The Washington, D.C., Attorney General’s Office has moved to dismiss — with prejudice — a civil lawsuit against two far-right extremist groups and several other individuals for their participation in the Jan. 6, attack on the Capitol following “long delays” in the case, telling the court that the government no longer believes the case is worth pursuing.

“The Attorney General has determined that, notwithstanding the virtue and propriety of this case, the District’s limited law enforcement resources must now be committed elsewhere in the service of District residents, taking into account both the growing challenges the District faces and the relatively small recoveries the District stands to obtain on its remaining common law causes of action,” the OAG’s office wrote in the five-page filing explaining its decision to drop the suit against Proud Boys International, LLC and the Oath Keepers.

As Law&Crime previously reported, the civil complaint was initially filed in the U.S. District Court in Washington in December 2021 and sought millions of dollars in damages from the groups.

Proceedings were held up as many of the defendants were among the thousands of people prosecuted and convicted for their involvement in the Capitol riot. Among the most notable defendants were Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes and Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, both of whom were convicted of seditious conspiracy.

The legal job market is robust. And within all those professional journeys there are two types of searchers: those lawyers seeking a job change and those seeking a career change. If you’re in the market, it’s important not to conflate these two paths.

Therefore, before you kick off a professional search, start by answering one critical question: Am I looking to be somewhere different or am I looking to be something different?

To be clear, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with a simple job change. Moving from Firm A to Firm B, for example, can be just enough “different” to invigorate and motivate your next chapter. That journey certainly requires advance planning, opportunity creation and disciplined decision-making. But to assess, map and execute a career pivot requires a distinct approach.

When we ruminate on potential career changes, it’s easy to over index on those instances where lawyers have famously transitioned out of the law. Could we be the next great chef or bestselling novelist? Why not just take the leap and do it, right? But then the alarm clock sounds, the dream ends, and we realize that our passion may not pay the bills. And contrary to what our Generation Z friends may say, dropping everything and just “living your best life,” while both aspirational and inspirational, isn’t really a plan.

Here’s a truth that may not be dream worthy, but it is both realistic and achievable: Lawyers can re-invent themselves by making strategic moves within the law. If you think of your career pivot as an evolution rather than a revolution, the path becomes more clear.

While there are many ways to evolve a legal career, one of the best steps to a diversified portfolio of experience and opportunity is the in-house legal market. The in-house career path has changed over the course of the last two decades. Where law firms operate under a model of specialists and sub-specialists, most in-house teams have moved to a model that prioritizes generalists. And lawyers with multi-disciplinary experience increase opportunities that are either adjacent to or completely outside of law.

Today, corporate legal departments must cover an expanding list of matters with increased cost-control pressures. “Do more with less” is a common theme. The function needs to be managed with optimal efficiency. This requires a lean team of multifaceted legal advisers, as opposed to a large group of subject matter experts. Therefore, most corporate legal departments will excitedly invest in developing generalists, understanding that law firms are not incentivized to do the same. Once there, the door opens to a world of different opportunities.

In some instances, the progression may start by simply adding adjacent experiences to an in-house role. For example, it is now common to see in-house lawyers having cross-functional responsibility within human resources, compliance, contracts, communications, investor relations, government affairs or other corporate departments. Similarly, being a dedicated in-house legal adviser to a division or brand within a larger enterprise can create opportunities to add operational experience within that business or brand.

There are growing examples of CEOs, presidents, founders and entrepreneurs who started their career as in-house counsel. Those lawyers (or former lawyers) typically became ingrained in a business, knew every corner of its operations, understood the risk profile and learned the art of becoming a broader business leader rather than just a legal technician.

These transitions, however, do not happen abruptly or without intention. To evolve from legal to business requires a strategic approach. Here are some steps that will help make it happen.

1. Be a hand raiser

Whether you are applying for your first in-house role or you’re already there, make it known that an important goal of the job is to expand your portfolio beyond a specific legal specialty. For example, while a law firm wouldn’t let an IP lawyer tackle an employment matter, that type of opportunity absolutely exists in-house. Corporate legal departments are always underresourced, and over reliance on outside counsel can be a budget killer. So raise a hand and ask if you can manage or simply participate in an issue outside of your lane. This will help reduce outside costs and allow you to gain a new skill. Expanding your experience base will be rewarded and you’ll quickly start seeing your overall business portfolio evolve.

