Anonymous wrote:SEC attorney here who teleworks twice a week. Even though I'm home at 5:30 to pick up my son from daycare, I feel like I still don't spend enough time with him. While I honestly enjoyed working in NY big law, I don't think that lifestyle would be manageable with a young child. I want to spend MORE time with him, and even with my flexible, laid back job, I don't feel like it's enough. I know that personally, I will care more about my relationship with my children than the hot deal I worked on years ago.
I think the PP who said it takes time to get out of the firm mindset is right. Looking back, why did we have to spend SO MANY HOURS at the printers? At the end of the day, no one cared about that extra comma or changing one word to another. Big law and any competitive field fuels this attitude that more work, tougher, better, smarter, etc. It doesn't have to be that way.
For all the SEC attorneys here, if you don't find yourself challenged, you should seek out more challenging work. Make yourself heard, and I'm sure your supervisor would love to give you more interesting work. It's all about what you make of it. Don't sit on your butt and complain about unmotivated colleagues and bad work. You can change that. I know b/c I'm at the SEC too!
I get what you're saying -- every deal is the same and litigation isn't THAT monumental, but I don't know. I don't agree with the attitude of "why spend so many hrs at the printer," no one cares about the comma on pg 256 anyway -- bc that is what breeds the mediocrity at places like the SEC; I'm surrounded by people who just want it to be "good enough" so they can leave at 3 pm or "telework" -- i.e. do their laundry and grocery shop. And if that's how you are fine -- but SEC employees should be a little more genuine when recruiting, networking, and interviewing -- that it is a place where "good enough" is the marker. But when SEC attys talk to the outside world, it's ALL about how awesome their work is.
And as for wanting 10 extra hrs a week at home -- that's an individual choice. To me -- I'd rather be at the printer than playing trucks, answering repetitive questions, and telling my son to pull his hands out of his pants for the 200th time. I'm sure it's different for everyone, but I don't see how 10 hrs a week bonds us more than the other hours we spend together. Frankly I'd rather be out there making money bc that will help him more -- when I can pay for his college in full or hand him a nice down payment on a house or whatever.
As you can see in the two responses above, working for govt is a big change in mentality from firm life. I clerked for a firm in law school, but I've spent the rest of my career in govt. FWIW, the private firm attorneys we hire that seem to be the most successful are the attorneys with an open mind and a respect for the work. The least successful are the attorneys who cannot let go of the law firm mentality. This is illustrated in the bolded part above. In my office, we do not find value in writing, and rewriting, briefs until they are law review quality. We are a results driven organization. We triage work and put time towards the highest risk, most complicated, and most important work. Spending time on a motion once you have a product together that is likely to win is a waste of time. Arguing over hyphens and commas will not change the results of the case. It's wasted time in government work.
One of the attorneys in my office who came from a well-regarded firm has been one of the least successful. She went to a prestigious law school and regularly works this into conversations. She spends copious amounts of time on briefs, but doesn't understand our practice area after working in the office for almost two years. She talks down to people while simultaneously giving poor advice - mostly bc she can't issue spot. She doesn't appear to be happy either. She thinks she's so smart and rewrites work product from more senior attorneys. She doesn't understand she is editing information that is needed for our practice area. She just thinks she's smarter than everyone. Sadly, she would not be promotable at this point.
My advice to OP is to not look down on your new office if you take the job. You'll never fit in. Many of the attorneys will have attended lower-ranked schools. You will need to be ok with these people. They will question why you need to work late and why you can't finish your work during the day. Before litigation is understood, but not regularly.
OP here. Thanks for this advice. Actually, because I work regularly with this office (I work in the same area of law now), I know the lawyers there and they are very credentialed. Top schools, top clerkships, etc. My whole purpose of going there is to not work late, so I definitely won't be looking down on people who don't. My main concern is just that right now I work in an extremely varied, high paced practice as far as substance of my work. I work before a handful of federal agencies, as well as state agencies, courts, administrative tribunals. And I do a lot of client counseling. The job here would be very narrow, since as we all know agencies only focus on a certain area of law. It's only for that reason that I think I would be bored. I don't know about the SEC, and maybe things are different in DC (I am in a region), but out here all federal jobs are highly highly competitive and I'm not worried about my future coworkers being stupid. Quirky, maybe, but not lacking in prestige.
