What does a "good" inhouse position look like post Biglaw? Forum

[Old Gregg]

thinking that making $150k/year is somewhat-failing-at-life is actually-failing-at-life.

[AlanShore]

thinking that making $150k/year is somewhat-failing-at-life is actually-failing-at-life.

[UnicornHunter]

thinking that making $150k/year is somewhat-failing-at-life is actually-failing-at-life.

Seriously. The government pay scale maxes out at $155k.

[Anonymous User]

I worked at a major personal lines insurance company before law school. The company was incredibly transparent about salaries. Pre-2009, they were paying in-house litigators and other low level in-house counsel all in cash comp of $130-160k. Give or take 10% for very high/very low COL areas. Legit 40-hour workweeks and, depending on seniority, 3-6 weeks of paid time off per year + 6 company holidays.

Long-term salary topped out around $220k/year unless willing to move back to corporate HQ. Added benefit that, b/c it was a personal lines insurance company, all offices were in suburban office parks, allowing employees to take advantage of lower COL areas in their communities. Company might have been an outlier, but they were generally known within the industry as being stingy on compensation.

Re: raising a family on $150k/year in high COL areas. I am not sure it's comfortable. Those families are making choices and sacrificing somewhere. Most likely on some combination of college savings, retirement savings and commute. Many (most?) of those households, while likely enjoying creature comforts they would be better off without, are living paycheck to paycheck with a very low net worth. Yes, those households are better off than other households in many ways, but they aren't exactly getting ahead on $150k/year. Not sure I would call that "comfortable, but that's a matter of opinion.

In the past I would have been willing to accept that wage growth and real estate appreciation would put those families ahead in the long run, but I don't think that holds true (at the moment).

Also, private sector $150k < gov't $150k. Have to account for job security and pension.

Finally, law firm $160k < F500 $160k. Have to account for hours worked, location/commute, higher employee contributions to health insurance (generally speaking) and lack of 401(k) match/other retirement saving vehicles. I haven't worked biglaw long enough to say what the sweet spot is for me personally, but at around (current salary - $30k) I would at least consider an offer from my pre-law employer.

[Anonymous User]

I worked at a major personal lines insurance company before law school. The company was incredibly transparent about salaries. Pre-2009, they were paying in-house litigators and other low level in-house counsel all in cash comp of $130-160k. Give or take 10% for very high/very low COL areas. Legit 40-hour workweeks and, depending on seniority, 3-6 weeks of paid time off per year + 6 company holidays.

Long-term salary topped out around $220k/year unless willing to move back to corporate HQ. Added benefit that, b/c it was a personal lines insurance company, all offices were in suburban office parks, allowing employees to take advantage of lower COL areas in their communities. Company might have been an outlier, but they were generally known within the industry as being stingy on compensation.

Re: raising a family on $150k/year in high COL areas. I am not sure it's comfortable. Those families are making choices and sacrificing somewhere. Most likely on some combination of college savings, retirement savings and commute. Many (most?) of those households, while likely enjoying creature comforts they would be better off without, are living paycheck to paycheck with a very low net worth. Yes, those households are better off than other households in many ways, but they aren't exactly getting ahead on $150k/year. Not sure I would call that "comfortable, but that's a matter of opinion.

In the past I would have been willing to accept that wage growth and real estate appreciation would put those families ahead in the long run, but I don't think that holds true (at the moment).

Also, private sector $150k < gov't $150k. Have to account for job security and pension.

Finally, law firm $160k < F500 $160k. Have to account for hours worked, location/commute, higher employee contributions to health insurance (generally speaking) and lack of 401(k) match/other retirement saving vehicles. I haven't worked biglaw long enough to say what the sweet spot is for me personally, but at around (current salary - $30k) I would have at least consider an offer from my pre-law employer.

How much do you think PRE ITE has effected salaries?
Were most of their hires biglaw refugees?

[Anonymous User]

I worked at a major personal lines insurance company before law school. The company was incredibly transparent about salaries. Pre-2009, they were paying in-house litigators and other low level in-house counsel all in cash comp of $130-160k. Give or take 10% for very high/very low COL areas. Legit 40-hour workweeks and, depending on seniority, 3-6 weeks of paid time off per year + 6 company holidays.

Long-term salary topped out around $220k/year unless willing to move back to corporate HQ. Added benefit that, b/c it was a personal lines insurance company, all offices were in suburban office parks, allowing employees to take advantage of lower COL areas in their communities. Company might have been an outlier, but they were generally known within the industry as being stingy on compensation.

Re: raising a family on $150k/year in high COL areas. I am not sure it's comfortable. Those families are making choices and sacrificing somewhere. Most likely on some combination of college savings, retirement savings and commute. Many (most?) of those households, while likely enjoying creature comforts they would be better off without, are living paycheck to paycheck with a very low net worth. Yes, those households are better off than other households in many ways, but they aren't exactly getting ahead on $150k/year. Not sure I would call that "comfortable, but that's a matter of opinion.

