Is being in-house really just doing a bunch of circle jerk meetings all day w/ everyone doing cringey corporate-speak? Forum

[johndooley]

Winter park and Windermere are almost certainly more expensive than where you live. Not sure why Orlando is amusing to you.

[johndooley]

If bar passage was not a requirement then salaries would be at least halved and polisci majors from less reputable universities would take your place at age 22 without any discernible difference in deal outcomes or transaction volume.

I'm don't think that's really the case case. If Biglaw was willing to take people from "less reputable universities" they could have filled their classes five times over with T3/4 law school graduates. If you removed the need for any formal legal training, the system would probably look more like ibanking/consulting/big4 accounting. Just more tiers beyond Associate/counsel/Partner and a more pyramid-like structure.

Depends if it is litigation v corporate/tax/trust and estates etc. Clients will pay for highly trained litigators even if the ABA’s guild-like policies aren’t in place. A lot of transactional work is comprised of glorified paralegal tasks. Removing that high barrier to entry would change a lot of clients’ outlook on what they really need in the way of legal services.

I don't think so. I agree that this job doesn't require bar passage or intelligence.

But it does require you to be Type-A/on top of your shit/organized whatever you want to call it. Although that sounds like a really low bar, like 90% of my fucking juniors are below it.

So, yes there are smart high schoolers that could do this job. There just aren't that many, which is why the ones that can, get paid what they get paid.

As for is this a bullshit job? Sorta. We could (and used to) do this job in a much more straightforward, simple manner than the way we currently are doing it. Look at any merger/debt doc from the 80s - they're like 1/5th the size and complexity of docs now. I think if we went back to those simpler days, legal collections would go down, and we'd make less money, but our job would be significantly less bullshit.

Yeah, there haven't been any changes in the last forty years that could possibly account for merger docs being longer and more complex now.

You forgot your signature below:

- Someone Insecure Who Knows Their Job is Bullshit

Man, you really are in every thread, now, huh? Glad you feel confident weighing in on the dynamics of biglaw transactional roles and in-house counsel roles as a med-mal lawyer in... Orlando, is it? Also loved your thoughts on what it takes to break into academia and then acquire and maintain a tenure-track position. Care to weigh in on what the day-to-day looks like for SCOTUS clerk? Also would be interested to hear your thoughts on how to get DOJ honors, i'm sure you've got a take on that.

I don’t know any SC clerk well enough to opine and haven’t researched it. For DOJ and federal groups, hide your butt plug. It is showing in this thread.

Why is Orlando an insult? It has exploded in growth and appreciation the last few years. The suburbs and vacation towns outside the downtown are expensive and tasteful.

[thisismytlsuername]

Winter park and Windermere are almost certainly more expensive than where you live. Not sure why Orlando is amusing to you.

I live in downtown Manhattan, so you couldn't be more wrong.

[glitched]

Please PM each other. Seriously.

[johndooley]

There are many measures of expense. Downtown Manhattan has tons of 500-750k studios and 1brs which depresses the median sale price. Winter Park and Windermere have no ghettos or bad parts and very few small houses. This increases the median price. We also get to live on the water in many cases.

[thisismytlsuername]

Ugh, you're not even good at trolling. You're not my favorite new poster anymore.

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

This isn’t even a fun derailment. Now we have to debate the housing market in Central Florida? At least when we debate NYC, we’re discussing the place most biglaw associates live.

[Anonymous User]

Lol the people who post this kind of stuff are the same people who screech "Machines can't replace us!!!"

Cognitive dissonance at its finest.

[Anonymous User]

Ugh, you're not even good at trolling. You're not my favorite new poster anymore.

No he's terrible. His trolling in the academia thread was too blatant and boorish to be funny and it derailed what could have been an interesting thread and the comments about neighborhoods in Orlando are just boring since those neighborhoods are meaningless to almost everyone here. He needs to refine his craft if he is going to be a successful TLS troll in addition to being a top Central Florida MedMal attorney.

[Anonymous User]

I'm going to try and put this thread back on the rails (although, I'm kinda amused that this is devolving into an '80s style banker debate on who is more valuable to society which can obviously be measured by our annual income and how expensive our neighborhoods are - lol you guys are the fucking worst).

I may be looking for in-house opportunities over the next year, and OP's description of his experience as counsel at a FAANG is my worst nightmare. Ideally, here's what I would want:

1. Reasonable life-work balance. I'm not looking for a 9-5, but I don't want the constant threat of work looming over my head. I'm fine working long hours/weekends, if I know there is an end date/objective that we are working towards and not just burning the midnight oil because it's part of the role.

2. Value Add. I want to be a value add. You can call our jobs in biglaw bullshit or whatever you want, but at least we make money for the firms. We're the main drivers of firm revenue collection. I understand in-house that won't be our role, but I don't want to be seen or treated as a cost-center/annoyance. Ideally, a role that is important to the function of the business as a whole.

