Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=193413
Fresh Prince wrote:You probably won't have a choice, so why dwell on it???
Anonymous User wrote:Currently weighing options for next summer and thinking about the long-term. Does anyone have information/anecdotes/opinions regarding how Fortune 100 General Counsel/Associate General Counsel salaries compare to Biglaw partner salaries?
bk187 wrote:Fresh Prince wrote:You probably won't have a choice, so why dwell on it???
Because our choice about what to do 2L summer will, to various extents and in various manners, be a choice among probabilities. Some of these probabilities pertain to the likelihood of becoming GC/AGC or biglaw partner. I'm thinking about taking an in-house position next summer with great starting pay. Factors other than salary in this particular position, which I 'd rather not discuss, would be pretty effing sweet in the short and long run. I'm not concerned about others' perceptions of the probabilities of becoming general counsel or partner. I can do that math myself. What I can't do the math for, is that for which I can't find much data. Thus, my original post.Stanford4Me wrote:bk187 wrote:Fresh Prince wrote:You probably won't have a choice, so why dwell on it???
If you take an in house position during your 2L summer you will be neither of these things. GC's come from firms.Anonymous User wrote:Because our choice about what to do 2L summer will, to various extents and in various manners, be a choice among probabilities. Some of these probabilities pertain to the likelihood of becoming GC/AGC or biglaw partner. I'm thinking about taking an in-house position next summer with great starting pay. Factors other than salary in this particular position, which I 'd rather not discuss, would be pretty effing sweet in the short and long run. I'm not concerned about others' perceptions of the probabilities of becoming general counsel or partner. I can do that math myself. What I can't do the math for, is that for which I can't find much data. Thus, my original post.
Exactly. Same thing with second year laterals into big firms. If you want to move inhouse, the later in your career you do it, the more senior you will be and the greater chance you'll have at making GC.EvilClinton wrote:If you take an in house position during your 2L summer you will be neither of these things. GC's come from firms.Anonymous User wrote:Because our choice about what to do 2L summer will, to various extents and in various manners, be a choice among probabilities. Some of these probabilities pertain to the likelihood of becoming GC/AGC or biglaw partner. I'm thinking about taking an in-house position next summer with great starting pay. Factors other than salary in this particular position, which I 'd rather not discuss, would be pretty effing sweet in the short and long run. I'm not concerned about others' perceptions of the probabilities of becoming general counsel or partner. I can do that math myself. What I can't do the math for, is that for which I can't find much data. Thus, my original post.
Let me try to rephrase the question. Let's say you have two options. You can (1) take a position with a V100, or (2) go in house with an F100 right out of law school. Starting salaries under both options are identical. Ignoring the objective perspective of whether you should or shouldn't do one or the other (because you have idiosyncratic reasons for considering both options), generally speaking, what kind of money would you be likely to make with the same employer 10 years after choosing either option?Fresh Prince wrote:Exactly. Same thing with second year laterals into big firms. If you want to move inhouse, the later in your career you do it, the more senior you will be and the greater chance you'll have at making GC.EvilClinton wrote:If you take an in house position during your 2L summer you will be neither of these things. GC's come from firms.Anonymous User wrote:Because our choice about what to do 2L summer will, to various extents and in various manners, be a choice among probabilities. Some of these probabilities pertain to the likelihood of becoming GC/AGC or biglaw partner. I'm thinking about taking an in-house position next summer with great starting pay. Factors other than salary in this particular position, which I 'd rather not discuss, would be pretty effing sweet in the short and long run. I'm not concerned about others' perceptions of the probabilities of becoming general counsel or partner. I can do that math myself. What I can't do the math for, is that for which I can't find much data. Thus, my original post.
Well, I don't really know what the salary structure is for in-house counsel, but the pay at lockstep firms for associates in BigLaw is pretty widely available information.Anonymous User wrote: Let me try to rephrase the question. Let's say you have two options. You can (1) take a position with a V100, or (2) go in house with an F100 right out of law school. Starting salaries under both options are identical. Ignoring the objective perspective of whether you should or shouldn't do one or the other (because you have idiosyncratic reasons for considering both options), generally speaking, what kind of money would you be likely to make with the same employer 10 years after choosing either option?
I appreciate the response. However, like you said, the firm data is readily available. I'm trying to get a better bead on the in-house pay. I don't really think it will help, but let's say it's an F25. Does anyone know anyone, or "know a guy who knows a guy" who did this sort of thing and what happened in the long run? Any anecdotes or estimates would be appreciated.KidStuddi wrote:Well, I don't really know what the salary structure is for in-house counsel, but the pay at lockstep firms for associates in BigLaw is pretty widely available information.Anonymous User wrote: Let me try to rephrase the question. Let's say you have two options. You can (1) take a position with a V100, or (2) go in house with an F100 right out of law school. Starting salaries under both options are identical. Ignoring the objective perspective of whether you should or shouldn't do one or the other (because you have idiosyncratic reasons for considering both options), generally speaking, what kind of money would you be likely to make with the same employer 10 years after choosing either option?
Class Year Salary
1 $160k
2 $170k
3 $185k
4 $210k
5 $230k
6 $250k
7 $265k
8 $280k
Junior partner compensation seems to vary widely among firms, depending in large part whether they have two-tiered partnership systems. For a more precise answer, you'd have to disclose your firm options -- V100 is a massive range.
Anonymous User wrote:Let me try to rephrase the question. Let's say you have two options. You can (1) take a position with a V100, or (2) go in house with an F100 right out of law school. Starting salaries under both options are identical. Ignoring the objective perspective of whether you should or shouldn't do one or the other (because you have idiosyncratic reasons for considering both options), generally speaking, what kind of money would you be likely to make with the same employer 10 years after choosing either option?Fresh Prince wrote:Exactly. Same thing with second year laterals into big firms. If you want to move inhouse, the later in your career you do it, the more senior you will be and the greater chance you'll have at making GC.EvilClinton wrote:If you take an in house position during your 2L summer you will be neither of these things. GC's come from firms.Anonymous User wrote:Because our choice about what to do 2L summer will, to various extents and in various manners, be a choice among probabilities. Some of these probabilities pertain to the likelihood of becoming GC/AGC or biglaw partner. I'm thinking about taking an in-house position next summer with great starting pay. Factors other than salary in this particular position, which I 'd rather not discuss, would be pretty effing sweet in the short and long run. I'm not concerned about others' perceptions of the probabilities of becoming general counsel or partner. I can do that math myself. What I can't do the math for, is that for which I can't find much data. Thus, my original post.
This is why I rephrased the question. I would rather not discuss my subjective valuation of the in-house option because the factors motivating this valuation are, in part, personal (I don't want to out myself), and I am more interested in others' experiences than how internet strangers would rate my priorities. My initial mistake was asking specifically about GC positions. I apologize for any confusion. What I'm trying to gauge is potential outcomes, GC or otherwise. I understand this is a difficult inquiry to make, which is why anecdotes might be the most helpful thing. I do, however, think that the link that jc1988 posted was very helpful.Mce252 wrote:Anonymous User wrote:Let me try to rephrase the question. Let's say you have two options. You can (1) take a position with a V100, or (2) go in house with an F100 right out of law school. Starting salaries under both options are identical. