FCC Attorney

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
User avatar
Ruxin1
Posts: 1284
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:12 pm

Re: FCC Attorney

Postby Ruxin1 » Mon Aug 15, 2011 5:05 pm

sarcasm font is needed

User avatar
Renne Walker
Posts: 546
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 2:12 am

Re: FCC Attorney

Postby Renne Walker » Mon Aug 15, 2011 5:35 pm

Heartford wrote:I think you're probably just imagining a legal specialization that doesn't exactly exist.


Yep, that must be what it is, just imagining a legal specialization that does not exist.

Well, thanks to everyone who posted, law school is about to begin. I am sure everyone here will do just fine. :roll:

User avatar
Heartford
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 9:02 pm

Re: FCC Attorney

Postby Heartford » Mon Aug 15, 2011 5:37 pm

Renne Walker wrote:
Heartford wrote:I think you're probably just imagining a legal specialization that doesn't exactly exist.


Yep, that must be what it is, just imagining a legal specialization that does not exist.

Well, thanks to everyone who posted, law school is about to begin. I am sure you will do just fine. :roll:


I did do just fine during 1L, thank you very much! Have fun lecturing your peers about these "FCC Attorneys" who don't work for the FCC!

Anonymous User
Posts: 273216
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: FCC Attorney

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:20 pm

Renne Walker wrote:
vamedic03 wrote:I doubt if anyone doing telecom regulatory work would ever refer to themselves as "FCC" attorneys. The term, FCC attorney, suggests that you are referring to someone employed by the FCC.

The FCC Attorneys who work at major law firms such as Wiley Ryan refer to themselves as “FCC Attorneys”―as do their media clientele. FCC attorneys work for telecommunications companies, then there are attorneys who work for the FCC. . . not the same.

The purpose of the thread is to see if anyone in TLS land is considering employment as an FCC attorney, if so, I would love to hear from you.


I worked for Wiley Rein (not Wiley Ryan), and you are right that there are a lot of people there who do telecom/mass media regulatory work. They do not, and would not, use the term "FCC Attorneys" to refer to someone in the communications practice.

(anonymous so as not to out myself)

User avatar
Renne Walker
Posts: 546
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 2:12 am

Re: FCC Attorney

Postby Renne Walker » Tue Aug 16, 2011 10:29 am

Since you once worked at Wiley Rein you might be acquainted with “Doc.” He will tell you, without hesitation, that his media clientele refer to him as their FCC attorney. In the NAB’s media directory there is a listing for FCC Attorneys (all associated with private firms, including Wiley Rein).

At least you cleared up the airhead assertion that this is an imaginary specialization that does not exist. Thanks.

BTW: Good going on landing a position at WR.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273216
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: FCC Attorney

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Aug 16, 2011 3:41 pm

This thread is hilarious.

The OP did feature a question of sorts, though a clearer OP with actual questions (with questions marks and all) might have elicited better responses.

Still, I don't get how people who have admitted to being unfamilar with that field can confidently assert that the OP is using the term "FC attorney" erronously. Industries have their jargons, and they don't always make sense to "outsiders."

EDIT: I just saw the T14 (aborted) thread. It explains a lot of what is going on here actually. Clearly you haven't made a lot of friends with that one.

User avatar
Heartford
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 9:02 pm

Re: FCC Attorney

Postby Heartford » Tue Aug 16, 2011 4:19 pm

Anonymous User wrote:This thread is hilarious.

The OP did feature a question of sorts, though a clearer OP with actual questions (with questions marks and all) might have elicited better responses.

Still, I don't get how people who have admitted to being unfamilar with that field can confidently assert that the OP is using the term "FC attorney" erronously. Industries have their jargons, and they don't always make sense to "outsiders."

EDIT: I just saw the T14 (aborted) thread. It explains a lot of what is going on here actually. Clearly you haven't made a lot of friends with that one.


It's funny how the only person who will stand up for OP feels s/he has to abuse the anon feature to do so.

CanuckObserver
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 10:19 am

Re: FCC Attorney

Postby CanuckObserver » Tue Aug 16, 2011 4:47 pm

OP, you seem strangely obsessed with "FCC Attorneys".

A post of yours from last month:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=160729&p=4614538#p4614538

Due to family ties, I had a bird’s eye view of the inner workings of what the street calls FCC Attorneys (these attorneys do not work for the government, but rather interact with the FCC). They hammer out the negotiations between the Buyer and Seller (everything from Letter of Intent, non-disclosure, due-diligence, etc., to the actual Asset Purchase Agreement). Rarely do they ever litigate (when litigation is necessary they often bring in litigators).

The big fees (usually 4-5% of the deal) are secured through negotiating contracts. Even simple contracts generate a hefty fee. My uncle use to say, without the attorneys we would have this deal done by tomorrow, everyone apparently has accepted a delay for attorney fee generation!

I imagine that there is a fair amount of mundane work, such as keeping clients appraised of changing FCC rules, regs, etc.

To me, this is a BigLaw question since some of the largest firms have a communications division, That said, there are a number of smaller firms and solo practitioners dedicated to this field. Either way, I cannot imagine that a +40 hour work week is standard.

