What is regulatory work like? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I assumed I would be doing litigation, but I ended up taking an offer with a DC firm that has both litigation and regulatory divisions, and I would like to explore the latter.

Not many people from my school go to DC or into regulatory/governmental work, and there seem to be only a couple of relevant posts in the day-in-the-life thread. My sense is that most people focus on an industry or agency.

Does anyone have insight into regulatory work? Does it feel more like litigation or transactional work? I really enjoy the law and legal research/writing, which is what drew me to litigation in the first place. Are there certain regulatory practice areas that are more suited to that?



Anon for privacy.

[Anonymous User]

First and foremost it depends what type of regulatory work you do. No one is a regulatory generalist. Common regulatory practices, which tend to revolve around one or two government agencies, include financial (SEC/CFTC), energy (DOE), environmental (EPA), health care (HHS/CMS), pharma (FDA), transportation/aviation (DOT/FAA), and telecom (FCC). I'm probably forgetting some. Figure out what your firm is actually good at (e.g. through Chambers) since firms tout themselves as experts at everything on their websites.

You should probably talk to someone in the particular regulatory area since each area is different. In general the work can be a mix of everything. You'll be advising companies on how to comply with the regulations and representing companies in various regulatory proceedings, such as EPA enforcement actions. You might get to litigate if the matter heavily involves your regulatory area, although in my experience, the lit teams usually handle the majority of the work. You might also work on deals that have a regulatory component, such as obtaining agency approval or verifying that a target's regulatory permits are all ok.

Regulatory work usually involves a lot of research and writing, though it's mostly limited to whatever field you're in. You'll probably have to write a lot of non-billable updates on agency activity, since that's one way regulatory lawyers build their profiles.

One negative is that exit options can be limited depending on your specialty. If you're an FCC regulatory lawyer, for instance, going in-house likely means either a telecom company or a company expanding into a telecom area, like Amazon. There might only be a handful of job postings each year. The flipside is that there's usually not a huge pool of qualified candidates so you'll face less competition. In my field, anytime an in-house opening comes up, I usually know the person who gets hired.

[Elston Gunn]

I generally co-sign the post above. I highly recommend regulatory work, but you should try to figure out what your firm is good at and also what you find substantively interesting, because you will be devoting your career to it.

I’ll add to the above that regulatory lawyers also do a good amount of regulatory enforcement/investigations work that is basically smaller scale white collar work tied to the agency/ies you specialize in. All depends on your firm’s practice.

If you’re worried about exit options being too narrow, privacy (which I consider regulatory but maybe is slightly different) and finreg probably have the most jobs available (though happy to be corrected).

[Anonymous User]

I assumed I would be doing litigation, but I ended up taking an offer with a DC firm that has both litigation and regulatory divisions, and I would like to explore the latter.

Not many people from my school go to DC or into regulatory/governmental work, and there seem to be only a couple of relevant posts in the day-in-the-life thread. My sense is that most people focus on an industry or agency.

Does anyone have insight into regulatory work? Does it feel more like litigation or transactional work? I really enjoy the law and legal research/writing, which is what drew me to litigation in the first place. Are there certain regulatory practice areas that are more suited to that?



Anon for privacy.

On a related note, could anyone please speak to financial services (i.e., bank) regulatory work in New York?

[Anonymous User]

As far as research and writing, does regulatory work research consist of lexis/westlaw and doing memos and briefs? Or more general research about matters pertaining to your specific group?

Outside of DC, are there other hot markets for regulatory work at a firm?

Also, if anyone is a regulatory lawyer and could give a general day to day schedule that would be great! I know it varies but

[Anonymous User]

Do people who do regulatory work find their work less stressful than say lit or transactional work? Do you feel like you have more predictable hours/free time than other groups?

[Elston Gunn]

On a related note, could anyone please speak to financial services (i.e., bank) regulatory work in New York?

See this thread.

As far as research and writing, does regulatory work research consist of lexis/westlaw and doing memos and briefs? Or more general research about matters pertaining to your specific group?

