SEC Lawyers Annoy Their Way Into The Hearts Of Private-Sector Employers

So let’s say you’re a bank and, redundantly, you are in trouble with the SEC. And you want to hire a new lawyer to get you out of that trouble, because your old lawyers got you into it. You decide, sensibly, to hire a lawyer directly from the SEC, both because those lawyers have valuable experience and contacts and because they lawyers are paid so much less than your other lawyers that they’re a bargain. Who would you rather hire:
(1) An SEC lawyer who has always been nice to you, settled cases easily, not pushed too hard on investigations, and waived collateral consequences of your repeated securities fraud, or
(2) A lawyer who has always been a huge dick to you, litigated everything to the death, made your life difficult, and taken unreasonable positions?

If you chose option (1), you probably don’t work at a bank.

This study of the SEC revolving door is actually pretty neat, though suspect for reasons Yves Smith points out.* The most important conclusion is that the prospect of leaving the SEC to go represent companies doesn’t make SEC lawyers nicer to the companies: in fact, SEC lawyers who later leave to represent clients before the SEC seem to litigate more aggressively than those who don’t. But that’s actually pretty obvious, isn’t it?

For one thing, aggressiveness correlates with ability and intelligence and hard work and the general facepunching ethos required to succeed in private industry. The SEC lawyer who goes home at five o’clock after a relaxing day of ignoring financial fraud probably won’t fit in at a bank with a fast-paced culture of committing financial fraud.

For another thing, aggressiveness creates the conditions for private-sector employment: if you are the SEC employee in charge of policing CDOs, say, and you never sue anyone over CDOs, then no one will ever need to hire you to defend their CDO cases against the SEC. The more people you sue or regulate or generally bother, the more potential clients you have.**

Most of all, aggressiveness creates the desire in your victims to be rid of you as an SEC employee. Even if you’re an unbearable jerk and an idiot and cannot be useful in defending lawsuits, if you’re annoying enough at the SEC then some bank will hire you and pay you $500,000 a year to sit in a windowless room with no internet access. Better than leaving you at the SEC to continue pestering them.

All of this is obvious enough. The conclusions you’d draw from it are mixed: on the one hand, it’s probably true that the revolving door really shouldn’t deter firm regulation and zealous investigation of financial companies, so if you like that sort of thing you shouldn’t be too troubled by the fact that everyone at the SEC hopes to one day work at Goldman Sachs. On the other hand, the revolving door’s incentives encourage regulation and enforcement optimized not to prevent fraud but to create future private employment: arcane rules and arbitrary litigation make SEC insider knowledge and contacts more valuable than clear rules and consistent enforcement.***

One more speculative conclusion is: if the private sector thinks this way, why not the government? Maybe those who want to clamp down on banks should welcome the SEC hiring Goldman Sachs alums. Aggressiveness is aggressiveness, whether applied to enforce or thwart regulation. And if they’re doing so much damage at Goldman Sachs, why not move them somewhere with, let’s say, a more mixed track record of effectiveness?

Study Questions Risk of S.E.C. Revolving Door [NYT]
Does the Revolving Door Affect the SEC’s Enforcement Outcomes? [American Accounting Association]
Dubious Study Defends SEC Revolving Door [Naked Capitalism]

* In addition to its sampling dubiousness – one portion of the SEC, relatively junior lawyers, etc. – and difficulties in extracting causation, I found most counterintuitive the claim that law firms who hire SEC lawyers don’t get better results for their clients with the SEC, and would endorse the explanation “that litigation was far from a complete picture of how ex SEC staffers could interact with the agency. It isn’t hard to imagine their highest and best use would be to settle matters quietly, meaning to forestall litigation being filed.”

** I mean, you probably can’t defend against the cases you actually brought, but just creating the fear that there’ll be more, and a template for other SEC-sters to bring them, is a good way to make yourself useful to future employers.

*** If exchanges have discretion over whether or not to break erroneous trades, then you want to hire the guy who’s a personal friend of the head of the NYSE. If it’s a bright-line rule, then nobody can save you from yourself with a phone call to Mary Schapiro on her vacation.

(hidden for your protection)
Show all comments

46 Responses to “SEC Lawyers Annoy Their Way Into The Hearts Of Private-Sector Employers”

  1. lieutenant winslow says:

    the authors of that study are most widely known for their previous work denying the existence of climate change

  2. Puck It says:

    Did I miss an announcement that Bess is on vacation this week?

