Federal antitrust atty taking qs Forum

[Anonymous User]

Bumping this up since it has been a month. Anyone hear anything from the 1/28 posting? Feel like I should have heard something by now if I was going to get an interview.

[Anonymous User]

Also haven't heard a thing from the 1/28 posting.

[Anonymous User]

Bumping this up since it has been a month. Anyone hear anything from the 1/28 posting? Feel like I should have heard something by now if I was going to get an interview.

Fellow applicant here - apparently they still haven’t begun interviewing yet. Some folks are saying they don’t expect the hiring process to finish before May/June at the earliest. They think the process might start moving now that more of the senior (political) leadership is nominated/confirmed

[Anonymous User]

Good info. Thanks!

[Anonymous User]

Wow, great to hear re: the delay in reviewing. Honestly had given up any hope considering how long ago the application period ended. Best of luck to everyone.

[Anonymous User]

Question about the job itself. Does it feel massively politically-influenced? I feel like antitrust investigations, when I see about them in the press, are constantly being talked about (Google in the EU, recent complaint at end of Trump's tenure against the same), but so rarely hit the big companies hard (Microsoft in the 90s aside). Curious about what that's like on the inside -- does it feel like decisions get made by the higher ups and then you never hear about something again, etc.?

[Anonymous User]

A couple DOJ questions if anybody has answers:

1. What is the interview process and how do candidates get placed into sections? Is it a screener then a longer interview with a specific section? What kinds of questions get asked?

2. How has the reorganization impacted work. Does the civil conduct section get all the interesting litigation? Do people in civil conduct not do any merger investigation at all?

[Anonymous User]

Wow, great to hear re: the delay in reviewing. Honestly had given up any hope considering how long ago the application period ended. Best of luck to everyone.

I guess this means you're a fellow applicant who hasn't heard anything? I'm surprised it's taking them this long--or maybe we both just aren't competitive candidates

[Anonymous User]

Without going into much detail, they started interviewing last week, and I understand the first round is likely to last for 1-3 weeks. Don't know much beyond that.

[Anonymous User]

Without going into much detail, they started interviewing last week, and I understand the first round is likely to last for 1-3 weeks. Don't know much beyond that.

That's disappointing. Wonder what it takes to get an interview...

[Anonymous User]

Disappointing to hear. Tough to imagine what is setting midlevel/senior associates apart. Maybe you just need a former DOJ attorney at your firm to make a call of support or have interned at the office in law school or something.

Maybe all of these special bonuses that have come around since the application window will convince some people to stay at their firms. Oh well.

[Anonymous User]

I heard the criminal sections have started interviewing. Would love to hear if anyone has interviewed or gotten an offer.

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone know if they will interview all of their candidates before making offers, if they are filling multiple positions? Or are rolling offers made?

[Anonymous User]

FTC has finally lifted its hiring freeze and accepting applications for all divisions besides Health Care and ACP. Make sure to note that you're applying to all divisions in your cover letter (if you're interested in all or indifferent). I would also start working connections if you can. You will still need to apply through USAJobs regardless, but send your materials to attorneys in the division who can look out for your application. The agency is pretty slammed right now, so a good time to join if you're looking for a lot of substantive experience.

https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/598671200

[Anonymous User]

Question about the job itself. Does it feel massively politically-influenced? I feel like antitrust investigations, when I see about them in the press, are constantly being talked about (Google in the EU, recent complaint at end of Trump's tenure against the same), but so rarely hit the big companies hard (Microsoft in the 90s aside). Curious about what that's like on the inside -- does it feel like decisions get made by the higher ups and then you never hear about something again, etc.?

It doesn't feel massively political at the FTC. Priorities change with the composition of the Commission, but staff recommendations on an investigation really don't. The Commission can accept or reject a recommendation, but Commissioners do not tell staff what the recommendation should be. I feel like the investigations are mercifully devoid of political interference and there's a lot of transparency within the agency as decisions are made.

One final note: I get that Big Tech is getting a lot of attention right now, but I strongly urge burgeoning antitrust lawyers and people wanting to make the switch to government not to hyperfixate on Big Tech. There is plenty of great enforcement work to be done outside of Big Tech that is equally challenging and consequential.

[Anonymous User]

Question about the job itself. Does it feel massively politically-influenced? I feel like antitrust investigations, when I see about them in the press, are constantly being talked about (Google in the EU, recent complaint at end of Trump's tenure against the same), but so rarely hit the big companies hard (Microsoft in the 90s aside). Curious about what that's like on the inside -- does it feel like decisions get made by the higher ups and then you never hear about something again, etc.?

