help me pick an offer: policy v. (sort of) litigtion Forum

[Anonymous User]

Hi all. I am a somewhat recent graduate who has been doing a fellowship at a small plaintiff side firm since graduation. I currently work in a niche area of plaintiffs law where the law is good and it's expanding. I have had a great work experience thus far: I work 40 hour weeks, no billable hours, the work is interesting and I feel good about it (not ambulance chasing), the people are great, etc. Most of it is investigation type work with very little "real" litigation, as our cases typically settle. Thus, I have never really drafted briefs, done motions, depos, etc, or had very much work that has actual deadlines. I have little desire to do "real" litigation of that nature and I'm happy doing mostly investigation type work. I also make good $$ for a plaintiff side firm. In short, I like what I do. Staying at the firm is not an option as they don't hire fellows on permanently.

Currently, I have two offers. One which expires early next week is with the Administrative Conference of the US, in Washington DC. It's a small agency that consults and makes recommendations on administrative law. It would be exclusively policy-type and academic-type work. I am (obviously) interested in admin law, although I've never worked in that field, or had any substantial policy experience beyond one summer job. It's a very unique job, and likely not a chance I would get again. The pay is less than I'm making now, but liveable. I would relocate to DC, where I've never lived before (I have am single and have nothing really keeping me where I am now other than friends, although I like my current location). I doubt I would want to stay in DC forever. I am concerned that exit options from this position would be limiting, or that if I don't like policy work, it would be difficult to get back into litigation. But, potentially it could lead to things like consulting or work on the hill or other interesting/unusual opportunities to have an impact. I am fairly neutral about moving - it would be a pain logistically but it might be exciting and I've felt a bit stagnant in my life lately.

I have another offer from a former partner at my firm that would be also doing the same area of work that I currently do. This partner left the firm to start a new branch office of another pre-existing firm, so it would be helping start up an office and practice group that the firm currently does not have. It would be more $ than I make now, and I would stay where I am geographically (although possibly I could relocate to DC after some time, if I wanted to, as there the firm has an office there). This firm does have billable hours and a target of 1800 hours, although I have been told it's not really enforced. I have never worked a billable hour in my life. My sense is that work-life balance would be good, but not quite as good as I have now (this partner basically created the good atmosphere and work/life balance at my current firm, and has said he wants a similar environment). I would likely have great choice over what I wanted to work on, and would get a unique opportunity to help start a new office, grow a practice group, etc. The firm is slightly more litigation oriented, so it's possible I would be doing more "real" litigation type work, although the practice area I am in does not tend toward that kind of work.

I feel like both offers are fairly unique and cool and I have no idea what to choose. Advice and thoughts please. If you suspect you know what firms these are, please refrain from commenting about it. I would like to remain anonymous.


EDIT: I should add that I am being considered for another government position in DC, which would be perhaps my first choice (enforcement work, but no trial work), but I will not know about this for at least another 2 weeks.

[champ33]

Work you have some experience with and know you like for more money in a geographic area you want to be vs. work you have no idea if you will like for less money in a geographic area where you have no ties. I think the firm sounds like the right call, with the caveat that litigation does suck tremendously. But, and this is from someone with no biglaw or much billable experience, maybe if you are working exclusively on cases that the firm takes on contingency, you are not subject to the billable requirements or are less so?

[BeenDidThat]

Hi all. I am a somewhat recent graduate who has been doing a fellowship at a small plaintiff side firm since graduation. I currently work in a niche area of plaintiffs law where the law is good and it's expanding. I have had a great work experience thus far: I work 40 hour weeks, no billable hours, the work is interesting and I feel good about it (not ambulance chasing), the people are great, etc. Most of it is investigation type work with very little "real" litigation, as our cases typically settle. Thus, I have never really drafted briefs, done motions, depos, etc, or had very much work that has actual deadlines. I have little desire to do "real" litigation of that nature and I'm happy doing mostly investigation type work. I also make good $$ for a plaintiff side firm. In short, I like what I do. Staying at the firm is not an option as they don't hire fellows on permanently.

Currently, I have two offers. One which expires early next week is with the Administrative Conference of the US, in Washington DC. It's a small agency that consults and makes recommendations on administrative law. It would be exclusively policy-type and academic-type work. I am (obviously) interested in admin law, although I've never worked in that field, or had any substantial policy experience beyond one summer job. It's a very unique job, and likely not a chance I would get again. The pay is less than I'm making now, but liveable. I would relocate to DC, where I've never lived before (I have am single and have nothing really keeping me where I am now other than friends, although I like my current location). I doubt I would want to stay in DC forever. I am concerned that exit options from this position would be limiting, or that if I don't like policy work, it would be difficult to get back into litigation. I am fairly neutral about moving - it would be a pain logistically but it might be exciting and I've felt a bit stagnant in my life lately.

