Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the PP who just left govt for counsel at biglaw and I think it is crazy to say that a former govt atty has nothing to offer clients. I haven't found that to be the case at all and have already brought in some matters of my own. I'm about 9 months in. I think clients really value the govt perspective. Again, I'm in a regulatory field so I can't speak to litigation, but the across the board statement that clients won't care about govt experience is not true. Also, it is a different track. I did skip being an associate and am not immediately expected to have a ton of clients. However, I also made much less money for the past 8 years and had to scrounge for pens and make my own copies...

Of course there is value to government experience, and anyone who argues otherwise is clearly just trolling. I think more of us were arguing that because government attorneys generally won't come over with clients, the bar for them to come in directly to partner is especially high, because they don't have a track record of being able to attract and retain clients. They'll come in as counsel, but that's not necessarily a better position to be in than a senior associate from a long-term partnership prospect standpoint.

Also, depending on the firm, counsel is not necessarily making more, especially when you factor in bonuses, than a highly regarded senior associate. When my husband was promoted to partner, he came to learn that some of the counsel who were technically senior to him were making less in salary and salary + bonus than he'd made his last two years as an associate.

I'm PP you quoted. I will just say that "partnership prospect" isn't the biggest, or even a big, consideration for everyone. I'm not clear whether it is for OP or not. Where I ended up, I could continue as counsel forever and have a pretty decent job at a good salary, or I could decide in a year or two that I want to try to become partner and could push for that. Not sure what I want to do yet. But I do know of a number of other attys who left my agency who either went in directly as partners in biglaw or became partners after a few years. So I don't think it is an outrageous aspiration if that is someone's end goal.

You're right, it's not everyone's goal. It seems to be the OP's goal, and since we're ostensibly giving him advice in this thread, that's what my comment was directed toward.

I didn't see that anyplace in the OP.

Have you read the entire thread? OP specifically stated a page or so ago that prospects for partnership were definitely something he needed to consider in making a move. You don't worry about that unless you're hoping to make partner some day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the PP who just left govt for counsel at biglaw and I think it is crazy to say that a former govt atty has nothing to offer clients. I haven't found that to be the case at all and have already brought in some matters of my own. I'm about 9 months in. I think clients really value the govt perspective. Again, I'm in a regulatory field so I can't speak to litigation, but the across the board statement that clients won't care about govt experience is not true. Also, it is a different track. I did skip being an associate and am not immediately expected to have a ton of clients. However, I also made much less money for the past 8 years and had to scrounge for pens and make my own copies...

Of course there is value to government experience, and anyone who argues otherwise is clearly just trolling. I think more of us were arguing that because government attorneys generally won't come over with clients, the bar for them to come in directly to partner is especially high, because they don't have a track record of being able to attract and retain clients. They'll come in as counsel, but that's not necessarily a better position to be in than a senior associate from a long-term partnership prospect standpoint.

Also, depending on the firm, counsel is not necessarily making more, especially when you factor in bonuses, than a highly regarded senior associate. When my husband was promoted to partner, he came to learn that some of the counsel who were technically senior to him were making less in salary and salary + bonus than he'd made his last two years as an associate.

I'm PP you quoted. I will just say that "partnership prospect" isn't the biggest, or even a big, consideration for everyone. I'm not clear whether it is for OP or not. Where I ended up, I could continue as counsel forever and have a pretty decent job at a good salary, or I could decide in a year or two that I want to try to become partner and could push for that. Not sure what I want to do yet. But I do know of a number of other attys who left my agency who either went in directly as partners in biglaw or became partners after a few years. So I don't think it is an outrageous aspiration if that is someone's end goal.

You're right, it's not everyone's goal. It seems to be the OP's goal, and since we're ostensibly giving him advice in this thread, that's what my comment was directed toward.

I didn't see that anyplace in the OP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the PP who just left govt for counsel at biglaw and I think it is crazy to say that a former govt atty has nothing to offer clients. I haven't found that to be the case at all and have already brought in some matters of my own. I'm about 9 months in. I think clients really value the govt perspective. Again, I'm in a regulatory field so I can't speak to litigation, but the across the board statement that clients won't care about govt experience is not true. Also, it is a different track. I did skip being an associate and am not immediately expected to have a ton of clients. However, I also made much less money for the past 8 years and had to scrounge for pens and make my own copies...