2. Contribute in a nonlegal capacity

There are always opportunities within a corporation for lawyers to contribute outside of the legal function. A few examples: (a) most companies have various cross-functional committees (ethics, compliance, personnel, culture, diversity, etc.) that may be managed outside of legal, but where the skills of counsel are useful; (b) in the context of acquisitions, companies frequently seek internal resources to manage diligence, integration or other special merger-related projects and there is rarely a dedicated resource for that; or (c) in a public company, become a member of the disclosure team that reviews quarterly and annual public filings for accuracy and thoroughness. These opportunities, and others, while either adjacent to or outside of legal, will expand your technical reach, allow you to learn different areas of business, expose you to different functions and give you access to leaders that you may not otherwise interact with.

3. Client skills and marketing

Yes, you still have to conduct client development efforts when you’re in-house. The key here is to market yourself beyond legal. Create relationships with clients that are broader than any specific area or matter. Develop a reputation as a trusted business adviser, not just a technical legal adviser. Find out your clients’ most pressing challenges, request to experience their operations firsthand, and meet their staff at all levels. Get ingrained in their business. From there you will find opportunities to market your capabilities in a more curated and impactful way. For example, you can create training modules that address a specific business need, rather than just the annual corporate training modules that lawyers can get such a bad reputation for deploying. Or approach business and strategy meetings differently by speaking out on both legal and nonlegal issues. There are many opportunities to reframe and expand your value by demonstrating that you’re not merely a legal technician but rather a business leader.

4. Play smart politics

Politics is a part of any career, whether you like it or not. But are you courting the right constituents? If you are looking to expand beyond legal, then don’t insulate yourself within the legal community. Get out and make connections and form relationships across the entire enterprise. Find opportunities to get in front of varied stakeholders, leaders, functions and, if possible, even the board of directors. They can and will become valued connections that can open up new and interesting paths for you.

In sum, serving as in-house counsel at any level will create a world of divergent opportunities. You will find paths you didn’t even know existed. If you are intentional in how you start and mange an in-house legal career, you can create a series of strategic moves that will result in the type of pivot that leads you either beyond or completely outside of the law. Go start your evolution!

---

Scott Chaplin worked as a public company chief legal officer for more than two decades in a variety of industries, including technology, life sciences, defense and national security, consumer products, retail and manufacturing. He also worked as a chief human resources officer, board member and arbitrator/mediator.

---

ABAJournal.com is accepting queries for original, thoughtful, nonpromotional articles and commentary by unpaid contributors to run in the Your Voice section. Details and submission guidelines are posted at “Your Submissions, Your Voice.”

---

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.

Hunter Biden’s lawsuit over the public disclosure of his tax return information will move forward after a federal judge finds that the IRS might be liable for the actions of two whistleblowers’ lawyers.

As Law&Crime previously reported, Biden sued the IRS in September 2023, alleging that two agents, Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler, “completely disregarded their confidentiality obligations” and engaged in a “campaign to publicly smear” Biden through “unauthorized” disclosures of tax return information to media outlets, resulting in an “assault” on his privacy rights.

President Joe Biden’s son argued that Shapley and Ziegler directed their lawyers to publicly share Biden’s tax information, and were therefore subject to laws against disclosure.

The federal agency filed a motion to dismiss in February, arguing that Biden failed to show the agency’s alleged lack of “safeguards” to prevent two whistleblowers and their attorneys from disclosing his “confidential tax return information” in media interviews caused him to suffer “actual damages.” Lawyers for the IRS also argued that sovereign immunity protects the IRS against lawsuits over disclosures made by nonemployees of the federal government — in this case, lawyers for Shapley and Ziegler.

After Dominion Voting Systems filed a motion to disqualify “Kraken” attorney Stefanie Lambert from representing former Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne in the billion-dollar defamation lawsuit, citing “a total disregard for this Court’s orders” by “willfully” violating a protective order to leak discovery publicly, the dispute is set to spill out at a Monday hearing in a D.C. federal courtroom.

Lambert, under indictment in Michigan and hit with a bench warrant, only recently entered the case as Byrne’s lawyer, but almost as soon as that happened Byrne’s lawyer Robert Driscoll withdrew from the case.

As Law&Crime reported days ago, Driscoll informed Dominion about a discovery “breach” also by email on March 12 claiming that Lambert shared discovery with non-party Barry County Sheriff Dar Leaf and filed discovery material in public as part of her bid to combat her criminal case for alleged conspiracy to gain unauthorized access to and willfully damage voting machines.