Top Law Schools

Does anyone have any insight on the DOJ HCF division? They have a bunch of openings on USA Jobs. Seems like a decent mix of complex investigations plus court experience.

Anyone have anything interesting to share?

Anonymous User wrote:Does anyone have any insight on the DOJ HCF division? They have a bunch of openings on USA Jobs. Seems like a decent mix of complex investigations plus court experience.

Anyone have anything interesting to share?

I don't know much about the DOJ, but did notice this appears to be focused on the opioid epidemic. I imagine there's a ton of work to keep folk busy - either in the big cases against industry players or smaller cases against individual actors.

This is obviously pretty specific work. If you want to remain focused on prosecution, I'm sure there would be plenty of opportunities afterwards. If you wanted to move into a healthcare practice in biglaw, you'd probably want to try and find some additional types of enforcement work. FCA, stark and anti-kickback are the bread and butter stuff in healthcare law. Of course all three may well come up in the opioid stuff.

Current DOJ Criminal Attorney

While I am in a different section, I have heard some pros and cons:

Good: Opportunities to do investigations and trials almost immediately. They pretty much want you to hit the ground running.
Healthcare fraud can be interesting.... to some.
A large number of colleagues who are dedicated to the mission.
DOJ pays way better than doing healthcare fraud as an AUSA.

Cons: most healthcare fraud is not in D.C., which requires extensive travel to various states often.
Further, if there is a trial, expect to be TDY at that location for a month or two.
Healthcare fraud can be boring.... to some.
Can be pigeonholed into doing healthcare fraud, and won't be able to move to the more prestigious divisions within Fraud.

That's my 2 cents.

Current Biglaw healthcare senior associate.

We love former DOJ health care attorneys. Almost a shoo-in hire even for people with the personality of a rock. Invaluable perspective when analyzing biglaw clients' fraud risk. Many stop litigating and transition into a regulatory/transactional-support/Subject Matter Expert role.

Anonymous User wrote:Current DOJ Criminal Attorney

While I am in a different section, I have heard some pros and cons:

Good: Opportunities to do investigations and trials almost immediately. They pretty much want you to hit the ground running.
Healthcare fraud can be interesting.... to some.
A large number of colleagues who are dedicated to the mission.
DOJ pays way better than doing healthcare fraud as an AUSA.

Cons: most healthcare fraud is not in D.C., which requires extensive travel to various states often.
Further, if there is a trial, expect to be TDY at that location for a month or two.
Healthcare fraud can be boring.... to some.
Can be pigeonholed into doing healthcare fraud, and won't be able to move to the more prestigious divisions within Fraud.

That's my 2 cents.

OP here. Thanks for this. A few other questions.

1.) Why do some people think it's boring?

2.) Why do you think there's a risk of being pigeonholed? Is that something specific to HCF or just a byproduct of doing any type of task force/detail?

3.) To what extent do you think doing this would help grease the skids to move to another federal job (e.g., AUSA)?

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Current DOJ Criminal Attorney

While I am in a different section, I have heard some pros and cons:

Good: Opportunities to do investigations and trials almost immediately. They pretty much want you to hit the ground running.
Healthcare fraud can be interesting.... to some.
A large number of colleagues who are dedicated to the mission.
DOJ pays way better than doing healthcare fraud as an AUSA.

Cons: most healthcare fraud is not in D.C., which requires extensive travel to various states often.
Further, if there is a trial, expect to be TDY at that location for a month or two.
Healthcare fraud can be boring.... to some.
Can be pigeonholed into doing healthcare fraud, and won't be able to move to the more prestigious divisions within Fraud.

That's my 2 cents.

OP here. Thanks for this. A few other questions.

1.) Why do some people think it's boring?

2.) Why do you think there's a risk of being pigeonholed? Is that something specific to HCF or just a byproduct of doing any type of task force/detail?

3.) To what extent do you think doing this would help grease the skids to move to another federal job (e.g., AUSA)?

DOJ attorney here-

1. Some people think fraud in general is boring. I'm assuming a majority of the work is medicare fraud, usually in regards to submitting false billings. If you like that kind of work, then have at it!

2. Just a byproduct of being on any type of Task force for too long. Fraud has other sections, like FCPA and Securities which are more sought after, as they have better exit ops and don't requires as extensive of travel as HCF.

3. I think it would grease the skids a lot. USAOs around the country do healthcare fraud. It would be a great selling point for you if you applied.

Anonymous User wrote:Current Biglaw healthcare senior associate.

We love former DOJ health care attorneys. Almost a shoo-in hire even for people with the personality of a rock. Invaluable perspective when analyzing biglaw clients' fraud risk. Many stop litigating and transition into a regulatory/transactional-support/Subject Matter Expert role.

Do you think this will hold true in 3 years time when a number of folk come off of the opioid task force if all they've prosecuted is opioid matters? From the client perspective, other than general DOJ insight, I'm not sure how much value there would be from a partner who didn't prosecute/negotiate the typical FCA matters.

It seems to me that this is much less nuanced work than is typical in the healthcare regulatory sphere. Pill mills aren't citing Escobar claiming their dispensing style wasn't material.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Current DOJ Criminal Attorney

While I am in a different section, I have heard some pros and cons:

Good: Opportunities to do investigations and trials almost immediately. They pretty much want you to hit the ground running.
Healthcare fraud can be interesting.... to some.
A large number of colleagues who are dedicated to the mission.
DOJ pays way better than doing healthcare fraud as an AUSA.

Cons: most healthcare fraud is not in D.C., which requires extensive travel to various states often.
Further, if there is a trial, expect to be TDY at that location for a month or two.
Healthcare fraud can be boring.... to some.
Can be pigeonholed into doing healthcare fraud, and won't be able to move to the more prestigious divisions within Fraud.

That's my 2 cents.

OP here. Thanks for this. A few other questions.

1.) Why do some people think it's boring?

2.) Why do you think there's a risk of being pigeonholed? Is that something specific to HCF or just a byproduct of doing any type of task force/detail?

3.) To what extent do you think doing this would help grease the skids to move to another federal job (e.g., AUSA)?

DOJ attorney here-

1. Some people think fraud in general is boring. I'm assuming a majority of the work is medicare fraud, usually in regards to submitting false billings. If you like that kind of work, then have at it!

2. Just a byproduct of being on any type of Task force for too long. Fraud has other sections, like FCPA and Securities which are more sought after, as they have better exit ops and don't requires as extensive of travel as HCF.

3. I think it would grease the skids a lot. USAOs around the country do healthcare fraud. It would be a great selling point for you if you applied.

OP here. Thanks again. Part of my interest in this job is that I'm not in NY/DC, so some of the more "prestigious" gigs are not available to me. I'm mostly just looking for a nice post-biglaw government gig that I can make a career out of, as I'm just about done with dealing with biglaw right now. Not necessarily "any port in a storm" but I'm definitely flexible given my location.

albanach wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Current Biglaw healthcare senior associate.

We love former DOJ health care attorneys. Almost a shoo-in hire even for people with the personality of a rock. Invaluable perspective when analyzing biglaw clients' fraud risk. Many stop litigating and transition into a regulatory/transactional-support/Subject Matter Expert role.

Do you think this will hold true in 3 years time when a number of folk come off of the opioid task force if all they've prosecuted is opioid matters? From the client perspective, other than general DOJ insight, I'm not sure how much value there would be from a partner who didn't prosecute/negotiate the typical FCA matters.

It seems to me that this is much less nuanced work than is typical in the healthcare regulatory sphere. Pill mills aren't citing Escobar claiming their dispensing style wasn't material.

Valid points. I still think yes. It's highly relevant experience. It translates to general pharma enforcement. And I predict opioid enforcement will wane just as cannabis enforcement takes off. Pills and weed are a bit apples and oranges, but for those with relevant experience, that biglaw SME role (counsel / non-equity partner) isn't a bad gig.

Anonymous User wrote:Current DOJ Criminal Attorney

While I am in a different section, I have heard some pros and cons:

Good: Opportunities to do investigations and trials almost immediately. They pretty much want you to hit the ground running.
Healthcare fraud can be interesting.... to some.
A large number of colleagues who are dedicated to the mission.
DOJ pays way better than doing healthcare fraud as an AUSA.

Cons: most healthcare fraud is not in D.C., which requires extensive travel to various states often.
Further, if there is a trial, expect to be TDY at that location for a month or two.
Healthcare fraud can be boring.... to some.
Can be pigeonholed into doing healthcare fraud, and won't be able to move to the more prestigious divisions within Fraud.

That's my 2 cents.

Also in DOJ but not HCF, but I agree with all of the above. And while the opioid stuff may be fueling hiring, there’s still lots of other fraud to address - my sense is that it’s a very active/intense division. Also agree that USAOs would look favorably on the work.

Thanks, DOJ dudes. Outside of HCF, what do you guys think of DOJ? What's your normal day like, how does the work/demands compare to biglaw?