Huge pay cut to go in-house

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
User avatar
star fox

Diamond
Posts: 20786
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2013 4:13 pm

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby star fox » Mon Feb 27, 2017 9:44 pm

Conversely, get rich and provide your kids a big trust fund so they won't have to worry about making money to ensure their livelihood and can devote all their time and attention to public interest and social justice causes.

User avatar
elendinel

Silver
Posts: 975
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 12:29 pm

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby elendinel » Mon Feb 27, 2017 9:52 pm

star fox wrote:Conversely, get rich and provide your kids a big trust fund so they won't have to worry about making money to ensure their livelihood and can devote all their time and attention to public interest and social justice causes.


Lololol

Wipfelder

Silver
Posts: 755
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 3:26 am

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby Wipfelder » Mon Feb 27, 2017 9:54 pm

elendinel wrote:
star fox wrote:Conversely, get rich and provide your kids a big trust fund so they won't have to worry about making money to ensure their livelihood and can devote all their time and attention to public interest and social justice causes.


Lololol


This actually a real, notable thing. Old money families donate their time, not just dividends off their estate. (Not that there is really "old money" in the US, but you get it)

User avatar
star fox

Diamond
Posts: 20786
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2013 4:13 pm

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby star fox » Mon Feb 27, 2017 10:01 pm

elendinel wrote:
star fox wrote:Conversely, get rich and provide your kids a big trust fund so they won't have to worry about making money to ensure their livelihood and can devote all their time and attention to public interest and social justice causes.


Lololol

This is what like half of the mega-rich do with their time.

Phil Brooks

Bronze
Posts: 272
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 6:59 pm

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby Phil Brooks » Mon Feb 27, 2017 10:14 pm

ClubberLang wrote:Aren't you providing unearned advantages to the students in the school where you volunteer? What about all the other kids who can't benefit from your brilliance?


Well that's why it's good to try to help both on an individual level and on a systematic level through things like impact litigation or legislative advocacy. No idea why this topic set you off this much.

Wipfelder

Silver
Posts: 755
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 3:26 am

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby Wipfelder » Mon Feb 27, 2017 10:32 pm

Phil Brooks wrote:
ClubberLang wrote:Aren't you providing unearned advantages to the students in the school where you volunteer? What about all the other kids who can't benefit from your brilliance?


Well that's why it's good to try to help both on an individual level and on a systematic level through things like impact litigation or legislative advocacy. No idea why this topic set you off this much.


But your still providing unearned privledges to a group of people.

On one hand you say "you can't provide a child a benefit that every single other child doesn't have", and on the other.....I dunno some general policy tax stuff that doesn't go to your initial point that everyone thought was rediculous (because it is).

Phil Brooks

Bronze
Posts: 272
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 6:59 pm

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby Phil Brooks » Mon Feb 27, 2017 11:04 pm

Wipfelder wrote:
Phil Brooks wrote:
ClubberLang wrote:Aren't you providing unearned advantages to the students in the school where you volunteer? What about all the other kids who can't benefit from your brilliance?


Well that's why it's good to try to help both on an individual level and on a systematic level through things like impact litigation or legislative advocacy. No idea why this topic set you off this much.


But your still providing unearned privledges to a group of people.

On one hand you say "you can't provide a child a benefit that every single other child doesn't have", and on the other.....I dunno some general policy tax stuff that doesn't go to your initial point that everyone thought was rediculous (because it is).


I did not say "you can't do xyz." In fact, I said that OP can do whatever she wants. All I said was the implications of what OP is doing. If her child begins life on third base, that child better not complain as an adult about being asked to help others. The people who benefit from volunteer work do not begin life on third base.

And which of the three policy proposals I mentioned are "rediculous" ? Centralizing education funding? Preventing racial discrimination in mortgage lending? Increasing the inheritance tax? These things qualify as "rediculous" to you?

User avatar
star fox

Diamond
Posts: 20786
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2013 4:13 pm

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby star fox » Mon Feb 27, 2017 11:06 pm

Hopefully they raise the inheritance tax so there can be more work created for lawyers to find ways around it. USA! USA!

User avatar
almondjoy

Bronze
Posts: 269
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 1:35 am

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby almondjoy » Mon Feb 27, 2017 11:30 pm

Well, this was a pretty interesting thread until it got derailed horribly.

User avatar
njdevils2626

Bronze
Posts: 495
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:53 pm

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby njdevils2626 » Mon Feb 27, 2017 11:56 pm

almondjoy wrote:Well, this was a pretty interesting thread until it got derailed horribly.

