Advice on L&E Positions Forum

[Anonymous User]

I have been offered a position with two different federal agencies (Labor and IRS) and need to decide which one would fit best with my long-term goal of eventually going in-house. Both jobs will have the exact same salary, so that is not a consideration, but I am wondering which would set me up better in the long-term to be an in-house L&E type lawyer. Below are summaries of the job descriptions:

Department of Labor position:

This position is located in the Department of Labor, Office of the Solicitor. The Regional Office of the Solicitor litigates cases pursuant to the various laws administered by the DOL, including the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Trial attorneys at the Office of the Solicitor are responsible for the analysis, preparation, and litigation of factually, technically, and legally complex cases brought in the region by the Secretary of Labor under statutes and executive orders administered by the Department’s various enforcement agencies.

IRS position:

Provide legal advice on labor, employment, personnel, and EEO matters to the Office of the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Office of Chief Counsel (Counsel), and components reporting to those offices.

Provide legal representation to the IRS and Counsel in cases before administrative fora, such as the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), and in arbitrations stemming from the IRS and Counsel collective bargaining agreements.

Provide advisory opinions and advice, both written and oral, on issues arising from labor-personnel and equal employment opportunity (EEO) matters, the interpretation of civil service laws and regulations, government representation, the Federal Torts Claim Act, and other related "non-tax" matters.

Thanks in advance for your insight/advice!

[kaiser]

I'm an in-house L&E attorney, so can chime in on this one. If your goal is to go in house, it sounds like the IRS role would probably be better since it seems to be a mix of counseling and litigation work. Whereas the DOL role is a trial attorney position. Doesn't sound like you would be expected to counsel the DOL itself on employment and personnel matters.

For most in-house L&E positions, counseling is the core of what you do, and you want to sell your client counseling experience. So any position that allows you to counsel a client through common L&E issues will set you up well, and it sounds like you would be doing so in the IRS role. There are some in-house L&E roles that are more litigation focused, but they are not as common.

[Anonymous User]

I'm an in-house L&E attorney, so can chime in on this one. If your goal is to go in house, it sounds like the IRS role would probably be better since it seems to be a mix of counseling and litigation work. Whereas the DOL role is a trial attorney position. Doesn't sound like you would be expected to counsel the DOL itself on employment and personnel matters.

For most in-house L&E positions, counseling is the core of what you do, and you want to sell your client counseling experience. So any position that allows you to counsel a client through common L&E issues will set you up well, and it sounds like you would be doing so in the IRS role. There are some in-house L&E roles that are more litigation focused, but they are not as common.

OP here. Thank you so much for your advice.

I have a follow-up question: The DOL position seems it would give me a lot of exposure to a wide-variety of L&E laws that are applicable to private companies. Do you expect I will face any significant challenge going in-house given the IRS role focuses on federal sector L&E? I ask because I'm not sure how much overlap there is with L&E laws that are applicable to the private sector.

Thanks again!

[kaiser]

I'm an in-house L&E attorney, so can chime in on this one. If your goal is to go in house, it sounds like the IRS role would probably be better since it seems to be a mix of counseling and litigation work. Whereas the DOL role is a trial attorney position. Doesn't sound like you would be expected to counsel the DOL itself on employment and personnel matters.

For most in-house L&E positions, counseling is the core of what you do, and you want to sell your client counseling experience. So any position that allows you to counsel a client through common L&E issues will set you up well, and it sounds like you would be doing so in the IRS role. There are some in-house L&E roles that are more litigation focused, but they are not as common.

OP here. Thank you so much for your advice.

I have a follow-up question: The DOL position seems it would give me a lot of exposure to a wide-variety of L&E laws that are applicable to private companies. Do you expect I will face any significant challenge going in-house given the IRS role focuses on federal sector L&E? I ask because I'm not sure how much overlap there is with L&E laws that are applicable to the private sector.

Thanks again!

Many of the key employment statutes are still applicable to government employers. Sure, you would be advising on some statutes that are specific to the context, but you would definitely still come across the core statutes. And yes, you would likely get exposure to a wide variety of issues in the DOL role, but if it doesn't have any counseling aspect, then it is harder to shift into an in-house role (though you would still be a wonderful fit for a more litigation-focused in-house role).

Honestly, I would pick based on your interests. Maybe you love litigation and really envision yourself as a trial attorney. If that is the case, it makes the pick much easier. And if that means in-house L&E roles may be tougher to get in the future, so be it. You would eventually find the right role and have an excellent niche. And if you want to lean in more to the counseling side of practice, then the IRS role would likely be the better route. I myself don't do any litigation in my current role, so my counseling experience was precisely what got me the job.

One question I forgot to ask upfront. How much experience do you have? Is this your first job out of law school? Or are you coming from a firm prior?

[Anonymous User]

I'm an in-house L&E attorney, so can chime in on this one. If your goal is to go in house, it sounds like the IRS role would probably be better since it seems to be a mix of counseling and litigation work. Whereas the DOL role is a trial attorney position. Doesn't sound like you would be expected to counsel the DOL itself on employment and personnel matters.

For most in-house L&E positions, counseling is the core of what you do, and you want to sell your client counseling experience. So any position that allows you to counsel a client through common L&E issues will set you up well, and it sounds like you would be doing so in the IRS role. There are some in-house L&E roles that are more litigation focused, but they are not as common.

OP here. Thank you so much for your advice.

I have a follow-up question: The DOL position seems it would give me a lot of exposure to a wide-variety of L&E laws that are applicable to private companies. Do you expect I will face any significant challenge going in-house given the IRS role focuses on federal sector L&E? I ask because I'm not sure how much overlap there is with L&E laws that are applicable to the private sector.

Thanks again!

Many of the key employment statutes are still applicable to government employers. Sure, you would be advising on some statutes that are specific to the context, but you would definitely still come across the core statutes. And yes, you would likely get exposure to a wide variety of issues in the DOL role, but if it doesn't have any counseling aspect, then it is harder to shift into an in-house role (though you would still be a wonderful fit for a more litigation-focused in-house role).

Honestly, I would pick based on your interests. Maybe you love litigation and really envision yourself as a trial attorney. If that is the case, it makes the pick much easier. And if that means in-house L&E roles may be tougher to get in the future, so be it. You would eventually find the right role and have an excellent niche. And if you want to lean in more to the counseling side of practice, then the IRS role would likely be the better route. I myself don't do any litigation in my current role, so my counseling experience was precisely what got me the job.

One question I forgot to ask upfront. How much experience do you have? Is this your first job out of law school? Or are you coming from a firm prior?

OP again—thanks so much for your thoughts. I am 7 years out of law school. So far I’ve only practiced in the JAG Corps and started out in a role doing L&E legal counseling to managers and directors for federal civil service employees (not military members). I did this for ~1.5 years and then shifted to doing mainly criminal litigation for the rest of my time.

I enjoy litigation, but eventually want to get away from the grueling schedule and get back to more of the initial in-house role I had because I enjoyed solving problems working with clients, and for the better work life balance.

[nixy]

Based on what you just said, I agree that I would incline IRS. I don’t think either is a bad option, but IRS seems a little more aligned with your ultimate goals.

[kaiser]

Then the IRS role sounds like it would better align with your goals. You will be much more competitive for counseling-based in house L&E positions if that is the kind of work you are doing immediately prior. Becoming a trial attorney sounds like it would be taking you down a new route that you don't necessarily want to go down.

[Anonymous User]

Thank you both again for your input!