How does a Trump Presidency affect legal jobs? Forum

[jbagelboy]

Biglaw firms will fold and jobs will shrink at large firms in the medium term due to the scaleback in regulation. Sarbanes-oxley and other financial regulatory bodies preserves the 200-250 large firm model, but by this time next year the second tier firms won't be able to take 40-50 SAs each year. Also market activity is down but that's secondary.

[bearsfan23]

Biglaw firms will fold and jobs will shrink at large firms in the medium term due to the scaleback in regulation. Sarbanes-oxley and other financial regulatory bodies preserves the 200-250 large firm model, but by this time next year the second tier firms won't be able to take 40-50 SAs each year. Also market activity is down but that's secondary.

No, just no.

Unless the economy tanks there won't be much negative impact on Biglaw, much less all these firms folding.

BigFed could be fucked though, leading to biglaw being more competitive

[Anonymous User]

Biglaw firms will fold and jobs will shrink at large firms in the medium term due to the scaleback in regulation. Sarbanes-oxley and other financial regulatory bodies preserves the 200-250 large firm model, but by this time next year the second tier firms won't be able to take 40-50 SAs each year. Also market activity is down but that's secondary.

No, just no.

Unless the economy tanks there won't be much negative impact on Biglaw, much less all these firms folding.

BigFed could be fucked though, leading to biglaw being more competitive

Big law is interwoven into this economy. No way in hell they won't also feel the burn of Trump's mission to cut the fat.

[Anonymous User]

Biglaw firms will fold and jobs will shrink at large firms in the medium term due to the scaleback in regulation. Sarbanes-oxley and other financial regulatory bodies preserves the 200-250 large firm model, but by this time next year the second tier firms won't be able to take 40-50 SAs each year. Also market activity is down but that's secondary.

No, just no.

Unless the economy tanks there won't be much negative impact on Biglaw, much less all these firms folding.

BigFed could be fucked though, leading to biglaw being more competitive

Biglaw will not be able to sustain their litigation practices if there is a downturn in federal investigations work or antitrust enforcement. These are massive matters that keep teams of associates busy for months. There is not enough civil litigation left to pick up the slack. If the federal regulatory agencies get gutted or told to stand down from prosecuting major actors, I'd expect more firm closures and mergers of firms with heavy white collar or investigations practices.

[$$$$$$]

If I had to make a guess:

Practices that will be positively affected:

- Oil and Gas (any fossil fuel practices/project finance practices (especially if infrastructure development is key issue))
- Banking and finance (bank stocks are soaring since they think dodd-frank will be pulled back heavily, if so, this will allow banks to take on more risk)
- M&A/PE (see banking and finance above - especially for PE practices)

Practices that will be negatively affected:

- VC/Startup practices (tech stocks are dropping pretty fast - confusion over visas and the ability of talent to come from around the world to build and work in these companies may be heavily hindered and may cause a big decline in productivity and companies being started in general)
- Any practice dealing with environmental/financial regs

Other than that, really no clue how it will affect law firms.

[dixiecupdrinking]

Biglaw firms will fold and jobs will shrink at large firms in the medium term due to the scaleback in regulation. Sarbanes-oxley and other financial regulatory bodies preserves the 200-250 large firm model, but by this time next year the second tier firms won't be able to take 40-50 SAs each year. Also market activity is down but that's secondary.

No, just no.

Unless the economy tanks there won't be much negative impact on Biglaw, much less all these firms folding.

BigFed could be fucked though, leading to biglaw being more competitive

Biglaw will not be able to sustain their litigation practices if there is a downturn in federal investigations work or antitrust enforcement. These are massive matters that keep teams of associates busy for months. There is not enough civil litigation left to pick up the slack. If the federal regulatory agencies get gutted or told to stand down from prosecuting major actors, I'd expect more firm closures and mergers of firms with heavy white collar or investigations practices.

This is generally right, I think, although the impact on different firms will be highly variable and I think it's premature to make broad predictions about firms closing or merging.

[LaLiLuLeLo]

If I had to make a guess:

Practices that will be positively affected:

- Oil and Gas (any fossil fuel practices/project finance practices (especially if infrastructure development is key issue))
- Banking and finance (bank stocks are soaring since they think dodd-frank will be pulled back heavily, if so, this will allow banks to take on more risk)
- M&A/PE (see banking and finance above - especially for PE practices)

Practices that will be negatively affected:

- VC/Startup practices (tech stocks are dropping pretty fast - confusion over visas and the ability of talent to come from around the world to build and work in these companies may be heavily hindered and may cause a big decline in productivity and companies being started in general)
- Any practice dealing with environmental/financial regs

Other than that, really no clue how it will affect law firms.