ClubberLang

Bronze
Posts: 289
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 11:34 am

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby ClubberLang » Tue Feb 28, 2017 12:08 am

Phil Brooks wrote:
ClubberLang wrote:Aren't you providing unearned advantages to the students in the school where you volunteer? What about all the other kids who can't benefit from your brilliance?


Well that's why it's good to try to help both on an individual level and on a systematic level through things like impact litigation or legislative advocacy. No idea why this topic set you off this much.


Because you made some inane comment about parents wanting what's best for their kids. Don't opine on things you know nothing about.

User avatar
LaLiLuLeLo

Silver
Posts: 594
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 11:54 am

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby LaLiLuLeLo » Tue Feb 28, 2017 12:30 am

almondjoy wrote:Well, this was a pretty interesting thread until it got derailed horribly.


Yeah, but why is City way better to live and work in than NYC?

Phil Brooks

Bronze
Posts: 272
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 6:59 pm

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby Phil Brooks » Tue Feb 28, 2017 12:31 am

ClubberLang wrote:
Phil Brooks wrote:
ClubberLang wrote:Aren't you providing unearned advantages to the students in the school where you volunteer? What about all the other kids who can't benefit from your brilliance?


Well that's why it's good to try to help both on an individual level and on a systematic level through things like impact litigation or legislative advocacy. No idea why this topic set you off this much.


Because you made some inane comment about parents wanting what's best for their kids. Don't opine on things you know nothing about.


If you say so, "Pinko." I hope tomorrow is a happier day for you.

ClubberLang

Bronze
Posts: 289
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 11:34 am

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby ClubberLang » Tue Feb 28, 2017 12:36 am

Sure bro. Good luck with the impact litigation.

Love With The Coco

New
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 5:32 pm

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby Love With The Coco » Tue Feb 28, 2017 12:54 am


ClubberLang

Bronze
Posts: 289
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 11:34 am

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby ClubberLang » Tue Feb 28, 2017 1:26 am

Love With The Coco wrote:Written by Phil Brooks - http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/pro ... es/6437058


From the article:

‘I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally,’ quips [Phil Brooks].

dixiecupdrinking

Gold
Posts: 3440
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:39 pm

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby dixiecupdrinking » Tue Feb 28, 2017 7:34 am

We live in a society that treats a lot of basic needs as luxuries, which is fucked. As long as that's the world we live in, parents will do everything they can to pay for those things for their kids, which is understandable. It's not productive to conflate the social evils with the individual responses to them. If someone doesn't want to sacrifice their kid on the altar of a broken public education system, I can't blame them, but it certainly creates something of a death spiral when anyone with the resources opts out of public systems.

Abbie Doobie

Silver
Posts: 591
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2014 12:02 pm

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby Abbie Doobie » Tue Feb 28, 2017 3:30 pm

LaLiLuLeLo wrote:
almondjoy wrote:Well, this was a pretty interesting thread until it got derailed horribly.


Yeah, but why is City way better to live and work in than NYC?


why would you want to live in City when you can live in the suburbs!

Anonymous User
Posts: 309252
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:31 pm

star fox wrote:
elendinel wrote:
star fox wrote:Conversely, get rich and provide your kids a big trust fund so they won't have to worry about making money to ensure their livelihood and can devote all their time and attention to public interest and social justice causes.


Lololol

This is what like half of the mega-rich do with their time.


The non profit sector is mainly comprised of trust fund kids.

kingpin101

Bronze
Posts: 319
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 5:24 pm

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby kingpin101 » Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:35 pm

Truly the great part of being rich is to not have to give a shit about money.

User avatar
Stringer Bell

Gold
Posts: 2332
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:43 pm

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby Stringer Bell » Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:49 pm

Phil Brooks wrote:
ClubberLang wrote:Good post Sayan. The right thing to do here depends on circumstances that none of us know. I will say, it's easy to say "live below your means," but when you have children and want to give them every advantage, that is quite a bit more complicated.


This type of attitude honestly bothers me. We have normalized unearned advantages in this country, from the above kind of attitude to complaints about the "death tax."

Wouldn't you prefer that your children start on the same level as their peers, so that when they accomplish something it can be their own accomplishment rather than 90% the result of the advantages their parents handed in their lap?

Honestly in terms of outcomes what is the difference between a desire to give one's children every advantage and a desire to spoil one's children?


So "best DNA" wins? What is your end game?

