to big law folk: what is the goal if not partner Forum

[Anonymous User]

Just wanted to add this color to the debate on pay raises- I work in-house and my experience is that while we give a good increase or match to join the firm, you are almost never going to get the steady raises you would see in BigLaw. This leads to salary stagnation. E.g. our GC makes 40% under market but a recent new hire got a raise to come here from BigLaw.

This is in mostly every corporate job and not unique to law. The key is to jump in-house companies every few years and the new job should be more in line with market.

[miskellyjohnson]

I went in-house during my third year. Salary is only $165 but all in (with bonus and stock that vests over 4 years and 401K match, etc.) I am at $275k. I work in the energy industry and I know 5-6 other people from my firm in house that make either very slightly less or very slightly more (and one guy who makes insane money - more than he would be in biglaw). It is not THAT rare. The salary may be low but you can make up for it on the non-cash comp side.

You must be a unicorn because all of the junior associates in this thread are assuring all readers that this is basically impossible.

just like I said—“unless its a situation like, they went to an oil company, and got a huge bonus this last year because oil prices are high right now-- but then when oil prices drop, they will make much less. “

Oil stock prices are high right now, because oil prices are at the top of a cycle and the market is hot as hell. Wait for oil prices to fall and bonus freezes to come, which they always do, and let’s see you matching big law comp. And let’s wait for that stock to vest and see what your real comp was... “I got 100k in stock that I can’t sell”

[LawAndBehold]

Well, two things: I went in-house, desperately hated it, so quickly moved back to private practice (mid level). My game plan is of counsel. And on the salary point: one of my friends went to a big pharma company, they matched her BigLaw salary (junior), and a friend of mine is going in-house at Google and is getting a 25% pay rise compared to her BigLaw salary (senior associate) and amazing stock options and a whole list of other benefits. I agree with those that say that salary increase by going to in-house, coming from BigLaw is rare and thus certainly not the norm. I took a 40% cut. It depends on your seniority, region AND most importantly the industry sector, Pharma, Oil, PE and Tec (think Google, Facebook) pay really well...

[Lacepiece23]

Am I missing something? I thought it is pretty common knowledge that corporate bros and gals on the coasts have great exit options, especially if at a top law firm. Those options might include exits to in house companies at a higher salaries. Litigation bros and gals in secondary markets, like myself, have way fewer options. I’m not sure what anyone is saying is inconsistent, seems like everyone is comparing apples to oranges.

I’d personally never want to go in house or be a corporate lawyer, so pretty happy with my life decisions. Others may feel differently.

[ghostoftraynor]

Am I missing something? I thought it is pretty common knowledge that corporate bros and gals on the coasts have great exit options, especially if at a top law firm. Those options might include exits to in house companies at a higher salaries. Litigation bros and gals in secondary markets, like myself, have way fewer options. I’m not sure what anyone is saying is inconsistent, seems like everyone is comparing apples to oranges.

I’d personally never want to go in house or be a corporate lawyer, so pretty happy with my life decisions. Others may feel differently.

Yea, you are missing something. When people say corporate has better exit options, they mean corporate has the best chance of landing you an in house position with good pay and reasonable hours. It also has the best chance of getting you a position that pays comparably to big law (generally sacrificing most of the hour benefit). That doesn’t mean most corporate associates end up in house with similar or better pay. There is a ton of data telling otherwise, and anyone who tells you otherwise is deluding themselves at best.

[Arad]

I don't have a horse in this race nor do I really care what in-house salaries are, but the difference in quality of firms/groups people are exiting from could play a part in why some people allegedly get pay bumps while others don't, especially considering the fact that many large firms compensate their associates on the same scale despite a large spread in quality of work, profitability, revenue per lawyer, etc. Big law is unique in the sense that there are 50+ firms that all pay the exact same thing despite vast differences in quality, and I wouldn't be surprised if associates that lateral from higher quality firms are more likely to get pay bumps than those at lower quality ones, all else being equal.

[UnfrozenCaveman]

I’ve seen this twice now where someone refers to going back to working at a law firm as going back to private practice.

[MaxMcMann]

I’ve seen this twice now where someone refers to going back to working at a law firm as going back to private practice.

The interesting part is that nobody really goes into detail why they went back from in-house to firms - despite noting the worse hours at firms as a given. I wonder what the unstated upside is.

