Fed Not that Great

(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.
sparty99
Posts: 1470
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:41 pm

Re: Fed Not that Great

Postby sparty99 » Fri Aug 11, 2017 3:10 pm

adil91 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I do federal employment law at my agency and love it.


This is my career goal. Did you start out with the feds? How did you end up in that position?


I'd gladly PM you with details, but you're anon.


Oops didn't realize that haha. If you can PM me that would be fantastic. Thanks.


Can you PM me too?

Anonymous User
Posts: 293744
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Fed Not that Great

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Aug 11, 2017 8:54 pm

I used to do federal employment law. I thought it sucked. 99% of all claims were from the same employees "trying to get back" at their co-worker or supervisors. I can think of very, very few legit claims, and those we settled quickly. That being said, since there are so many albeit frivolous claims made, there's a lot of work and opportunities with the feds for people who like employment law. Practically every agency needs employment law attorneys. You'll get a lot of experience since, again, so many claims are filed and go to EEOC trial hearings - so many that you'll end up throwing $500 settlement offers for ridiculous claims just so you can focus on the more substantial ones.

sparty99
Posts: 1470
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:41 pm

Re: Fed Not that Great

Postby sparty99 » Fri Aug 11, 2017 10:31 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I used to do federal employment law. I thought it sucked. 99% of all claims were from the same employees "trying to get back" at their co-worker or supervisors. I can think of very, very few legit claims, and those we settled quickly. That being said, since there are so many albeit frivolous claims made, there's a lot of work and opportunities with the feds for people who like employment law. Practically every agency needs employment law attorneys. You'll get a lot of experience since, again, so many claims are filed and go to EEOC trial hearings - so many that you'll end up throwing $500 settlement offers for ridiculous claims just so you can focus on the more substantial ones.


That's the case on many employment claims.

Anonymous User
Posts: 293744
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Fed Not that Great

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:22 am

Tangent for those who do fed employment law: to what extent is your job making sure "the right thing" gets done and to what extent is it to reflexively defend the agency? I helped a family member with a retaliation/whistleblower claim (not Title VII) for a supervisor who was pretty clearly retaliating. I expected agency council to step in and act as a mediator to discipline supervisor, but instead the reaction was what I would expect from a private defense attorney. ("You don't have a claim, even if you do have a claim, you can't prove it" and hard nosed negotiating tactics.) Really soured me on the agency's attorneys.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 27229
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Fed Not that Great

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:39 am

I think in that case, the federal lawyers *are* just like private attorneys - they're representing their client, and have to act in their client's best interests - it just so happens that their client is the United States. I don't think there is a "do the right thing" obligation like you see in the criminal context, where the role of the prosecutor is to do justice, not to win. (Not trying to start an argument about whether that's what prosecutors *actually* do, just talking about how the role is described.)

User avatar
Hildegard15
Posts: 2158
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 6:26 pm

Re: Fed Not that Great

Postby Hildegard15 » Sat Aug 12, 2017 12:56 pm

A. Nony Mouse wrote:I think in that case, the federal lawyers *are* just like private attorneys - they're representing their client, and have to act in their client's best interests - it just so happens that their client is the United States. I don't think there is a "do the right thing" obligation like you see in the criminal context, where the role of the prosecutor is to do justice, not to win. (Not trying to start an argument about whether that's what prosecutors *actually* do, just talking about how the role is described.)


This is interesting because I worked at the US Attorney's office this summer and all the civil attorneys we talked to said they approach their job with the idea of "doing justice". So if they thought an agency employee really was in the wrong, they would settle the case and then go talk to the agency about what not to do in the future. I guess this just goes to show that it all depends on the individual attorney's view as to their role.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 27229
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Fed Not that Great

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Sat Aug 12, 2017 4:50 pm

Ha, yeah, I should definitely not speak in absolutes.

Anonymous User
Posts: 293744
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Fed Not that Great

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Aug 12, 2017 5:13 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Tangent for those who do fed employment law: to what extent is your job making sure "the right thing" gets done and to what extent is it to reflexively defend the agency? I helped a family member with a retaliation/whistleblower claim (not Title VII) for a supervisor who was pretty clearly retaliating. I expected agency council to step in and act as a mediator to discipline supervisor, but instead the reaction was what I would expect from a private defense attorney. ("You don't have a claim, even if you do have a claim, you can't prove it" and hard nosed negotiating tactics.) Really soured me on the agency's attorneys.


Im the anon that worked in federal employment law. I always did what I thought was the right thing. So, I wouldn't take a claim to trial merely because I knew I would win. However, it just happens that the vast majority of cases were, in my opinion, baseless. There are of course legitimate EEO claims, and I do recall a serious one that my regional office settled right off the bat. But overall "doing the right" thing was getting Motions for Summary Judgment granted all day.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.