I understand where you're coming from, OP, but you have to make a choice. Government work may not be as interesting as what you're doing now. On the other hand your hours will be a hell of a lot better and you'll have a personal life, time with your kids, etc. It's up to you which you would value more at this point in time. For a lot of us (I am a new PP but I agree with many of the views expressed above), the personal life takes precedence over interesting work, at least when kids are small.
I made this choice as a mid-level associate. I was very good at my firm job but hated it. Hated the environment, the lack of autonomy, lack of respect for time, billing in 6 minute increments, and most of all, I hated discovery. I loved writing briefs and did a lot of it but it wasn't enough. I moved to a small agency to do appellate litigation and I am so glad I did. I miss the salary from Biglaw and the faster pace and perfectionism. But the flip side of the faster pace and perfectionism was micromanaging and asshole colleagues. My government colleagues may not be quite as smart (though many are) or as driven (most are not), but they are lovely people and it is so much more pleasant to spend time in the office. I have complete autonomy over my cases and love it. I far prefer the pace of appellate litigation. I will also admit that it's nice to be a big fish in a small pond -- I am pretty much a superstar at my agency whereas I was just a very good associate who excelled at briefing but would never have made partner. And best of all, I am out of there at 5 every day to spend time with my young kids. If work needs to be done in the evenings or weekends, I do it, but I do it because I want to do it and not because someone's breathing down my neck.
Since you like your firm job except for the hours, this will be a much harder choice for you. Maybe government isn't the answer. Can you switch to a smaller firm with more reasonable work-life balance? Can you go in-house?
Thanks PP. I actually am at a firm with a fabulous work life balance. I am on a reduced schedule and have massive amounts of flexibility. I love my colleagues, the work, I'm respected. When I work at night and on the weekends it's because work has to be done, not because someone is breathing down my neck. I have autonomy, work up litigation from start to finish, have strong client relationships and really truly like a lot of my clients as people.
The problem is that there is too much work and even though I'm on reduced schedule I work more than I would in a full time fed gov job. I have to do a ton of business development and there is an expectation that all of us will bring in business and work hard to keep existing clients, and so the business development work will never really end. Yes I can take off time any time I want, go on vacation any time I want, but I always have to make up the time missed to hit my billable target. And when clients need something and I'm on vacation it's hard to say no (see part above about needing to get/keep business for the firm). When things get really busy because of a trial or hearing or brief being due, the hours become unbearable to me (though they probably are what a normal attorney in biglaw sees every week).
It is a really hard choice. I sort of wish I hated what I do now, it would make it much easier. Or if I knew what this agency was really like (it's not DOJ or SEC). There are a lot of complaints from the inside about micromanagement, an utter lack of autonomy, lack of respect for staff attorneys, limited ability to move up, etc. But then again the mission of the agency is amazing and I want to do what they do, and everyone says it's unbelievably family friendly and laid back. But maybe since I'm so in the law firm mentality I will actually hate that laid backness once I'm in it. So hard to know.
Wait - you know these things or you WISH you knew these things? If you know these things about your agency, I don't care how family friendly it is -- I'd run in the other direction. Of course I'm not as sold on the govt as much as others here. Doesn't matter what the mission is and how amazing it is -- it doesn't really affect your day to day life; micromanagement, etc. -- that's what affects your life.
Anonymous wrote:SEC attorney here who teleworks twice a week. Even though I'm home at 5:30 to pick up my son from daycare, I feel like I still don't spend enough time with him. While I honestly enjoyed working in NY big law, I don't think that lifestyle would be manageable with a young child. I want to spend MORE time with him, and even with my flexible, laid back job, I don't feel like it's enough. I know that personally, I will care more about my relationship with my children than the hot deal I worked on years ago.
I think the PP who said it takes time to get out of the firm mindset is right. Looking back, why did we have to spend SO MANY HOURS at the printers? At the end of the day, no one cared about that extra comma or changing one word to another. Big law and any competitive field fuels this attitude that more work, tougher, better, smarter, etc. It doesn't have to be that way.
For all the SEC attorneys here, if you don't find yourself challenged, you should seek out more challenging work. Make yourself heard, and I'm sure your supervisor would love to give you more interesting work. It's all about what you make of it. Don't sit on your butt and complain about unmotivated colleagues and bad work. You can change that. I know b/c I'm at the SEC too!