3. Flexibility. The one thing that makes leaving biglaw so hard for me is the flexibility. I come in, leave, go on vacation, WFH etc. whenever I feel like. I can set up a doctor's appointment for whenever my schedule allows and don't worry about having to tell a boss that I'll be gone for the hour. Basically, I want to be treated like an adult and trusted to manage my workload as I see fit (which I think biglaw is actually good about for mid-levels and above).

Does this job exist? Obviously, I know that all in-house positions will be different based on the company, but I'd love to hear stories from non-biglaw attorneys who feel like they have the above.

[thisismytlsuername]

Go be the only lawyer at a start up.

[Anonymous User]

He called Orlando “tasteful”!

D- trolling. Way too obvious

[Anonymous User]

Go be the only lawyer at a start up.

Specifically, something operating in a regulated/likely to be regulated space (e.g. fintech, life sciences, etc). Those areas need lawyers more than say a CPG startup will. I know big AI startups that barely have legal teams, and small fintech shops that have dedicated legal/government relations teams

[johndooley]

Ugh, you're not even good at trolling. You're not my favorite new poster anymore.

I am not trolling.

[johndooley]

This isn’t even a fun derailment. Now we have to debate the housing market in Central Florida? At least when we debate NYC, we’re discussing the place most biglaw associates live.

Yes, most of you are renters with student loans (=negative net worth). Cool beans.

[johndooley]

Ugh, you're not even good at trolling. You're not my favorite new poster anymore.

No he's terrible. His trolling in the academia thread was too blatant and boorish to be funny and it derailed what could have been an interesting thread and the comments about neighborhoods in Orlando are just boring since those neighborhoods are meaningless to almost everyone here. He needs to refine his craft if he is going to be a successful TLS troll in addition to being a top Central Florida MedMal attorney.

If you are at a large firm, the odds a partner owns a house in one of those two towns is very high. Just go on Redfin. It is a very appealing place to live. Please send your resume with any identifying information blotted out if you want to begin the conversation of being an associate at my firm.

[johndooley]

I'm going to try and put this thread back on the rails (although, I'm kinda amused that this is devolving into an '80s style banker debate on who is more valuable to society which can obviously be measured by our annual income and how expensive our neighborhoods are - lol you guys are the fucking worst).

I may be looking for in-house opportunities over the next year, and OP's description of his experience as counsel at a FAANG is my worst nightmare. Ideally, here's what I would want:

1. Reasonable life-work balance. I'm not looking for a 9-5, but I don't want the constant threat of work looming over my head. I'm fine working long hours/weekends, if I know there is an end date/objective that we are working towards and not just burning the midnight oil because it's part of the role.

2. Value Add. I want to be a value add. You can call our jobs in biglaw bullshit or whatever you want, but at least we make money for the firms. We're the main drivers of firm revenue collection. I understand in-house that won't be our role, but I don't want to be seen or treated as a cost-center/annoyance. Ideally, a role that is important to the function of the business as a whole.

3. Flexibility. The one thing that makes leaving biglaw so hard for me is the flexibility. I come in, leave, go on vacation, WFH etc. whenever I feel like. I can set up a doctor's appointment for whenever my schedule allows and don't worry about having to tell a boss that I'll be gone for the hour. Basically, I want to be treated like an adult and trusted to manage my workload as I see fit (which I think biglaw is actually good about for mid-levels and above).

Does this job exist? Obviously, I know that all in-house positions will be different based on the company, but I'd love to hear stories from non-biglaw attorneys who feel like they have the above.

You won't find this. You are a cost center and are a liability for your company, "the cost of doing business." You took no risks, that is why you are going in-house. You did not have the drive and courage to stake out a path on your own. You are there to serve your employer and/or clients.

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

This isn’t even a fun derailment. Now we have to debate the housing market in Central Florida? At least when we debate NYC, we’re discussing the place most biglaw associates live.

Yes, most of you are renters with student loans (=negative net worth). Cool beans.

My net worth is positive, and most people in Manhattan are renters, but thank you for this additional flame.

[johndooley]

This isn’t even a fun derailment. Now we have to debate the housing market in Central Florida? At least when we debate NYC, we’re discussing the place most biglaw associates live.

Yes, most of you are renters with student loans (=negative net worth). Cool beans.

My net worth is positive, and most people in Manhattan are renters, but thank you for this additional flame.

Most people do not go to three years of advanced schooling and work as many hours as transactional attorneys to be a renter. One would hope you can afford a 3bedroom apartment at 2500 square feet or move to a high end suburb with the equivalent. Guess that is not always the case....

[Lesion of Doom]

You won't find this. You are a cost center and are a liability for your company, "the cost of doing business." You took no risks, that is why you are going in-house. You did not have the drive and courage to stake out a path on your own. You are there to serve your employer and/or clients.