    —Guy who thinks it's going to be a long week without posts from Bess

  3. J. Skilling says:

    "…..For one thing, aggressiveness correlates with ability and intelligence and hard work and the general facepunching ethos required to succeed in private industry….."

    Fuckin' A!!!

  4. DSK says:

    Ohh la la YES!

  5. s. freud says:

    Private sector less into tranny porn. Positive selection for SEC lawyers with standard hetero/homo proclivities

  6. Nervous Gentile says:

    Wh.. wh… where's Bess?

  7. guest says:

    Is this lady a Native American too?

  8. Matt's Shrink says:

    Matt, remember that chat we had about how you're supposed to take your adderall only as prescribed? Now we don't want another episode like governance day, so let's just step away from the keyboard Matt.

  9. Guest says:

    "some bank will hire you and pay you $500,000 a year to sit in a windowless room with no internet access"

    Windowless room is good, but provide internet access (and no filters – that's key) and you ought to be able to hire SEC staffers for a lot less than $500k per year. Hell, they'd take a pay cut to get that sort of workplace access to porn.

  10. Anon says:

    And we should probably hire the head of Goldman to the head of the SEC… or how about even more power, like a secretary of the treasury posting?

    Though I admit, Kennedy fits your line of thinking.

  11. broselv says:

    Hello, i think that i saw you visited my website so i came to “return the favor”.Im trying to find things to enhance my website!I suppose its ok to use a few of your ideas!!

  12. A person essentially assist to make severely posts I might state. That is the first time I frequented your web page and so far? I amazed with the research you made to make this actual put up incredible. Great job!

  13. I would like to express my appreciation to you for rescuing me from such a circumstance. Because of searching throughout the world wide web and getting ideas which are not powerful, I assumed my life was gone. Existing minus the strategies to the problems you’ve resolved as a result of your entire write-up is a serious case, as well as the ones which might have badly affected my career if I hadn’t come across your web site. Your natural talent and kindness in handling every part was excellent. I don’t know what I would’ve done if I hadn’t encountered such a subject like this. I’m able to at this point look forward to my future. Thanks for your time so much for this skilled and result oriented help. I won’t be reluctant to recommend your blog to anybody who desires support about this area.

  14. PIvFjS I value the article.Much thanks again. Will read on…

  15. Thanks for the post. Much obliged.

  16. Great article post.Much thanks again. Will read on…

  17. Wow, great article.Really thank you! Cool.

  18. Muchos Gracias for your blog post.Much thanks again. Really Cool.

  19. Great article.Really looking forward to read more. Cool.

  20. Really enjoyed this blog.Really thank you! Really Great.

  21. What i do not understood is actually how you are now not really a lot more neatly-favored than you may be now. You are very intelligent. You realize thus significantly in the case of this topic, produced me individually imagine it from a lot of various angles. Its like men and women don’t seem to be fascinated until it is something to accomplish with Girl gaga! Your own stuffs excellent. All the time care for it up!

  22. I really liked your blog article. Awesome.

  23. Really enjoyed this blog.Much thanks again. Cool.

  24. Pattaya says:

    Thanks-a-mundo for the blog article. Awesome.

  25. Really appreciate you sharing this post.Really thank you! Awesome.

  26. Major thanks for the post.Really thank you! Will read on…

  27. I appreciate you sharing this post.Thanks Again. Really Cool.

  28. I think this is a real great article. Much obliged.

  29. A big thank you for your blog article.Really thank you! Much obliged.

  30. shake table says:

    Say, you got a nice blog.Really thank you! Really Cool.

  31. I really liked your blog post.Thanks Again. Want more.

  32. paskolos says:

    Wow, great post.Thanks Again. Really Cool.

  33. competition says:

    Major thankies for the blog.Really looking forward to read more. Much obliged.

  34. Say, you got a nice post.Really looking forward to read more. Keep writing.

  35. free says:

    Fantastic blog post.Really thank you!

  36. Thanks for the article post. Fantastic.

  37. hip hop says:

    Very neat blog post. Keep writing.

  38. Thank you ever so for you post.Really looking forward to read more. Great.

  39. I appreciate you sharing this blog post.Thanks Again. Will read on…

  40. Really appreciate you sharing this post.Much thanks again. Great.

  41. pygzrmuck [url=][/url] pygzrmuck

  42. Jarkesy says:

    Really appreciate you sharing this blog article.Really thank you! Cool.

  43. Bram de Haas says:

    This is a hilarious insight and really goes into the heart of the matter; The more people you sue or regulate or generally bother, the more potential clients you have.** I lolled pretty hard at that.