It doesn't feel massively political at the FTC. Priorities change with the composition of the Commission, but staff recommendations on an investigation really don't. The Commission can accept or reject a recommendation, but Commissioners do not tell staff what the recommendation should be. I feel like the investigations are mercifully devoid of political interference and there's a lot of transparency within the agency as decisions are made.

One final note: I get that Big Tech is getting a lot of attention right now, but I strongly urge burgeoning antitrust lawyers and people wanting to make the switch to government not to hyperfixate on Big Tech. There is plenty of great enforcement work to be done outside of Big Tech that is equally challenging and consequential.

Thanks for chiming in. I completely understand the substantive reasons not to fixate on tech, but instrumentally do you think highlighting tech experience and expressing an interest in that line of work is a bad look on an application?

[Anonymous User]

Question about the job itself. Does it feel massively politically-influenced? I feel like antitrust investigations, when I see about them in the press, are constantly being talked about (Google in the EU, recent complaint at end of Trump's tenure against the same), but so rarely hit the big companies hard (Microsoft in the 90s aside). Curious about what that's like on the inside -- does it feel like decisions get made by the higher ups and then you never hear about something again, etc.?

It doesn't feel massively political at the FTC. Priorities change with the composition of the Commission, but staff recommendations on an investigation really don't. The Commission can accept or reject a recommendation, but Commissioners do not tell staff what the recommendation should be. I feel like the investigations are mercifully devoid of political interference and there's a lot of transparency within the agency as decisions are made.

One final note: I get that Big Tech is getting a lot of attention right now, but I strongly urge burgeoning antitrust lawyers and people wanting to make the switch to government not to hyperfixate on Big Tech. There is plenty of great enforcement work to be done outside of Big Tech that is equally challenging and consequential.

Thanks for chiming in. I completely understand the substantive reasons not to fixate on tech, but instrumentally do you think highlighting tech experience and expressing an interest in that line of work is a bad look on an application?

Not a bad look. But be mindful that divisions other than Technology Enforcement are hiring. If you over emphasize your tech interest, you risk not seeming like an interested candidate for other divisions. If you're not interested in other divisions, then fine.

[Anonymous User]

Anybody have insight into the hiring timeline for the FTC posting that just closed and/or the approximate number of positions they're filling?

[Anonymous User]

Did you do well in your antitrust course? Would you say the grade you get in that class is predictive of your success as an antitrust attorney?

[Wellsfargowagon]

One final note: I get that Big Tech is getting a lot of attention right now, but I strongly urge burgeoning antitrust lawyers and people wanting to make the switch to government not to hyperfixate on Big Tech. There is plenty of great enforcement work to be done outside of Big Tech that is equally challenging and consequential.

This is great advice. Totally agree.

[Anonymous User]

Any updates from people who applied in late Jan?

[Anonymous User]

I interviewed for a spot in DC but haven’t heard anything in over a month so not feeling great about it.

[Anonymous User]

Did you do well in your antitrust course? Would you say the grade you get in that class is predictive of your success as an antitrust attorney?

OP here. I did do well in my antitrust class, but I do not place any emphasis on the grade on that one course when I am considering lateral candidates. In my experience, there are people with good grades who are not great lawyers, and there are people with not so great grades who are excellent lawyers. (I will say, I haven't had the best experience with people with bad overall grades.) Grades reflect how well people do on exams. They aren't totally worthless as apart of an overall evaluation of candidates, but they become increasingly less informative when a candidate has actual job experience. The longer someone has been working, the less emphasis I place on grades. And I haven't ever looked at a lateral applicant's specific grade in antitrust.

[Anonymous User]

Did you do well in your antitrust course? Would you say the grade you get in that class is predictive of your success as an antitrust attorney?

OP here. I did do well in my antitrust class, but I do not place any emphasis on the grade on that one course when I am considering lateral candidates. In my experience, there are people with good grades who are not great lawyers, and there are people with not so great grades who are excellent lawyers. (I will say, I haven't had the best experience with people with bad overall grades.) Grades reflect how well people do on exams. They aren't totally worthless as apart of an overall evaluation of candidates, but they become increasingly less informative when a candidate has actual job experience. The longer someone has been working, the less emphasis I place on grades. And I haven't ever looked at a lateral applicant's specific grade in antitrust.

this is really helpful. Thanks!

[Anonymous User]

Anyone hear more from either DOJ or FTC re: job postings?