F100 GC or Biglaw Partner Forum

[IAFG]

I think that's all probably true. Do you have any data or personal knowledge of individual situations and outcomes?

Based on my anecdata, you end up GC making $$$ by working at a large law firm, being an all-star, then using your large-firm connections to get yourself a gig in-house. I have never personally heard of someone summering at F100, working at F100, then ending up GC. it may well happen, I've just never heard of it.

[Anonymous User]

Here is an anecdote for you.

One of my friends who was a 3L last year struck out at OCI, he ended up getting an in house position at a huge company. Great pay. He had an awesome summer.

THEY DID NOT GIVE HIM AN OFFER BECAUSE IN-HOUSE LEGAL DEPARTMENTS DO NOT HIRE DIRECTLY OUT OF LAW SCHOOL

He works at the local PD's office now. His position is temporary but he is hopeful that if he does well enough they will make room for him to come on permanently.

The bolded, as written, is clearly false. However, the point that I think you are trying to make--that they do not generally hire anywhere near 100% of summers--is significant. That's why I would split next summer if I took the in-house position.

[EvilClinton]

Here is an anecdote for you.

One of my friends who was a 3L last year struck out at OCI, he ended up getting an in house position at a huge company. Great pay. He had an awesome summer.

THEY DID NOT GIVE HIM AN OFFER BECAUSE IN-HOUSE LEGAL DEPARTMENTS DO NOT HIRE DIRECTLY OUT OF LAW SCHOOL

He works at the local PD's office now. His position is temporary but he is hopeful that if he does well enough they will make room for him to come on permanently.

The bolded, as written, is clearly false. However, the point that I think you are trying to make--that they do not generally hire anywhere near 100% of summers--is significant. That's why I would split next summer if I took the in-house position.

Will someone back me up that the bolded is not clearly false? The only situation where they hire straight out of law school is if you are IP focused and already have a degree or experience in a technical field. And that is only a couple giant tech firms (google, apple).

Firms generally do not hire straight out of law school. Of course there are exceptions, but you are not the exception.

[FattyMcFatFat]

Here is an anecdote for you.

One of my friends who was a 3L last year struck out at OCI, he ended up getting an in house position at a huge company. Great pay. He had an awesome summer.

THEY DID NOT GIVE HIM AN OFFER BECAUSE IN-HOUSE LEGAL DEPARTMENTS DO NOT HIRE DIRECTLY OUT OF LAW SCHOOL

He works at the local PD's office now. His position is temporary but he is hopeful that if he does well enough they will make room for him to come on permanently.

The bolded, as written, is clearly false. However, the point that I think you are trying to make--that they do not generally hire anywhere near 100% of summers--is significant. That's why I would split next summer if I took the in-house position.

Will someone back me up that the bolded is not clearly false? The only situation where they hire straight out of law school is if you are IP focused and already have a degree or experience in a technical field. And that is only a couple giant tech firms (google, apple).

Firms generally do not hire straight out of law school. Of course there are exceptions, but you are not the exception.

Reading isn't a strength for you, is it?

[ben4847]

Here is an anecdote for you.

One of my friends who was a 3L last year struck out at OCI, he ended up getting an in house position at a huge company. Great pay. He had an awesome summer.

THEY DID NOT GIVE HIM AN OFFER BECAUSE IN-HOUSE LEGAL DEPARTMENTS DO NOT HIRE DIRECTLY OUT OF LAW SCHOOL

He works at the local PD's office now. His position is temporary but he is hopeful that if he does well enough they will make room for him to come on permanently.

The bolded, as written, is clearly false. However, the point that I think you are trying to make--that they do not generally hire anywhere near 100% of summers--is significant. That's why I would split next summer if I took the in-house position.

Will someone back me up that the bolded is not clearly false? The only situation where they hire straight out of law school is if you are IP focused and already have a degree or experience in a technical field. And that is only a couple giant tech firms (google, apple).

Firms generally do not hire straight out of law school. Of course there are exceptions, but you are not the exception.

Yes, you are correct.

And the notion that they "do not generally hire... 100% of summer" is absurd. That implies that they use the summer as a feeder but just have a lower offer rate. That is not true at all; most of them don't use the summer as a feeder at all and have a zero % offer rate.

[EvilClinton]

Reading isn't a strength for you, is it?

Why are you being such an asshole?

People are trying to help you but you just want to believe whatever you have already decided. Whatever, I hope you take the in-house position and then realize I was right.

But the chances are you have neither of these options. You are just some 0L speculating about jobs you know nothing about. Please stay out of the legal employment forum until you get a clue.

[Anonymous User]

Anecdote: My father is the GC for a large corporation (~125,000 employees, competitor with many of the corporations on the list posted earlier). He has NEVER worked for a law firm but he also did not start at the corporation, he started in the government. His corporation, like many people are saying, takes summer interns but does NOT hire straight out of law school. They hire from firms and from the government.

[Mce252]

I know of some large energy companies that hire straight out of law school. They process lease and other property agreements. They go to work 8 to 5. They do not make big law salaries. And, most importantly, they do not become general counsel of a fortune 100 company.

Look OP: fortune 100 companies, for the most part, like to have lean in-house departments. This means that they don't have the structural necessities to train attorneys that just graduated from law school and have never done meaningful work. They let the biglaw firms do that for them and then look for attorneys with the experience they need to manage outside counsel on particular issues and do some work inside.

[Old Gregg]

Anecdote: My father is the GC for a large corporation (~125,000 employees, competitor with many of the corporations on the list posted earlier). He has NEVER worked for a law firm but he also did not start at the corporation, he started in the government. His corporation, like many people are saying, takes summer interns but does NOT hire straight out of law school. They hire from firms and from the government.

Fuckin boomers.

[Anonymous User]

Anecdote: My father is the GC for a large corporation (~125,000 employees, competitor with many of the corporations on the list posted earlier). He has NEVER worked for a law firm but he also did not start at the corporation, he started in the government. His corporation, like many people are saying, takes summer interns but does NOT hire straight out of law school. They hire from firms and from the government.

Fuckin boomers.

What?

[Anonymous User]

Reading isn't a strength for you, is it?

Why are you being such an asshole?

People are trying to help you but you just want to believe whatever you have already decided. Whatever, I hope you take the in-house position and then realize I was right.

But the chances are you have neither of these options. You are just some 0L speculating about jobs you know nothing about. Please stay out of the legal employment forum until you get a clue.

You made a declarative statement cast in absolute terms:

IN-HOUSE LEGAL DEPARTMENTS DO NOT HIRE DIRECTLY OUT OF LAW SCHOOL[/b]

I observed, and you have implicitly conceded, that:

The bolded, as written, is clearly false.

This indisputably true statement was followed by:

Of course there are exceptions, but you are not the exception.

I am talking about a specific firm for which I have offer data. My question assumes an offer, and asks about long-run outcomes. Maybe it would help if I provided more specific information about the company, but I don't really want to do that.

[EvilClinton]

So all of that somehow gives you a license to be a dick to everyone who is trying to help you?

Honestly, I don't think you will get an offer wherever you go. You obviously lack the social skills needed to interact with other human beings. You should drop out and go into a technical field where you can be isolated in a cubicle 12 hours a day.

Good luck with life.

[Anonymous User]

So all of that somehow gives you a license to be a dick to everyone who is trying to help you?

Honestly, I don't think you will get an offer wherever you go. You obviously lack the social skills needed to interact with other human beings. You should drop out and go into a technical field where you can be isolated in a cubicle 12 hours a day.

Good luck with life.

Yes. Obviously. You fail to read, make assumptions, and spew snide and condescending remarks as a consequence. I point this out. I am such a dick. Please direct me to the suicide thread, I don't want to live anymore.

[Anonymous User]

I know of some large energy companies that hire straight out of law school. They process lease and other property agreements. They go to work 8 to 5. They do not make big law salaries. And, most importantly, they do not become general counsel of a fortune 100 company.