Of course there is value to government experience, and anyone who argues otherwise is clearly just trolling. I think more of us were arguing that because government attorneys generally won't come over with clients, the bar for them to come in directly to partner is especially high, because they don't have a track record of being able to attract and retain clients. They'll come in as counsel, but that's not necessarily a better position to be in than a senior associate from a long-term partnership prospect standpoint.

Also, depending on the firm, counsel is not necessarily making more, especially when you factor in bonuses, than a highly regarded senior associate. When my husband was promoted to partner, he came to learn that some of the counsel who were technically senior to him were making less in salary and salary + bonus than he'd made his last two years as an associate.

I'm PP you quoted. I will just say that "partnership prospect" isn't the biggest, or even a big, consideration for everyone. I'm not clear whether it is for OP or not. Where I ended up, I could continue as counsel forever and have a pretty decent job at a good salary, or I could decide in a year or two that I want to try to become partner and could push for that. Not sure what I want to do yet. But I do know of a number of other attys who left my agency who either went in directly as partners in biglaw or became partners after a few years. So I don't think it is an outrageous aspiration if that is someone's end goal.

You are in an unusual position. Few biglaw firms bring people in for permanent, non-equity positions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the PP who just left govt for counsel at biglaw and I think it is crazy to say that a former govt atty has nothing to offer clients. I haven't found that to be the case at all and have already brought in some matters of my own. I'm about 9 months in. I think clients really value the govt perspective. Again, I'm in a regulatory field so I can't speak to litigation, but the across the board statement that clients won't care about govt experience is not true. Also, it is a different track. I did skip being an associate and am not immediately expected to have a ton of clients. However, I also made much less money for the past 8 years and had to scrounge for pens and make my own copies...

Of course there is value to government experience, and anyone who argues otherwise is clearly just trolling. I think more of us were arguing that because government attorneys generally won't come over with clients, the bar for them to come in directly to partner is especially high, because they don't have a track record of being able to attract and retain clients. They'll come in as counsel, but that's not necessarily a better position to be in than a senior associate from a long-term partnership prospect standpoint.

Also, depending on the firm, counsel is not necessarily making more, especially when you factor in bonuses, than a highly regarded senior associate. When my husband was promoted to partner, he came to learn that some of the counsel who were technically senior to him were making less in salary and salary + bonus than he'd made his last two years as an associate.

I'm PP you quoted. I will just say that "partnership prospect" isn't the biggest, or even a big, consideration for everyone. I'm not clear whether it is for OP or not. Where I ended up, I could continue as counsel forever and have a pretty decent job at a good salary, or I could decide in a year or two that I want to try to become partner and could push for that. Not sure what I want to do yet. But I do know of a number of other attys who left my agency who either went in directly as partners in biglaw or became partners after a few years. So I don't think it is an outrageous aspiration if that is someone's end goal.

My personal experience is about one in four people brought in from government make partner, but most of the time I spent in big law was boom years, so I suspect it is significantly more difficult now, as it is for everyone. So, better odds than when starts out as a first year associate but by no means guaranteed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the PP who just left govt for counsel at biglaw and I think it is crazy to say that a former govt atty has nothing to offer clients. I haven't found that to be the case at all and have already brought in some matters of my own. I'm about 9 months in. I think clients really value the govt perspective. Again, I'm in a regulatory field so I can't speak to litigation, but the across the board statement that clients won't care about govt experience is not true. Also, it is a different track. I did skip being an associate and am not immediately expected to have a ton of clients. However, I also made much less money for the past 8 years and had to scrounge for pens and make my own copies...

Of course there is value to government experience, and anyone who argues otherwise is clearly just trolling. I think more of us were arguing that because government attorneys generally won't come over with clients, the bar for them to come in directly to partner is especially high, because they don't have a track record of being able to attract and retain clients. They'll come in as counsel, but that's not necessarily a better position to be in than a senior associate from a long-term partnership prospect standpoint.

Also, depending on the firm, counsel is not necessarily making more, especially when you factor in bonuses, than a highly regarded senior associate. When my husband was promoted to partner, he came to learn that some of the counsel who were technically senior to him were making less in salary and salary + bonus than he'd made his last two years as an associate.

I'm PP you quoted. I will just say that "partnership prospect" isn't the biggest, or even a big, consideration for everyone. I'm not clear whether it is for OP or not. Where I ended up, I could continue as counsel forever and have a pretty decent job at a good salary, or I could decide in a year or two that I want to try to become partner and could push for that. Not sure what I want to do yet. But I do know of a number of other attys who left my agency who either went in directly as partners in biglaw or became partners after a few years. So I don't think it is an outrageous aspiration if that is someone's end goal.

