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][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]

What law firms want is judgment and knowledge of how the internal system works in most cases.  There are plenty of people at firms to do the work.  But a staff lawyer just has not seen enough matters to have the right insight.  You may be the best testimony taker but most firms have someone better than you already.  What the firms often needs is the insight and the judgment.  That takes a lot of matters over an extended period.[/quote]

+1  Many sk-16s & -17s were hard charging staff attorneys earlier in their careers, or had comparable experience in the private sector before going into the SEC.  Combine that experience with: (i) good judgment that comes with maturity; and (ii) intimate knowledge of the SEC, including people, personalities, and policy/prosecutorial priorities, and you have a solid partner who can connect with existing clients who need his/her services.  Most BIGLAW firms with institutional clients are always trying to upsell them on more services to make the relationship "stiekier".[/quote]

Yeah, the problem is, all that “insight” becomes obsolete every 4 years (or less). Heck, even staff AT the SEC have a hard time keeping up with all the changes, nuances, dynamics, etc.  Someone who hasn’t been there for 2-4 years is like a congressman from 1840 lobbying on K street today.

If clients aren’t aware of this or think otherwise, I guess they’re suckers. [/quote]

You are off.  The SEC has changed over the years but slowly.  Someone there in the 2000s who has an active SEC practice have what clients want.  It does not change every couple of years. [/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