Top Law Schools

What is a good answer for why this would interest you?

Any help would be greatly appreciated thank you.

Anonymous User wrote:What is a good answer for why this would interest you?

Any help would be greatly appreciated thank you.

x

Antitrust or unfair competition I guess FTC stuff, representing the corporation.

Anonymous User wrote:Antitrust or unfair competition I guess FTC stuff, representing the corporation.

This generally isn't thought of as regulatory litigation. Banking or securities enforcement or challenging administrative decisions is. Same with things in Energy/FERC, DOT/FAA, or FTC/CFPB consumer finance. Antitrust doesn't spring to mind as a regulatory field. If anything, antitrust is the inverse of a regulatory field.

Anonymous User wrote:Antitrust or unfair competition I guess FTC stuff, representing the corporation.

If it is antitrust (and/or unfair comp) then say something along the lines of: "I believe in ensuring that there is an efficient market not only on the consumer side, but also on the supply side. Obviously, with consumers, tying arrangements and other forms of unfair competition drive up prices and limit choice. But a similar effect takes place on the supply side, without strong antitrust enforcement, because market innovation would be stifled, if not completely destroyed, if monopolies were allowed to form and proliferate. Capitalism, which this country is built on, only works if people are allowed to innovate -- and the vehicle for that innovation is strong antitrust enforcement."

Or something along those lines ...

Anonymous User wrote:What is a good answer for why this would interest you?

Any help would be greatly appreciated thank you.

I can speak only to regulatory enforcement.

In a nutshell, I liked the idea of working in a job that involved both litigation and public policy and in which each individual case can have a far-reaching positive impact on the public interest. You can say something about how regulatory agencies have as much or impact on the daily lives of the American public than any traditional branch of government.

Advice from non-TLSer who I consulted:

"I'd answer that regulatory litigation is practiced by people who get to both know and shape an industry. In areas like transportation, energy, and other fields that practice before specialized agencies, there are good chances to work with policy as well as law, collaborate with economists and technologists, and develop long-term relationships with people inside the relevant agency. If you're a wonk, could be a good fit.

If you don't care much about Federal Court, it is a way to litigate without cases taking years and years (referring to litigation before agencies there).

It is also a good way to limit yourself later on if you get too pigeonholed in one industry (though that's probably a worse interview answer)."

anon168 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Antitrust or unfair competition I guess FTC stuff, representing the corporation.

If it is antitrust (and/or unfair comp) then say something along the lines of: "I believe in ensuring that there is an efficient market not only on the consumer side, but also on the supply side. Obviously, with consumers, tying arrangements and other forms of unfair competition drive up prices and limit choice. But a similar effect takes place on the supply side, without strong antitrust enforcement, because market innovation would be stifled, if not completely destroyed, if monopolies were allowed to form and proliferate. Capitalism, which this country is built on, only works if people are allowed to innovate -- and the vehicle for that innovation is strong antitrust enforcement."

Or something along those lines ...

This isn't really accurate. Actually, prices higher than marginal cost can spur innovation. Entrepreneurs see profit opportunities and an opportunity to undercut the market leader, and so they enter the market as a competitor. Also, entrepreneurs see the chance to make it big (to be the next Microsoft, Google, Apple, etc.) Starting a business is less attractive when you'd only be allowed to be the next tiny, atomistic firm prohibited by law from being super successful. (I realize this is the limit case of antitrust law; it's not actually enforced in such an extreme way in real life.)

The crazy thing is that people (insofar as they even have an opinion on these issues) seem to be somewhat pro-patents but anti-monopolies. A patent is a gov't enforced monopoly. A monopoly gained through market competition is more likely to be efficient than one gained through gov't protection. If anything, we should be less suspicious of monopolies (I use the word loosely, I mean firms with a large % of market share) than we currently are and more suspicious of patents.

...not that what I said above would be helpful for you to say during an interview.

Anonymous User wrote:Antitrust or unfair competition I guess FTC stuff, representing the corporation.

What type of job is it? At least if the interview is for a firm job, I would focus more on what you will be doing day-to-day and less on your broad perspective on antitrust law. The people you interview with may not all share the pro-corporation view of antitrust enforcement even if they represent corporations (e.g. you may get partners who are former DOJ/FTC, or people who are doing the firm time so that they can transition to DOJ/FTC). In any case, it really doesn't affect how well they can represent their clients (IMO). Unless you are truly knowledgeable enough to get into a debate about enforcement and market efficiency, I wouldn't lead with that.

In terms of the day-to-day work, that is going to depend a lot on the type of regulatory litigation (e.g. if it is industry-specific, talk about that, obviously). For antitrust litigation, if you have any background or interest in economics, you can indicate a desire to work on cases in which arguments are shaped both by the law and by economics/policy. We have economic experts to deal with the latter, but lawyers still need to understand and work with the economic arguments. The nature of antitrust law also allows you to learn a lot about your clients' industries (ie. since your job will essentially be to understand a market, how companies operate and compete, how consumers interact with products, etc). Some people find that appealing.

I've got a hunch; one of you works at the FTC.

Anonymous User wrote:I've got a hunch; one of you works at the FTC.

Why is that?

Seem like you know a lot.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Antitrust or unfair competition I guess FTC stuff, representing the corporation.

What type of job is it? At least if the interview is for a firm job, I would focus more on what you will be doing day-to-day and less on your broad perspective on antitrust law. The people you interview with may not all share the pro-corporation view of antitrust enforcement even if they represent corporations (e.g. you may get partners who are former DOJ/FTC, or people who are doing the firm time so that they can transition to DOJ/FTC). In any case, it really doesn't affect how well they can represent their clients (IMO). Unless you are truly knowledgeable enough to get into a debate about enforcement and market efficiency, I wouldn't lead with that.

In terms of the day-to-day work, that is going to depend a lot on the type of regulatory litigation (e.g. if it is industry-specific, talk about that, obviously). For antitrust litigation, if you have any background or interest in economics, you can indicate a desire to work on cases in which arguments are shaped both by the law and by economics/policy. We have economic experts to deal with the latter, but lawyers still need to understand and work with the economic arguments. The nature of antitrust law also allows you to learn a lot about your clients' industries (ie. since your job will essentially be to understand a market, how companies operate and compete, how consumers interact with products, etc). Some people find that appealing.

TITCR

Anonymous User wrote:
I've got a hunch; one of you works at the FTC.

Why is that?

You said, "we have economic experts . . . " implying that either (a) you work at a big AT firm that is likely listed in the Global Competition Review because they are the only private AT firms that can afford an in-house economist (most sub-contract the work out) or (b) you work at the FTC or DoJ (possibly a state level AG AT Bureau). Finally, you mentioned tying. I applied to the FTC; if I haven't gotten a response back at this point for a semester internship, what are my chances? It's rolling deadlines.