Certain project finance practices are heavy on renewables - solar, wind, etc. I'm sure they're sweating now that tax credits and whatnot won't be renewed.

[jbagelboy]

Biglaw firms will fold and jobs will shrink at large firms in the medium term due to the scaleback in regulation. Sarbanes-oxley and other financial regulatory bodies preserves the 200-250 large firm model, but by this time next year the second tier firms won't be able to take 40-50 SAs each year. Also market activity is down but that's secondary.

No, just no.

Unless the economy tanks there won't be much negative impact on Biglaw, much less all these firms folding.

BigFed could be fucked though, leading to biglaw being more competitive

As many others have pointed out, I think you are missing the point here. First, regulatory and investigations activity feeds elite litigation very heavily right now; the only competing practice in terms of size is securities lit, which won't die out for a while but ultimately remains tied to financial regulation as well. It's on McConnell's 100 day agenda to ride back financial regulation including sarbanes and dodd frank. Most civil litigious activity, which is the only area where we could see an increase, is largely handled by smaller firms. If the client paying first years $450/hr and the partners $1000-1200/hr, it's likely a bet the company case (which is often versus gov't). I think antitrust is difficult to predict since Trump has stated opposition to certain merger activity, but FTC actions trend down in Republican administrations over the past three decades. Public sector practices will suffer.

Second, the economy might not tank, but it will take a hit. Even if Trump recognizes his own incompetence and hands the reigns over to Mitch & Ryan, their policies would lose some jobs and injure growth. This is a debatable policy point but most economists agree. If Trump designs his own economic policy based on arbitrary principles, then there could be lasting economic downturn and that would resemble 2008-09 when biglaw saw massive layoffs in both lit and corp.

Third, the BigFed brain drain will be real, as you state. It's not just that there will be fewer positions, but there will be a talent flow back into the private sector because conscientious young lawyers won't want to work in a charlatan administration. Someone on my floor just declined the AUSA interview they had fought for months to get in an extremely competitive district because they don't want to be running deportations; likewise I will not, and many of my friends at the top of our profession will not, join state/treasury/DOJ under a Gingrich/Giuliani/ect umbrella. That means federal clerks will be turning back to the private sector and orgs like ACLU for a couple years, making them even more competitive which will take its toll all down the line.

[NYYNYR]

I'm not fully informed of this, but could we see a drop in federal funding for legal aid?

On a side note, I'm sure there are a few people out there that went to law school to go big law then AUSA and then run for office. The one positive to come out of Trump is that there are no longer any rules, and conversely, no longer any time. I'm sure there is quite a lot of talent on these boards. Although it's definitely a tough financial decision, please find purple districts, local governments/state legislatures and skip those in between steps. I realize this only applies to a handful.

[Anonymous User]

If I had to make a guess:

Practices that will be positively affected:

- Oil and Gas (any fossil fuel practices/project finance practices (especially if infrastructure development is key issue))
- Banking and finance (bank stocks are soaring since they think dodd-frank will be pulled back heavily, if so, this will allow banks to take on more risk)
- M&A/PE (see banking and finance above - especially for PE practices)

Practices that will be negatively affected:

- VC/Startup practices (tech stocks are dropping pretty fast - confusion over visas and the ability of talent to come from around the world to build and work in these companies may be heavily hindered and may cause a big decline in productivity and companies being started in general)
- Any practice dealing with environmental/financial regs

Other than that, really no clue how it will affect law firms.

Certain project finance practices are heavy on renewables - solar, wind, etc. I'm sure they're sweating now that tax credits and whatnot won't be renewed.

Anyone have any thoughts on Labor and Employment Lit? Particularly in the ERISA and FLSA space?

[Effingham]

If I had to make a guess:

Practices that will be positively affected:

- Oil and Gas (any fossil fuel practices/project finance practices (especially if infrastructure development is key issue))
- Banking and finance (bank stocks are soaring since they think dodd-frank will be pulled back heavily, if so, this will allow banks to take on more risk)
- M&A/PE (see banking and finance above - especially for PE practices)

Practices that will be negatively affected:

- VC/Startup practices (tech stocks are dropping pretty fast - confusion over visas and the ability of talent to come from around the world to build and work in these companies may be heavily hindered and may cause a big decline in productivity and companies being started in general)
- Any practice dealing with environmental/financial regs

Other than that, really no clue how it will affect law firms.

