What % pay cut are you willing to take to go from V100 to 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
nealric

Gold
Posts: 2741
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:53 am

Re: What % pay cut are you willing to take to go from V100 to in-house?

Postby nealric » Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:22 am

Anonymous User wrote:OP here. Extremely difficult decision, but I ended up turning down this offer. I know it's a solid offer overall, but just feels like I'm leaving firm life too soon, since in 2-4 years AGC roles may be attainable. Sucks to be getting back on the hamster wheel again, but delayed gratification's a bitch...


"AGC Roles" is rather meaningless without qualifying by company and legal department size. Nobody is getting an AGC title at my company straight out of private practice unless they were a biglaw partner. By contrast, I'm sure there are startups with people straight out of law school with that title (or GC titles).

Companies also vary in use of titles. My company reserves that title for the people reporting directly to the GC- it's the top 2-3 people in the law department. I've heard of companies where every lawyer who is not the GC has an AGC title.

Anonymous User
Posts: 309266
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: What % pay cut are you willing to take to go from V100 to in-house?

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:39 am

Have a similar question to OP. I will be graduating from law school this year and am considering an assistant corporate counsel position with a major Fortune 100 company and a traditional big law job. The in-house position pays slightly lower base but has higher bonus and stock options, so the total salary is comparable to big law. Any thoughts or suggestions?

User avatar
Lacepiece23

Silver
Posts: 1014
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:10 pm

Re: What % pay cut are you willing to take to go from V100 to in-house?

Postby Lacepiece23 » Wed Nov 29, 2017 8:46 am

Anonymous User wrote:Have a similar question to OP. I will be graduating from law school this year and am considering an assistant corporate counsel position with a major Fortune 100 company and a traditional big law job. The in-house position pays slightly lower base but has higher bonus and stock options, so the total salary is comparable to big law. Any thoughts or suggestions?


In house and never look back.

waytoplant

New
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 1:05 am

Re: What % pay cut are you willing to take to go from V100 to in-house?

Postby waytoplant » Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:42 am

This may be a stupid (and off-topic) question but why are in-house hours better than biglaw hours? What is the reason for the difference?

Is there just a lower volume of work to be done each day in-house and, if so, why? Are there fewer short deadlines/fire drills so people are able to spread their work over longer periods? Are you able to send out work to outside counsel which frees you up? Are the tasks easier than biglaw assignments so they can get done more quickly with complicated/hard/labor intensive work going to outside counsel? Is there an understanding/expectation that people only work 9-6 (and are paid commensurately...) so they aren't assigned enough work to make them stay later than that? I understand daily/weekly hours vary as projects ebb and flow but I'm just wondering why people think the hours are better.

I'm a 5th year corporate associate at a v30 in NYC contemplating going in-house. Like many people here, I'm sure, I have vaguely workaholic tendencies so if I do go in-house and someone asks me to do something or there is work to be done I would probably feel compelled to volunteer and work late, which would defeat my most important goal for going in-house, which is to have better hours. But depending on the reason for why the hours are better it might not be an issue.

jhett

Bronze
Posts: 213
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 4:36 pm

Re: What % pay cut are you willing to take to go from V100 to in-house?

Postby jhett » Thu Jan 11, 2018 10:29 am

waytoplant wrote:This may be a stupid (and off-topic) question but why are in-house hours better than biglaw hours? What is the reason for the difference?

Is there just a lower volume of work to be done each day in-house and, if so, why? Are there fewer short deadlines/fire drills so people are able to spread their work over longer periods? Are you able to send out work to outside counsel which frees you up? Are the tasks easier than biglaw assignments so they can get done more quickly with complicated/hard/labor intensive work going to outside counsel? Is there an understanding/expectation that people only work 9-6 (and are paid commensurately...) so they aren't assigned enough work to make them stay later than that? I understand daily/weekly hours vary as projects ebb and flow but I'm just wondering why people think the hours are better.

I'm a 5th year corporate associate at a v30 in NYC contemplating going in-house. Like many people here, I'm sure, I have vaguely workaholic tendencies so if I do go in-house and someone asks me to do something or there is work to be done I would probably feel compelled to volunteer and work late, which would defeat my most important goal for going in-house, which is to have better hours. But depending on the reason for why the hours are better it might not be an issue.


