Regulatory or Lit? Forum

[Anonymous User]

So I have an offer from a DC firm, and I need to decide whether I want to do regulatory or litigation. Both departments are strong, but if you were in my shoes, which would you choose?

Which has better W/L balance?

Which has better exit opportunities?

Which is more "rewarding"?

Which has the better advancement opportunities?

I know it's hard to say that with any certainty, and I'm being deliberately vague on details, but in a vacuum, which would you choose?

[Anonymous User]

2L headed to a regulatory group next summer, so take it as a granted that i literally know only what I've heard from others.

From talking to attorneys in town, both at fed agencies and lots of firms, regulatory practices seem like more humane practice groups for a couple of reasons. (1) Interacting with the government so frequently, on some small level the fact that the govt attorneys go home at 5 supposedly has some kind of reflective effect on their firm counterparts. I always assumed this was flame, but I've heard it from a number of partners (who were all former bureau chief types at agencies) as well as associates in various regulatory groups, and from a few former biglaw peeps that have since fled to agencies. maybe there's something to it. (2) Again, because you're dealing with a large, clunky, slow-moving agency that is bogged down with a lot of red-tape and fairly predictable procedure, you're less likely to run into high-pressure, world-ending litigation crises or their corporate equivalent (overnight drafting fire drills for, i dunno, term sheets or something). i'm almost positive this still mostly depends on the partners in your group. For example, I've heard horror stories about an advertising law practice in DC that regularly requires associates to work all night. Meanwhile, those kinds of stories aren't uncommon at all for general litigation practices, so make of that what you will.

For exit options from a regulatory practice, I'm under the impression you typically either take the revolving door into the agency you're practicing in front of, or depending on the practice area, you might be able to jump in-house to the companies you represent. I have no idea how this works across various practice groups, but I've heard of a couple reg groups in particular that put a lot of people into in-house work. There are also various industry groups that sometimes hire attorneys, though i know nothing about that process.. Exit options from litigation seems rough due to the high volume of litigators and the utter dearth of in-house work, as well as the relatively limited amount of government work in that sphere. Everyone seems to want USAO or DOJ, so those jobs are eternally competitive. More likely than not, you'll lateral to another firm; most likely a significantly smaller one, at a substantial pay cut.

Rewarding? Probably depends what you enjoy. I think litigation is going to have the obvious rewards: the theoretical excitement of the adversarial experience, incremental victories and losses, possible big wins via favorable settlement or dismissal, possible crushing defeats via summary judgment, and even the slim, slim chance of actual trial experience. Regulatory: I assume it's more like corporate work, in that the rewards will largely be tied to furthering the business goals of clients. What I'm hoping for: immersion in a specific industry, developing a deep knowledge base in a particular area of law and figuring out how businesses operate in that space. Beyond that, there's probably some of the same ups and downs that come with litigation (as you may run into civil disputes or government investigations that require regulatory expertise), and you may get pulled into mergers or other transactions. Then there's the policy work, which seems like another animal altogether. Regulatory seems varied by nature and a bit harder to pin down.

I'm choosing reg work, so we'll see how it goes. Anyone with actual experience shouldfeel free to chime in and correct my messy assumptions.

[hill1334]

I am just passing on what was my experience as a v10 legal assistant, so take it for what it is worth, and maybe someone with more experience can clarify if the below is accurate.

At least at the firm I was at, regulatory matters were just as, if not more so, demanding than lit work overall. The deadlines for lit work were set after the parties negotiated and by the court, and they were generally fixed (and it is not like you ever want to file a brief a week early, since then you would be handing the other side all your arguments). However, regulatory deadlines were often self-imposed and the partners would frequently request insane turnaround times in order to impress the client and resolve the regulatory matter in a speedy manner. So while lit would get crazy leading up to the filing of a big brief, some of the regulatory matters at the firm were just as crazy for months on end, and without the same sort of predictability that comes from court enforced deadlines.

With that said, if you are ever on a lit trial team, as I was for 5 months, then it does not get much more time intensive than that.

[Anonymous User]

I am an associate who has done some work in both areas.

Regulatory work seems to be *usually* more laid back. However, when things are urgent, they're typically more urgent, more suddenly than in civil lit. Yes, you deal with government agencies, and they move slowly, but they also sometimes let you know that they intend to do X thing that you hadn't anticipated, or your client says we want to do Y thing and need to know the regulatory implications by tomorrow morning. Lit, generally, is more defined by long-term deadlines. Though there are exceptions there too.

My experience with regulatory work is that it's not any more substantively interesting, but it is a "flatter" command structure. You get more directly involved in your client's strategic issues earlier. But if you want to do adversarial advocacy then you might not find it as interesting.

A lot of this probably varies greatly based on what specific kind of regulatory work you're going to do, so it could be way off base.

[Anonymous User]

not OP, but, I know this may vary firm to firm, does regulatory work have a lot of cross over with lit? So would reg attorneys work on a reg client's litigation matter? Or would that get sent to the lit group? Specifically, I'm considering advertising/marketing.