In the past I would have been willing to accept that wage growth and real estate appreciation would put those families ahead in the long run, but I don't think that holds true (at the moment).

Also, private sector $150k < gov't $150k. Have to account for job security and pension.

Finally, law firm $160k < F500 $160k. Have to account for hours worked, location/commute, higher employee contributions to health insurance (generally speaking) and lack of 401(k) match/other retirement saving vehicles. I haven't worked biglaw long enough to say what the sweet spot is for me personally, but at around (current salary - $30k) I would have at least consider an offer from my pre-law employer.

How much do you think PRE ITE has effected salaries?
Were most of their hires biglaw refugees?

I am not sure. Haven't been privy to their salary data since 2008. As I mentioned, it was a personal lines insurance company, which meant margins were tight. Salaries generally increased 1.5-3% on a yearly basis. The company had very detailed data on what it considered market compensation for each job within the company. The company added/subtracted up to 15% as a regional adjustment by metropolitan area. States like TX/OH/PA were considered baseline market states. Blue states on the coasts saw up to +15% adjustment and red states like AL/MS/WY up to -15% adjustment. The company's goal was to get each employee at "market" for their position within five years of entering the company and then 1-3% yearly salary growth depending on market conditions (and 1% did happen often). But the 401(k) program was solid, the hours were very favorable, and everybody used their vacation.

I can tell you that career progression has certainly slowed, but, short of really dire circumstances, it wasn't the kind of company to take money away from its employees. So my guess is that the company's salary bands have remained fairly stagnant post-ITE, but they are probably still a good deal for their in-house lawyers.

Mostly biglaw refugees except for their in-house litigators. Their model was for in-house litigators to handle slam dunk cases that required involvement with a court. So they hired litigators with real personal injury/insurance coverage experience (typically at least five years experience).

[FSK]

Holy shit you might have to sacrifice something to raise a family? No way. What? The median household income in the US is ~$50k? What!? So much ridiculous entitlement ITT.

[Anonymous User]

Holy shit you might have to sacrifice something to raise a family? No way. What? The median household income in the US is ~$50k? What!? So much ridiculous entitlement ITT.

Of course raising a family requires sacrifices. By defintion, sacrifices are uncomfortable. Not sure why this is such a big deal to you.

[lapolicia]

Holy shit you might have to sacrifice something to raise a family? No way. What? The median household income in the US is ~$50k? What!? So much ridiculous entitlement ITT.

Of course raising a family requires sacrifices. By defintion, sacrifices are uncomfortable. Not sure why this is such a big deal to you.

If your definition of comfortable is being able to raise a family with an upper-middle class (or even higher) lifestyle in a place like central SF or Manhattan with no sacrifices whatsoever and only one spouse working, law is not the right profession for you. Short of making partner or becoming an executive at a corporation (both very rare), there is almost nothing that will get you past the $200,000 income range. You should go into investment banking.

[Anonymous User]

Holy shit you might have to sacrifice something to raise a family? No way. What? The median household income in the US is ~$50k? What!? So much ridiculous entitlement ITT.

Of course raising a family requires sacrifices. By defintion, sacrifices are uncomfortable. Not sure why this is such a big deal to you.

If your definition of comfortable is being able to raise a family with an upper-middle class (or even higher) lifestyle in a place like central SF or Manhattan with no sacrifices whatsoever and only one spouse working, law is not the right profession for you. Short of making partner or becoming an executive at a corporation (both very rare), there is almost nothing that will get you past the $200,000 income range. You should go into investment banking.

My definition of comfortable is living within your means and getting ahead financially so that you can (1) afford college for your kids, (2) absorb unexpected financial hardship (such as prolonged unemployment) and (3) plan a comfortable retirement while (4) having your kids attend significantly above average schools and (5) living in a decent community (preferably avoiding a long commute).

But yes, it is absurd to expect a ~top 5% nationwide household income to lead to an UMC lifestyle [/sarcasm]

[patogordo]

lol at arguing with stupid anon opinions

[Anonymous User]

lol at arguing with stupid anon opinions

Meh. Wouldn't be anon if I hadn't already posted career history information that could easily out me.

(Insurance poster).

[patogordo]

lol at arguing with stupid anon opinions

Meh. Wouldn't be anon if I hadn't already posted career history information that could easily out me.

(Insurance poster).

my bad, i had assumed based on your helpful post that you were a different, non-retarded anon

[jarofsoup]

$150k in SF or NYC or DC is somewhat-failing-at-life.

dumbass.

I love how this ignores joint incomes and living in the suburbs. What's wrong sith living in Marin, Bethesda/Arlington or Long Island?