Given this economy I am relieved that I am an OP, rather than someone coming out of law school today, given that the credit market needs to be in good shape for deals to transpire. There are still big deals occurring, just not as many.

Since there is little (that I can find on TLS) regarding communications law (or FCC attorneys), anything you can add would be appreciated!




(Yes, I just registered today and this is my first post, but I have been lurking for a long time.)
Last edited by CanuckObserver on Tue Aug 16, 2011 4:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273216
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: FCC Attorney

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Aug 16, 2011 4:50 pm

Amazing thread :) Let me add my anonymous weight to the posters above. For what it's worth, I'm in a well-known DC communications practice (not Wiley) and I've never heard the term "FCC attorney" applied to anyone who doesn't work for the commission.

My best guess, assuming the OP isn't messing with us, is that maybe some minor subset of communications clients outside of DC--maybe a subset who is relatively unsophisticated about communications law and lawyers--use the term "FCC attorneys" to describe the folks who handle their occassional commission-related issues. Honestly, this sounds very idiosyncratic. If true, it only occurs in a very tiny part of communications practice. In my own experience--and as everyone else emphasized--the OP's wording would mislead or confuse the vast majority of communications lawyers.

User avatar
NYC Law
Posts: 1569
Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 3:33 pm

Re: FCC Attorney

Postby NYC Law » Tue Aug 16, 2011 5:02 pm

CanuckObserver wrote:
(Yes, I just registered today and this is my first post, but I have been lurking for a long time.)


No worries, being Canadian discredits you more than being new.

CanuckObserver
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 10:19 am

Re: FCC Attorney

Postby CanuckObserver » Tue Aug 16, 2011 5:12 pm

NYC Law wrote:
CanuckObserver wrote:
(Yes, I just registered today and this is my first post, but I have been lurking for a long time.)


No worries, being Canadian discredits you more than being new.


*shrug*

I am not here to try to lend credibility; I am only here for the lol's when ATL is slow (or there are too many Staci entries).

User avatar
Renne Walker
Posts: 546
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 2:12 am

Re: FCC Attorney

Postby Renne Walker » Tue Aug 16, 2011 5:35 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Still, I don't get how people who have admitted to being unfamilar with that field can confidently assert that the OP is using the term "FC attorney" erronously. Industries have their jargons, and they don't always make sense to "outsiders."


Well said.

If not so rushed today I would link more, but this will clear it up (it will not, but it should). As you correctly suggested, industries have their own lingo, thus the reference, FCC Attorneys. Note, none of the firms noted on the link are concomitant to the government (or the commission).
--LinkRemoved--

User avatar
NYC Law
Posts: 1569
Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 3:33 pm

Re: FCC Attorney

Postby NYC Law » Tue Aug 16, 2011 5:47 pm

http://www.lawyers.com/Communications-A ... firms.html

They're Communications Attorneys. FCC Attorney for an attorney not working for the FCC is just retarded.

User avatar
Heartford
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 9:02 pm

Re: FCC Attorney

Postby Heartford » Tue Aug 16, 2011 6:07 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Amazing thread :) Let me add my anonymous weight to the posters above. For what it's worth, I'm in a well-known DC communications practice (not Wiley) and I've never heard the term "FCC attorney" applied to anyone who doesn't work for the commission.

My best guess, assuming the OP isn't messing with us, is that maybe some minor subset of communications clients outside of DC--maybe a subset who is relatively unsophisticated about communications law and lawyers--use the term "FCC attorneys" to describe the folks who handle their occassional commission-related issues. Honestly, this sounds very idiosyncratic. If true, it only occurs in a very tiny part of communications practice. In my own experience--and as everyone else emphasized--the OP's wording would mislead or confuse the vast majority of communications lawyers.


I applaud your correct use of the anon feature, and also the lulziness you just contributed to this ridiculous thread.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273216
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: FCC Attorney

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Aug 16, 2011 9:43 pm

Renne Walker wrote:Since you once worked at Wiley Rein you might be acquainted with “Doc.” He will tell you, without hesitation, that his media clientele refer to him as their FCC attorney. In the NAB’s media directory there is a listing for FCC Attorneys (all associated with private firms, including Wiley Rein).

At least you cleared up the airhead assertion that this is an imaginary specialization that does not exist. Thanks.

BTW: Good going on landing a position at WR.


Yes, I know Doc. Doc would not say "I am an FCC attorney." First and foremost, he is in the corporate practice, although he does some communications work, so I doubt he would choose to self-identify that way. I think that you may be slightly confused on the duties of most communications attorneys because of your interaction with Doc, who is really more of a transactional attorney. (Wiley does have a ton of attorneys who practice exclusively before the FCC.)

I agree entirely with Heartford's assessment. I would advise Renne to use the term "communications attorney" if he wants to deal with FCC-related matters at Wiley or any related firm.