This is probably the only post in here not uselessly tainted by political ideology. Good work. Basically, this isn't doomsday, just a reshuffling of priorities. I'm sure we will all adapt just fine.

[Anonymous User]

If Trump designs his own economic policy based on arbitrary principles, then there could be lasting economic downturn and that would resemble 2008-09 when biglaw saw massive layoffs in both lit and corp.

Graduated college in '08 into a terrible job market.

Graduating law school in '17 into a Trump presidency.

The boomers seem to want to take the whole thing with them when they croak.

[Anonymous User]

If I had to make a guess:

Practices that will be positively affected:

- Oil and Gas (any fossil fuel practices/project finance practices (especially if infrastructure development is key issue))
- Banking and finance (bank stocks are soaring since they think dodd-frank will be pulled back heavily, if so, this will allow banks to take on more risk)
- M&A/PE (see banking and finance above - especially for PE practices)

Practices that will be negatively affected:

- VC/Startup practices (tech stocks are dropping pretty fast - confusion over visas and the ability of talent to come from around the world to build and work in these companies may be heavily hindered and may cause a big decline in productivity and companies being started in general)
- Any practice dealing with environmental/financial regs

Other than that, really no clue how it will affect law firms.

Certain project finance practices are heavy on renewables - solar, wind, etc. I'm sure they're sweating now that tax credits and whatnot won't be renewed.

Definitely, and as someone that wanted to transition to that field, it is actually really saddening. Hopefully renewable energy gets cheaper and cheaper through innovation and from the market having some real leaders that see the transition as inevitable (Elon Musk). Bloomberg had a good article today about the effect of a Trump presidency on Tesla which was an interesting read and made me think its not the end for renewables. Also, a lot of project finance work on renewables happens aboard, which won't really be affected by Trump, so that is always a positive.

[Anonymous User]

The "elites" bagel refers to will still jump to FedGov jobs to the extent there are any. I'd give it more than 2 days into President-Elect Trump before we declare that all the "elites" will stick to BigLaw now, which has terrible hours and poor job advancement prospects. People who go to law school and then go into biglaw in the first place are by and large, opportunists, and will not give up their career prospects out of principle.

Having spoken with some senior attorneys in the past few days, I'd say it's a pretty mixed reaction. Some think if the Republicans enact a bunch of new laws that will create a lot of opportunity for law firms to take advantage of people trying to understand/interpret and challenge the new laws. Any sort of deregulation is going to lead to people wondering how they can toe the line on them. Also, there is speculation that if regulations on banks ease up, raising financing is going to become extremely easy and could lead to a major boon in M&A activity. On the other hand, there is concern that if the Republicans pull out of trade deals there will be tremendous disruption to global markets, which all economic activity depends on. Without a cross-border component, there won't be a lot of M&A activity. There is also concern that a simplification/under-enforcement of regulatory laws could lead to much fewer need for the services of law firms, which would of course depress profits and have a bad trickle down effect for those looking to enter and advance within the profession.

[Nebby]

isn't zot the guy who humblebrag posts about his fed govt. job that he got after striking out in getting biglaw in like almost every biglaw thread?

im sure the schadenfreude must be incredibly thrilling for the OP, but encouraging people to post fear-mongering shit when no one really knows wtf will happen is just helping this dude stroke his dick in front of a car wreck.

What are you even doing here as a 3L? Do you have great insights to share with us with your vast knowledge of the legal profession?

I'm intrigued lol

[Nebby]

If I had to make a guess:

Practices that will be positively affected:

- Oil and Gas (any fossil fuel practices/project finance practices (especially if infrastructure development is key issue))
- Banking and finance (bank stocks are soaring since they think dodd-frank will be pulled back heavily, if so, this will allow banks to take on more risk)
- M&A/PE (see banking and finance above - especially for PE practices)

Practices that will be negatively affected:

- VC/Startup practices (tech stocks are dropping pretty fast - confusion over visas and the ability of talent to come from around the world to build and work in these companies may be heavily hindered and may cause a big decline in productivity and companies being started in general)
- Any practice dealing with environmental/financial regs

Other than that, really no clue how it will affect law firms.

Certain project finance practices are heavy on renewables - solar, wind, etc. I'm sure they're sweating now that tax credits and whatnot won't be renewed.

The credits were extended for 5 years, so it's possible that they aren't touched. However, I wouldn't put it past the Congress to try and pass a law that removes them completely while maintaining the oil subsidies.

[Nebby]

If I had to make a guess:

Practices that will be positively affected:

- Oil and Gas (any fossil fuel practices/project finance practices (especially if infrastructure development is key issue))
- Banking and finance (bank stocks are soaring since they think dodd-frank will be pulled back heavily, if so, this will allow banks to take on more risk)
- M&A/PE (see banking and finance above - especially for PE practices)

Practices that will be negatively affected:

- VC/Startup practices (tech stocks are dropping pretty fast - confusion over visas and the ability of talent to come from around the world to build and work in these companies may be heavily hindered and may cause a big decline in productivity and companies being started in general)
- Any practice dealing with environmental/financial regs

Other than that, really no clue how it will affect law firms.

Certain project finance practices are heavy on renewables - solar, wind, etc. I'm sure they're sweating now that tax credits and whatnot won't be renewed.

The credits were extended for 5 years, so it's possible that they aren't touched. However, I wouldn't put it past the Congress to try and pass a law that removes them completely while maintaining the oil subsidies.

How fucking timely is this!

The president-elect will not move to revoke wind and solar subsidies, according to a major Trump financial contributor who said he is a member of the transition team.

http://www.utilitydive.com/news/trump-e ... cy/430205/

[Anonymous User]

Healthcare and Benefits attorneys were in high demand before the election and will be in even higher demand with the new administration. ACA-redux is going to be a veritable shit show, both for fed and biglaw attorneys, to write policies and guidance and to implement and interpret for clients. However, I would be hesitant to get into Food and Drug Law as the FDA is going to be drastically streamlined making the pipeline for drug approval blazingly short.

Obviously, crystal balling it. I was wrong to buy a bottle of Pappy on Tuesday.

[LaLiLuLeLo]

If I had to make a guess:

Practices that will be positively affected:

- Oil and Gas (any fossil fuel practices/project finance practices (especially if infrastructure development is key issue))
- Banking and finance (bank stocks are soaring since they think dodd-frank will be pulled back heavily, if so, this will allow banks to take on more risk)
- M&A/PE (see banking and finance above - especially for PE practices)

Practices that will be negatively affected:

- VC/Startup practices (tech stocks are dropping pretty fast - confusion over visas and the ability of talent to come from around the world to build and work in these companies may be heavily hindered and may cause a big decline in productivity and companies being started in general)
- Any practice dealing with environmental/financial regs

Other than that, really no clue how it will affect law firms.

Certain project finance practices are heavy on renewables - solar, wind, etc. I'm sure they're sweating now that tax credits and whatnot won't be renewed.

The credits were extended for 5 years, so it's possible that they aren't touched. However, I wouldn't put it past the Congress to try and pass a law that removes them completely while maintaining the oil subsidies.

How fucking timely is this!

The president-elect will not move to revoke wind and solar subsidies, according to a major Trump financial contributor who said he is a member of the transition team.

http://www.utilitydive.com/news/trump-e ... cy/430205/

Wow, great news! All that worrying for nothing.

[postard]

cottage industry of journalist defamation suits $$$$$

[84651846190]

MAKE | AMERICA | LITIGATE | AGAIN

[Magic Hat]

Eminent domain/condemnation groups in Texas, Arizona and NM might get a little busy as something like 60 percent of the us/Mexico border is privately owned.

If Dodd Frank is rolled back and banks can take on more risk RE will explode.

Possibly labor as well if the infrastructure plans go forward and DJT tries to cut out red tape and expense by not requiring contractors to be union/PW.

[Anonymous User]

Eminent domain/condemnation groups in Texas, Arizona and NM might get a little busy as something like 60 percent of the us/Mexico border is privately owned.

Something like 60 feet from the actual border itself is reserved to federal control.

[Magic Hat]

Good point but I imagine that the wall would have to be set back more than 60 feet from the border for purely logistical reasons like staging, construction, etc.

[elendinel]

MAKE | AMERICA | LITIGATE | AGAIN

Hear hear!