It's pretty much a combination of all the factors you listed, and which factors are emphasized depends on the culture of the company. Mostly, it's that in-house counsel manage the work by outside counsel. For example, it takes far fewer man-hours to oversee a litigation or a deal than to actually do all the tasks involved in the litigation or deal.

Of course, sometimes you may pull long hours depending on how much work there needs to be done. However, in the absence of billables, when it's slow you have no obligation to seek out more work.

User avatar
nealric

Gold
Posts: 2741
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:53 am

Re: What % pay cut are you willing to take to go from V100 to in-house?

Postby nealric » Thu Jan 11, 2018 10:39 am

waytoplant wrote:This may be a stupid (and off-topic) question but why are in-house hours better than biglaw hours? What is the reason for the difference?

Is there just a lower volume of work to be done each day in-house and, if so, why? Are there fewer short deadlines/fire drills so people are able to spread their work over longer periods? Are you able to send out work to outside counsel which frees you up? Are the tasks easier than biglaw assignments so they can get done more quickly with complicated/hard/labor intensive work going to outside counsel? Is there an understanding/expectation that people only work 9-6 (and are paid commensurately...) so they aren't assigned enough work to make them stay later than that? I understand daily/weekly hours vary as projects ebb and flow but I'm just wondering why people think the hours are better.

I'm a 5th year corporate associate at a v30 in NYC contemplating going in-house. Like many people here, I'm sure, I have vaguely workaholic tendencies so if I do go in-house and someone asks me to do something or there is work to be done I would probably feel compelled to volunteer and work late, which would defeat my most important goal for going in-house, which is to have better hours. But depending on the reason for why the hours are better it might not be an issue.


A few interrelated reasons:

1) Since you aren't being paid by the hour, you can actually benefit from efficiency.

2) There's a lot of work that can be done "good enough" that you wouldn't be able to send to a client. For example, if an internal corporate memo that is only being sent to file has a typo, it's really not the end of the world- but it would be a big deal for a biglaw firm to send out a memo to a client with a typo. Which is not to say you can or should be sloppy, but you don't need 3 people reading every item of work product.

3) Further to the "3 people reading" point- attorneys tend to be assigned to their own specific areas without a ton of oversight. You don't need to send out ever single piece of work product to someone else to review, comment, etc. Conversely, you don't need to be reviewing every item of work product junior people are doing.

4) It's usually a lot easier to anticipate workload, so you can affirmatively manage your schedule. Surprises happen, but you know your business and what kinds of things are likely to pop up. In biglaw, any sort of client could call at any time and make you drop everything.

5) You don't need to scrounge for more work when times are slow. If things are slow, they are slow- and you can just enjoy it for what it is. That also helps when things are busy, because you don't have a lot of small projects you took on during slow times dragging into the busy times.

6) Fewer administrative obligations. No time keeping, no business development, very little recruiting.

7) You can usually send true firedrills to outside counsel.

Notwithstanding the above, there are some corporate departments or specialties that can be hours intensive. Some companies are known to have harder-charging cultures that may demand lots of facetime or adopt biglaw-like review processes for work product. Also, in-house M&A attorneys can work crazy hours when a big deal comes up- especially if the deal is being done with minimal outside counsel support (as is increasingly common these days).

Danger Zone

Platinum
Posts: 8260
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 10:36 am

Re: What % pay cut are you willing to take to go from V100 to in-house?

Postby Danger Zone » Thu Jan 11, 2018 11:32 am

nealric wrote:
waytoplant wrote:This may be a stupid (and off-topic) question but why are in-house hours better than biglaw hours? What is the reason for the difference?

Is there just a lower volume of work to be done each day in-house and, if so, why? Are there fewer short deadlines/fire drills so people are able to spread their work over longer periods? Are you able to send out work to outside counsel which frees you up? Are the tasks easier than biglaw assignments so they can get done more quickly with complicated/hard/labor intensive work going to outside counsel? Is there an understanding/expectation that people only work 9-6 (and are paid commensurately...) so they aren't assigned enough work to make them stay later than that? I understand daily/weekly hours vary as projects ebb and flow but I'm just wondering why people think the hours are better.