I get what you're saying -- every deal is the same and litigation isn't THAT monumental, but I don't know. I don't agree with the attitude of "why spend so many hrs at the printer," no one cares about the comma on pg 256 anyway -- bc that is what breeds the mediocrity at places like the SEC; I'm surrounded by people who just want it to be "good enough" so they can leave at 3 pm or "telework" -- i.e. do their laundry and grocery shop. And if that's how you are fine -- but SEC employees should be a little more genuine when recruiting, networking, and interviewing -- that it is a place where "good enough" is the marker. But when SEC attys talk to the outside world, it's ALL about how awesome their work is.
And as for wanting 10 extra hrs a week at home -- that's an individual choice. To me -- I'd rather be at the printer than playing trucks, answering repetitive questions, and telling my son to pull his hands out of his pants for the 200th time. I'm sure it's different for everyone, but I don't see how 10 hrs a week bonds us more than the other hours we spend together. Frankly I'd rather be out there making money bc that will help him more -- when I can pay for his college in full or hand him a nice down payment on a house or whatever.
As you can see in the two responses above, working for govt is a big change in mentality from firm life. I clerked for a firm in law school, but I've spent the rest of my career in govt. FWIW, the private firm attorneys we hire that seem to be the most successful are the attorneys with an open mind and a respect for the work. The least successful are the attorneys who cannot let go of the law firm mentality. This is illustrated in the bolded part above. In my office, we do not find value in writing, and rewriting, briefs until they are law review quality. We are a results driven organization. We triage work and put time towards the highest risk, most complicated, and most important work. Spending time on a motion once you have a product together that is likely to win is a waste of time. Arguing over hyphens and commas will not change the results of the case. It's wasted time in government work.
One of the attorneys in my office who came from a well-regarded firm has been one of the least successful. She went to a prestigious law school and regularly works this into conversations. She spends copious amounts of time on briefs, but doesn't understand our practice area after working in the office for almost two years. She talks down to people while simultaneously giving poor advice - mostly bc she can't issue spot. She doesn't appear to be happy either. She thinks she's so smart and rewrites work product from more senior attorneys. She doesn't understand she is editing information that is needed for our practice area. She just thinks she's smarter than everyone. Sadly, she would not be promotable at this point.
My advice to OP is to not look down on your new office if you take the job. You'll never fit in. Many of the attorneys will have attended lower-ranked schools. You will need to be ok with these people. They will question why you need to work late and why you can't finish your work during the day. Before litigation is understood, but not regularly.
OP here. Thanks for this advice. Actually, because I work regularly with this office (I work in the same area of law now), I know the lawyers there and they are very credentialed. Top schools, top clerkships, etc. My whole purpose of going there is to not work late, so I definitely won't be looking down on people who don't. My main concern is just that right now I work in an extremely varied, high paced practice as far as substance of my work. I work before a handful of federal agencies, as well as state agencies, courts, administrative tribunals. And I do a lot of client counseling. The job here would be very narrow, since as we all know agencies only focus on a certain area of law. It's only for that reason that I think I would be bored. I don't know about the SEC, and maybe things are different in DC (I am in a region), but out here all federal jobs are highly highly competitive and I'm not worried about my future coworkers being stupid. Quirky, maybe, but not lacking in prestige.
I understand where you're coming from, OP, but you have to make a choice. Government work may not be as interesting as what you're doing now. On the other hand your hours will be a hell of a lot better and you'll have a personal life, time with your kids, etc. It's up to you which you would value more at this point in time. For a lot of us (I am a new PP but I agree with many of the views expressed above), the personal life takes precedence over interesting work, at least when kids are small.
I made this choice as a mid-level associate. I was very good at my firm job but hated it. Hated the environment, the lack of autonomy, lack of respect for time, billing in 6 minute increments, and most of all, I hated discovery. I loved writing briefs and did a lot of it but it wasn't enough. I moved to a small agency to do appellate litigation and I am so glad I did. I miss the salary from Biglaw and the faster pace and perfectionism. But the flip side of the faster pace and perfectionism was micromanaging and asshole colleagues. My government colleagues may not be quite as smart (though many are) or as driven (most are not), but they are lovely people and it is so much more pleasant to spend time in the office. I have complete autonomy over my cases and love it. I far prefer the pace of appellate litigation. I will also admit that it's nice to be a big fish in a small pond -- I am pretty much a superstar at my agency whereas I was just a very good associate who excelled at briefing but would never have made partner. And best of all, I am out of there at 5 every day to spend time with my young kids. If work needs to be done in the evenings or weekends, I do it, but I do it because I want to do it and not because someone's breathing down my neck.
