 100 percent believe in the mission -- which is that people need to be treated as children with no responsibilities for their own actions and it's all the banks' fault. If you are good with that, it's the right place for you.

At that time, the agency was a mix of people who had come over from the FTC, and very young lawyers (no more than 1 to 2 years out of law school) from top schools. That was several years ago, so they should already have a good mix of mid-level people. I went to an ivy (but not HYS), and had worked at two different Vault 20 firms, if that helps.

This is like chastising the epa for believing in protecting touthe environment. Glad you don't work there!

Not really, have you ever worked for a federal agency? Things are much more nuanced in real life -- and there is a need for balance, not populist rabble rousing. There were far too many people there with little familiarity with financial industries. A lot of smart people who were all really nice. But from what I've heard, there's a lot of going in circles and too many people who don't know what they are doing (not surprising when hiring people with little to no legal experience, expecting a brand new agency to also be able to give them great training is asking too much).

Yeah, because the "balanced" bank regulators did SUCH a great job preventing the financial collapse!!

CfPB has no jurisdiction over the safeness and soundness of the banks so they are o f no help there. Very little of what CfPB does will help prevent another banking crisis; it may help protect the financial illiterate from taking on a bad loan or paying too high an interest rate. Oversight of how much risk banks take on still lies with the banking regulators.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP that turned down an offer from CFPB, you need to 100 percent believe in the mission -- which is that people need to be treated as children with no responsibilities for their own actions and it's all the banks' fault. If you are good with that, it's the right place for you.

At that time, the agency was a mix of people who had come over from the FTC, and very young lawyers (no more than 1 to 2 years out of law school) from top schools. That was several years ago, so they should already have a good mix of mid-level people. I went to an ivy (but not HYS), and had worked at two different Vault 20 firms, if that helps.

This is like chastising the epa for believing in protecting touthe environment. Glad you don't work there!

Not really, have you ever worked for a federal agency? Things are much more nuanced in real life -- and there is a need for balance, not populist rabble rousing. There were far too many people there with little familiarity with financial industries. A lot of smart people who were all really nice. But from what I've heard, there's a lot of going in circles and too many people who don't know what they are doing (not surprising when hiring people with little to no legal experience, expecting a brand new agency to also be able to give them great training is asking too much).

Yeah, because the "balanced" bank regulators did SUCH a great job preventing the financial collapse!!

When you have a republican president who appoints agency heads who believe their job is to not enforce regulations, no agency will be effective. Could easily happen to the CfPB under a different administration.