I'm a 5th year corporate associate at a v30 in NYC contemplating going in-house. Like many people here, I'm sure, I have vaguely workaholic tendencies so if I do go in-house and someone asks me to do something or there is work to be done I would probably feel compelled to volunteer and work late, which would defeat my most important goal for going in-house, which is to have better hours. But depending on the reason for why the hours are better it might not be an issue.


A few interrelated reasons:

1) Since you aren't being paid by the hour, you can actually benefit from efficiency.

2) There's a lot of work that can be done "good enough" that you wouldn't be able to send to a client. For example, if an internal corporate memo that is only being sent to file has a typo, it's really not the end of the world- but it would be a big deal for a biglaw firm to send out a memo to a client with a typo. Which is not to say you can or should be sloppy, but you don't need 3 people reading every item of work product.

3) Further to the "3 people reading" point- attorneys tend to be assigned to their own specific areas without a ton of oversight. You don't need to send out ever single piece of work product to someone else to review, comment, etc. Conversely, you don't need to be reviewing every item of work product junior people are doing.

4) It's usually a lot easier to anticipate workload, so you can affirmatively manage your schedule. Surprises happen, but you know your business and what kinds of things are likely to pop up. In biglaw, any sort of client could call at any time and make you drop everything.

5) You don't need to scrounge for more work when times are slow. If things are slow, they are slow- and you can just enjoy it for what it is. That also helps when things are busy, because you don't have a lot of small projects you took on during slow times dragging into the busy times.

6) Fewer administrative obligations. No time keeping, no business development, very little recruiting.

7) You can usually send true firedrills to outside counsel.

Notwithstanding the above, there are some corporate departments or specialties that can be hours intensive. Some companies are known to have harder-charging cultures that may demand lots of facetime or adopt biglaw-like review processes for work product. Also, in-house M&A attorneys can work crazy hours when a big deal comes up- especially if the deal is being done with minimal outside counsel support (as is increasingly common these days).

Great summary, hit every point I thought of and then some
Last edited by Danger Zone on Sat Jan 27, 2018 2:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

1styearlateral

Silver
Posts: 804
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 3:55 pm

Re: What % pay cut are you willing to take to go from V100 to in-house?

Postby 1styearlateral » Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:56 pm

nealric wrote:A few interrelated reasons:
2) There's a lot of work that can be done "good enough" that you wouldn't be able to send to a client. For example, if an internal corporate memo that is only being sent to file has a typo, it's really not the end of the world- but it would be a big deal for a biglaw firm to send out a memo to a client with a typo. Which is not to say you can or should be sloppy, but you don't need 3 people reading every item of work product


nealric wrote:3) Further to the "3 people reading" point- attorneys tend to be assigned to their own specific areas without a ton of oversight. You don't need to send out ever single piece of work product to someone else to review, comment, etc. Conversely, you don't need to be reviewing every item of work product junior people are doing.

Did you do this on purpose? ;)

But seriously, good summary. One of my big reasons for wanting to go in-house is you only have one client to worry about and not 100 of someone else's (assuming you aren't a rainmaker).

User avatar
nealric

Gold
Posts: 2741
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:53 am

Re: What % pay cut are you willing to take to go from V100 to in-house?

Postby nealric » Thu Jan 11, 2018 3:31 pm

1styearlateral wrote:
nealric wrote:A few interrelated reasons:
2) There's a lot of work that can be done "good enough" that you wouldn't be able to send to a client. For example, if an internal corporate memo that is only being sent to file has a typo, it's really not the end of the world- but it would be a big deal for a biglaw firm to send out a memo to a client with a typo. Which is not to say you can or should be sloppy, but you don't need 3 people reading every item of work product


nealric wrote:3) Further to the "3 people reading" point- attorneys tend to be assigned to their own specific areas without a ton of oversight. You don't need to send out ever single piece of work product to someone else to review, comment, etc. Conversely, you don't need to be reviewing every item of work product junior people are doing.