[dabigchina]

The one person who i know who left a cushy in house job to come back to biglaw did it because the cushy in house job required him to do a horrendous commute every day (think 1.5 hrs each way).

Even without that horrible commute, he thinks he made a huge mistake coming back to biglaw.

[LawAndBehold]

I’ve seen this twice now where someone refers to going back to working at a law firm as going back to private practice.

The interesting part is that nobody really goes into detail why they went back from in-house to firms - despite noting the worse hours at firms as a given. I wonder what the unstated upside is.

Well, have you actually asked them? Everybody’s story, and reasons for liking/not liking a job are different I suppose. For me, I was unfortunately sold a lot of BS during the interview. The company I worked at as an in-house lawyer said (1) I would mostly be doing [X] work, as I would be their specialist (that lasted for about a month or two before I was mostly doing [Y]), (2) they had great atmosphere (it was truly awful. I did not get along with one of my colleagues who basically did everything in her power, and quite succesfully, to make my life miserable. Side note: I never had any “relationship” issues at the law firm I worked at) and (3) they were “super flexible” in terms of working from home (absolute BS. The only “flexibility” they offered was for me to come in at 9 instead of 8 (when no one even told me those were the business hours in the first place) and stay until 7 (instead of 6). And besides that, I took a 40% cut AND thought the work was mindnumbingly boring. No intellectual challenge whatsoever. 75% of my time was spent reviewing contracts. So yeah, I decided to get the hell out asap. That said, this is only my experience at this particular company. I know other people that are quite happy in-house but I also have heard plenty of stories about in-house lawyers missing their BigLaw jobs (because it’s more challenging or more diverse or they miss the pay) but they stay in-house because hours are better or because the road back to BigLaw became impossible after several years. My point is, not everyone has the same experience.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a fourth-year lit associate in DC. I'm having a bad day at work and this thread is so relevant. I don't see myself putting in the sort of 110% effort-every-day-for-years and putting up with the amount of stress and loss of family/friends/meaningful-life time required to actually make equity partner. But idk what good options I really have.

1) I could go to DOJ, where I might take a paycut down to $100k (slowly growing thereafter), still work 50+ish hours a week (better, but they don't seem to be really 9-5 unless they are totally soulless and checked out), and deal with a lot of government HR bureaucracy and bullshit. (I have some experience with this and it really grated on me). Overall, maybe the best shot I have (I did a CoA clerkship; might be competitive), but not something I dream over.

2) I could go to another firm, but that might just replicate the same grind of the current firm.

3) I could try for in-house, but I'm not sure if litigation people really do this, at least in this city.

4) I could go nonprofit, at high risk of being poor and being around a bunch of sanctimonious nonprofit people, who are either married rich and still sanctimonious (the worst), or who are also poor.

Feeling kinda bleh about it.

The SEC is hiring 3 enforcement attorneys right now.

[QContinuum]

I’ve seen this twice now where someone refers to going back to working at a law firm as going back to private practice.

The interesting part is that nobody really goes into detail why they went back from in-house to firms - despite noting the worse hours at firms as a given. I wonder what the unstated upside is.

At a law firm, the lawyers run the show and bring in the $, and life revolves around what they want/need. In BigLaw, this leads to robust support services and perks, from word processing departments to paralegals to dinner and taxi allowances for working late.

In-house, the businessfolk run the show and bring in the $, and life revolves around what the businessfolk want/need. The legal department is viewed as an expense because they cost the company money, and also as an all-around drag because they often (have to) apply the brakes when the businessfolk are all gung-ho about charging forward. (Of course the legal department actually confers a net benefit to the company - otherwise they'd eliminate the in-house team and rely solely on outside counsel - but it often doesn't feel that way to the individual businesspeople who find their work slowed or even stopped by legal department scrutiny.) The support services/perks, to the extent they exist, are a far cry from what the BigLaw firms offer.

It's not surprising that some lawyers find they prefer working at a firm over working in-house.

[Anonymous User]

I’ve seen this twice now where someone refers to going back to working at a law firm as going back to private practice.

The interesting part is that nobody really goes into detail why they went back from in-house to firms - despite noting the worse hours at firms as a given. I wonder what the unstated upside is.

At a law firm, the lawyers run the show and bring in the $, and life revolves around what they want/need. In BigLaw, this leads to robust support services and perks, from word processing departments to paralegals to dinner and taxi allowances for working late.

