So you want to be a NY Corporate Associate?

[Danger Zone]

I would. What would your role be?

[not possible]

it would be part legal/part business work. the title would be general counsel but would help with business decisions and other random tasks that come with a start up. would also be managing external counsel (small firm) on stuff i couldn't do. i don't like my biglaw job but i'm nervous to make the jump to an unkown and take lower pay. feel like a pussy though cuz this is a risky move but could pay off better in the long-run (or blow up in my face) but also it is not biglaw.

[jrass]

it would be part legal/part business work. the title would be general counsel but would help with business decisions and other random tasks that come with a start up. would also be managing external counsel (small firm) on stuff i couldn't do. i don't like my biglaw job but i'm nervous to make the jump to an unkown and take lower pay. feel like a pussy though cuz this is a risky move but could pay off better in the long-run (or blow up in my face) but also it is not biglaw.

You can't base these decisions solely on immediate returns. There are intrinsic factors to balance against extrinsic factors. Which office is closer to Applebees?

[Danger Zone]

That sounds awesome, and the pay is nothing to scoff at.

Jrass, kill yourself.

[mvp99]

it would be part legal/part business work. the title would be general counsel but would help with business decisions and other random tasks that come with a start up. would also be managing external counsel (small firm) on stuff i couldn't do. i don't like my biglaw job but i'm nervous to make the jump to an unkown and take lower pay. feel like a pussy though cuz this is a risky move but could pay off better in the long-run (or blow up in my face) but also it is not biglaw.

If you're getting a salary (130k is a lot) my guess is that the startup has substantial cash to burn for a while (1-2 years?)? If that's the case then I think it's probably a good opportunity that you should seriously consider. How's the industry doing right now? Do you trust the people running the show? Is there a way for you to check the financials before making the jump?

[Br3v]

160 to 130 isn't even that much of a difference.

[not possible]

it would be part legal/part business work. the title would be general counsel but would help with business decisions and other random tasks that come with a start up. would also be managing external counsel (small firm) on stuff i couldn't do. i don't like my biglaw job but i'm nervous to make the jump to an unkown and take lower pay. feel like a pussy though cuz this is a risky move but could pay off better in the long-run (or blow up in my face) but also it is not biglaw.

If you're getting a salary (130k is a lot) my guess is that the startup has substantial cash to burn for a while (1-2 years?)? If that's the case then I think it's probably a good opportunity that you should seriously consider. How's the industry doing right now? Do you trust the people running the show? Is there a way for you to check the financials before making the jump?

thanks all for the feedback.

from what i know, the investments are doing well. I will have a chance to check the financials before anything is finalized, so that gives me some comfort. i don't know the people running the show personally but my gut tells me they are good, trustworthy people. i think the risk-averse lawyer in me is telling me it's too soon to leave biglaw (fear of pissing people off) but the more i think about staying in the firm, the more i want to leave and try something new and potentially exciting. everything in this thread supports the decision to leave too.

[DanteAlighieri]

it would be part legal/part business work. the title would be general counsel but would help with business decisions and other random tasks that come with a start up. would also be managing external counsel (small firm) on stuff i couldn't do. i don't like my biglaw job but i'm nervous to make the jump to an unkown and take lower pay. feel like a pussy though cuz this is a risky move but could pay off better in the long-run (or blow up in my face) but also it is not biglaw.

If you're getting a salary (130k is a lot) my guess is that the startup has substantial cash to burn for a while (1-2 years?)? If that's the case then I think it's probably a good opportunity that you should seriously consider. How's the industry doing right now? Do you trust the people running the show? Is there a way for you to check the financials before making the jump?

thanks all for the feedback.

from what i know, the investments are doing well. I will have a chance to check the financials before anything is finalized, so that gives me some comfort. i don't know the people running the show personally but my gut tells me they are good, trustworthy people. i think the risk-averse lawyer in me is telling me it's too soon to leave biglaw (fear of pissing people off) but the more i think about staying in the firm, the more i want to leave and try something new and potentially exciting. everything in this thread supports the decision to leave too.

I would go. If this is a legit start-up and you can get cash (and equity...this is key) then go. I would do it for 30k a year with the right equity package / day-to-day role. Do you want to be a non-equity partner/counsel/super senior associate at your firm/another? If so, stay, take your pay check, work hard, learn and pray for good work, good bosses, no recession 2.0, etc. If you would only be hanging around a firm for another 2-3 years then go. People won't really be pissed, esp. b/c you could be a future client and if you hustle, I am sure you could get back into a firm / another company after. Good luck.