If I made 150k, worked 9 to 5 and could take vacations I would be very very happy. Having a soul and being able to watch my kids grow up would be worth less income. I would take job security over big law and big laws salary any day. Most my friends in big law will quit or be fired in the next 5 years anyway....

[Old Gregg]

it is absurd to expect a ~top 5% nationwide household income to lead to an UMC lifestyle

Actually, in the US, it is absurd. And the sooner you realize this the sooner you'll think about why living in a high COL market or even in the US is an absurd proposition for anyone but the extremely wealthy, if you want to have the following:

(1) afford college for your kids

At the rate tuition is increasing, by the time you send your kids to college, the total cost over four years per child will be at leas $400,000. You'll need at least $1.2m to send three kids to a good college.

(2) absorb unexpected financial hardship (such as prolonged unemployment)

Hard to save for the emergency fund when saving to buy a house in a high COL market, saving for your kid's college, paying off your loans, and saving for retirement.

(3) plan a comfortable retirement while

Hard to do this when you're saving to absorb unexpected financial hardship, etc.

4) having your kids attend significantly above average schools

This is where the absurdity of your expectations gets particularly high. Assuming you're able to get your child into one of these schools (a bad assumption), private schools are $$$ per year, and there's no guarantee your kid will be able to attend a good public school, unless you're willing to fork over the $$$ by

(5) living in a decent community (preferably avoiding a long commute).

...which will cost you at least $1.2mm in terms of property ownership, probably more.

Good luck buddy. Looks like you're in for either a future of eternal disappointment or slavish dedication to a shit job while you try to maintain the life of a law partner. Just hope you don't get divorced in the process (and the divorce rate is pretty high among biglaw lawyers, investment bankers, etc.). Would suck to pay child support on the three children your having to put through college.

Dumbass.

[mvp99]

lol at tlsers thinking non-anon opinions are meaningfully less anon than anon posts

[Old Gregg]

lol at tlsers thinking non-anon opinions are meaningfully less anon than anon posts

Dumbass.

[patogordo]

lol at tlsers thinking non-anon opinions are meaningfully less anon than anon posts

(guy who contributes so little that he's effectively always anon)

[mvp99]

lol at tlsers thinking non-anon opinions are meaningfully less anon than anon posts

Dumbass.

Acting tough while hiding behind the protection of your keyboard.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdSVCcaV4Tw

(edit: do a quick survey of your past posts... I doubt you behave like that in real life... you know.. when people are in front of you)

[jarofsoup]

lol at tlsers thinking non-anon opinions are meaningfully less anon than anon posts

Dumbass.

Acting tough while hiding behind the protection of your keyboard.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdSVCcaV4Tw

I love stupid dogs.

[Old Gregg]

Acting tough while hiding behind the protection of your keyboard.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdSVCcaV4Tw

(edit: do a quick survey of your past posts... I doubt you behave like that in real life... you know.. when people are in front of you)

You doubt that I call stupid people stupid in real life? Or that I call stupid comments stupid in real life?

well then you're really a dumbass, because I do do all of that.

but it doesnt come up that often because all of my friends are pretty smart. way more likely that theyll do the above to me rather than me to them.

[Old Gregg]

and if you think im "hiding behind" my keyboard, ill give you my address. come over and we'll duke it out (100% serious, so long as you intend to actually come and duke it out. not going to give you my deets for nothing).

[Anonymous User]

Dumbass.

The point is that all of that shit can't be done in a high COL area on household income of $150k. On what point do you think we disagree?

As for the rest of your rant: I grew up in SF/SD/LA. I live in Texas. My firm pays NYC scale to all class years. I have school-age children. We found that while living a relatively modest lifestyle (especially by biglaw standards) on just one biglaw income, our first year we were able to improve net worth by mid-five figures (ignoring asset appreciation). I will never go anywhere near a high COL market if I don't have to.

I've been married over a decade; thanks for the throwaway disclaimer on divorce.

You aren't telling me anything I don't already know....

[bk1]

Let's everyone just chill and try not to derail a thread that can still be legitimately useful.

[jbagelboy]

the single earner in a professional family household assumption is pretty dated and archaic. Not sure why posters are speaking as though 1) associates at large law firms/in-house are all making $150K or less when that's demonstrably false based on information in this very thread, and 2) there will only be one salary when the majority of American families have two working parents, and this percentage is substantially greater among dual professionals. See http://www.bls.gov/news.release/famee.nr0.htm.

Also, as another poster mentioned, people who may live in lower manhattan/east side or Mission/FiDi in SF when they are young will more often than not relocate to suburbia or the outskirts of town if they aim to purchase a home. Clearly, as zweit said, six figures makes you well off but not exorbitantly wealthy, and its unreasonable to expect to own substantial property & live in the highest CoL zip codes in the country unless you're exorbitantly wealthy.