Related Posts
More Posts
If you say "for all intensive purposes", I hate you.
O well 🍀🐝
Anyone heard of visual impact for women?
Additional Posts in Law
Name your firm and whether you now can WFH...
If you say "for all intensive purposes", I hate you.
O well 🍀🐝
Anyone heard of visual impact for women?
Name your firm and whether you now can WFH...
It’s exhausting
In my experience (mid level who does mostly this) it’s heavy on the investigation/fact development, light on the formal legal writing/litigation. That might differ at a place that does lots of individual representations (that could potentially go to trial) vice large companies (that inevitably settle - the only question being the resolution terms).
I like parts of it, but it is frequently soul crushing - between hot doc trackers and talking points and advocacy pieces no one in government wants to/will read, there’s a ton of make-work, even at pretty senior levels. Conventional wisdom is it’s helpful to working as an AUSA later on, but since prosecutors do actually litigate, I have to wonder whether doing more motion practice, even if in a non-criminal context, might be just as/more helpful.
In Big Law, it involves a great deal of investigations work, which many lawyers like. FCPA has been slow during the current administration, but firms are expecting an upswing.
Thank you for detailed answer
I do this for a boutique firm in the Midwest. We have a pretty sophisticated motions practice and there is definitely also a lot of fact development. The work is super interesting, news-worthy sexy headline stuff, and that’s fun. I do find it incredibly stressful, but maybe it’s like that in any practice area. The stakes are high though when you’re dealing with people facing prison time. Definitely a potential pipeline to AUSA, although more people start in government work and then move into white collar private practice.