[WhiteCollarBlueShirt]

from what i know, the investments are doing well.

I'd take it, depending on investment strategy, investor liquidity, public vs. private, aum, track record, seed/strategic partners, equity in management company etc... 130 is low for a major startup (90MM+), but if its a true entrepreneurial endeavor with some young guys and the firm/you gets performance, then sky's the limit and you could prob leverage the experience to go back to a v100, seward or whatever else end of day need be (even if they cut your class year).

But then again maybe I'm off base with what sort of financial services firm you're talking about. And for what it's worth referred a GC job at 130 + equity (non-asset management financial services firm) and people more senior than you or I were jumping at it. So, beware of lost opportunities.

[1styearlateral]

you could prob leverage the experience to go back to a v100, seward or whatever else end of day need be (even if they cut your class year).

Is it possible to go law firm > in house > law firm? I'm in a similar position as not possible where one option is salary + equity in a small startup to be their GC. I'm literally not even one year out of law school, but it seems like too good of an opportunity to pass up if this thing really takes off. But I'm worried that with only a year of litigation experience under my belt, it might be hard to go back to the law firm life if the company ends up tanking or getting bought out.

It just seems that the common move is law firm > in house. Generally not the other way around.

[WhiteCollarBlueShirt]

you could prob leverage the experience to go back to a v100, seward or whatever else end of day need be (even if they cut your class year).

Is it possible to go law firm > in house > law firm? I'm in a similar position as not possible where one option is salary + equity in a small startup to be their GC. I'm literally not even one year out of law school, but it seems like too good of an opportunity to pass up if this thing really takes off. But I'm worried that with only a year of litigation experience under my belt, it might be hard to go back to the law firm life if the company ends up tanking or getting bought out.

It just seems that the common move is law firm > in house. Generally not the other way around.

Uh seems less likely in your case (litigation).

It works nicely and is relatively common in practice areas where the in-house work (business or legal) directly compliments/intersects with the day-to-day law firm work. Such as investment fund GC to a fund formation type practice.

[1styearlateral]

Uh seems less likely in your case (litigation).

It works nicely and is relatively common in practice areas where the in-house work (business or legal) directly compliments/intersects with the day-to-day law firm work. Such as investment fund GC to a fund formation type practice.

Yeah, I guess I understand that. As GC, I assume I would be doing much more transactional work for the company, and enforcing proactive policies to prevent future litigation/issues. But I thought that a litigation background was highly sought after for GC candidates because they could work well with outside counsel when the company inevitably goes to trial. I could be wrong on this point, though.

[WhiteCollarBlueShirt]

Uh seems less likely in your case (litigation).

It works nicely and is relatively common in practice areas where the in-house work (business or legal) directly compliments/intersects with the day-to-day law firm work. Such as investment fund GC to a fund formation type practice.

Yeah, I guess I understand that. As GC, I assume I would be doing much more transactional work for the company, and enforcing proactive policies to prevent future litigation/issues. But I thought that a litigation background was highly sought after for GC candidates because they could work well with outside counsel when the company inevitably goes to trial. I could be wrong on this point, though.

TBH, I have no clue. The industries that I have experience with do not value private law firm litigation experience and avoid courtrooms (hence such policies are made by accountants, regulatory and compliance experts etc. and not litigators).

My only experience with lit is when something bad appears imminent. I think lit is great though, wish I didn't hate westlaw/lexis/reading cases so much, it's the only job where a lawyer can run the show.

[thexfactor]

you could prob leverage the experience to go back to a v100, seward or whatever else end of day need be (even if they cut your class year).

Is it possible to go law firm > in house > law firm? I'm in a similar position as not possible where one option is salary + equity in a small startup to be their GC. I'm literally not even one year out of law school, but it seems like too good of an opportunity to pass up if this thing really takes off. But I'm worried that with only a year of litigation experience under my belt, it might be hard to go back to the law firm life if the company ends up tanking or getting bought out.

It just seems that the common move is law firm > in house. Generally not the other way around.

It is definitely possible, not sure how likely. My friend just made the move back to a firm. However, he was in big law for transactional for 2 years prior to leaving.