Since you like your firm job except for the hours, this will be a much harder choice for you. Maybe government isn't the answer. Can you switch to a smaller firm with more reasonable work-life balance? Can you go in-house?
Thanks PP. I actually am at a firm with a fabulous work life balance. I am on a reduced schedule and have massive amounts of flexibility. I love my colleagues, the work, I'm respected. When I work at night and on the weekends it's because work has to be done, not because someone is breathing down my neck. I have autonomy, work up litigation from start to finish, have strong client relationships and really truly like a lot of my clients as people.
The problem is that there is too much work and even though I'm on reduced schedule I work more than I would in a full time fed gov job. I have to do a ton of business development and there is an expectation that all of us will bring in business and work hard to keep existing clients, and so the business development work will never really end. Yes I can take off time any time I want, go on vacation any time I want, but I always have to make up the time missed to hit my billable target. And when clients need something and I'm on vacation it's hard to say no (see part above about needing to get/keep business for the firm). When things get really busy because of a trial or hearing or brief being due, the hours become unbearable to me (though they probably are what a normal attorney in biglaw sees every week).
It is a really hard choice. I sort of wish I hated what I do now, it would make it much easier. Or if I knew what this agency was really like (it's not DOJ or SEC). There are a lot of complaints from the inside about micromanagement, an utter lack of autonomy, lack of respect for staff attorneys, limited ability to move up, etc. But then again the mission of the agency is amazing and I want to do what they do, and everyone says it's unbelievably family friendly and laid back. But maybe since I'm so in the law firm mentality I will actually hate that laid backness once I'm in it. So hard to know.
PP you're responding to. It is hard to know. Sometimes you have to gamble. I was so unhappy at my firm that I took a chance on a job I knew very little about, in a completely new area of law. It turned out to be perfect but I know I got lucky! Heck, I was lucky even to get the job with my lack of targeted experience, but that's another issue.
Maybe think of what's the down side to leaving. If you leave, can you come back or forge new opportunities if you don't like the government? Do 2 years at the agency (is it FDIC or CFTC? because I've heard awful things about CFTC!) and then, if you hate it, go back to your firm or to a different firm? Complaints from the inside probably shouldn't be disregarded. I hear you on the work load but if you have autonomy and respect now, they are very tough things to lose. Micromanaging can be tough or not depending on your personality -- I'm not a fan but it doesn't drive me as crazy as some other people I know. Only you know what you've heard and whether you think you can take it. It does sound like a very tough choice. But if you can leave yourself an out, maybe it is worth taking a chance.
Honestly I don't know why you're giving up a job you like (which has flaws but every job does) for an agency where you know there is micromanagement, lack of autonomy, and lack of promotion. I know you say you're at a regional firm but it sounds like you're bringing in business; so I'd guess you make what -- 300k? The max you'd be going in at in the gov't is what -- 150-160k IF you're at one of the financial agencies?
Is 150k worth TEN hours per week? Esp since you LIKE being a partner?? I don't think you understand how annoying micromanagement and lack of autonomy can be. Gone are the days of being able to step out mid day for a haircut or to go see your kid's science fair --unless you use vacation time and someone approves it. Now if it's a more professional agency, the approval is easy -- you can just say, I need to leave for 2 hrs. But this isn't being a partner (or even an associate) where you have 4 weeks or unlimited vacation time. You start with very little vacation time in the gov't which has to be "earned." So even if you negotiated for 4 weeks (which I highly doubt), you don't have it all day one -- you have about a 1/2 day on day 1. I think you will find the whole thing more frustrating and juvenile than you're willing to admit right now. And yeah 10 hours a week seems like a lot when your kids are babies, but believe me by the time they are 8 or 10 they don't even want that 10 hrs with you bc that 10 hrs is being spent with their friends or at soccer or whatever.
How are you SO undecided about this? Don't most gov't agencies expect an answer right away? And wasn't it a months long process where you already decided -- if I get it, I will/will not take it?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}