(please don't out me, mods, thanks)

User avatar
Renne Walker
Posts: 546
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 2:12 am

Re: FCC Attorney

Postby Renne Walker » Wed Aug 17, 2011 1:21 am

Anonymous User wrote: Yes, I know Doc. Doc would not say "I am an FCC attorney."
Instead of speaking for Doc, why not just ask him? Let me know how that works out for you.

Anonymous User wrote: Doc, who is really more of a transactional attorney.

Agreed. Meaning that he works directly with media owners about buy/sell [APA] agreements.
Anonymous User wrote:I agree entirely with Heartford's assessment.


Which is . . . I think you're probably just imagining a legal specialization that doesn't exactly exist. But on the other hand, Google disagrees.

Image
Last edited by Renne Walker on Wed Aug 17, 2011 1:40 am, edited 2 times in total.

CanuckObserver
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 10:19 am

Re: FCC Attorney

Postby CanuckObserver » Wed Aug 17, 2011 1:33 am

Renne Walker wrote:
Anonymous User wrote: Yes, I know Doc. Doc would not say "I am an FCC attorney."
Instead of speaking for Doc, why not just ask him? Let me know how that works out for you.

Anonymous User wrote: Doc, who is really more of a transactional attorney.

Agreed. Meaning that he works directly with media owners about buy/sell [APA] agreements.
Anonymous User wrote:I agree entirely with Heartford's assessment.

Which is . . . I think you're probably just imagining a legal specialization that doesn't exactly exist. But on the other hand, Google disagrees.

Image


Are you seriously relying on Google as your "proof"?


Let me guess, you entered "FCC Attorney" as your terms? Did you bother to actually follow any of the results to see how any of the lawyers actually described themselves?

User avatar
Heartford
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 9:02 pm

Re: FCC Attorney

Postby Heartford » Wed Aug 17, 2011 1:46 am


User avatar
Renne Walker
Posts: 546
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 2:12 am

Re: FCC Attorney

Postby Renne Walker » Wed Aug 17, 2011 1:49 am

CanuckObserver wrote:Let me guess, you entered "FCC Attorney" as your terms? Did you bother to actually follow any of the results to see how any of the lawyers actually described themselves?

At least the questions are becoming easier to answer. Just try and keep up. Because the FCC attorneys list themselves as FCC attorneys, Google/Bing in turn refers to them as FCC attorneys. I am pretty certain Google did not take it upon themselves to call them something other than how they listed their profession. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

User avatar
NYC Law
Posts: 1569
Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 3:33 pm

Re: FCC Attorney

Postby NYC Law » Wed Aug 17, 2011 1:50 am



FTFY

User avatar
wiseowl
Posts: 1071
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 4:38 pm

Re: FCC Attorney

Postby wiseowl » Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:00 am

tap dancing Christ in a sidecar at this thread

CanuckObserver
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 10:19 am

Re: FCC Attorney

Postby CanuckObserver » Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:06 am

Renne Walker wrote:
CanuckObserver wrote:Let me guess, you entered "FCC Attorney" as your terms? Did you bother to actually follow any of the results to see how any of the lawyers actually described themselves?

At least the questions are becoming easier to answer. Just try and keep up. Because the FCC attorneys list themselves as FCC attorneys, Google/Bing in turn refers to them as FCC attorneys. I am pretty certain Google did not take it upon themselves to call them something other than how they listed their profession. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:


Do you know how google search terms work?

You did not answer my question: did you follow the results through? Keywords to allow people (often laypeople) find lawyers who practice in certain areas =\= how they describe themselves professionally. It would actually be incredibly stupid for a lawyer who is NOT employed by the FCC to describe themselves as an "FCC Attorney."

By the way, the first hit in Google is...the actual FCC Attorney Honors Program. nice job removing that from your results!


I have a hard time believing you are legit.

User avatar
Jack Smirks
Posts: 1340
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 5:35 am

Re: FCC Attorney

Postby Jack Smirks » Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:10 am

Ok just to be sure I googled "FCC Attorneys" and sure enough this thread was on the first page of results confirming that private attorneys who do work with the FCC are actually called "FCC Attorneys". If it was on a google results page we know the information can be trusted. Therefore, OP is correct.

CanuckObserver
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 10:19 am

Re: FCC Attorney

Postby CanuckObserver » Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:17 am

NYC Law wrote:


FTFY


But...do they work for the government?

User avatar
Heartford
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 9:02 pm

Re: FCC Attorney

Postby Heartford » Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:20 am

CanuckObserver wrote:
NYC Law wrote:


FTFY


But...do they work for the government?


Unicorn Lawyers don't work for unicorns. They're private lawyers who exclusively do unicorn work, but not for unicorns. Rather, they represent clients who have dealings or disputes with unicorns, and there is enough of this unicorn work around that Unicorn Lawyers don't do anything but unicorn work, which is why they prefer to pigeonhole themselves as Unicorn Lawyers, instead of a broader term like Magical Animal Attorneys. They think Unicorn Lawyers are really cool, and decided before they started at NYUnicorn Law School that they would focus exclusively upon becoming Unicorn Lawyers. Lawyers who work for unicorns call themselves, "Lawyers who work for Unicorns," and never "Unicorn Lawyers."




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.