I think it is probably harder for litigation. However, with that said, that seems like an interesting experience.

[Leonardo DiCaprio]

is it better to specialize within corporate or stay as a general corp bro

[Danger Zone]

is it better to specialize within corporate or stay as a general corp bro

Probably depends heavily on where you want to end up long term

[Leonardo DiCaprio]

is it better to specialize within corporate or stay as a general corp bro

Probably depends heavily on where you want to end up long term

i just want to last as long as possible to pay off dat debt

[jeech]

Thank you for posting this and for your honesty. I currently have a great job doing what I love in policy but for a long time I have had this burning desire to go to law school but it just did not make sense for me to take that path. Still, I had been having doubts and I am in my 30s now. Your words echo my fears/concerns and helped clarify things.
All the best and thanks once again.

[zvin]

Thank you for posting this and for your honesty. I currently have a great job doing what I love in policy but for a long time I have had this burning desire to go to law school but it just did not make sense for me to take that path. Still, I had been having doubts and I am in my 30s now. Your words echo my fears/concerns and helped clarify things.
All the best and thanks once again.

Are you still going to law school? Or is this thread inspiring you to gun hard for JD policy positions (to the extent these exist)

[BernieTrump]

.

[BernieTrump]

.

[BernieTrump]

.

[BernieTrump]

.

[Poets]

So do you have a plan of what you might do next?

I'd like to move out of New York and find something outside of law. Very tough to even get interviews, even with top school econ degree, great grades at HLS and a ton of deal experience over the course of 8+ years. Nobody outside of law (and the law departments of companies) will really look at lawyers, even though I have pretty sterling credentials and am willing to work for sub-100K salary. If I'm unable to go to a company like that, I may try my hand at entrepreneurship, though I don't have a great sense about what form that would take. I don't get many opportunities to sit down and think about it or plan.

Think from the employer's perspective. Why would they want to TRAIN you again while paying you a high salary? You EARN money from the work you contribute to the firm, regardless of which type of industry/firm you work in.

But, you may have a solution. First, if you are damn ambitious, lateral into in house but during those years, prepare for expanding into a new area WITHIN the organization. You should network with business people (sales, marketing, strategy, CEO, executives, etc) to get your name recognized within the firm. If the firm is operated in a highly regulated industry or it has many contractual issues, you may get a CEO title, assuming you have brought a high value to the firm as well as a proven evidence that you understand the firm very well.

If you think you are not a CEO material, think about a business consulting firm (e.g. McKinsey) They hire lawyers as an engaging manger. You may be too senior for that position, though.

It is not about overcoming the stereotype. Lawyers and law students are ignorant about how the business world works and their mindsets and brains are operated very differently from business people. For instance, they are too competitive and focused on winning, and not a team player at all. Business is all about teamwork. Too argumentative. Too "opinionated" based on their "personal" experience. e.g. you can't help but stating "I respectfully disagree" in response to the post of the M&A lawyer. A reasonable business person wouldn't do that. They are big picture thinkers. Rather than opinionated, they are strategic and objective. I can't list all the qualities that the business world considers important. Leadership, teamwork, strategical thinking, number crunching, ability to convince people who are in conflict of interest to work FOR you, etc. Good with numbers do not mean excel spread sheet skills. That is the first year's job. When you hear X product is losing its market share, can you immediately predict the next years' market and develop a strategy for that product? In addition, lawyers are too talkative with too complicated words, too subjective, too normative and too un-scientific. Business is the combination of arts and sciences (social science, hard science, etc). Lawyers think based on words, while business people do not.

Can you BRING money to the company? How? Did you streamline the internal supply chain management process and saved tons of money (like Tim Cook did for Apple)? Did you land a huge client? Did you create an awesome product that generates hundreds million dollars revenues? Did YOU save the company from high profile lit by, let say, spotting the issue before it becomes a real problem and more importantly by being able to convince the CEO and numerous other stakeholders who don't like your idea to take an action (translation: spending money) before it becomes a problem? Showing up at the door with a great business plan is nothing. The result, which is always money,only matters. Excelling at school only means that you are good with standardized tests and the business world is nothing like a standardized test, although overlapped to some extent. This is one of the reasons why extremely successful business people often did not graduate from top college (except financial institutions), although they often graduate from top MBA school.

I believe that people who are good with studying should remain in the similar scholarly type of work - banking, business strategy or law.

[hangold]

s