Outside of DC, are there other hot markets for regulatory work at a firm?

Also, if anyone is a regulatory lawyer and could give a general day to day schedule that would be great! I know it varies but

Westlaw, not so much IME (though maybe if you do a lot of like Government Contracts disputes, you might need to read a lot of cases). But yes, you do write a good amount of memos, as well as a lot of shorter analytical emails on discrete questions for clients. The thread linked above is specific to finreg but IME the description of work is pretty generalizable.

For particular industries, there might be some regulatory work in the region where that industry is big (e.g., finreg in New York, privacy in SF), but not really. It's mostly in DC.

For day-to-day schedule, I would suggest doing some google searches of this forum, through the "day in the life" thread. There are a few in there. But happy to answer other more specific questions.

Do people who do regulatory work find their work less stressful than say lit or transactional work? Do you feel like you have more predictable hours/free time than other groups?

Yes, definitely. It's still Biglaw, but much more sustainable. There are exceptions though, like finreg at DPW or S&C.

[Anonymous User]

Generally, what is it that makes the regulatory hours more manageable? In other words, why is it that lifestyle in regulatory practices is more sustainable? Asking as someone very interested in the substance of regulatory work with a brief SA stint in it last year, but who couldn't quite get a read on the rhythm of the practice in a COVID/remote program for just a few weeks.

[Elston Gunn]

Generally, what is it that makes the regulatory hours more manageable? In other words, why is it that lifestyle in regulatory practices is more sustainable? Asking as someone very interested in the substance of regulatory work with a brief SA stint in it last year, but who couldn't quite get a read on the rhythm of the practice in a COVID/remote program for just a few weeks.

There are a few different reasons, but the main one is just that you’re working on smaller matters, with less demanding timelines, and generally somewhat lower stakes. The other side of that is a higher percentage of the work requires active use of your brain, which sounds nice, but means you don’t get the easy diligence or doc review hours you get in corporate/lit. If the firm has an hours minimum for bonus, you’re also more likely to miss out on a bonus than your corporate/lit counterparts.

[Madden_Arps]

The above is all correct, but keep in mind there are definitely fire drills at times. Not a reg lawyer, but I've worked with corporate groups in the past on deals where they needed a last-minute opinion from a regulatory person with a quick turnaround. I don't know how common this is, but at the end of the day it's biglaw so it's not a hard 40/week.

[Elston Gunn]

The above is all correct, but keep in mind there are definitely fire drills at times. Not a reg lawyer, but I've worked with corporate groups in the past on deals where they needed a last-minute opinion from a regulatory person with a quick turnaround. I don't know how common this is, but at the end of the day it's biglaw so it's not a hard 40/week.

Without a doubt. Like I said above, it’s very much still Biglaw and is way more demanding than most jobs. It’s just meaningfully better than, say, M&A or Cap Markets.

[gunrun]

Generally, what is it that makes the regulatory hours more manageable? In other words, why is it that lifestyle in regulatory practices is more sustainable? Asking as someone very interested in the substance of regulatory work with a brief SA stint in it last year, but who couldn't quite get a read on the rhythm of the practice in a COVID/remote program for just a few weeks.

There are a few different reasons, but the main one is just that you’re working on smaller matters, with less demanding timelines, and generally somewhat lower stakes. The other side of that is a higher percentage of the work requires active use of your brain, which sounds nice, but means you don’t get the easy diligence or doc review hours you get in corporate/lit. If the firm has an hours minimum for bonus, you’re also more likely to miss out on a bonus than your corporate/lit counterparts.

I’m a mid-level regulatory lawyer and I’ve always felt the same about the bolded, but I’ve never heard anyone else actually say it. I’m sure all types of lawyers think very hard, but there’s rarely a project I work on that is mindless or considered good hours. Even the basic agreements I look at regularly require a lot of brain power. Plus, more demand for non-billable hours and the like for new issues. I think regulatory lawyers tend to be nerdier for this reason. But definitely validating that I’m not the only person to think this!