I have another offer from a former partner at my firm that would be also doing the same area of work that I currently do. This partner left the firm to start a new branch office of another pre-existing firm, so it would be helping start up an office and practice group that the firm currently does not have. It would be more $ than I make now, and I would stay where I am geographically (although possibly I could relocate to DC after some time, if I wanted to, as there the firm has an office there). This firm does have billable hours and a target of 1800 hours, although I have been told it's not really enforced. I have never worked a billable hour in my life. My sense is that work-life balance would be good, but not quite as good as I have now. I would likely have great choice over what I wanted to work on, and would get a unique opportunity to help start a new office, grow a practice group, etc. The firm is slightly more litigation oriented, so it's possible I would be doing more "real" litigation type work, although the practice area I am in does not tend toward that kind of work.

I feel like both offers are fairly unique and cool and I have no idea what to choose. Advice and thoughts please. If you suspect you know what firms these are, please refrain from commenting about it. I would like to remain anonymous.

Real lawyer work versus chump ass parroting; easy choice man. Not that real lawyer work is that much different from parroting, but there is a difference.

[Anonymous User]

Real lawyer work versus chump ass parroting; easy choice man. Not that real lawyer work is that much different from parroting, but there is a difference.

OP here. This is not very helpful. Explain your thinking. Any job where you're job title is "attorney" and you get paid IMO counts as "real lawyer work".

[Johann]

Yea keep doing what you like

[Anonymous User]

What's the career ladder on the federal government job? Is it 11-14/15 or something else? If 11-14/15, you have the "905" attorney title and you are interested in the work, I would take that over a small law firm in a second. You may actually be able to get back into litigation since I think with the admin law background you should be able to get a general counsel's office job at a big agency eventually if you really want one.

[CanadianWolf]

Personal preference. Seems like both will be new work experiences for you since you really aren't experienced in litigation if you've never had deadlines or done all types of discovery. Issue comes down to billable hour work versus think-tank type academia in addition to location preference. Are you ready for a permanent career (litigation firm) or do you want to keep exploring career options?

[AreJay711]

DC is a miserable city. You don't want to be here, OP.

[kcdc1]

Assuming you'd be working as an attorney with the federal agency with promotion potential at least to GS-14, I'd take the gov't job hands down. That job sounds fantastic.

Do not underestimate how much a 120k salary with 100% job security and 40 hour weeks reduces your stress level and improves your quality of life. Every other Friday off is amazing. And don't focus on the initial salary - the 65k or whatever that they're offering you to start will rise quickly. And the work sounds like it should be interesting and varied - that's your call tho.

And DC is a good town, both for young and single and for raising a family.

[Shaggier1]

I voted go with the firm.

There are two main reasons:

1) It sounds like you would get good, substantive litigation experience there. You can build up your resume that way and always move on to policy work later (and maybe better policy work if you continue to get relevant experience in the field that interests you). However, if you take a significant break in litigating now, it may be hard to get back to litigation later, should you decide you want to.

2) It sounds like you know and trust this partner. That is huge, in my opinion. Also, it seems like you are happy in your current city. I am not risk-averse, and not suggesting that you should be. But given point #1, the unknown variables w/r/t the DC job just make it seem less attractive.

Good luck!

[Anonymous User]

What's the career ladder on the federal government job? Is it 11-14/15 or something else? If 11-14/15, you have the "905" attorney title and you are interested in the work, I would take that over a small law firm in a second. You may actually be able to get back into litigation since I think with the admin law background you should be able to get a general counsel's office job at a big agency eventually if you really want one.

There is promotional potential. Although, at this early stage in my career, I imagine this would not be the last job I would ever have.

I voted go with the firm.

There are two main reasons:

1) It sounds like you would get good, substantive litigation experience there. You can build up your resume that way and always move on to policy work later (and maybe better policy work if you continue to get relevant experience in the field that interests you). However, if you take a significant break in litigating now, it may be hard to get back to litigation later, should you decide you want to.

2) It sounds like you know and trust this partner. That is huge, in my opinion. Also, it seems like you are happy in your current city. I am not risk-averse, and not suggesting that you should be. But given point #1, the unknown variables w/r/t the DC job just make it seem less attractive.

Good luck!

Thanks! I think the one thing I do know it that I do not want to be a trial lawyer. So, I'm less interested in building up substantive litigation experience. I like the kind of work I do now which involves basically no trial work, and I'm looking to keep it that way. It's unclear how much more of that stuff I'll have to do at this firm. Obviously, the gov job would involve no litigation.

