Under the Trump Administration the Legal Landscape is Shifting—But So Are Your Opportunities

Send us Fan MailWhile the current environment is chaotic, savvy government attorneys, particularly those with administrative law experience, may find this the perfect time to make a lateral move into law firm practice. In this episode of Steve’s Rules, we take a deep dive into the legal market implications of the new Trump administration—particularly the regulatory shifts, enforcement priorities, and job market changes that will impact law firms and lawyers. From antitrust enforcement and white-collar crime investigations to the rise of administrative law battles and state-level regulations, we break down how law firms and legal professionals can navigate this evolving landscape.We also touch on an important new resource: Steve and his team at The McCormick Group are launching a Legal Management Transitions Tracker, a monthly trend report on key Director and C-level hires and promotions in the legal sector. If you are a law firm leader or legal recruiter, this is a must-have resource for staying ahead. Subscribe.Key Topics Covered in This Episode:How the Trump administration’s regulatory approach is reshaping law firm opportunitiesWhy antitrust enforcement is shifting—but not disappearing  The evolving role of white-collar investigations and corporate oversight  How administrative law is becoming a critical battleground*The rise of state-level legal battles amid federal deregulation  Essential career strategies for government attorneys moving into private practice  The importance of building a digital presence for job seekers and legal professionalsAnd make sure you listen long enough the hear some spot on observational humor from Steve wearing his stand up comic hat.  * In our discussion of the impact on administrative law related to "Chevron" we were referring to Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024).   In this landmark decision, the Court overruled the Chevron doctrine, which had previously mandated judicial deference to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes. The Court held that such deference was incompatible with the judiciary's duty to interpret the law.Contact SteveMcCormick Group