Did you do this on purpose? ;)

But seriously, good summary. One of my big reasons for wanting to go in-house is you only have one client to worry about and not 100 of someone else's (assuming you aren't a rainmaker).


Biglaw associated confirmed :mrgreen:

I think it was a Freudian slip of some sort.

Danger Zone

Platinum
Posts: 8260
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 10:36 am

Re: What % pay cut are you willing to take to go from V100 to in-house?

Postby Danger Zone » Thu Jan 11, 2018 4:29 pm

I also get the sense my work is more meaningful in house since it's easier to see the bigger picture and business strategy resulting from your tasks. Ultimately, more freedom has got to be my favorite thing. Working at a firm is suffocating compared to this.
Last edited by Danger Zone on Sat Jan 27, 2018 2:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 309266
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: What % pay cut are you willing to take to go from V100 to in-house?

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jan 11, 2018 4:31 pm

related, is there a general timeline (or hope) of a biglaw litigation associate going in house?

LBJ's Hair

New
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2016 8:17 pm

Re: What % pay cut are you willing to take to go from V100 to in-house?

Postby LBJ's Hair » Thu Jan 11, 2018 7:52 pm

Sincere question: why did you guys pay hundreds of thousands of dollars (plus forgone earnings) and three years of your life to get a job where you 9-5pm and make $125K a year with a pretty fucking low ceiling on potential earnings, AND you're not in a government/public interest role where you're actually helping people?

I understand the lifestyle thing, but there are a trillion lifestyle jobs that don't require you to be miserable for 8 years of your life to get them.

Yeah, you don't get a free anon snarky question pass because you led with "sincere question"

Anonymous User
Posts: 309266
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: What % pay cut are you willing to take to go from V100 to in-house?

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jan 11, 2018 8:17 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Sincere question: why did you guys pay hundreds of thousands of dollars (plus forgone earnings) and three years of your life to get a job where you 9-5pm and make $125K a year with a pretty fucking low ceiling on potential earnings, AND you're not in a government/public interest role where you're actually helping people?

I understand the lifestyle thing, but there are a trillion lifestyle jobs that don't require you to be miserable for 8 years of your life to get them.


Bc I suck at math.

User avatar
JenDarby

Diamond
Posts: 17362
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 3:02 am

Re: What % pay cut are you willing to take to go from V100 to in-house?

Postby JenDarby » Thu Jan 11, 2018 8:27 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Sincere question: why did you guys pay hundreds of thousands of dollars (plus forgone earnings) and three years of your life to get a job where you 9-5pm and make $125K a year with a pretty fucking low ceiling on potential earnings, AND you're not in a government/public interest role where you're actually helping people?

I understand the lifestyle thing, but there are a trillion lifestyle jobs that don't require you to be miserable for 8 years of your life to get them.

A ton of in-house positions pay significantly more that 125k/yr. AND I help a lot of people, they're just all millionaires.
Last edited by JenDarby on Mon Jan 29, 2018 10:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
smokeylarue

Silver
Posts: 514
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 3:55 pm

Re: What % pay cut are you willing to take to go from V100 to in-house?

Postby smokeylarue » Thu Jan 11, 2018 8:55 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Sincere question: why did you guys pay hundreds of thousands of dollars (plus forgone earnings) and three years of your life to get a job where you 9-5pm and make $125K a year with a pretty fucking low ceiling on potential earnings, AND you're not in a government/public interest role where you're actually helping people?

I understand the lifestyle thing, but there are a trillion lifestyle jobs that don't require you to be miserable for 8 years of your life to get them.


What a strange comment. First of all, a 9-5 pm job while making six figures is fuckin awesome. Public interest work is not for most people. Also law school is only miserable for 1L and a little bit of 2L, the rest of it is awesome. Also 125k is way too low unless you went straight to in-house from law school or you're not in a major market.

Danger Zone

Platinum
Posts: 8260
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 10:36 am

Re: What % pay cut are you willing to take to go from V100 to in-house?