As to my city - I am fairly happy here, but also feeling like it might be a good time to make a change. I've never lived outside my current state and been in this city for 8 or so years, and feeling like my life is sort of boring and predictable at this point. I've spent a little time in DC and have a few friends there, so it wouldn't be completely unknown.

DC is a miserable city. You don't want to be here, OP.

Can you give some details on why you think this?

[deadpanic]

If you go the policy job route, you are likely forced out of any litigation or "true" lawyer work, IMO, depending on how long you stick in policy. It just does not have much crossover to the practice of law.

I think it boils down to what you really want to do, but also, what is the job security of the policy job? Do you know if the same people have been there 5+ years? A lot of classmates of mine do that work, and it is a revolving door where you work for a year, or maybe a year and a half, the funding is cut, and then you are scrambling for another 40k policy job where there are a thousands of qualified candidates in an extremely competitive job market. From my limited knowledge, there is not much room to advance pay-wise, but it is also pretty much stress-free and the hours are great.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I see it as ->
*Gov't gig is policy work - less money - less job security + exciting new city + new field (you may or may not like)
*Firm job is work you are familiar with + more money + more security + more upward mobility - same city/routine you are tired of

I think I would go with the firm gig, but then again, I am not much of a risk-taker. I think long term, it is probably more secure and profitable. If you do not want to do legal work though, go with the policy gig. Good luck.

[Anonymous User]

If you go the policy job route, you are likely forced out of any litigation or "true" lawyer work, IMO, depending on how long you stick in policy. It just does not have much crossover to the practice of law.

I think it boils down to what you really want to do, but also, what is the job security of the policy job? Do you know if the same people have been there 5+ years? A lot of classmates of mine do that work, and it is a revolving door where you work for a year, or maybe a year and a half, the funding is cut, and then you are scrambling for another 40k policy job where there are a thousands of qualified candidates in an extremely competitive job market. From my limited knowledge, there is not much room to advance pay-wise, but it is also pretty much stress-free and the hours are great.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I see it as ->
*Gov't gig is policy work - less money - less job security + exciting new city + new field (you may or may not like)
*Firm job is work you are familiar with + more money + more security + more upward mobility - same city/routine you are tired of

I think I would go with the firm gig, but then again, I am not much of a risk-taker. I think long term, it is probably more secure and profitable. If you do not want to do legal work though, go with the policy gig. Good luck.

I'm not sure how accurate this is, since it looks like the policy job is in a federal agency and is classified as an attorney position. In the federal government, job security is some of the best out of anywhere. After you get tenure (2 years for attorneys), it's almost impossible to fire you for anything other than chronic poor performance, and layoffs are virtually unheard of. Also, the 40k salary figure is completely off. Federal attorney jobs, policy or not, usually start at GS-11 (around 60k) and rise in only a few years to GS-14 (110k). Within around 5 years the salary will be 120k and it's safe to assume that for most of your career, assuming no GS-15 promotion, it will be around 140k plus inflation. I think you are thinking of jobs on then Hill-those do pay 40k and have constant layoffs. But OP is talking about a career federal attorney job which is completely different.

Also, while it's true that it's hard to transition from policy to more legal work, I've found this to be much less true for policy people with the 905 attorney title in government. If you know administrative law, you will probably be able to eventually lateral to a general counsel's office (maybe at the same agency) and do more lit oriented work. Again, this is only if you have the 905 attorney title. If your title is Policy Analyst or something, then you will be shut out. Also, I'm assuming that this is law related policy, not pure policy like how to reform the healthcare system or something.

[deadpanic]

I think you are thinking of jobs on then Hill-those do pay 40k and have constant layoffs. But OP is talking about a career federal attorney job which is completely different.

OP-I believe this poster is right and since that is the case, I retract my choice of firm gig. Go be a federal gov't attorney in that case. Does not get much better than no billable hours, automatic pay increases, less stress & hours, etc.

[kcdc1]

I'm not sure how accurate this is, since it looks like the policy job is in a federal agency and is classified as an attorney position. In the federal government, job security is some of the best out of anywhere. After you get tenure (2 years for attorneys), it's almost impossible to fire you for anything other than chronic poor performance, and layoffs are virtually unheard of. Also, the 40k salary figure is completely off. Federal attorney jobs, policy or not, usually start at GS-11 (around 60k) and rise in only a few years to GS-14 (110k). Within around 5 years the salary will be 120k and it's safe to assume that for most of your career, assuming no GS-15 promotion, it will be around 140k plus inflation. I think you are thinking of jobs on then Hill-those do pay 40k and have constant layoffs. But OP is talking about a career federal attorney job which is completely different.

