Top Law Schools

What are the most prestigious/ best paying/ most rewarding/ highest quality of life/ ect positions in a government role? For what agencies would you most want to work?

Bristow fellowship (solicitor general), DoJ honors, DoJ OLC, white house counsel.

Some other cool ones wound be committee staff in Congress / parliamentarians, JAG officers, counsel at the state department / FBI / CIA / NSA, and being a career clerk.

And what does it take to get them?

State Department gigs would be pretty cool too

...

POTUS.

rad law wrote:POTUS.

+1

rad law wrote:POTUS.

GQ's The Douchiest Colleges in America wrote:(#3) Yale: In Twenty Years Will Be: Bitterly disappointed that you're not president. Or: president of the United States.

http://www.gq.com/entertainment/humor/2 ... =8#slide=8

White House Counsel would be great/prestigious but probably the most stressful. I think it's more about who you know because they are appointed positions, not really based on going to Yale or Harvard. Current WHC is from GULC and don't forget about Harriet Miers.

Committee counsel would be fun if you like policy work. In terms of legal prestige and actually practicing law, my guess is that Bristow is the best. For quality of life, I hear FERC and NRC are awesome and pay very well (80-90k entry level, maybe more?).

rad law wrote:POTUS.

Dude, really? Come on. It costs you $85 million to get the job, everyone blames you for their personal problems, you're only there for four years, and if you want a renewal you have to spend two of those convincing folks to give you four more.

How about Supreme Court justice. It's insanely competitive, but once you get in there's practically no performance review, you're only hearing cases four months a year, you get to pick and choose your workload, and you get to keep the job as long as you want. The biggest downside is having Scalia write about how his Webster's 2nd Edition Dictionary disagrees with you.

...

That's true, the staff counsel need the pedigrees and some administrations care less about being from a top law school. I thought The WHC is what was being discussed. It's funny because the person who does initial screenings for WHC is a politically appointee usually from the campaign, and very young. My friend was offered the position when President Obama took office (allegedly) but she ended up taking a regional director position raising money for some PAC.

...

vanwinkle wrote:

rad law wrote:POTUS.

The biggest downside is having Scalia write about how his Webster's 2nd Edition Dictionary disagrees with you.

This.

The SEC gets some high profile cases. I don't know if that's worth looking into unless you have a strong economics or finance background.

schooner wrote:

gulcregret wrote:That's true, the staff counsel need the pedigrees and some administrations care less about being from a top law school. I thought The WHC is what was being discussed. It's funny because the person who does initial screenings for WHC is a politically appointee usually from the campaign, and very young. My friend was offered the position when President Obama took office (allegedly) but she ended up taking a regional director position raising money for some PAC.

Maybe she was offered a position on the fairly large presidential personnel staff, rather than the director job? Turning down that position would be crazy stupid. The first director, Don Gips, is definitely not a young person. Nor is the current director.

PS - campaign experience helps for these kinds of political jobs

I don't know if it was the director or just like an HR or EA type job that was the first level reviewer. And, it may have been BS too. It's hard to see turning down working in the White House to go raise money, but to each his/her own.

...

gulcregret wrote:White House Counsel would be great/prestigious but probably the most stressful. I think it's more about who you know because they are appointed positions, not really based on going to Yale or Harvard. Current WHC is from GULC and don't forget about Harriet Miers.

Committee counsel would be fun if you like policy work. In terms of legal prestige and actually practicing law, my guess is that Bristow is the best. For quality of life, I hear FERC and NRC are awesome and pay very well (80-90k entry level, maybe more?).

Working as an attorney-adviser in the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), or working as associate counsel in the Office of White House Counsel (WHC), or being a Bristow Fellow at the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) are probably the 3 best positions in government for a young lawyer. Of course all 3 require having a resume that is pretty much SCOTUS clerk material as well as having good connections.

If I had to rank them I would say in terms of prestige/selectivity:

1. WHC
2. OLC
3. OSG

From the standpoint of the best mix between prestige and actual lawyering, I'd vote for civil appellate or federal programs. Everyone in those branches comes from top schools with top grades and top clerkships. Plus, they actually get to litigate from day one.

From a financial standpoint, I'd say FDIC, SEC, or any other independent agency that has their own competitive pay scale (where line attorneys make more than SES career supervisors in DOJ)

Anonymous User wrote: From a financial standpoint, I'd say FDIC, SEC, or any other independent agency that has their own competitive pay scale (where line attorneys make more than SES career supervisors in DOJ)

Working for an agency that has greater flexibility with their pay-scale is a nice bonus for those in fields where an argument can be made for higher than average salaries.

vanwinkle wrote:

rad law wrote:POTUS.

Dude, really? Come on. It costs you $85 million to get the job, everyone blames you for their personal problems, you're only there for four years, and if you want a renewal you have to spend two of those convincing folks to give you four more.

How about Supreme Court justice. It's insanely competitive, but once you get in there's practically no performance review, you're only hearing cases four months a year, you get to pick and choose your workload, and you get to keep the job as long as you want. The biggest downside is having Scalia write about how his Webster's 2nd Edition Dictionary disagrees with you.

Don't forget the original intent of the founding fathers.