Agency Capture: It's Not About You

A simple mantra to keep in mind as you advance through your career.

In the previous two columns, I offered advice for young attorneys in various career stages considering careers in government service. I discussed issues to consider while in law school, when choosing an office, and for the first few years after starting. Today’s column is less advice, per se, and more of a thought that I find helpful for all government attorneys (including myself) to bear in mind as they move through their careers: it’s not about you.

By “it” I mean everything you do in the office. The substance of the work, the process of getting it done, and the innumerable decisions made by you or your colleagues or clients along the way. You and your interests or preferences are never the point. You work for the agency on behalf of the public it serves. The process of doing the work that has been put in place is meant to function for the agency as a whole, not make things easy on you as an individual employee.

Of course, there’s a degree to which this is an inherent part of being a lawyer, not just a government lawyer. Some of the scenarios I discuss today could likely be adapted to the private sector. Ours is a client service profession — a lawyer’s job is to serve the client’s interests, not her own. Some might even say being able to reach a zen-like state of wanting nothing for yourself whenever you’re on the job for your client is a sign of maturity as a lawyer.

But I think this dynamic is heightened a bit for government lawyers, for two reasons. First, the idea that it’s not about you is an obvious consequence of the substance of the work. Government agencies don’t pursue anyone’s private interest. They administer public programs, using public resources, pursuant to authority conferred by the public.

Second, government lawyers don’t market their services, at least so long as they keep working for the government. I’ve previously argued that a career as a government lawyer only makes sense to the extent someone finds value in the work, in and of itself. Obviously, being engaged with the work is not the only reason government lawyers go to work every day — there’s also the need to earn a paycheck. Similarly, I’m sure some private sector attorneys can find immense value in connecting with a client, whether an individual or a corporation, and serving that client’s needs, irrespective of the monetary rewards involved.

But even for private sector attorneys who attach intrinsic value to the work, the neverending need to market one’s services means there are ways that a particular engagement can be, to some small degree, about them, or at least about their career. Part of the point of each engagement will always be that it makes a lawyer able to point to the results acheived for the previous client in order to be able to retain the next one. A particular engagement might increase one’s marketability by opening up a new population of clients, for instance. Or it might offer an opportunity to prove one’s substantive or client-retention abilities to colleagues and firm management, thereby aiding in the trek up the ladder to partnership. For a government lawyer, the client has a monopoly on your services and therefore remains the same, and there is no partnership. Building a portfolio of skills, knowledge, relationships, and expertise doesn’t make a government attorney any more marketable because there’s no market.

Remembering that it’s not about you can help clarify the correct approach to certain situations. Suppose you’re taking a lead role in drafting a complex and important product. Your own office offers some minor edits but is mainly supportive of your approach. However, once the product is shared with other offices throughout the agency, it’s a different story. Some people flatly disagree with you. Others sort of agree, but have a different take. Still others offer edits that seem to reword without any substantive change. The red ink starts flowing. “Oh no,” you might be tempted to think, “my beautiful masterpiece of a document is getting mangled beyond recognition!”

Sponsored

This pride of authorship flows from a faulty premise — you think it’s your piece. Sure, you drafted it, but that product isn’t yours. It’s the agency’s product. Once you remember this, it is easier to abandon pride of authorship and engage the various edits with a mind toward making the document do what it needs to for the whole agency. It’s not about you.

Or suppose you disagree with something the agency is doing. It could be acting contrary to your legal advice. Or maybe the agency is doing something that you wouldn’t have much to say about from a legal perspective, but you don’t agree with the policy. “We should be handling this differently,” you think. “And if I’m right and this causes problems, I’ll be just as responsible for solving them as those who pushed us in this direction!”

Resist these thoughts, because they depend upon the implicit premise that your individual policy preferences matter. They don’t. An individual attorney can be a significant resource, of course, providing a crucial perspective or insight into a complex question. But the ability to make a significant contribution does not imply ownership of the agency or its mission. It’s not about you. The key is to strike a balance between caring about the substance of the work, and trying to make it yours.

And there’s an upside to it not being about you. Except in rare circumstances, the criticism so frequently levied against government agencies isn’t being levied against you personally. Yes, the government cannot act except through the people it employs, but there is a difference between the institution itself and the people who work there. I think this is particularly valuable for an attorney to bear in mind, because criticism often takes the form of litigation. You might spend an inordinate amount of time and effort dealing with litigation accusing the government of awful things, but that litigation is against the government as an institution, not you personally.

I think this is useful to bear in mind these days in particular. Recall in my inaugrual column I aruged that we have two broad narratives regarding government in this country. In one, the government has gone mad with oppressive, unaccountable power. In the other, it is bumbling and incompetant. There may be an element of truth to both; certainly both produce valid criticisms. Remembering that it’s not about you may be helpful in absorbing criticism without taking it personally, thereby making it more likely that the criticism helps to lead to progress.

Sponsored

Brian D. Griffin began his legal career as an associate in the New York office of a Biglaw firm, focusing mostly on litigation. He is currently a staff attorney in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Office of General Counsel. His duties include litigation, rulemaking, and programmatic legal advice. Brian attended New York University School of Law, and Georgetown University for undergraduate, majoring in Government. You can reach him at BGriffin8134@gmail.com.

DISCLAIMER: The statements and views expressed in this column are entirely my own. They do not represent the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States.