In-house, the businessfolk run the show and bring in the $, and life revolves around what the businessfolk want/need. The legal department is viewed as an expense because they cost the company money, and also as an all-around drag because they often (have to) apply the brakes when the businessfolk are all gung-ho about charging forward. (Of course the legal department actually confers a net benefit to the company - otherwise they'd eliminate the in-house team and rely solely on outside counsel - but it often doesn't feel that way to the individual businesspeople who find their work slowed or even stopped by legal department scrutiny.) The support services/perks, to the extent they exist, are a far cry from what the BigLaw firms offer.

It's not surprising that some lawyers find they prefer working at a firm over working in-house.

This is absolutely true and something that I think a lot of people may not think about when they transition from firm --> in house. When I was working in-house, we were a small department but for a large company and we always had to justify any expense--we couldn't even get basic document comparison software because it was going to be tough to get leverage to get more spending for something like that v. just spending the money and much-needed hiring costs. I would literally sit there wasting time comparing documents word-for-word by hand just to make sure we knew what had/hadn't changed in a document--so old school. We were always seen as the "no" people, and it was hard to get a seat at the table with business folks who saw us as a major hurdle to their business plans when we just wanted to make sure no one was breaking any international laws they didn't bother to think about.

[Tenzen]

My goal was to make a bunch of money, pay off loans, and leave. Managed to do all of it in just a few years, before going to a nonprofit (was going to try a securities firm at one point, but changed my mind).

[Anonymous User]

I’ve seen this twice now where someone refers to going back to working at a law firm as going back to private practice.

The interesting part is that nobody really goes into detail why they went back from in-house to firms - despite noting the worse hours at firms as a given. I wonder what the unstated upside is.

At a law firm, the lawyers run the show and bring in the $, and life revolves around what they want/need. In BigLaw, this leads to robust support services and perks, from word processing departments to paralegals to dinner and taxi allowances for working late.

In-house, the businessfolk run the show and bring in the $, and life revolves around what the businessfolk want/need. The legal department is viewed as an expense because they cost the company money, and also as an all-around drag because they often (have to) apply the brakes when the businessfolk are all gung-ho about charging forward. (Of course the legal department actually confers a net benefit to the company - otherwise they'd eliminate the in-house team and rely solely on outside counsel - but it often doesn't feel that way to the individual businesspeople who find their work slowed or even stopped by legal department scrutiny.) The support services/perks, to the extent they exist, are a far cry from what the BigLaw firms offer.

It's not surprising that some lawyers find they prefer working at a firm over working in-house.

I'll add another concurrence to this point. This is one thing I did not think about when going in-house. This and the pay are the only two things that keep going back to a firm on my mind. I have been out a little over a year and my work is prob 1/3 M&A, 1/3 general compliance/securities (public company shit) and 1/3 contracts/business stuff. I enjoy the first two, the third sucks. I keep at it (even though I still have firms asking me to come back) because (1) I work 8:30-6 with rare nights and no weekends (2) I never billed less than 2500 at my old firm and it sucked and (3) I think this is a better route to GC than being at a firm for longer. But I cannot overstate how bad it sucks not being the reason the business runs - when times are good the business folks get the big $ not the lawyers, unlike at a firm.

[MaxMcMann]

I’ve seen this twice now where someone refers to going back to working at a law firm as going back to private practice.

The interesting part is that nobody really goes into detail why they went back from in-house to firms - despite noting the worse hours at firms as a given. I wonder what the unstated upside is.

At a law firm, the lawyers run the show and bring in the $, and life revolves around what they want/need. In BigLaw, this leads to robust support services and perks, from word processing departments to paralegals to dinner and taxi allowances for working late.

In-house, the businessfolk run the show and bring in the $, and life revolves around what the businessfolk want/need. The legal department is viewed as an expense because they cost the company money, and also as an all-around drag because they often (have to) apply the brakes when the businessfolk are all gung-ho about charging forward. (Of course the legal department actually confers a net benefit to the company - otherwise they'd eliminate the in-house team and rely solely on outside counsel - but it often doesn't feel that way to the individual businesspeople who find their work slowed or even stopped by legal department scrutiny.) The support services/perks, to the extent they exist, are a far cry from what the BigLaw firms offer.

It's not surprising that some lawyers find they prefer working at a firm over working in-house.

