Experiences With Inept In-house Counsel Forum

[1styearlateral]

This shouldn't be surprising. 99% of lawyers who are in house are those that couldn't get firm jobs in the first place or flamed out in big law. You shouldn't have high expectations. Also, these companies have entire legal departments, sometimes bigger than major firms, and still utilize outside counsel. Ask yourself why that might be.

Still, they're likely easier to deal with than the business teams.

Just grin, bear it, and take their money.

These comments are so weird to me. Like do you expect that in-house counsel should have a full slate of people to do an M&A deal including Erisa experts, etc. or should the corporate lawyers know employment law or tax? Like how would they be able to run an M&A deal or deal with comments if they are only doing 2 a year and don’t have tons of precedent and resources to refer to.

Most people voluntarily go in-house from big law. They don’t flame out. The flame out comment is some bullshit that lifers and partners tell themselves, but it’s not accurate. Tons of great associates decide they’d rather see their kids than help the Uber rich get slightly more Uber rich.

All true. Also, not every lawyer wants to be in the service industry. Going in house is a great way to get business experience if you're open-minded. The brave anon poster quoted above is obviously a 0L, law student, or first-year, and hasn't yet had an opportunity to interact with some of the brilliant attorneys out there that work in house... or better yet, own their own businesses.

[Anonymous User]

Been thinking over a response to this thread, as a former biglaw associate who went in house as a senior associate. First off, I tend to agree that it seems strange for someone who is in the service industry to complain about the ineptness of in-house counsel. They are paying your bill. You're hired to provide legal services and to deal with their quirks. Good outside counsel can do the first. The best outside counsel figure out how to do both well.

Turning to the quality of in-house counsel, as with basically all professions, you have a range of quality. Some are going to be motivated and driven, others will be prone to do mediocre work because it is easier. Frequently, there is not much incentive to do excellently or to develop a range of skills because in-house counsel are typically hired to perform discreet functions. They (typically) aren't going to be paid more for developing skills outside the areas related to the functions for which they were originally hired. The exception is for someone seeking to be promoted to oversee more areas relevant to the business. But (again, typically), this doesn't involve developing expert-level skill in these new areas. That is pretty much precisely what outside counsel is for: to do the work that a business does not have an internal resource to perform. A natural consequence of this is that in-house counsel, who is not skilled in a particular area, will hire outside counsel to perform the function in which OC has the skill and IHC does not.

In my experience, outside counsel also generally has deficiencies which are suboptimal in some types of representations. For instance, it is not uncommon for outside counsel to be hired for matters which relate to circumstances specific to the business or the industry of the client. But outside counsel typically may not have experience in that industry and may not understand the technology, industry trends, revenue models, or other elements pertinent to the client. That's fine. They bring the legal skill and the client provides the relevant business knowledge. Hopefully, through an arrangement where both IHC and OC bring something to the table, they are able to work together to solve the client's needs.

[attorney589753]

Been thinking over a response to this thread, as a former biglaw associate who went in house as a senior associate. First off, I tend to agree that it seems strange for someone who is in the service industry to complain about the ineptness of in-house counsel. They are paying your bill. You're hired to provide legal services and to deal with their quirks. Good outside counsel can do the first. The best outside counsel figure out how to do both well.

Turning to the quality of in-house counsel, as with basically all professions, you have a range of quality. Some are going to be motivated and driven, others will be prone to do mediocre work because it is easier. Frequently, there is not much incentive to do excellently or to develop a range of skills because in-house counsel are typically hired to perform discreet functions. They (typically) aren't going to be paid more for developing skills outside the areas related to the functions for which they were originally hired. The exception is for someone seeking to be promoted to oversee more areas relevant to the business. But (again, typically), this doesn't involve developing expert-level skill in these new areas. That is pretty much precisely what outside counsel is for: to do the work that a business does not have an internal resource to perform. A natural consequence of this is that in-house counsel, who is not skilled in a particular area, will hire outside counsel to perform the function in which OC has the skill and IHC does not.

In my experience, outside counsel also generally has deficiencies which are suboptimal in some types of representations. For instance, it is not uncommon for outside counsel to be hired for matters which relate to circumstances specific to the business or the industry of the client. But outside counsel typically may not have experience in that industry and may not understand the technology, industry trends, revenue models, or other elements pertinent to the client. That's fine. They bring the legal skill and the client provides the relevant business knowledge. Hopefully, through an arrangement where both IHC and OC bring something to the table, they are able to work together to solve the client's needs.

This is a good post. To build on the point in the middle paragraph, a firm junior or midlevel associate is going to have extensive substantive legal review of their work built into the model. So one of the things you're evaluated on is continued development of substantive legal skills. An in-house lawyer is less likely to have extensive substantive review, but will need to develop relationships, networks, and a good understanding of the business. Of course this is all very dependent on the exact in-house job. In contrast to the blog post (which was garbage), I would argue that a motivated in-house lawyer may get the most opportunity to merge legal advice with business considerations, which might be the most important corporate skill as you become more and more senior. But also there are plenty of in-house lawyers who are more coasting, just like there are some firm lawyers who are coasting.