RedPurpleBlue

Bronze
Posts: 477
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 9:41 pm

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby RedPurpleBlue » Fri Mar 03, 2017 12:26 am

Stringer Bell wrote:
Phil Brooks wrote:
ClubberLang wrote:Good post Sayan. The right thing to do here depends on circumstances that none of us know. I will say, it's easy to say "live below your means," but when you have children and want to give them every advantage, that is quite a bit more complicated.


This type of attitude honestly bothers me. We have normalized unearned advantages in this country, from the above kind of attitude to complaints about the "death tax."

Wouldn't you prefer that your children start on the same level as their peers, so that when they accomplish something it can be their own accomplishment rather than 90% the result of the advantages their parents handed in their lap?

Honestly in terms of outcomes what is the difference between a desire to give one's children every advantage and a desire to spoil one's children?


So "best DNA" wins? What is your end game?


Sure. There's not that big of a difference in "DNA," unless a kid has a serious mental or physical handicap or prodigy talent. It's a hell of a lot better idea than, rule by who happened to accumulate capital first.

Anyway, this thread is way off topic. Good luck to OP with his choice!

Anonymous User
Posts: 309252
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby Anonymous User » Mon May 01, 2017 2:51 pm

Hi all- OP here.

Thanks again for your advice and lively discussion regarding staying at big law or going in house. As you all know, I decided to go in house and after several months I can definitely say that I do not regret it one bit. I'm much happier and my family is also very happy as well. So here are my observations for anyone who's interested.

Location/company: Bay Area huge Fortune 500 tech company; previously at big law firm in Bay Area for 6 years (ie 7th year IP associate).
Base compensation: I took a paycut to go in house, but surprisingly after taxes, health insurance premiums, 401k match, it's really only a 15% reduction in base, so not bad at all (I make around $200k in house).
Bonus: I'm supposed to get 20% but haven't receive it yet since I just started so can't comment on this.
Hours: I come in around 8:45-9:30 and leave around 5:30-5:45. There was only one day where I left at 6. And on Fridays I leave at 5 pm or earlier. I only had to work from home twice for a few hours and that was because I just started so the learning curve was pretty steep. Have not worked on weekends.
Work: I love the work! I'm an IP litigator by training but now I don't do any of that. I'm now a generalist so I take care of everything including reviewing contracts, training, taking care of random legal issues that come up.
Workload: no billable hours! I'm actually very busy with tons of meeting but my days go by pretty quickly and I take time to eat lunch now with coworkers and not worry about not billing. I also enjoy the rare downtime I have and again not have to worry about billing my hours.

Let me know if you have any questions.

User avatar
sims1

Bronze
Posts: 172
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 12:03 am

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby sims1 » Mon May 01, 2017 3:01 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Hi all- OP here.

Thanks again for your advice and lively discussion regarding staying at big law or going in house. As you all know, I decided to go in house and after several months I can definitely say that I do not regret it one bit. I'm much happier and my family is also very happy as well. So here are my observations for anyone who's interested.

Location/company: Bay Area huge Fortune 500 tech company; previously at big law firm in Bay Area for 6 years (ie 7th year IP associate).
Base compensation: I took a paycut to go in house, but surprisingly after taxes, health insurance premiums, 401k match, it's really only a 15% reduction in base, so not bad at all (I make around $200k in house).
Bonus: I'm supposed to get 20% but haven't receive it yet since I just started so can't comment on this.
Hours: I come in around 8:45-9:30 and leave around 5:30-5:45. There was only one day where I left at 6. And on Fridays I leave at 5 pm or earlier. I only had to work from home twice for a few hours and that was because I just started so the learning curve was pretty steep. Have not worked on weekends.
Work: I love the work! I'm an IP litigator by training but now I don't do any of that. I'm now a generalist so I take care of everything including reviewing contracts, training, taking care of random legal issues that come up.
Workload: no billable hours! I'm actually very busy with tons of meeting but my days go by pretty quickly and I take time to eat lunch now with coworkers and not worry about not billing. I also enjoy the rare downtime I have and again not have to worry about billing my hours.

Let me know if you have any questions.


Wow, sounds like you found an awesome gig, congrats!

With hindsight, if you could do it again would you have stayed for 7 years (to open more doors) or left earlier?

Anonymous User
Posts: 309252
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby Anonymous User » Mon May 01, 2017 3:14 pm

To be clear, I only worked at big law for 6 years. I left early in my 7th year. And I would not change a thing. As I mentioned before, I was happy at the law firm and would have stayed but this opportunity fell on my lap and I decided to take it. but I think 6-8 years is the right time to leave as an IP litigator. Of course, if you're in the Corp group, it might make sense to leave earlier. Depends on the situation.



Return to “Legal Employment?

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.