[Anonymous User]

Generally, what is it that makes the regulatory hours more manageable? In other words, why is it that lifestyle in regulatory practices is more sustainable? Asking as someone very interested in the substance of regulatory work with a brief SA stint in it last year, but who couldn't quite get a read on the rhythm of the practice in a COVID/remote program for just a few weeks.

There are a few different reasons, but the main one is just that you’re working on smaller matters, with less demanding timelines, and generally somewhat lower stakes. The other side of that is a higher percentage of the work requires active use of your brain, which sounds nice, but means you don’t get the easy diligence or doc review hours you get in corporate/lit. If the firm has an hours minimum for bonus, you’re also more likely to miss out on a bonus than your corporate/lit counterparts.

I’m a mid-level regulatory lawyer and I’ve always felt the same about the bolded, but I’ve never heard anyone else actually say it. I’m sure all types of lawyers think very hard, but there’s rarely a project I work on that is mindless or considered good hours. Even the basic agreements I look at regularly require a lot of brain power. Plus, more demand for non-billable hours and the like for new issues. I think regulatory lawyers tend to be nerdier for this reason. But definitely validating that I’m not the only person to think this!

Absolutely agree with these two posts. Also, I find it often difficult to stay focused and be as productive as I should be. Depending on the partner/client it can be hard to stay within budget so I have the choice to either upset the partner by recording all my time or to write off some hours.

[Elston Gunn]

Absolutely agree with these two posts. Also, I find it often difficult to stay focused and be as productive as I should be. Depending on the partner/client it can be hard to stay within budget so I have the choice to either upset the partner by recording all my time or to write off some hours.

I felt (and still feel, now that I’m in house) this way a lot too. I think to some degree it just comes with the territory, and you should try not to be hard on yourself about not being productive “enough.” I also always took the approach of just billing all my time. If I got a specific instruction to “spend no more than x hours on this,” well, I wouldn’t, and I’d explain to the partner the bases I wasn’t able to cover in the allotted time (or why I really think I needed more time). The partner can then make the decision of how to approach it with the client. It can sound like, I’m so bad at this, I can’t believe it took me 5 hours to do xyz, but just keep in mind regulatory associates take a lot of time to train and are not easily replaced. You’re probably providing a lot more value than you realize and sane partners will realize that.

[Anonymous User]

The above is all correct, but keep in mind there are definitely fire drills at times. Not a reg lawyer, but I've worked with corporate groups in the past on deals where they needed a last-minute opinion from a regulatory person with a quick turnaround. I don't know how common this is, but at the end of the day it's biglaw so it's not a hard 40/week.

Without a doubt. Like I said above, it’s very much still Biglaw and is way more demanding than most jobs. It’s just meaningfully better than, say, M&A or Cap Markets.

Would it be significantly harder for a junior associate to lateral to regulatory work from Corporate/Funds/M&A than Litigation?

[Elston Gunn]

The above is all correct, but keep in mind there are definitely fire drills at times. Not a reg lawyer, but I've worked with corporate groups in the past on deals where they needed a last-minute opinion from a regulatory person with a quick turnaround. I don't know how common this is, but at the end of the day it's biglaw so it's not a hard 40/week.

Without a doubt. Like I said above, it’s very much still Biglaw and is way more demanding than most jobs. It’s just meaningfully better than, say, M&A or Cap Markets.

Would it be significantly harder for a junior associate to lateral to regulatory work from Corporate/Funds/M&A than Litigation?

To be honest, I don’t think it’s super easy to lateral from either. You want to be able pitch the work a particular group does as something that’s part of your portfolio now, but you’d like to make full time (and ideally while still fairly junior). For example, a tech trans lawyer who sometimes advises startups on privacy compliance can make that pitch to a privacy group, someone who does a lot of bank M&A can make a pitch to a finreg group, someone who does derivatives transactional can make a pitch to a CFTC group etc. But regulatory is really about knowledge accumulation so you want to get into it as early as possible.

[Anonymous User]

Null