I'll add another concurrence to this point. This is one thing I did not think about when going in-house. This and the pay are the only two things that keep going back to a firm on my mind. I have been out a little over a year and my work is prob 1/3 M&A, 1/3 general compliance/securities (public company shit) and 1/3 contracts/business stuff. I enjoy the first two, the third sucks. I keep at it (even though I still have firms asking me to come back) because (1) I work 8:30-6 with rare nights and no weekends (2) I never billed less than 2500 at my old firm and it sucked and (3) I think this is a better route to GC than being at a firm for longer. But I cannot overstate how bad it sucks not being the reason the business runs - when times are good the business folks get the big $ not the lawyers, unlike at a firm.

What about your experience leads you to believe it's a better path to GC?

I hear a lot of varying opinions in this regard, but I know that F500 has been massively building out their in-house departments over the last ten years, so maybe it's become more like a standard corporate ladder that you can climb these days.

[Anonymous User]

I’ve seen this twice now where someone refers to going back to working at a law firm as going back to private practice.

The interesting part is that nobody really goes into detail why they went back from in-house to firms - despite noting the worse hours at firms as a given. I wonder what the unstated upside is.

At a law firm, the lawyers run the show and bring in the $, and life revolves around what they want/need. In BigLaw, this leads to robust support services and perks, from word processing departments to paralegals to dinner and taxi allowances for working late.

In-house, the businessfolk run the show and bring in the $, and life revolves around what the businessfolk want/need. The legal department is viewed as an expense because they cost the company money, and also as an all-around drag because they often (have to) apply the brakes when the businessfolk are all gung-ho about charging forward. (Of course the legal department actually confers a net benefit to the company - otherwise they'd eliminate the in-house team and rely solely on outside counsel - but it often doesn't feel that way to the individual businesspeople who find their work slowed or even stopped by legal department scrutiny.) The support services/perks, to the extent they exist, are a far cry from what the BigLaw firms offer.

It's not surprising that some lawyers find they prefer working at a firm over working in-house.

I'll add another concurrence to this point. This is one thing I did not think about when going in-house. This and the pay are the only two things that keep going back to a firm on my mind. I have been out a little over a year and my work is prob 1/3 M&A, 1/3 general compliance/securities (public company shit) and 1/3 contracts/business stuff. I enjoy the first two, the third sucks. I keep at it (even though I still have firms asking me to come back) because (1) I work 8:30-6 with rare nights and no weekends (2) I never billed less than 2500 at my old firm and it sucked and (3) I think this is a better route to GC than being at a firm for longer. But I cannot overstate how bad it sucks not being the reason the business runs - when times are good the business folks get the big $ not the lawyers, unlike at a firm.

What about your experience leads you to believe it's a better path to GC?

I hear a lot of varying opinions in this regard, but I know that F500 has been massively building out their in-house departments over the last ten years, so maybe it's become more like a standard corporate ladder that you can climb these days.

Well, I am not at a F500 Company (imagine getting to GC is much more difficult). I got an AGC role for a smaller Company (between $2-3 BN market cap). I have learned that 90% of what a GC does is not what you do at a firm (or at least when doing M&A/Securities). It is probably 10% M&A/Securities deals and you can leverage outside counsel for complex matters. The rest is dealing with the Board, general governance, overseeing litigation, employment, HR, agreements, disputes, and generally keeping the company from doing something stupid. I think that the biglaw corporate experience is definitely helpful for a couple years, but once you have gone a handful of M&A deals and generic offerings, seems like you won't gain as much benefit as actually being in-house and seeing what a GC does day to day. I could be totally wrong, but this is what convinced me to make the switch after 3 years biglaw.

[MaxMcMann]

I’ve seen this twice now where someone refers to going back to working at a law firm as going back to private practice.

The interesting part is that nobody really goes into detail why they went back from in-house to firms - despite noting the worse hours at firms as a given. I wonder what the unstated upside is.

At a law firm, the lawyers run the show and bring in the $, and life revolves around what they want/need. In BigLaw, this leads to robust support services and perks, from word processing departments to paralegals to dinner and taxi allowances for working late.

In-house, the businessfolk run the show and bring in the $, and life revolves around what the businessfolk want/need. The legal department is viewed as an expense because they cost the company money, and also as an all-around drag because they often (have to) apply the brakes when the businessfolk are all gung-ho about charging forward. (Of course the legal department actually confers a net benefit to the company - otherwise they'd eliminate the in-house team and rely solely on outside counsel - but it often doesn't feel that way to the individual businesspeople who find their work slowed or even stopped by legal department scrutiny.) The support services/perks, to the extent they exist, are a far cry from what the BigLaw firms offer.

