Top Law Schools

I am very interested in working for a company in-house and was wondering if anyone could shed some light on that career path-- Do people regularly/ever get hired right out of law school, how does it compare to working for a firm, what are the main differences, etc. Thanks in advance for all the help

corporate counsel jobs > biglaw > full-blown aids


hth

There are plenty of threads already on this subject. The search feature goes a long way. Probably the best is http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=117834

To state in brief: Anyone interested in "big" in-house work does a stint of 3-6 years in Biglaw. It appears that in a good economy, the switch is relatively easy. The hours are said to be much better, and though the pay isn't as good, one's pay-per-hour goes way up.

FWIW, I'm a hapless 0L. Read through as much of the above thread as you find helpful, as the OP is actually an in-house lawyer.

I'm not sure why anyone would be interested in in-house legal work unless one already knew how it differs from law firm work. But anyway . . .

In-house work is generally much lower on hours. In fact, in-house lawyers generally share the same hours as the other employees at their company. So I work basically 8-6. No weekends. Vacations aren't just notional. It's corporate America.

The nature of the work will depend on what kind of company you work for. Most in-house lawyers don't do litigation (unless the company has a high volume of commodified litigation, like insurance companies). On the corporate side, your'e more likely than a law firm lawyer to be a generalist. On the whole, a law firm lawyer's work will be more sophisticated and complex, meaning it's also more stressful and intense.

In-house work pays less than Biglaw except at the general counsel level. But the pay is very good nonetheless. Advancement opportunities are variable, obviously, but it's not up-or-out like a law firm.

I'm biased, having left Biglaw for an in-house job that I love. Some of my former Biglaw colleagues would languish at my current job, though; the two career paths are very different even though the Bar dues are the same for everyone.

I'm a 2L working at a major corporation this summer. The atmosphere seems a lot better than law firms and the hours are much better. Obviously you make less but I think it's a better position overall. It's very rare where you can get hired right out of law school but on the bright side, if you're working for a big company, they're going to have a lot of contacts and, if you do a good job, they will hopefully get you a job and perhaps could return a few years down the line.

Why would some of your former colleagues languish in your current position? What is about them that would make it unbearable? Or what would they miss doing in-house?

Thanks!

Anonymous User wrote:Why would some of your former colleagues languish in your current position? What is about them that would make it unbearable? Or what would they miss doing in-house?

Thanks!

I think some people genuinely "thrive" in the adrenaline junky, hyper-focused, hyper-intense trial/deal world that can exist in big law. Corporate America isn't known for its efficiency or elegant bureaucracy, while the billable hour seems to do a pretty good job of obliterating useless meetings and touchy-feely corporate crap.

ivantheterbl wrote:I am very interested in working for a company in-house and was wondering if anyone could shed some light on that career path-- Do people regularly/ever get hired right out of law school, how does it compare to working for a firm, what are the main differences, etc. Thanks in advance for all the help

Usually you work for a firm that handles the client. They like your work, you come to understand the company and how it operates, and they offer you an in-house position.

Kochel wrote:I'm not sure why anyone would be interested in in-house legal work unless one already knew how it differs from law firm work. But anyway . . .

In-house work is generally much lower on hours. In fact, in-house lawyers generally share the same hours as the other employees at their company. So I work basically 8-6. No weekends. Vacations aren't just notional. It's corporate America.

The nature of the work will depend on what kind of company you work for. Most in-house lawyers don't do litigation (unless the company has a high volume of commodified litigation, like insurance companies). On the corporate side, your'e more likely than a law firm lawyer to be a generalist. On the whole, a law firm lawyer's work will be more sophisticated and complex, meaning it's also more stressful and intense.

In-house work pays less than Biglaw except at the general counsel level. But the pay is very good nonetheless. Advancement opportunities are variable, obviously, but it's not up-or-out like a law firm.

I'm biased, having left Biglaw for an in-house job that I love. Some of my former Biglaw colleagues would languish at my current job, though; the two career paths are very different even though the Bar dues are the same for everyone.

Because you get to send all your friends work.

disco_barred wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Why would some of your former colleagues languish in your current position? What is about them that would make it unbearable? Or what would they miss doing in-house?

Thanks!

I think some people genuinely "thrive" in the adrenaline junky, hyper-focused, hyper-intense trial/deal world that can exist in big law. Corporate America isn't known for its efficiency or elegant bureaucracy, while the billable hour seems to do a pretty good job of obliterating useless meetings and touchy-feely corporate crap.

Above quoted anonymous here. I don't think your answer sufficiently covers it. I feel like there must be something else, because most people I know in big law get very stressed/burn-out by the intensity, even the lifers. I have heard from some that in-house work can be tedious, I'm wondering if this is what Kochel's friends might feel.

Seems like once you leave a firm to go in-house it can be tough to go back to a firm, I'd hate to go in-house only to discover the work bores me or that I'm one of those people that for whatever reason will languish, though of course it's tough to generalize. Any insight regarding your friends who would be miserable in-house would be much appreciated Kochel.

Anonymous User wrote:

disco_barred wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Why would some of your former colleagues languish in your current position? What is about them that would make it unbearable? Or what would they miss doing in-house?

Thanks!

I think some people genuinely "thrive" in the adrenaline junky, hyper-focused, hyper-intense trial/deal world that can exist in big law. Corporate America isn't known for its efficiency or elegant bureaucracy, while the billable hour seems to do a pretty good job of obliterating useless meetings and touchy-feely corporate crap.

Above quoted anonymous here. I don't think your answer sufficiently covers it. I feel like there must be something else, because most people I know in big law get very stressed/burn-out by the intensity, even the lifers. I have heard from some that in-house work can be tedious, I'm wondering if this is what Kochel's friends might feel.

Seems like once you leave a firm to go in-house it can be tough to go back to a firm, I'd hate to go in-house only to discover the work bores me or that I'm one of those people that for whatever reason will languish, though of course it's tough to generalize. Any insight regarding your friends who would be miserable in-house would be much appreciated Kochel.

I agree with disco_barred's view. Among the many differences between in-house and firm work, there are at least a few that might be very disagreeable to Biglaw lawyers (of course, circumstances will vary depending on the company):

1. In-house lawyers have only one client. That often means that they only see/practice one way of approaching projects. This can also limit your horizons as you think about developing your career.

2. Variety of Projects: By definition, the projects an in-house lawyer handles will be limited by the company's business model. Law firm lawyers--many of them, at least--can pursue a broader variety of projects, because (see #1) their clients will inevitably be doing different business.

3. Variety of People: When you only have one client, there's only so many different people you get to work with on a daily basis. If you don't like them, then you won't like your work. Also, in-house lawyers work much more often with non-lawyers than do Biglaw associates, most of whose "clients" are actually the in-house lawyers. Some Biglaw lawyers whom I've known don't have the best bedside manner and/or are only comfortable talking with other lawyers. Your average marketing executive will usually have an "interesting" approach to legal issues that might try the patience of some Biglaw lawyers.

4. Corporate culture: An in-house lawyer has a boss, and needs to treat said boss like a boss, unlike Biglaw associates, who answer to multiple partners simultaneously. Also, in-house lawyers have staff meetings, administrative hassles, budgets, etc. to deal with, much of which, in Biglaw, is handled invisibly by non-lawyers. If you want to spend 100% of your working hours dealing only with substantive, intellectually challenging issues, in-house work will disappoint.

5. (and last in order of importance) Quality of work: Most in-house work does not consist of regular M&A duty or high-stakes trials. Most in-house lawyers will do plenty of interesting work, often working alongside Biglaw counterparts, but at most jobs there will also be quite a bit of less sexy work: corporate governance, policies and procedures, small-scale contracts, arbitrations, routine SEC filings, etc. Most in-house lawyers have made their peace with this tradeoff, but the mix of work would not appeal to some Biglaw types who only want to do the most cutting-edge, intense stuff.

In terms of the entertainment industry, I've heard that in-house positions are vastly more desirable than working entertainment law out of an entertainment firm or dept in a larger firm. I know some in-house attorneys at Netflix as well as in music publishing and all agree that escaping firm work and landing in-house gigs in entertainment is the best thing that has happened to their careers.

I think that moving from general practice firms to a more 'traditional' business setting might be a less interesting transition, because as pointed out above, its pretty much the same atmosphere but with less clients, a more predictable work schedule, and in general a largely static environment.

All of the people I have talked to who have made this particular transition did come from working at a law firm, however it is possible to get into corporate counsel positions straight out of law school via the 'contract administrator' route. Big movie and music production/publishing companies will hire recent law grads for contract administrator positions, and once you work your way up there is a decent amount of lateral leeway. You will 'suffer' with pay initially, though.

In terms of limiting your career, how can one guard against rendering oneself unmarketable? I never want to be without career options.

Anonymous User wrote:In terms of limiting your career, how can one guard against rendering oneself unmarketable? I never want to be without career options.

Go biglaw -> transactional.

But after big law --> transactional, are there certain types of in-house positions that are more limiting in terms of career options? I realize in house is more stable, but most people tend to change jobs several times. How can one go about selecting an in house firm that will provide exit options from it? I realize this is down the road, but planning ahead has served me well so far (already have big law transactional).

shantiom wrote:There are plenty of threads already on this subject. The search feature goes a long way. Probably the best is http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=117834

To state in brief: Anyone interested in "big" in-house work does a stint of 3-6 years in Biglaw. It appears that in a good economy, the switch is relatively easy. The hours are said to be much better, and though the pay isn't as good, one's pay-per-hour goes way up.

FWIW, I'm a hapless 0L. Read through as much of the above thread as you find helpful, as the OP is actually an in-house lawyer.

Not inherently true, but certainly helpful.