Also, while it's true that it's hard to transition from policy to more legal work, I've found this to be much less true for policy people with the 905 attorney title in government. If you know administrative law, you will probably be able to eventually lateral to a general counsel's office (maybe at the same agency) and do more lit oriented work. Again, this is only if you have the 905 attorney title. If your title is Policy Analyst or something, then you will be shut out. Also, I'm assuming that this is law related policy, not pure policy like how to reform the healthcare system or something.

This dude knows what's up.

Also, I'm not sure where the idea is coming from that you wouldn't be doing real legal work as a gov't attorney. The OP isn't super clear on this point, but I'd gotten the impression that you'd be involved in reviewing or proposing agency regulations. That sounds pretty legal to me.

[AreJay711]

DC is a miserable city. You don't want to be here, OP.

Can you give some details on why you think this?

Why I'd be glad to! Now that I think about it though, if you think you might want to leave in a few years, my gripes might be less problematic for you. The excitement of discovering a new city will overwhelm the negatives for a while.

1) People
A lot is said about people of DC being ugly, overly work-focused, or only interested in “using” you, which is all true, but not the problem. The thing is they can never just say fuck it and just have fun or be easy. They don’t turn off the self-conscious voice in their heads, making every situation less enjoyable to everyone. I’m not talking about just when they are out at a bar or club either. It is every. damn. situation.

I guess people are smart and ambitious, but that doesn’t make them enjoyable.

2) Dating
I notice you didn’t talk about a significant other in the OP so DC’s dating scene is worth mention. There’s a lot of stuff on the internet about this. It's certainly not great, but I don't think it's terrible. A lot of people know they will be moving away so they get into relationships that they expect to end, but aren’t about just hooking up. It's like being fuckbuddies, except with rules and obligations. There are a lot of young people though. I've heard the dating scene is better (relative to other places) for gay people, but I'm not sure in what ways. The gay bars I've been to are fun at least.

3) Expensive
DC might not be San Francisco, but it is pretty expensive for everything, not just rent. If you're making $65k, you can probably get by ok, but you'll probably need a roommate and start pre-gaming like you were 21 again.

[deadpanic]

I'm not sure how accurate this is, since it looks like the policy job is in a federal agency and is classified as an attorney position. In the federal government, job security is some of the best out of anywhere. After you get tenure (2 years for attorneys), it's almost impossible to fire you for anything other than chronic poor performance, and layoffs are virtually unheard of. Also, the 40k salary figure is completely off. Federal attorney jobs, policy or not, usually start at GS-11 (around 60k) and rise in only a few years to GS-14 (110k). Within around 5 years the salary will be 120k and it's safe to assume that for most of your career, assuming no GS-15 promotion, it will be around 140k plus inflation. I think you are thinking of jobs on then Hill-those do pay 40k and have constant layoffs. But OP is talking about a career federal attorney job which is completely different.

Also, while it's true that it's hard to transition from policy to more legal work, I've found this to be much less true for policy people with the 905 attorney title in government. If you know administrative law, you will probably be able to eventually lateral to a general counsel's office (maybe at the same agency) and do more lit oriented work. Again, this is only if you have the 905 attorney title. If your title is Policy Analyst or something, then you will be shut out. Also, I'm assuming that this is law related policy, not pure policy like how to reform the healthcare system or something.

This dude knows what's up.

Also, I'm not sure where the idea is coming from that you wouldn't be doing real legal work as a gov't attorney. The OP isn't super clear on this point, but I'd gotten the impression that you'd be involved in reviewing or proposing agency regulations. That sounds pretty legal to me.

I should clarify; it is definitely legal work. I just meant it is not traditionally the work of a practitioner, i.e. arguing motions, issuing discovery. I just want to be sure OP is not pigeonholed into admin work if he is not totally sure he does not want it. I would 100% take the fed gov't gig if he wants to do that type of work. That sounds like way better hours, automatic raises, less stress, etc.

I agree with AreJay711 about DC people, though. I have never seen a bigger group of self-important people making 35k/year in my life.

[Anonymous User]

DC is a miserable city. You don't want to be here, OP.

Can you give some details on why you think this?

Why I'd be glad to! Now that I think about it though, if you think you might want to leave in a few years, my gripes might be less problematic for you. The excitement of discovering a new city will overwhelm the negatives for a while.

1) People
A lot is said about people of DC being ugly, overly work-focused, or only interested in “using” you, which is all true, but not the problem. The thing is they can never just say fuck it and just have fun or be easy. They don’t turn off the self-conscious voice in their heads, making every situation less enjoyable to everyone. I’m not talking about just when they are out at a bar or club either. It is every. damn. situation.