The logic underpinning your posts in this thread reminds me of anti-maskers who taunted mask-wearers as "scared", notwithstanding that (a) taking small yet meaningful steps toward evading a pandemic is a rational thing to do that does not indicate cowardice and (b) the wearer may have immuno-compromised people in their regular orbit.

People go in-house for all kinds of reasons, including the desire to preserve a corporate track career that entails greater stability and potentially high incomes and interesting jobs in the future. Likewise, people supporting families may not be positioned to absorb the risk or short-to-intermediate term income hit of starting their own practice.

You accuse others of being insecure but. ...

[attorney589753]

I'm going to try and put this thread back on the rails (although, I'm kinda amused that this is devolving into an '80s style banker debate on who is more valuable to society which can obviously be measured by our annual income and how expensive our neighborhoods are - lol you guys are the fucking worst).

I may be looking for in-house opportunities over the next year, and OP's description of his experience as counsel at a FAANG is my worst nightmare. Ideally, here's what I would want:

1. Reasonable life-work balance. I'm not looking for a 9-5, but I don't want the constant threat of work looming over my head. I'm fine working long hours/weekends, if I know there is an end date/objective that we are working towards and not just burning the midnight oil because it's part of the role.

2. Value Add. I want to be a value add. You can call our jobs in biglaw bullshit or whatever you want, but at least we make money for the firms. We're the main drivers of firm revenue collection. I understand in-house that won't be our role, but I don't want to be seen or treated as a cost-center/annoyance. Ideally, a role that is important to the function of the business as a whole.

3. Flexibility. The one thing that makes leaving biglaw so hard for me is the flexibility. I come in, leave, go on vacation, WFH etc. whenever I feel like. I can set up a doctor's appointment for whenever my schedule allows and don't worry about having to tell a boss that I'll be gone for the hour. Basically, I want to be treated like an adult and trusted to manage my workload as I see fit (which I think biglaw is actually good about for mid-levels and above).

Does this job exist? Obviously, I know that all in-house positions will be different based on the company, but I'd love to hear stories from non-biglaw attorneys who feel like they have the above.

I think BigLaw has a relatively small amount of variety. Sure, some practice groups are better than others; M&A might have more fire drills than fund formations. And some firms are infamous while others merely work you super hard. And at the end of the day, your partner and team relationships might be the difference between the job being bearable versus nightmarish. But 80% of midlevels are probably working 1800-2300 hours per year, fairly similar work (especially in corporate).

In-house has a lot more variety because there are a lot of different companies, and business models, relative to law firms.

I think most in-house jobs (at least myself and folks I've talked with) would say hours and flexibility are better than at the law firm. Outside of biglaw it seems unfathomable to tell someone in corporate America they can't go to a doctor's appointment. You still have to attend meetings, so you can't work 11pm-7am, but that's basically true in any job.

The second variable (value add) is an important one and it's why finding *the right* in-house job is just as important. Even if 95% of in-house jobs have better hours than BigLaw, that doesn't mean 95% are better jobs (or better jobs for everyone). This is the stuff you sort out ahead of time with the recruiter and during interviews. Why is this company hiring this role - do they *want* a lawyer, or is someone forcing them? Who will my boss be? What they of experience does he or she have managing and working with lawyers? Do they seem like they will be good or bad to work with? Do they seem like the type of person who likes having a lawyer just to blame someone else? Of course, whether you are value-add or not will also depend in part on your own legal skills, your performance, your ability to get up to speed, and your ability to communicate. Good businesses (and good business people) know the value of having a good in-house lawyer and know how to work with them.

Reading through the lines, it sounds like joining a big company might not be the best fit for you, because it's really easy to "blend in" there and you'd rather have more visible impact and influence. Or, if you did join a large company, you might want to look for a smaller team who is tasked with a very discreet objective/goal. There are a lot of different sizes of companies and roles out there.

[johndooley]

You won't find this. You are a cost center and are a liability for your company, "the cost of doing business." You took no risks, that is why you are going in-house. You did not have the drive and courage to stake out a path on your own. You are there to serve your employer and/or clients.

The logic underpinning your posts in this thread reminds me of anti-maskers who taunted mask-wearers as "scared", notwithstanding that (a) taking small yet meaningful steps toward evading a pandemic is a rational thing to do that does not indicate cowardice and (b) the wearer may have immuno-compromised people in their regular orbit.

People go in-house for all kinds of reasons, including the desire to preserve a corporate track career that entails greater stability and potentially high incomes and interesting jobs in the future. Likewise, people supporting families may not be positioned to absorb the risk or short-to-intermediate term income hit of starting their own practice.

You accuse others of being insecure but. ...

Weighing career risks accurately is not the same as blindly claiming masks do not work or should not be worn.

