How hard is it to make partner in Antitrust? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Curious how it compares to general lit and/or other practice areas. For context, I'm a 3L headed to a firm with a highly regarded antitrust practice albeit in a satellite office (not DC). The lit group in my office does a lot of antitrust work and I think it's very interesting so going to try to focus on it. I'm curious how that affects my career path though -- since it's such a specialized area is it harder to make partner and are exit opps narrower? Can you be a career antitrust counsel or service partner? Thanks!

[Anonymous User]

For merger-focused antitrust, It's very difficult without agency experience. Most antitrust partners have held senior positions at DOJ/FTC at some point; the typical track is 4-8 years at a law firm, then DOJ/FTC as a political appointee, then back to biglaw as a partner. If you take a career position at an agency, you'll probably have to stay longer before being able to reenter private practice as a partner or counsel.

I know a few people who made partner after spending their first 2-3 years at DOJ/FTC, then joining a law firm as a midlevel associate and rising up the ranks.

For antitrust litigation I don't think the partnership path differs as much from general litigation, though agency experience is still useful.

[Anonymous User]

I generally agree that for merger work, agency experience is a big plus for making partner. It's not a prerequisite - I am aware of someone who made it this year without going to an agency - but that's probably the exception not the rule.

With respect to counsel, I think antitrust merger work is a place where you actually do see permanent counsel more often than, say, traditional litigation or white collar. Because merger stuff can be technical, there can actually be a business case for keeping a specialist on as counsel long-term.

I think it's hard to make partner in antitrust lit because of the business case. Because biglaw is typically defense side, clients are coming in either because they already have a relationship with the firm (and/or the matter grew out of a merger or investigation) or they want a big name to defend them because it's bet-the-company with treble damages. Under those circumstances, it's hard as an associate to bring additional value to make a case for partner.

Firm work aside, there's obviously exit opportunities into agency work in DC and in limited other places like SF. And lots of industries hire antitrust folks as in-house, especially on the merger side -- think big tech, healthcare, airlines, and even companies like Nike.

[Anonymous User]

10:43 anon. Re exit opps, I agree with the above, and would add that antitrust seems a lot better than general litigation. I've seen several antitrust associates use their experience to land run-of-the-mill in-house compliance and commercial contracts positions. Also, as an antitrust associate you'll probably get a lot of deep experience in a particular industry or two (energy, pharma, etc.), which is useful for going in-house in that field.