Top Law Schools

Hey I've heard a lot of talk on TLS about how a certain amount in govt is equivalent to some considerably larger amount in private practice.

1. Is this true?

2. If so, why? Is it about the benefits? did I misinterpret--Is it more of an abstract concept of prestige (ie a AUSA making 110 is arguably in a more prestigious spot than a mid level associate in biglaw)? Something else?

3. What would you say Y is?

objctnyrhnr wrote:Hey I've heard a lot of talk on TLS about how a certain amount in govt is equivalent to some considerably larger amount in private practice.

1. Is this true?

2. If so, why? Is it about the benefits? did I misinterpret--Is it more of an abstract concept of prestige (ie a AUSA making 110 is arguably in a more prestigious spot than a mid level associate in biglaw)? Something else?

3. What would you say Y is?

Your categories of "government" and "private practice" are so broad as to make this question unanswerable. If you are in private practice at a low-leveraged litigation boutique law firm you are probably getting more and more substantive experience than someone at most government positions. Depending on the government position, say prosecuting low level crimes, you might see the inside of a courtroom more than someone the same number of years out at a big law firm where they might be doing more document review, etc.

As with most things, it's not really possible to a question that can be addressed mechanically or with arithmetic. There is no generalizable "y."

It also depends on if by government you mean or include military (JAG).

Not all of a JAG's income is taxed - only about 2/3s of it (depending on where they live, their rank, time in service, etc). In that case, you could easily calculate the tax advantage.

Need more information though to give an accurate answer/assessment.

y = √-1

RedJohnDoe wrote:It also depends on if by government you mean or include military (JAG).

Not all of a JAG's income is taxed - only about 2/3s of it (depending on where they live, their rank, time in service, etc). In that case, you could easily calculate the tax advantage.

Need more information though to give an accurate answer/assessment.

let's say a big fedgovt org like the DOJ or DOT or something.

do you think that, when people talk about lack of equivalency in salary, they are talking about it as a function of valuable substantive experience?

objctnyrhnr wrote:

RedJohnDoe wrote:It also depends on if by government you mean or include military (JAG).

Not all of a JAG's income is taxed - only about 2/3s of it (depending on where they live, their rank, time in service, etc). In that case, you could easily calculate the tax advantage.

Need more information though to give an accurate answer/assessment.

let's say a big fedgovt org like the DOJ or DOT or something.

do you think that, when people talk about lack of equivalency in salary, they are talking about it as a function of valuable substantive experience?

What? I'm pretty sure when they say "lack of equivalency in salary" they mean you are taking a pay cut going from a big law firm to a government position.

Yeah, I haven't seen anyone say anything suggesting that some level of salary in government is worth some larger amount in private practice. Federal benefits are probably better (especially retirement plans, since most biglaw firms don't seem to offer much of anything in that regard), but the salary's still way less.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:Yeah, I haven't seen anyone say anything suggesting that some level of salary in government is worth some larger amount in private practice. Federal benefits are probably better (especially retirement plans, since most biglaw firms don't seem to offer much of anything in that regard), but the salary's still way less.

yeah--it may have been in the context of trying to quantify the relative values of the benefits (or lack thereof). so if I am working in fedgov and I am making like 90, how much more $ in benefits am I taking home, relative to somebody working at a firm?

objctnyrhnr wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:Yeah, I haven't seen anyone say anything suggesting that some level of salary in government is worth some larger amount in private practice. Federal benefits are probably better (especially retirement plans, since most biglaw firms don't seem to offer much of anything in that regard), but the salary's still way less.

yeah--it may have been in the context of trying to quantify the relative values of the benefits (or lack thereof). so if I am working in fedgov and I am making like 90, how much more $ in benefits am I taking home, relative to somebody working at a firm?

Despite working for the feds, I have no idea how to quantify that. The federal retirement plan (TSP, the Thrift Savings Plan) is generally held to be much better than retirement plans available through firms, because the feds will match contributions up to some amount, and law firms basically never match. The medical/dental/optical options may be better, too (I know someone whose firm doesn't offer contribute anything to his health plan), and then of course there's personal and sick leave (though firms offer vacation time, I just don't know how much or how often you can actually take it). But I've never calculated it out because I never intended to work for a firm, so never really cared.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

objctnyrhnr wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:Yeah, I haven't seen anyone say anything suggesting that some level of salary in government is worth some larger amount in private practice. Federal benefits are probably better (especially retirement plans, since most biglaw firms don't seem to offer much of anything in that regard), but the salary's still way less.

yeah--it may have been in the context of trying to quantify the relative values of the benefits (or lack thereof). so if I am working in fedgov and I am making like 90, how much more $ in benefits am I taking home, relative to somebody working at a firm?

Despite working for the feds, I have no idea how to quantify that. The federal retirement plan (TSP, the Thrift Savings Plan) is generally held to be much better than retirement plans available through firms, because the feds will match contributions up to some amount, and law firms basically never match. The medical/dental/optical options may be better, too (I know someone whose firm doesn't offer contribute anything to his health plan), and then of course there's personal and sick leave (though firms offer vacation time, I just don't know how much or how often you can actually take it). But I've never calculated it out because I never intended to work for a firm, so never really cared.

I actually read the OP as asking for someone to quantify the value of the "valuable substantive experience" you get working for the "government." That seems even more difficult to quantify than more tangible economic benefits you mentioned.

no I was just saying that maybe I misinterpreted the posts that I read, and maybe the poster was talking more about the experience...but, upon reflection, I think it was more a statement about the benefits. I read it a while ago. no idea where.

patogordo wrote:y = √-1

ha

Desert Fox wrote:

patogordo wrote:y = √-1

ha

get it because government jobs are imaginary

what

bk1 wrote:what

bazinga!