Yes, I understand why people go in-house and the reasons are generally bad. They do not have a corporate career track in that they will not be in management or a business-side role. Getting out of the legal department is very difficult. Regarding families sure, but they should have taken risks earlier on and executed on them.

How am I insecure? I am recommending a lucrative and fulfilling career path that I have enjoyed immensely. I wish everyone could have such contentment.

[AntsInMyEyesJohnson]

I'm going to try and put this thread back on the rails (although, I'm kinda amused that this is devolving into an '80s style banker debate on who is more valuable to society which can obviously be measured by our annual income and how expensive our neighborhoods are - lol you guys are the fucking worst).

I may be looking for in-house opportunities over the next year, and OP's description of his experience as counsel at a FAANG is my worst nightmare. Ideally, here's what I would want:

1. Reasonable life-work balance. I'm not looking for a 9-5, but I don't want the constant threat of work looming over my head. I'm fine working long hours/weekends, if I know there is an end date/objective that we are working towards and not just burning the midnight oil because it's part of the role.

2. Value Add. I want to be a value add. You can call our jobs in biglaw bullshit or whatever you want, but at least we make money for the firms. We're the main drivers of firm revenue collection. I understand in-house that won't be our role, but I don't want to be seen or treated as a cost-center/annoyance. Ideally, a role that is important to the function of the business as a whole.

3. Flexibility. The one thing that makes leaving biglaw so hard for me is the flexibility. I come in, leave, go on vacation, WFH etc. whenever I feel like. I can set up a doctor's appointment for whenever my schedule allows and don't worry about having to tell a boss that I'll be gone for the hour. Basically, I want to be treated like an adult and trusted to manage my workload as I see fit (which I think biglaw is actually good about for mid-levels and above).

Does this job exist? Obviously, I know that all in-house positions will be different based on the company, but I'd love to hear stories from non-biglaw attorneys who feel like they have the above.

You won't find this. You are a cost center and are a liability for your company, "the cost of doing business." You took no risks, that is why you are going in-house. You did not have the drive and courage to stake out a path on your own. You are there to serve your employer and/or clients.

Not worth the time.

[12YrsAnAssociate]

He called Orlando “tasteful”!

D- trolling. Way too obvious

The way he refers to Orlando as a really great place reminds me of the play the Book of Mormon. It's funny because Orlando is fine, just like a lot of places, but I'm not sure many people other than John D. and the guy from the Book of Mormon would go to bat for it as hard as John D. does.

[johndooley]

I'm going to try and put this thread back on the rails (although, I'm kinda amused that this is devolving into an '80s style banker debate on who is more valuable to society which can obviously be measured by our annual income and how expensive our neighborhoods are - lol you guys are the fucking worst).

I may be looking for in-house opportunities over the next year, and OP's description of his experience as counsel at a FAANG is my worst nightmare. Ideally, here's what I would want:

1. Reasonable life-work balance. I'm not looking for a 9-5, but I don't want the constant threat of work looming over my head. I'm fine working long hours/weekends, if I know there is an end date/objective that we are working towards and not just burning the midnight oil because it's part of the role.

2. Value Add. I want to be a value add. You can call our jobs in biglaw bullshit or whatever you want, but at least we make money for the firms. We're the main drivers of firm revenue collection. I understand in-house that won't be our role, but I don't want to be seen or treated as a cost-center/annoyance. Ideally, a role that is important to the function of the business as a whole.

3. Flexibility. The one thing that makes leaving biglaw so hard for me is the flexibility. I come in, leave, go on vacation, WFH etc. whenever I feel like. I can set up a doctor's appointment for whenever my schedule allows and don't worry about having to tell a boss that I'll be gone for the hour. Basically, I want to be treated like an adult and trusted to manage my workload as I see fit (which I think biglaw is actually good about for mid-levels and above).

Does this job exist? Obviously, I know that all in-house positions will be different based on the company, but I'd love to hear stories from non-biglaw attorneys who feel like they have the above.

You won't find this. You are a cost center and are a liability for your company, "the cost of doing business." You took no risks, that is why you are going in-house. You did not have the drive and courage to stake out a path on your own. You are there to serve your employer and/or clients.

What a dumb response. Some people just want jobs. Not all of us have the “drive and courage” to become an ambulance chaser, you weirdo.

Wow, did not realize this post would solicit a response from someone who has not posted in several years. It must have meant something to you.

"Some people want jobs." Sure, there are easier ways to go about this than law school and being an associate. The salary would be similar too.

I don't think this thread should devolve into a "do ambulance chasers provide a necessary service or not?" debate. Everyone has heard both sides ad nauseam. There is a child under 5, severally physically handicapped for life due to a very preventable mistake by the OB, that now has the money to have needed assistance for the next 80 or so years. I feel good about that.