CFPB attorney

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the earlier question about Regulations, travel is pretty rare and telework is allowed two days a week.

Can you tell me where, geographically, the office is? The website suggests DC but someone told me it was in MD.

[Anonymous]

So the document requirements on USAjobs v. the CFPB site are confusing. USAjobs only requires a resume and veteran's pref doc (if applicable). Once you click through to the CFPB site, it lists addt'l docs - cover letter, SF50, law school transcripts, etc. Anyone know if you need to submit all of the docs applicable to you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the document requirements on USAjobs v. the CFPB site are confusing. USAjobs only requires a resume and veteran's pref doc (if applicable). Once you click through to the CFPB site, it lists addt'l docs - cover letter, SF50, law school transcripts, etc. Anyone know if you need to submit all of the docs applicable to you?

I have encountered that on a lot of applicatons. As I understand it, the click-through site lists every possible document that you could submit as an option. They are not actually required. Refer to the section on the announcement for what is actually required.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know where they are at in the interviewing process?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the cubes are a problem because of the necessity for teleconferences and phone calls in general. Even in govt it is very unusual for experienced attorneys to be in cubes.

Many in house counsel are in cubes too, especially in companies that puttee cube culture. I think it is odd given confidentiality issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know where they are at in the interviewing process?

For which job? I assume they have a lot of open vacancies

[Anonymous]

Oops - sorry. I was referring to Enforcement slots in DC, based on earlier in the thread. Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Can anyone offer any advice about the negotiation of "level" (the equivalent of the GS grade, I assume), salary, and benefits for an attorney position at CFPB?

[Anonymous]

It will depend on a lot of factors, including your experience and the authorized budget for the office. What section?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It will depend on a lot of factors, including your experience and the authorized budget for the office. What section?

Thanks. For discretion's sake, I'd rather not specify, but the job posting provided that the hire would come in at one of three adjacent "levels." I've looked up the salary ranges and understand the locality adjustment, but the range is so broad that it could be a step up or down from my current salary. So I'm curious about how they're likely to assess my experience and determine at what level to make an offer. I'm mid-career with several years of substantively-relevant experience, though the role is somewhat different. I also understand there might be some room to negotiate the rate of accrual for annual leave (paid leave), based on work experience outside the federal government. Thanks, again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will depend on a lot of factors, including your experience and the authorized budget for the office. What section?

Thanks. For discretion's sake, I'd rather not specify, but the job posting provided that the hire would come in at one of three adjacent "levels." I've looked up the salary ranges and understand the locality adjustment, but the range is so broad that it could be a step up or down from my current salary. So I'm curious about how they're likely to assess my experience and determine at what level to make an offer. I'm mid-career with several years of substantively-relevant experience, though the role is somewhat different. I also understand there might be some room to negotiate the rate of accrual for annual leave (paid leave), based on work experience outside the federal government. Thanks, again.

71 = 15
60 = 14
53 = 13
52 = 12

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

You mean a genius like Tim geithner, the primary federal banking regulator from 2003-2008 and the crisis? He was a rockin regulatory genius.

Simple test of your theory: Go ask 100 people who actually know something about bank regulation who was a better safety and soundness regulator, Geithner or Sheila hair....


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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:71 = 15
60 = 14
53 = 13
52 = 12

Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

You mean a genius like Tim geithner, the primary federal banking regulator from 2003-2008 and the crisis? He was a rockin regulatory genius.

Simple test of your theory: Go ask 100 people who actually know something about bank regulation who was a better safety and soundness regulator, Geithner or Sheila hair....


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.

A scary thought, and the only bit of sour grapes helping me get over not getting an offer!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:71 = 15
60 = 14
53 = 13
52 = 12

Thanks!

If you are at a GS15 highest step does that mean that you would receive a 71 highest step/salary at the CFPB? That is going from $158000 salary to about $224000 salary or so the reserve the highest salary for the people coming from law firms? Anyone know?