Top Law Schools

Just curious about your experience doing compliance work. Based on what I've researched, it can get very mundane after a few months because you're always doing various internal violations checks (broad, i know) but I think there's more to the story than that obviously. Hoping to hear some testimonials.


Also curious to hear if compliance work is something that is sought after? At first glance, it doesn't seem attractive (see above). But, on the other hand, it sounds kinda cushy in that the work hours are steady and solid. I could be wrong.

I did my SA jobs in compliance. Generally, I would say the hours and workloads for the associates are slightly better than typical corporate works (like IPO, M&A etc.), and lots of high-profile clients. The works are more "predictable" and the clients are not after your ass all the time. A small portion of the compliance works is exciting if you are the kind of person who will get excited about digging corporate dirt and that... but most are pretty boring review works. One drawback for me is that I'd say compliance is not "complicated" work, like there are not many things that a senior asso/partner can do and a mid-level asso cannot do if that makes sense (totally personal observation, could be wrong). But nice exist options to go in-house.

iDepreciateyou wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 18, 2020 8:06 am

Just curious about your experience doing compliance work. Based on what I've researched, it can get very mundane after a few months because you're always doing various internal violations checks (broad, i know) but I think there's more to the story than that obviously. Hoping to hear some testimonials.


Also curious to hear if compliance work is something that is sought after? At first glance, it doesn't seem attractive (see above). But, on the other hand, it sounds kinda cushy in that the work hours are steady and solid. I could be wrong.

Compliance is not sought after because non-lawyers can do it. It's a J.D. advantage job. The J.D. helps a lot in marketing yourself and getting gigs (and maybe even doing the work), but when a lot of other people can do the job without it a lot of J.D. folks don't want to do it. The bigger applicant pool also lowers wages. Probably the #2-#3 compliance person in most large corporates makes what their line corporate counsel make. If the wages are good enough for you and you like the work, of course, there is no problem with a compliance career, and many people likely really enjoy it.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 18, 2020 10:58 pm

I did my SA jobs in compliance. Generally, I would say the hours and workloads for the associates are slightly better than typical corporate works (like IPO, M&A etc.), and lots of high-profile clients. The works are more "predictable" and the clients are not after your ass all the time. A small portion of the compliance works is exciting if you are the kind of person who will get excited about digging corporate dirt and that... but most are pretty boring review works. One drawback for me is that I'd say compliance is not "complicated" work, like there are not many things that a senior asso/partner can do and a mid-level asso cannot do if that makes sense (totally personal observation, could be wrong). But nice exist options to go in-house.

I have never heard of associate being referred to as "asso" -- but I like it.

My SO is a non-lawyer who works in a fairly sophisticated part of compliance (tech transfer) for a sophisticated business (a brand-name research university). There’s a lot of money on the line if the school messes up, there’s a good amount of interesting IP law involved, and my SO is paid decently enough, which probably makes it better than most compliance jobs. It’s still really boring and repetitive and they’re looking to leave the industry though. I think a JD world be a big advantage from what I’ve picked up.

One thing to consider with compliance is that it may be difficult to switch back to legal work once you go that route.

happy to be proven wrong, but I've never really understood what 'compliance' means.

older companies have used the roles for things like complying with longstanding and very clear regulatory regimes. like I imagine financial services companies have a lot of employees aware of specific violations they are supposed to look for in loan origination processes, and the lawyers don't need to do much but educate their compliance team on the latest case law every year.

on the other hand, modern tech companies employ 'product counsels' who essentially look at new and evolving laws to see if the company is complying with them. in a way that's "compliance" but it isn't the lower-paying and JD-optional type of work referred to in the prior paragraph. I think the legal definition of "compliance" is so broad -- like, literally every lawyer is concerned with making sure our clients "comply" with the law -- but there's also a term of art, "compliance" that exists in specific fields. I assume you're talking about that.

It exists in the following places I'm aware of: pharma companies need their sales reps to comply with Sunshine-style laws. financial companies have banking laws to comply with. consumer companies have consumer protection laws and they need to review their marketing for things like false advertising.

each of these spaces require different knowledge and experience, and I guess once the laws are fairly clear and what's "OK" and what's "not OK" is known, you can stick a non-JD in the position to make most of the calls.