Postby Danger Zone » Fri Jan 12, 2018 12:17 am

Anonymous User wrote:Sincere question: why did you guys pay hundreds of thousands of dollars (plus forgone earnings) and three years of your life to get a job where you 9-5pm and make $125K a year with a pretty fucking low ceiling on potential earnings, AND you're not in a government/public interest role where you're actually helping people?

I understand the lifestyle thing, but there are a trillion lifestyle jobs that don't require you to be miserable for 8 years of your life to get them.

Sincere question, why do you need to hide behind anon to be an ignorant dick
Last edited by Danger Zone on Sat Jan 27, 2018 2:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
JenDarby

Diamond
Posts: 17362
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 3:02 am

Re: What % pay cut are you willing to take to go from V100 to in-house?

Postby JenDarby » Fri Jan 12, 2018 12:23 am

Danger Zone wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Sincere question: why did you guys pay hundreds of thousands of dollars (plus forgone earnings) and three years of your life to get a job where you 9-5pm and make $125K a year with a pretty fucking low ceiling on potential earnings, AND you're not in a government/public interest role where you're actually helping people?

I understand the lifestyle thing, but there are a trillion lifestyle jobs that don't require you to be miserable for 8 years of your life to get them.

Sincere question, why do you need to hide behind anon to be an ignorant dick

also, if you were miserable in law school then you did it entirely wrong. it was basically a 3 year vacation from the real world
Last edited by JenDarby on Mon Jan 29, 2018 10:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.

runinthefront

Gold
Posts: 2155
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:18 am

Re: What % pay cut are you willing to take to go from V100 to in-house?

Postby runinthefront » Fri Jan 12, 2018 12:34 am

smokeylarue wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Sincere question: why did you guys pay hundreds of thousands of dollars (plus forgone earnings) and three years of your life to get a job where you 9-5pm and make $125K a year with a pretty fucking low ceiling on potential earnings, AND you're not in a government/public interest role where you're actually helping people?

I understand the lifestyle thing, but there are a trillion lifestyle jobs that don't require you to be miserable for 8 years of your life to get them.


What a strange comment. First of all, a 9-5 pm job while making six figures is fuckin awesome.
Last edited by runinthefront on Fri Jan 26, 2018 11:53 pm, edited 4 times in total.

oblig.lawl.ref

Bronze
Posts: 306
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 10:28 pm

Re: What % pay cut are you willing to take to go from V100 to in-house?

Postby oblig.lawl.ref » Fri Jan 12, 2018 12:35 am

Anonymous User wrote:Sincere question: why did you guys pay hundreds of thousands of dollars (plus forgone earnings) and three years of your life to get a job where you 9-5pm and make $125K a year with a pretty fucking low ceiling on potential earnings, AND you're not in a government/public interest role where you're actually helping people?

I understand the lifestyle thing, but there are a trillion lifestyle jobs that don't require you to be miserable for 8 years of your life to get them.


This has gotta be an 0L, law student or stub, in order of likelihood, right? First, $125K in a low CoL place for a 9-5 is not bad. Second, I work for clients that are like 40 years old, worked at my firm out of law school for like 3 years and are now making like $750k a year with salary, bonuses and equity at public companies. Sure, that's the GC but there's also several who are probably making $250K+ below them with more or less 9 to 5s.

So yeah, that seems pretty chill to me. I honestly don't understand how there are any senior associates/partners. Seems absolutely miserable to me.

Danger Zone

Platinum
Posts: 8260
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 10:36 am

Re: What % pay cut are you willing to take to go from V100 to in-house?

Postby Danger Zone » Fri Jan 12, 2018 12:39 am

He's a 0L

BUT IT'S OKAY GUISE HE'S APPLYING TO HARVARD

Eta whoops misread he's a 1L
Last edited by Danger Zone on Sat Jan 27, 2018 2:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
UVA2B

Gold
Posts: 3407
Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 10:48 pm

Re: What % pay cut are you willing to take to go from V100 to in-house?

Postby UVA2B » Fri Jan 12, 2018 12:43 am

That's total K&E partner mindset, and everyone should respect game. K&E non-equity is a mere 8-9 years away.



Return to “Legal Employment�

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.