You're right, it's not everyone's goal. It seems to be the OP's goal, and since we're ostensibly giving him advice in this thread, that's what my comment was directed toward.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the PP who just left govt for counsel at biglaw and I think it is crazy to say that a former govt atty has nothing to offer clients. I haven't found that to be the case at all and have already brought in some matters of my own. I'm about 9 months in. I think clients really value the govt perspective. Again, I'm in a regulatory field so I can't speak to litigation, but the across the board statement that clients won't care about govt experience is not true. Also, it is a different track. I did skip being an associate and am not immediately expected to have a ton of clients. However, I also made much less money for the past 8 years and had to scrounge for pens and make my own copies...

Are you on partnership track? If so, how long until you are reviewed? And no one said that a former government attorney had nothing to offer clients, just that it was one skill set out of many it takes to make partner.

Sorry, meant considered for partnership, not reviewed. Great that you are having a good experience

S
If I want to be, yes. If so, my sense is usually takes 2-3 years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the PP who just left govt for counsel at biglaw and I think it is crazy to say that a former govt atty has nothing to offer clients. I haven't found that to be the case at all and have already brought in some matters of my own. I'm about 9 months in. I think clients really value the govt perspective. Again, I'm in a regulatory field so I can't speak to litigation, but the across the board statement that clients won't care about govt experience is not true. Also, it is a different track. I did skip being an associate and am not immediately expected to have a ton of clients. However, I also made much less money for the past 8 years and had to scrounge for pens and make my own copies...

Of course there is value to government experience, and anyone who argues otherwise is clearly just trolling. I think more of us were arguing that because government attorneys generally won't come over with clients, the bar for them to come in directly to partner is especially high, because they don't have a track record of being able to attract and retain clients. They'll come in as counsel, but that's not necessarily a better position to be in than a senior associate from a long-term partnership prospect standpoint.

Also, depending on the firm, counsel is not necessarily making more, especially when you factor in bonuses, than a highly regarded senior associate. When my husband was promoted to partner, he came to learn that some of the counsel who were technically senior to him were making less in salary and salary + bonus than he'd made his last two years as an associate.

I'm PP you quoted. I will just say that "partnership prospect" isn't the biggest, or even a big, consideration for everyone. I'm not clear whether it is for OP or not. Where I ended up, I could continue as counsel forever and have a pretty decent job at a good salary, or I could decide in a year or two that I want to try to become partner and could push for that. Not sure what I want to do yet. But I do know of a number of other attys who left my agency who either went in directly as partners in biglaw or became partners after a few years. So I don't think it is an outrageous aspiration if that is someone's end goal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the PP who just left govt for counsel at biglaw and I think it is crazy to say that a former govt atty has nothing to offer clients. I haven't found that to be the case at all and have already brought in some matters of my own. I'm about 9 months in. I think clients really value the govt perspective. Again, I'm in a regulatory field so I can't speak to litigation, but the across the board statement that clients won't care about govt experience is not true. Also, it is a different track. I did skip being an associate and am not immediately expected to have a ton of clients. However, I also made much less money for the past 8 years and had to scrounge for pens and make my own copies...

Are you on partnership track? If so, how long until you are reviewed? And no one said that a former government attorney had nothing to offer clients, just that it was one skill set out of many it takes to make partner.

Sorry, meant considered for partnership, not reviewed. Great that you are having a good experience

Anonymous wrote:I'm the PP who just left govt for counsel at biglaw and I think it is crazy to say that a former govt atty has nothing to offer clients. I haven't found that to be the case at all and have already brought in some matters of my own. I'm about 9 months in. I think clients really value the govt perspective. Again, I'm in a regulatory field so I can't speak to litigation, but the across the board statement that clients won't care about govt experience is not true. Also, it is a different track. I did skip being an associate and am not immediately expected to have a ton of clients. However, I also made much less money for the past 8 years and had to scrounge for pens and make my own copies...

Of course there is value to government experience, and anyone who argues otherwise is clearly just trolling. I think more of us were arguing that because government attorneys generally won't come over with clients, the bar for them to come in directly to partner is especially high, because they don't have a track record of being able to attract and retain clients. They'll come in as counsel, but that's not necessarily a better position to be in than a senior associate from a long-term partnership prospect standpoint.

Also, depending on the firm, counsel is not necessarily making more, especially when you factor in bonuses, than a highly regarded senior associate. When my husband was promoted to partner, he came to learn that some of the counsel who were technically senior to him were making less in salary and salary + bonus than he'd made his last two years as an associate.

