Financial regulatory vs investigations / litigation Forum

[Anonymous User]

I'm an 3rd year associate at a V20-30. I have been in between non contentious financial reg into contentious and investigations work. I have done litigation as well. I have two offers - one is with a great team for non contentious reg, the other is also with a great team focussing on investigations and chipping in with some litigation / sanctions work which comes through the door.

I think investigations / litigation is more interesting, but I can't see myself becoming partner at this new firm. There's no clear track system, loads of mouths above me, people are getting made up longer and longer, I'm not going to be at this place for 10 years until this happens. I think the lateral market for investigations is also pretty tight / small. Getting made up in this area seems darn impossible since it's tricky to ever get a following per se.

The reg role is still interesting, people are great, it's a smaller office, and in 2 years I'd be considered a senior associate with an idea to get made up. Lateral options, I think, are better. I'm not looking to go in-house.

Thoughts / opinions / questions? Any contributions welcome.

[Elston Gunn]

Investigations exit ops are pretty awful, while financial reg ones are quite good. I know you say you don’t want to go in house, but I think you just give yourself much better options with the reg role.

[Anonymous User]

I agree that gets said a lot on here.
Actually - the firm in question, and other similar firms, have very strong relationships with banks and financial institutions, and lots of associates go off to become VPs at banks in litigation, investigations and enforcement roles.
I've worked with some in-house counsel in banks, although I have very misty picture generally, those guys I worked with basically project managed external counsel (like moi).
Regulatory translates to more in-house roles perhaps, but then again, I don't want to really touch anything transactional.

I also am becoming more and more minded to just become partner. So exit opps less of a concern. I just don't think the in-house salaries in my market are competitive, and trade off on working hours isn't that meaningful to me since the hours still suck often, and the associates at the firms where I have offers generally pull a 9am-7.30pm most of the time.

[Elston Gunn]

Well, when I was in BigLaw in DC it was essentially impossible to become an investigations partner without fairly high-level government experience (though counsel was very doable if you could stomach it). Partnership was much more obtainable through the FinReg group, though I assume they aren’t paid as well. If it’s reasonable in your market to just go straight through as a white collar associate to partner, then that’s great.

In any case, kind of sounds like you know what you want to do. If you like the work and can be happy at a firm long term, then great.

[Anonymous User]

Investigations exit ops are pretty awful, while financial reg ones are quite good. I know you say you don’t want to go in house, but I think you just give yourself much better options with the reg role.

Can you please expand more on how investigations exit opportunities are pretty awful? I am hoping to get on and stay on the investigations practice group and make my way to public service.

[Anonymous User]

Yes, re DC. I have a 12th year friend doing investigations in DC who has never worked for gov though and I'd just rather not wind up like him - although I'm sure he's earning loads. I'm thinking out loud, but where I am people tend to get made up in litigation and investigations, rather than just investigations - they might have 30% of their practice in investigations. Will have gov work or quite commonly have done secondments at banks for future work.

I don't know what I do! I just wonder if I'm not giving fin reg its fair dues as I have less experience in it. No doc review. Lots of thinking, researching, regulatory memos. It's just...it is rather all a bit boring.

[PriyaRai]

Where did you hear this phrase “get made up”?

[Anonymous User]

Investigations exit ops are pretty awful, while financial reg ones are quite good. I know you say you don’t want to go in house, but I think you just give yourself much better options with the reg role.

Can you please expand more on how investigations exit opportunities are pretty awful? I am hoping to get on and stay on the investigations practice group and make my way to public service.

I'm the OP. They're not awful, it's just something people say on here. They're narrow...but narrow doesn't mean bad. Like with M&A, people say the exits are great, but...if great means...broad...then yeah. If you're interested in working in government or staying on in private practice, they're good. If you're hoping to become GC, other practice areas are better. But as I say there are lots of good in-house investigations roles in banks and big pharma etc.

That's why he says the reg role will give me "better" options...yeah maybe...there will be more things available to me in the market in-house. But for either role, they're better than some bad transactional burn and churn M&A or finance role where you kill yourself doing tedious stuff for years, and IMO easier to stay for the long haul in private practice. IME, in-house doesn't pay like private practice does esp at the senior end, unless you take certain comparables.

To the other person, re "made up", it's a term which people use. Including me. But I'm happy if you want to think I made "made up" up...!

[PriyaRai]

Thanks, re "made up." I had just never heard it before.

[Anonymous User]

Investigations exit ops are pretty awful, while financial reg ones are quite good. I know you say you don’t want to go in house, but I think you just give yourself much better options with the reg role.

Can you please expand more on how investigations exit opportunities are pretty awful? I am hoping to get on and stay on the investigations practice group and make my way to public service.

I'm the OP. They're not awful, it's just something people say on here. They're narrow...but narrow doesn't mean bad. Like with M&A, people say the exits are great, but...if great means...broad...then yeah. If you're interested in working in government or staying on in private practice, they're good. If you're hoping to become GC, other practice areas are better. But as I say there are lots of good in-house investigations roles in banks and big pharma etc.

That's why he says the reg role will give me "better" options...yeah maybe...there will be more things available to me in the market in-house. But for either role, they're better than some bad transactional burn and churn M&A or finance role where you kill yourself doing tedious stuff for years, and IMO easier to stay for the long haul in private practice. IME, in-house doesn't pay like private practice does esp at the senior end, unless you take certain comparables.

To the other person, re "made up", it's a term which people use. Including me. But I'm happy if you want to think I made "made up" up...!

Thanks for this

[Elston Gunn]

For what it’s worth, I have a more negative view on exit ops from being a white collar associate than the OP. Investigator legal jobs at banks or similar jobs absolutely do exist, but there are a high number of people qualified for those jobs relative to how many are out there. (I don’t think they are very desirable either, but that’s more a matter of taste.)

The anon who asked is interested primarily in public service, and that’s certainly a realistic goal. But it is also a very common one for people who do that work, and there are a lot of associates who do a big chunk of white collar work, so desirable public service jobs are very competitive. Many, if not most, of those jobs also have a very heavy litigation and even trial element, so a near-pure white collar associate often struggles to demonstrate adequate experience. Which is to say, don’t let yourself get pigeonholed doing 100% or close investigations, even if that’s the work you like best. And try to do complex pro bono work with a good chance to get to trial, or at least let you take depositions.

[Anonymous User]

For what it’s worth, I have a more negative view on exit ops from being a white collar associate than the OP. Investigator legal jobs at banks or similar jobs absolutely do exist, but there are a high number of people qualified for those jobs relative to how many are out there. (I don’t think they are very desirable either, but that’s more a matter of taste.)

The anon who asked is interested primarily in public service, and that’s certainly a realistic goal. But it is also a very common one for people who do that work, and there are a lot of associates who do a big chunk of white collar work, so desirable public service jobs are very competitive. Many, if not most, of those jobs also have a very heavy litigation and even trial element, so a near-pure white collar associate often struggles to demonstrate adequate experience. Which is to say, don’t let yourself get pigeonholed doing 100% or close investigations, even if that’s the work you like best. And try to do complex pro bono work with a good chance to get to trial, or at least let you take depositions.

Out of curiosity, what did you exit to? Re the bank jobs, I've found people often leverage to them / the better roles as existing clients / secondments. VP in litigation, investigations, enforcement. Assistant GC. JP Morgan / Nomura sorts. Have no idea if they're any good - why do you think undesirable?

FWIW, agree with 2nd para completely and I think you have to fight from being pigeonholed in all areas - for white collar / investigations work and getting your hands dirty with some litigation, and for a regulatory role trying to get into more contentious / investigations stuff, alongside the banal funds reg

[Elston Gunn]

Out of curiosity, what did you exit to?

Specialist counsel at a public fintech company. Happy to say more over PM.

Re the bank jobs, I've found people often leverage to them / the better roles as existing clients / secondments. VP in litigation, investigations, enforcement. Assistant GC. JP Morgan / Nomura sorts. Have no idea if they're any good - why do you think undesirable?

The jobs seem mostly to be either running glorified HR investigations or managing outside counsel. Which isn’t that bad, and getting to run even relatively less interesting investigations without the stress of Biglaw could be great for some people. Just not my thing. (To be fair, my impressions are best on working with these lawyers as an associate and doing “reviews” of how they investigated certain things, so I obviously don’t have full visibility.)

[Anonymous User]

Just to give a slightly different opinion on exit ops: I'm the Head of Investigations at a large company. I've actually found in hiring that we are not getting a lot of top-tier candidates from biglaw or similar backgrounds. I think some of that is the pay gap now that we are fighting against substantially larger salaries at firms. But I've hired multiple positions in investigative lawyer roles at a few different companies now. I've been really surprised at the lack of mid-level/senior associate candidates with actual investigative experience applying. For the last role I was hiring for, I got a lot of litigators but almost no one with actual white collar investigations experience. All that is to say that if you're an investigations lawyer looking to move in-house, there are roles out there that we are having trouble finding people to fill.

[Anonymous User]

Just to give a slightly different opinion on exit ops: I'm the Head of Investigations at a large company. I've actually found in hiring that we are not getting a lot of top-tier candidates from biglaw or similar backgrounds. I think some of that is the pay gap now that we are fighting against substantially larger salaries at firms. But I've hired multiple positions in investigative lawyer roles at a few different companies now. I've been really surprised at the lack of mid-level/senior associate candidates with actual investigative experience applying. For the last role I was hiring for, I got a lot of litigators but almost no one with actual white collar investigations experience. All that is to say that if you're an investigations lawyer looking to move in-house, there are roles out there that we are having trouble finding people to fill.

OP here, my experience also from applicant side. Interesting to know re pay differentials / to the extent you are finding yourself priced out from getting good associates now? Generally this appears to be the case across the board as firms in private practice have pushed up their salaries so high over the last couple of years, no in-house role can compete on pay usually. I haven't had my finger on the pulse on the in-house market, but have salaries risen to much degree in-house?

Hard agree on the white collar / investigations side - everyone and their dog is a litigator, few have real investigations experience, although people pretend they do. Reality is most don't have it. It's a relatively niche area, doing the monitorships etc., you've got a small number of people in top firms all over it, from my experience in the market.

[Anonymous User]

Just to give a slightly different opinion on exit ops: I'm the Head of Investigations at a large company. I've actually found in hiring that we are not getting a lot of top-tier candidates from biglaw or similar backgrounds. I think some of that is the pay gap now that we are fighting against substantially larger salaries at firms. But I've hired multiple positions in investigative lawyer roles at a few different companies now. I've been really surprised at the lack of mid-level/senior associate candidates with actual investigative experience applying. For the last role I was hiring for, I got a lot of litigators but almost no one with actual white collar investigations experience. All that is to say that if you're an investigations lawyer looking to move in-house, there are roles out there that we are having trouble finding people to fill.

OP here, my experience also from applicant side. Interesting to know re pay differentials / to the extent you are finding yourself priced out from getting good associates now? Generally this appears to be the case across the board as firms in private practice have pushed up their salaries so high over the last couple of years, no in-house role can compete on pay usually. I haven't had my finger on the pulse on the in-house market, but have salaries risen to much degree in-house?

Hard agree on the white collar / investigations side - everyone and their dog is a litigator, few have real investigations experience, although people pretend they do. Reality is most don't have it. It's a relatively niche area, doing the monitorships etc., you've got a small number of people in top firms all over it, from my experience in the market.

Quoted Anon here. Salaries have risen a bit across industries but nothing close to firms. I got a large bump to move into my current role but am making less than I would be at a firm for sure, albeit with a way better lifestyle. A lot of companies, including mine, are letting folks stay fully remote, which has been a boon for hiring on my team as our HQ is in a HCOL market. It's been easier recently to get a good candidate who can sit in Minneapolis or Detroit rather than moving to one of the coasts.

[Anonatty]

Out of curiosity, what did you exit to?

Specialist counsel at a public fintech company. Happy to say more over PM.

Re the bank jobs, I've found people often leverage to them / the better roles as existing clients / secondments. VP in litigation, investigations, enforcement. Assistant GC. JP Morgan / Nomura sorts. Have no idea if they're any good - why do you think undesirable?

The jobs seem mostly to be either running glorified HR investigations or managing outside counsel. Which isn’t that bad, and getting to run even relatively less interesting investigations without the stress of Biglaw could be great for some people. Just not my thing. (To be fair, my impressions are best on working with these lawyers as an associate and doing “reviews” of how they investigated certain things, so I obviously don’t have full visibility.)

Would you mind DM'ing me? Would love to learn more about your specialist in-house position.

[Anonymous User]

For what it’s worth, I have a more negative view on exit ops from being a white collar associate than the OP. Investigator legal jobs at banks or similar jobs absolutely do exist, but there are a high number of people qualified for those jobs relative to how many are out there. (I don’t think they are very desirable either, but that’s more a matter of taste.)

The anon who asked is interested primarily in public service, and that’s certainly a realistic goal. But it is also a very common one for people who do that work, and there are a lot of associates who do a big chunk of white collar work, so desirable public service jobs are very competitive. Many, if not most, of those jobs also have a very heavy litigation and even trial element, so a near-pure white collar associate often struggles to demonstrate adequate experience. Which is to say, don’t let yourself get pigeonholed doing 100% or close investigations, even if that’s the work you like best. And try to do complex pro bono work with a good chance to get to trial, or at least let you take depositions.

Public service anon here - thank you again for a thoughtful answer! I will keep this in mind

[Anonymous User]

I'm an 3rd year associate at a V20-30. I have been in between non contentious financial reg into contentious and investigations work. I have done litigation as well. I have two offers - one is with a great team for non contentious reg, the other is also with a great team focussing on investigations and chipping in with some litigation / sanctions work which comes through the door.

I think investigations / litigation is more interesting, but I can't see myself becoming partner at this new firm. There's no clear track system, loads of mouths above me, people are getting made up longer and longer, I'm not going to be at this place for 10 years until this happens. I think the lateral market for investigations is also pretty tight / small. Getting made up in this area seems darn impossible since it's tricky to ever get a following per se.

The reg role is still interesting, people are great, it's a smaller office, and in 2 years I'd be considered a senior associate with an idea to get made up. Lateral options, I think, are better. I'm not looking to go in-house.

Thoughts / opinions / questions? Any contributions welcome.

I'm a finreg associate and generally like it. I'll probably head in-house in 2ish years and am not concerned about opportunities...I get targeted pings from recruiters all the time, and there is a limited universe of finreg attorneys. The work is different and changing enough that it stays interesting, and regulator timetables are nothing like, say, M&A timetables. It's less aggressive - minor mistakes are either unimportant or easy to fix, but some is also boring for the same reason. Also fewer "easy" hours (eg no doc review), though I understand that's less an option as lit attorneys get more senior anyway.

Last point, I'm not really concerned about an economic slowdown. I think a lot of companies would see that as an opportunity for fintech innovation.