It's not surprising that some lawyers find they prefer working at a firm over working in-house.

I'll add another concurrence to this point. This is one thing I did not think about when going in-house. This and the pay are the only two things that keep going back to a firm on my mind. I have been out a little over a year and my work is prob 1/3 M&A, 1/3 general compliance/securities (public company shit) and 1/3 contracts/business stuff. I enjoy the first two, the third sucks. I keep at it (even though I still have firms asking me to come back) because (1) I work 8:30-6 with rare nights and no weekends (2) I never billed less than 2500 at my old firm and it sucked and (3) I think this is a better route to GC than being at a firm for longer. But I cannot overstate how bad it sucks not being the reason the business runs - when times are good the business folks get the big $ not the lawyers, unlike at a firm.

What about your experience leads you to believe it's a better path to GC?

I hear a lot of varying opinions in this regard, but I know that F500 has been massively building out their in-house departments over the last ten years, so maybe it's become more like a standard corporate ladder that you can climb these days.

Well, I am not at a F500 Company (imagine getting to GC is much more difficult). I got an AGC role for a smaller Company (between $2-3 BN market cap). I have learned that 90% of what a GC does is not what you do at a firm (or at least when doing M&A/Securities). It is probably 10% M&A/Securities deals and you can leverage outside counsel for complex matters. The rest is dealing with the Board, general governance, overseeing litigation, employment, HR, agreements, disputes, and generally keeping the company from doing something stupid. I think that the biglaw corporate experience is definitely helpful for a couple years, but once you have gone a handful of M&A deals and generic offerings, seems like you won't gain as much benefit as actually being in-house and seeing what a GC does day to day. I could be totally wrong, but this is what convinced me to make the switch after 3 years biglaw.

Good luck and I hope you're right - it'd be great if companies were more open to working your way up and less focused on previous GC experience than I surmised so far. The GCs I know (granted it's not a huge amount) all went straight to GC (whether at a successful venture backed startup or a midsize traditional corp) and hopped their way up GC roles every few years.

[Anonymous User]

Just to chime in with another data point, I work 9-5 at a large tech company and make a little over 300k all-in. Anecdotally, I know other tech companies of similar size and caliber pay about the same. Work is interesting, there’s a clear path to promotion (maybe not GC - let’s not kid ourselves - but certainly AGC), and I don’t feel like a cost center. Some clients are difficult but definitely still better than my law firm clients. Every day I learn new things and I feel like an owner of my business. Been out of school 5-8 years.

My point being lots of in-house jobs pay really well now, especially in big tech, and our legal departments are now larger than many big law firms. There are plenty of opportunities.

[Anonymous User]

Just to chime in with another data point, I work 9-5 at a large tech company and make a little over 300k all-in. Anecdotally, I know other tech companies of similar size and caliber pay about the same. Work is interesting, there’s a clear path to promotion (maybe not GC - let’s not kid ourselves - but certainly AGC), and I don’t feel like a cost center. Some clients are difficult but definitely still better than my law firm clients. Every day I learn new things and I feel like an owner of my business. Been out of school 5-8 years.

My point being lots of in-house jobs pay really well now, especially in big tech, and our legal departments are now larger than many big law firms. There are plenty of opportunities.

Do you mind if I ask you where in the Country you're at? I've just begun my search in California (coming from NY v10) as a 3rd year, and have been told pretty consistently that the salary range is $150-$170 at my level. Feels low to me.

[jagpaw]

Just to chime in with another data point, I work 9-5 at a large tech company and make a little over 300k all-in. Anecdotally, I know other tech companies of similar size and caliber pay about the same. Work is interesting, there’s a clear path to promotion (maybe not GC - let’s not kid ourselves - but certainly AGC), and I don’t feel like a cost center. Some clients are difficult but definitely still better than my law firm clients. Every day I learn new things and I feel like an owner of my business. Been out of school 5-8 years.

My point being lots of in-house jobs pay really well now, especially in big tech, and our legal departments are now larger than many big law firms. There are plenty of opportunities.

Great to see this kind of positivity on the board and it sounds like you have a great gig. Any advice on particular practice areas to focus on in big law to make this kind of jump realistic? Also would be great to hear whether these kinds of options are available outside SF/SV/NYC other HCOL areas. Thanks.