Anonymous wrote:I'm the PP who just left govt for counsel at biglaw and I think it is crazy to say that a former govt atty has nothing to offer clients. I haven't found that to be the case at all and have already brought in some matters of my own. I'm about 9 months in. I think clients really value the govt perspective. Again, I'm in a regulatory field so I can't speak to litigation, but the across the board statement that clients won't care about govt experience is not true. Also, it is a different track. I did skip being an associate and am not immediately expected to have a ton of clients. However, I also made much less money for the past 8 years and had to scrounge for pens and make my own copies...

Are you on partnership track? If so, how long until you are reviewed? And no one said that a former government attorney had nothing to offer clients, just that it was one skill set out of many it takes to make partner.

I'm the PP who just left govt for counsel at biglaw and I think it is crazy to say that a former govt atty has nothing to offer clients. I haven't found that to be the case at all and have already brought in some matters of my own. I'm about 9 months in. I think clients really value the govt perspective. Again, I'm in a regulatory field so I can't speak to litigation, but the across the board statement that clients won't care about govt experience is not true. Also, it is a different track. I did skip being an associate and am not immediately expected to have a ton of clients. However, I also made much less money for the past 8 years and had to scrounge for pens and make my own copies...

nasaly beta dorks mad as FUCK in this thread

Anonymous wrote:OP, is there anyone in this thread that you think gave you good advice? You seem to take issue with every single thing that's been said. Granted, some people do seem to be taking something out on you, but there's also been some very good advice in this thread. It seems like you only want to argue why you're better situated than what anyone is suggesting, though.

Seriously, this is ridiculous. Op here. I said I agreed with what many had to say, and I said I understood what many posters were saying. I said I did not believe there was a different track necessarily, but I do know several colleagues that had specialized experience that recently came in as of counsel. I asked what of counsel salaries were. I said I understood that once I got in the door I would need to prove myself. I said I realized I would need to show ability to develop business and have some experience that may be useful to that end. I agreed with the salary baseline people noted. I said I understood prospects for partnership are very important to consider.

This thread seems to have struck a nerve, and I am not quite sure what anyone hopes to get out of it other than to ensure I believe there are no prospects of my getting a job at any firm at all, and that I have no relevant experience, and even if I do get a job, I will be shown the door promptly. Given that this is an anonymous forum and there is not much more to accomplish, I won't be posting again. Thanks all that gave solid advice. I will follow up with a HH to discuss exploring further.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm really not sure why you are both so angry or how you think you have been "treated." I can't give away many details and I have to be vague -- sorry if that makes it difficult, and I get that.

Many posted that there would not be any opportunities, and I discussed recent experiences to redirect the conversation. Calling me stupid and dismissing my credentials, and telling me I have no idea how things work or how to get clients and I have no book of business so will never get a job -- those are opinions based on your subjective experiences, and I am not responding to them because it does not matter if you do not believe I will get a job at your firm. I am merely noting that there are indeed opportunities for some at some firms, who knows if I will be among them, and I am interested in salary because I am considering whether it makes sense to make such a move from a purely financial perspective. I am not sure why that makes you so defensive. I am not dismissing your experience or knowledge but if there are no opportunities for me at some places, there still may be at others, so that is what I am focusing on here.

Accurately pointing out that you are pugilistic and not very sharp does not make me angry. I assure you I simply was trying to provide you a concise reason you weren't getting what you wanted from this thread. Your assumptions of others' feelings and your reactions to comments (particularly any that didn't reaffirm your goals) point to perhaps an inability to think rationally or a high level of insecurity, or both. I'm not angry when I say this -- maybe a little sad for you that after 10 years as a professional, you have not developed the wisdom or humility to take advice that might prevent you from making career mistakes.

You sound like a frustrated litigator dying to show off your debate skills. And your ability to use big words and your wonderful "empathy" does not detract from your utter and complete rank jerkiness. This thread obviously triggered some odd need to belittle OP relentlessly and show off your own superiority, which really does not reflect well on your mental state or personal career satisfaction. I think perhaps you should ruminate on that a bit.

Aw, OP, don't take it so hard. "Ruminate" is a big word, too!

OP, is there anyone in this thread that you think gave you good advice? You seem to take issue with every single thing that's been said. Granted, some people do seem to be taking something out on you, but there's also been some very good advice in this thread. It seems like you only want to argue why you're better situated than what anyone is suggesting, though.