Look OP: fortune 100 companies, for the most part, like to have lean in-house departments. This means that they don't have the structural necessities to train attorneys that just graduated from law school and have never done meaningful work. They let the biglaw firms do that for them and then look for attorneys with the experience they need to manage outside counsel on particular issues and do some work inside.

Thanks for this. My situation is a little bit different, but it seems like the long-run upside would be limited either way. Although, at least the starting pay is similar and the hours would be moderately more reasonable.

[fatduck]

solid anon use. sounds like you're asking the smart questions, bro. after all, salary is clearly the major difference between being a biglaw partner and a F100 GC.

[Anonymous User]

solid anon use. sounds like you're asking the smart questions, bro. after all, salary is clearly the major difference between being a biglaw partner and a F100 GC.

Again, I'm not concerned so much about those particular titles. Just potential outcomes. I think it might be time to give up, though.

Edited: I appreciate that you are at least humorous when you are condescending. I'm a little humbled that I just received the fatduck treatment.

[dailygrind]

Don't insult people from behind the cloak of anonymity. It's a clear abuse of the feature.

[Mce252]

I know of some large energy companies that hire straight out of law school. They process lease and other property agreements. They go to work 8 to 5. They do not make big law salaries. And, most importantly, they do not become general counsel of a fortune 100 company.

Look OP: fortune 100 companies, for the most part, like to have lean in-house departments. This means that they don't have the structural necessities to train attorneys that just graduated from law school and have never done meaningful work. They let the biglaw firms do that for them and then look for attorneys with the experience they need to manage outside counsel on particular issues and do some work inside.

Thanks for this. My situation is a little bit different, but it seems like the long-run upside would be limited either way. Although, at least the starting pay is similar and the hours would be moderately more reasonable.

I am really surprised to hear that there are in-house opportunities for first year attorneys paying 160K. Has anyone else actually heard of a similar job opportunity?

[rayiner]

I know of some large energy companies that hire straight out of law school. They process lease and other property agreements. They go to work 8 to 5. They do not make big law salaries. And, most importantly, they do not become general counsel of a fortune 100 company.

Look OP: fortune 100 companies, for the most part, like to have lean in-house departments. This means that they don't have the structural necessities to train attorneys that just graduated from law school and have never done meaningful work. They let the biglaw firms do that for them and then look for attorneys with the experience they need to manage outside counsel on particular issues and do some work inside.

Thanks for this. My situation is a little bit different, but it seems like the long-run upside would be limited either way. Although, at least the starting pay is similar and the hours would be moderately more reasonable.

You have not found some sort of secret path to making in-house money without going through a firm. The kinds of in-house jobs people get right out of law school are generally not executive-track positions. E.g. HP hires people straight out of law school to do IP diligence. Those people are not on track to move into the upper levels of their in-house department.

[Old Gregg]

I know of some large energy companies that hire straight out of law school. They process lease and other property agreements. They go to work 8 to 5. They do not make big law salaries. And, most importantly, they do not become general counsel of a fortune 100 company.

Look OP: fortune 100 companies, for the most part, like to have lean in-house departments. This means that they don't have the structural necessities to train attorneys that just graduated from law school and have never done meaningful work. They let the biglaw firms do that for them and then look for attorneys with the experience they need to manage outside counsel on particular issues and do some work inside.

Thanks for this. My situation is a little bit different, but it seems like the long-run upside would be limited either way. Although, at least the starting pay is similar and the hours would be moderately more reasonable.

I am really surprised to hear that there are in-house opportunities for first year attorneys paying 160K. Has anyone else actually heard of a similar job opportunity?

I know some corps that are matching Biglaw salaries, but only for laterals at this point.

[jc1988]

serious anecdote to help OP:

I talked to the head partner of the practice group at my summer firm about career path and asked him did he ever consider going in-house. He said he was actually considered for the GC position of a F500 company when he was still a junior partner. He wasn't offered the job at the end but he said he would have taken the job if give the offer.

Now he is a senior level partner and he thinks GC positions of similar companies pay too little and have too much headaches (especially on the regulatory front) for the amount of pay.