Which firms in DC have the strongest privacy practices? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Which firms in DC have the strongest privacy practices specifically for regulatory work? It looks like some firms fall more on the litigation or even transactional side.

[Anonymous User]

Which firms in DC have the strongest privacy practices specifically for regulatory work? It looks like some firms fall more on the litigation or even transactional side.

On the regulatory side, Covington is really strong.

[HamlinMcgill]

You can check Chambers rankings. Also look on the FTC's website for consent decrees in privacy cases, and see which law firms were representing the companies. In addition to Covington, I would say Hogan Lovells, Wilson Sonsini, and Perkins Coie. Morrison Foerster and Cooley also have strong privacy practices, but I'm not sure specifically about regulatory issues in their DC offices. (This isn't necessarily a complete list.)

[Anonymous User]

I’m in DC but don’t work in privacy myself and have mostly heard Venable and WilmerHale come up as top tier, though also not sure where they fall as to lit/reg/transactional balance

[Anonymous User]

Sidley, in addition to the others mentioned (particularly cov/hogan)

[Anonymous User]

Wilmer has to be on the list. Source: privacy professors told me so.

[Anonymous User]

Venable has a good one. Also a good firm to work for generally.

[Anonymous User]

Venable has a good one. Also a good firm to work for generally.

Venable doesn't pay market. For me at least that's an auto ding.

[Anonymous User]

Venable has a good one. Also a good firm to work for generally.

Venable doesn't pay market. For me at least that's an auto ding.

What do they pay?

[Anonymous User]

Venable has a good one. Also a good firm to work for generally.

Venable doesn't pay market. For me at least that's an auto ding.

What do they pay?

This is fair. I worked there several years ago now so I’m not sure if they’ve changed the system, but it was market for the first two years and then starting as a third-year you were moved to a pay band. My understanding is that the floor was below market and the ceiling was at or slightly above market, but that in practice comp decisions were fairly opaque and most people tended to be closer to the lower end (so total comp below market). I think the hours minimum for a bonus is 1900 and then the bonus increased incrementally for each 50 hours over that.

I worked at Venable pre-law school, not as an attorney, but it’s a really great and sane firm in my experience, despite the comp issue. If you care about your lifestyle and working with generally very good people, I think it’s a perfectly defensible choice.

[Anonymous User]

Venable has a good one. Also a good firm to work for generally.

Venable doesn't pay market. For me at least that's an auto ding.

What do they pay?

This is fair. I worked there several years ago now so I’m not sure if they’ve changed the system, but it was market for the first two years and then starting as a third-year you were moved to a pay band. My understanding is that the floor was below market and the ceiling was at or slightly above market, but that in practice comp decisions were fairly opaque and most people tended to be closer to the lower end (so total comp below market). I think the hours minimum for a bonus is 1900 and then the bonus increased incrementally for each 50 hours over that.

I worked at Venable pre-law school, not as an attorney, but it’s a really great and sane firm in my experience, despite the comp issue. If you care about your lifestyle and working with generally very good people, I think it’s a perfectly defensible choice.

Agree with this. I used to work there as an attorney but it's been a few years (pre-pandemic). When I left I think the first three years all made market, but after that pay was pretty compressed - it was "possible" to make close market for most years (but not always!) but almost no one did (I think they paid the top performer market so that they could show it was possible on the little pay graph they showed us at the annual comp meeting). I think my pay was $25k off market when I left, which isn't the end of the world. Bonuses were where they really got you. They were substantially below market - it was a weird hours based system where every 50 hours you earned like $5k, which was great if you are a first year who bills 2400 (you could theoretically get an bonus way above market!) but not great if you're a 6th year who bills 2000 and gets a $10k bonus. Things may have changed, since I left before the last couple rounds of raises, so maybe they've fixed that, but if I'm choosing between billing 2000 hours at firm that pays me a $100k bonus and a firm that's paying me 10% of a $100k bonus...

Edit to add: I also agree that it was a great and sane firm! The people were wonderful. The pay...was not.