I guess people are smart and ambitious, but that doesn’t make them enjoyable.

2) Dating
I notice you didn’t talk about a significant other in the OP so DC’s dating scene is worth mention. There’s a lot of stuff on the internet about this. It's certainly not great, but I don't think it's terrible. A lot of people know they will be moving away so they get into relationships that they expect to end, but aren’t about just hooking up. It's like being fuckbuddies, except with rules and obligations. There are a lot of young people though. I've heard the dating scene is better (relative to other places) for gay people, but I'm not sure in what ways. The gay bars I've been to are fun at least.

3) Expensive
DC might not be San Francisco, but it is pretty expensive for everything, not just rent. If you're making $65k, you can probably get by ok, but you'll probably need a roommate and start pre-gaming like you were 21 again.

Thank you for expanding these thoughts.

I would be starting off at GS-12 step 4, moving to GS 13 after the first year (assuming no major fiascos). So, it would be a pay cut from what I am making now, but certainly a liveable income in DC.

Also, funny you should mention SF. I am currently in the Bay Area, so my cost of living is about what it would be in DC assuming no major life changes.

And yes, I am single. I am pretty over the dating scene in SF - a lot of people have peter pan syndrome here and are not looking for anything serious. However, I am concerned DC would be a little too buttoned up for me and obviously, I've heard it's not a great dating scene there either. I guess I'm feeling pretty over dating in general atm so I don't know how much of a priority this is for me, but I suppose my feelings could change.

I have several friends in DC who I feel like are not caught up in the whole "getting ahead" mentality, but again, I don't live there so perhaps it's more pervasive than my limited view based on the people I know.

[Anonymous User]

I'm not sure how accurate this is, since it looks like the policy job is in a federal agency and is classified as an attorney position. In the federal government, job security is some of the best out of anywhere. After you get tenure (2 years for attorneys), it's almost impossible to fire you for anything other than chronic poor performance, and layoffs are virtually unheard of. Also, the 40k salary figure is completely off. Federal attorney jobs, policy or not, usually start at GS-11 (around 60k) and rise in only a few years to GS-14 (110k). Within around 5 years the salary will be 120k and it's safe to assume that for most of your career, assuming no GS-15 promotion, it will be around 140k plus inflation. I think you are thinking of jobs on then Hill-those do pay 40k and have constant layoffs. But OP is talking about a career federal attorney job which is completely different.

Also, while it's true that it's hard to transition from policy to more legal work, I've found this to be much less true for policy people with the 905 attorney title in government. If you know administrative law, you will probably be able to eventually lateral to a general counsel's office (maybe at the same agency) and do more lit oriented work. Again, this is only if you have the 905 attorney title. If your title is Policy Analyst or something, then you will be shut out. Also, I'm assuming that this is law related policy, not pure policy like how to reform the healthcare system or something.

This dude knows what's up.

Also, I'm not sure where the idea is coming from that you wouldn't be doing real legal work as a gov't attorney. The OP isn't super clear on this point, but I'd gotten the impression that you'd be involved in reviewing or proposing agency regulations. That sounds pretty legal to me.

I should clarify; it is definitely legal work. I just meant it is not traditionally the work of a practitioner, i.e. arguing motions, issuing discovery. I just want to be sure OP is not pigeonholed into admin work if he is not totally sure he does not want it. I would 100% take the fed gov't gig if he wants to do that type of work. That sounds like way better hours, automatic raises, less stress, etc.

I agree with AreJay711 about DC people, though. I have never seen a bigger group of self-important people making 35k/year in my life.

The work would not be actually reviewing or proposing regulations. It is focused on improving administrative processes - such as finding ways to improve notice and comment rulemaking, or how to bring more science into administrative decision-making, or making suggestions for judicial review of administrative decisions, or recommendations for best practices for holding video hearings, for example. My sense is that this might be applicable if I wanted to go into policy work after, or work in a general counsel's office, or something like that - but this is just a guess. I imagine that while it would open some doors, obviously it's going to close doors on more traditional-type legal work. And, having not done much policy save for a summer in law school, I don't know if I would be happy doing it, although it does sound potentially really interesting and low stress/hours. The agency has some of the highest job satisfaction rates among agencies.

I guess my major hesitation is the exit opportunities if I do not in fact like it, or if I don't like policy work in general, and don't want to stay in DC. I know I do not want to be a trial lawyer though, so perhaps this is a good way to move away from that. Although my current area does not involve much trial work, going to this other firm may involve more.