Reply to SEC SK-17 — why would anyone be one?

Forum Index » Jobs and Careers

Reply to "SEC SK-17 — why would anyone be one?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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

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. [/quote]

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

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. [/quote]

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

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics