Federal antitrust atty taking qs Forum

[Wellsfargowagon]

The FTC's Bureau of Competition is hiring! The posting just went up today, and the application deadline is April 18:

https://www.usajobs.gov/job/715638000

[yowzabobawza]

The firm I’ll be summering at has a solid merger pre-clearance practice group and it is in theory an area of the law that I am considering working in. I however don’t know much about what the work entails, pros and cons, or what the work life balance/general workflow is compared to something like the more traditional M&A, tax or litigation tracks.

Could anyone here let me know how they enjoy working in this area? My long term goals are FTC/DOJ or in house, which I also assume could work well with clearance work.

[Anonymous User]

This may not be the right place to ask this, but I'm very interested in working in antitrust for the government, after a strong interest in this area. But I did some drugs (not just weed) way back in the past. No problems with the bar or anything, but does that DQ me for antitrust jobs in spaces like FTC or DOJ which presumably have a heightened requirement of some kind? I don't want to get my hopes up and then get dinged for something stupid like that.

[Anonymous User]

This may not be the right place to ask this, but I'm very interested in working in antitrust for the government, after a strong interest in this area. But I did some drugs (not just weed) way back in the past. No problems with the bar or anything, but does that DQ me for antitrust jobs in spaces like FTC or DOJ which presumably have a heightened requirement of some kind? I don't want to get my hopes up and then get dinged for something stupid like that.

OP here; not sure what the background checks are like these days, but i do not think that's an automatic disqualification. Take look at recent OPM guidance. https://www.chcoc.gov/content/assessing ... ining-drug

[Anonymous User]

The firm I’ll be summering at has a solid merger pre-clearance practice group and it is in theory an area of the law that I am considering working in. I however don’t know much about what the work entails, pros and cons, or what the work life balance/general workflow is compared to something like the more traditional M&A, tax or litigation tracks.

Could anyone here let me know how they enjoy working in this area? My long term goals are FTC/DOJ or in house, which I also assume could work well with clearance work.

OP here. This is a very broad question and it's hard to give you clear answer without really knowing what your interests are. Simply put, yes, I love being an antitrust lawyer. The field is varied. In my career, I have done a lot of client counseling (involves advising clients on the legal risks involved in a transaction or business strategy), merger review, and litigation. This spans the full gamut of legal skills, and crosses the litigation/transactional divide. Merger review is particularly fun on the government side because of the pace. Because most deals we review are filed under the HSR act, we have relatively strict time limits for reviewing a deal. That means cases rarely drag on beyond 18 months to 2 years (which would include going to litigation to stop the deal). From a skills perspective, a lot of what we do involves detail-oriented fact work, witness interviews, document review, etc. Merger review is an investigation-heavy practice, which also touches on civil litigation skills--developing an evidentiary record through discovery tools, taking depositions/investigational hearings, etc. The more senior you get, you also get to weigh in on enforcement policy questions about how the agency should be applying the law and weighing in on proposed legislation from Congress.

[Anonymous User]

OP, hopefully this doesn't retread old ground but: I'm an attorney joining the FTC / DOJ Antitrust Division after a few years in private practice at a large firm. What are the biggest upgrades and downgrades I should be ready for?

[Anonymous User]

OP, hopefully this doesn't retread old ground but: I'm an attorney joining the FTC / DOJ Antitrust Division after a few years in private practice at a large firm. What are the biggest upgrades and downgrades I should be ready for?

OP here. Welcome to government service! Here are some thoughts, but let me now if you mean something else by "upgrades and downgrades."
Upgrades

• No non-billable type work! One of the things I hated in private practice was the significant time I wasted on client alerts and similar materials. There really isn't an analog in government.

• A different type of client service. You'll often hear people say that being at the FTC/DOJ is better because you don't have to worry about clients. That's not exactly true. We still have bosses that identify goals and establish timelines for deliverables (i.e., the political leadership who set the agenda and understandably want updates on cases). So you'll still get some requests for memos, etc., that may not have been part of your planned work stream. However, you're generally not getting a lot of requests on a Friday night to turnaround something by the following Monday. I'm not saying it never happens, but it's rare and typically in response to some important external catalyst (e.g., you're in litigation and the other side has lobbed over some crazy motion).

• Consistent access to the most interesting antitrust work available--you will definitely get interesting work in private practice, but it's often bookended by crappy work. For example, you will counsel on tons of deals that never go anywhere for every deal that actually gets a Second Request. In government, you're only working on "live" issues (i.e., actual deals or actual conduct that merits investigation). We have limited resources so we can't waste our time on non-issues...

• No billable hour requirements -- this is subtle, but the lack of billable hour requirements is huge. the billable hour in private practice discouraged important work that the firm/client incorrectly deems inefficient--(1) training and (2) exhausting lines of inquiry. On training, senior attorneys generally don't mind spending extra time explaining concepts or talking through issues. You'll have team meetings where people can discuss what happened in an interview or debate case strategies. In private practice, this was often discouraged if people felt they couldn't bill the client for it. On exhausting lines of inquiry, I never feel like i can't run something to ground because the client won't pay for me to be thorough. Of course, people have lives and are busy, so it's not like there isn't any time constraint; it's just not a financially-driven constraint imposed by a client looking at a budget.

• Fantastic paralegals--i don't want to imply paralegals are firms aren't good; they're great. Just want to highlight that both agencies hire really bright college grads who are usually motivated to work hard because they want to learn and get experience before they go to law school. And for a lot of them, they want to establish mentoring relationships with attorneys, so they're going to be really diligent.

Downgrades

• Substantive Bureaucracy -- look, it's government. There's a certain amount of bureaucracy that just sucks. You have a ton of autonomy in a lot of ways. I get to run my investigations the way I want to, but I do ultimately have to explain myself to people up the chain with some frequency. There are often multiple people weighing in on decisions above me and that can suck a lot of times because it's not often clear who is the final decisionmaker on something, which can cause things to stall. It can be annoying sometimes when someone above me in the chain of command has a random thought and fires an email encouraging us to prioritize an issue that was disposed off early in a case (which then generates a ton of emails, meetings, etc.). And I'll be honest -- there will be people with fancy titles in the agencies who are unqualified for their jobs. There are people who weigh in on substantive decisions who have much less experience than the rank-and-file career staff. It can be annoying to have to justify your thinking to someone without experience in antitrust investigations/litigation. You get used to it and they eventually realize that career staff know what they're doing, but it is frustrating. (To be clear, this is a bipartisan problem--this happens with every administration.)

• Administrative Bureaucracy--dealing with administrative issues is more annoying than in private practice. Getting travel approved/reimbursed is a massive hassle. The admin support is just not as strong as you get in a firm. It isn't a huge deal, and you figure it out after a while.

• Technology -- the government will always be a few steps behind the law firms on technology and software. We're closing the gap, but given the sensitive nature of our work, we have to go through rigorous security testing on any new computers/software, which means we're at least 1-2 versions behind the law firms (if not more). Plus, it's not like the government can just and buy whatever software package it wants; there are federal laws that impose rules on how the government procures/awards contracts which takes tons of time.

[Anonymous User]

OP, hopefully this doesn't retread old ground but: I'm an attorney joining the FTC / DOJ Antitrust Division after a few years in private practice at a large firm. What are the biggest upgrades and downgrades I should be ready for?

OP here. Welcome to government service! Here are some thoughts, but let me now if you mean something else by "upgrades and downgrades."
Upgrades

• No non-billable type work! One of the things I hated in private practice was the significant time I wasted on client alerts and similar materials. There really isn't an analog in government.

• A different type of client service. You'll often hear people say that being at the FTC/DOJ is better because you don't have to worry about clients. That's not exactly true. We still have bosses that identify goals and establish timelines for deliverables (i.e., the political leadership who set the agenda and understandably want updates on cases). So you'll still get some requests for memos, etc., that may not have been part of your planned work stream. However, you're generally not getting a lot of requests on a Friday night to turnaround something by the following Monday. I'm not saying it never happens, but it's rare and typically in response to some important external catalyst (e.g., you're in litigation and the other side has lobbed over some crazy motion).

• Consistent access to the most interesting antitrust work available--you will definitely get interesting work in private practice, but it's often bookended by crappy work. For example, you will counsel on tons of deals that never go anywhere for every deal that actually gets a Second Request. In government, you're only working on "live" issues (i.e., actual deals or actual conduct that merits investigation). We have limited resources so we can't waste our time on non-issues...

• No billable hour requirements -- this is subtle, but the lack of billable hour requirements is huge. the billable hour in private practice discouraged important work that the firm/client incorrectly deems inefficient--(1) training and (2) exhausting lines of inquiry. On training, senior attorneys generally don't mind spending extra time explaining concepts or talking through issues. You'll have team meetings where people can discuss what happened in an interview or debate case strategies. In private practice, this was often discouraged if people felt they couldn't bill the client for it. On exhausting lines of inquiry, I never feel like i can't run something to ground because the client won't pay for me to be thorough. Of course, people have lives and are busy, so it's not like there isn't any time constraint; it's just not a financially-driven constraint imposed by a client looking at a budget.

• Fantastic paralegals--i don't want to imply paralegals are firms aren't good; they're great. Just want to highlight that both agencies hire really bright college grads who are usually motivated to work hard because they want to learn and get experience before they go to law school. And for a lot of them, they want to establish mentoring relationships with attorneys, so they're going to be really diligent.

Downgrades

• Substantive Bureaucracy -- look, it's government. There's a certain amount of bureaucracy that just sucks. You have a ton of autonomy in a lot of ways. I get to run my investigations the way I want to, but I do ultimately have to explain myself to people up the chain with some frequency. There are often multiple people weighing in on decisions above me and that can suck a lot of times because it's not often clear who is the final decisionmaker on something, which can cause things to stall. It can be annoying sometimes when someone above me in the chain of command has a random thought and fires an email encouraging us to prioritize an issue that was disposed off early in a case (which then generates a ton of emails, meetings, etc.). And I'll be honest -- there will be people with fancy titles in the agencies who are unqualified for their jobs. There are people who weigh in on substantive decisions who have much less experience than the rank-and-file career staff. It can be annoying to have to justify your thinking to someone without experience in antitrust investigations/litigation. You get used to it and they eventually realize that career staff know what they're doing, but it is frustrating. (To be clear, this is a bipartisan problem--this happens with every administration.)

• Administrative Bureaucracy--dealing with administrative issues is more annoying than in private practice. Getting travel approved/reimbursed is a massive hassle. The admin support is just not as strong as you get in a firm. It isn't a huge deal, and you figure it out after a while.

• Technology -- the government will always be a few steps behind the law firms on technology and software. We're closing the gap, but given the sensitive nature of our work, we have to go through rigorous security testing on any new computers/software, which means we're at least 1-2 versions behind the law firms (if not more). Plus, it's not like the government can just and buy whatever software package it wants; there are federal laws that impose rules on how the government procures/awards contracts which takes tons of time.

Anonymous question-asker here. Many, many thanks--especially for the warm welcome.

Some of your upgrades have already presented themselves. And as for your downgrades, well, the tech is frankly better than I had in private practice; maybe that's just my firm. It's not the actual hardware or software. But I feel the flatter structure and lack of billable hours encourages people to actually use modern tools to work efficiently (e.g., actually using chat services; printing less). Gone are the senior partners running their entire fiefdoms like it's still the 1990s: lots of printing and proofing those printed copies, lots of team email discussions that could have been chat threads.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Bumping this back up. FYI, the agencies are still hiring. Keep an eye out for USAJOBS postings. For the FTC, you can also apply by emailing a resume and cover letter to bcrecruit@ftc.gov

Also, with lots going on, I'm happy to keep answering questions.

[Antetrust]

OP here. Bumping this back up. FYI, the agencies are still hiring. Keep an eye out for USAJOBS postings. For the FTC, you can also apply by emailing a resume and cover letter to bcrecruit@ftc.gov

Also, with lots going on, I'm happy to keep answering questions.

What are your thoughts on a fresh graduate who is very interested in antitrust starting and building an antitrust practice at firm that doesn't already have one?

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Bumping this back up. FYI, the agencies are still hiring. Keep an eye out for USAJOBS postings. For the FTC, you can also apply by emailing a resume and cover letter to bcrecruit@ftc.gov

Also, with lots going on, I'm happy to keep answering questions.

What are your thoughts on a fresh graduate who is very interested in antitrust starting and building an antitrust practice at firm that doesn't already have one?

I'm not the OP, but I'm curious - how would you intend to do that?

[Antetrust]

OP here. Bumping this back up. FYI, the agencies are still hiring. Keep an eye out for USAJOBS postings. For the FTC, you can also apply by emailing a resume and cover letter to bcrecruit@ftc.gov

Also, with lots going on, I'm happy to keep answering questions.

What are your thoughts on a fresh graduate who is very interested in antitrust starting and building an antitrust practice at firm that doesn't already have one?

I'm not the OP, but I'm curious - how would you intend to do that?

Either (1) network to try to get on a case with an established antitrust attorney at another firm; or (2) attempt to persuade a partner at my firm to accept the first antitrust case that comes in (that would otherwise be referred out). Then go from there.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Bumping this back up. FYI, the agencies are still hiring. Keep an eye out for USAJOBS postings. For the FTC, you can also apply by emailing a resume and cover letter to bcrecruit@ftc.gov

Also, with lots going on, I'm happy to keep answering questions.

What are your thoughts on a fresh graduate who is very interested in antitrust starting and building an antitrust practice at firm that doesn't already have one?

I'm not the OP, but I'm curious - how would you intend to do that?

Either (1) network to try to get on a case with an established antitrust attorney at another firm; or (2) attempt to persuade a partner at my firm to accept the first antitrust case that comes in (that would otherwise be referred out). Then go from there.

OP here. Starting a practice from scratch can be hard. If you're trying to break into government investigations work, it's a challenge to get it without established connections with clients. There are many "destination" antitrust practices that people go to when they're targets of investigations. Even for litigation, it's tough. There are plenty of litigation boutiques that have broken into antitrust, but it's because the lawyers are high profile trial lawyers.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but it is really challenging. If i were you, i'd try to do the first thing (be co-counsel on a matter where the lead counsel can't handle all the work). That may help you build a profile. if your firm is getting internal referrals for antitrust work, that's great. But I can't imagine there's a steady stream of that if you aren't already doing antitrust.

My two cents: if you really want to do antitrust, go to a firm that does antitrust.

[Antetrust]

OP here. Bumping this back up. FYI, the agencies are still hiring. Keep an eye out for USAJOBS postings. For the FTC, you can also apply by emailing a resume and cover letter to bcrecruit@ftc.gov

Also, with lots going on, I'm happy to keep answering questions.

What are your thoughts on a fresh graduate who is very interested in antitrust starting and building an antitrust practice at firm that doesn't already have one?

I'm not the OP, but I'm curious - how would you intend to do that?

Either (1) network to try to get on a case with an established antitrust attorney at another firm; or (2) attempt to persuade a partner at my firm to accept the first antitrust case that comes in (that would otherwise be referred out). Then go from there.

OP here. Starting a practice from scratch can be hard. If you're trying to break into government investigations work, it's a challenge to get it without established connections with clients. There are many "destination" antitrust practices that people go to when they're targets of investigations. Even for litigation, it's tough. There are plenty of litigation boutiques that have broken into antitrust, but it's because the lawyers are high profile trial lawyers.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but it is really challenging. If i were you, i'd try to do the first thing (be co-counsel on a matter where the lead counsel can't handle all the work). That may help you build a profile. if your firm is getting internal referrals for antitrust work, that's great. But I can't imagine there's a steady stream of that if you aren't already doing antitrust.

My two cents: if you really want to do antitrust, go to a firm that does antitrust.

Thank you!

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Reviving this thread in case folks have questions given new wave of hiring at the agencies.

[Anonymous User]

Has morale improved? There were tons of stories and surveys a year ago about how staff morale had plummeted with the new leadership at least at FTC. Any improvement?

[Anonymous User]

How widespread is remote work at the FTC and DOJ ATR? How has this changed over the past few years? My firm is in the office 3 days a week, so curious if the agencies are more remote friendly.

[Anonymous User]

Has morale improved? There were tons of stories and surveys a year ago about how staff morale had plummeted with the new leadership at least at FTC. Any improvement?

Morale at both agencies is still lower than it was under prior leadership. There's a narrative out there that this is because staff aren't on board with more aggressive enforcement. That's incorrect and frankly stupid. The reality is that both agencies have senior leaders who have little to no experience with actual legal work, so they set policy directives or push cases that are self defeating. The career staff get frustrated because they hate losing and don't like creating bad law that will make it harder to bring good cases in the future.

At DOJ, the criminal antitrust sections are sort of a mess right now as they've suffered some bad losses. Their flirtation with criminal no-poach cases was an epic fail. The civil sections are a little better off because they've been able to get a few wins.

The FTC is a little different. There's still massive frustration with the senior leadership (i.e., political leadership) but the view of the career managers is still super positive. The FEVS results show that over 90 percent of career staff have a positive view of their career managers. Morale has improved slightly, not because senior leadership has gotten better, but because people are getting opportunities to build skills and that's still worth something.

[Anonymous User]

How widespread is remote work at the FTC and DOJ ATR? How has this changed over the past few years? My firm is in the office 3 days a week, so curious if the agencies are more remote friendly.

OP here. It's important to distinguish between "remote" work and "telework." Remote work means being able to work at the agency when you don't live in DC (or in a city with a regional office). Telework is just being able to work from home several days a week.

Telework policy: DOJ is returning to 2-3 days/week in the office starting in January. FTC is staying at 1 day/week in the office for now.

Remote work: both agencies have some fully remote workers, but it's still not "widespread."

[Anonymous User]

Has morale improved? There were tons of stories and surveys a year ago about how staff morale had plummeted with the new leadership at least at FTC. Any improvement?

Morale at both agencies is still lower than it was under prior leadership. There's a narrative out there that this is because staff aren't on board with more aggressive enforcement. That's incorrect and frankly stupid. The reality is that both agencies have senior leaders who have little to no experience with actual legal work, so they set policy directives or push cases that are self defeating. The career staff get frustrated because they hate losing and don't like creating bad law that will make it harder to bring good cases in the future.

At DOJ, the criminal antitrust sections are sort of a mess right now as they've suffered some bad losses. Their flirtation with criminal no-poach cases was an epic fail. The civil sections are a little better off because they've been able to get a few wins.

The FTC is a little different. There's still massive frustration with the senior leadership (i.e., political leadership) but the view of the career managers is still super positive. The FEVS results show that over 90 percent of career staff have a positive view of their career managers. Morale has improved slightly, not because senior leadership has gotten better, but because people are getting opportunities to build skills and that's still worth something.

Makes sense. FWIW I don't think anyone in the antitrust world actually thinks staff attorneys don't want to be aggressive. The thinking was always that political leadership is forcing them to take on investigations and litigation that they know will lose in the hopes of some lofty legislative goals, which is frustrating and not conducive to an enjoyable/successful career.

Curious if you've read Plunder by that DOJ Antitrust Attorney and if that is generally in line with Staff's view of PE - i.e., that it is entirely a force for bad outcomes for people. I personally think it misses a ton of nuance about PE (although I'm far from a defender of the largest PE shops)

[Anonymous User]

Has morale improved? There were tons of stories and surveys a year ago about how staff morale had plummeted with the new leadership at least at FTC. Any improvement?

Morale at both agencies is still lower than it was under prior leadership. There's a narrative out there that this is because staff aren't on board with more aggressive enforcement. That's incorrect and frankly stupid. The reality is that both agencies have senior leaders who have little to no experience with actual legal work, so they set policy directives or push cases that are self defeating. The career staff get frustrated because they hate losing and don't like creating bad law that will make it harder to bring good cases in the future.

At DOJ, the criminal antitrust sections are sort of a mess right now as they've suffered some bad losses. Their flirtation with criminal no-poach cases was an epic fail. The civil sections are a little better off because they've been able to get a few wins.

The FTC is a little different. There's still massive frustration with the senior leadership (i.e., political leadership) but the view of the career managers is still super positive. The FEVS results show that over 90 percent of career staff have a positive view of their career managers. Morale has improved slightly, not because senior leadership has gotten better, but because people are getting opportunities to build skills and that's still worth something.

Makes sense. FWIW I don't think anyone in the antitrust world actually thinks staff attorneys don't want to be aggressive. The thinking was always that political leadership is forcing them to take on investigations and litigation that they know will lose in the hopes of some lofty legislative goals, which is frustrating and not conducive to an enjoyable/successful career.

Curious if you've read Plunder by that DOJ Antitrust Attorney and if that is generally in line with Staff's view of PE - i.e., that it is entirely a force for bad outcomes for people. I personally think it misses a ton of nuance about PE (although I'm far from a defender of the largest PE shops)

OP again -- I've skimmed it. I do not claim to be any sort of PE expert. I don't think most staff think that PE firms are uniformly bad or that acquisitions by PE firms are uniformly anticompetitive, though there's good reason to think that the nature of PE firms' investment strategy would suggest different incentives for firm behavior than other types of buyers.

[Anonymous User]

OP here--FYI, the FTC is hiring laterals: https://www.usajobs.gov/job/779426400

[Anonymous User]

OP here--FYI, the FTC is hiring laterals: https://www.usajobs.gov/job/779426400

How is morale at the FTC now?

[Anonymous User]

OP here--FYI, the FTC is hiring laterals: https://www.usajobs.gov/job/779426400

How is morale at the FTC now?

It's pretty much the same as it's been the last 2 years. Staff is doing good work and people get opportunities to build some awesome skills, but there's still broad frustration with the senior leadership of the agency. The frustration isn't politically motivated or ideological. The political leadership is really bad at management. They don't understand that doing X means you cannot do Y, so case teams are spread thin chasing down too many fruitless theories at the expense of more promising ones. It's pretty clear the senior leadership is more interested in making headlines (especially in an election year) than in actual case outcomes. We're all just resigned to that reality and are making the best of the situation and hoping better days are ahead.

The career managers do a good job of protecting staff as much as possible, but there's only so much they can do. That being said, folks are keeping their heads down and doing the best they can given the circumstances.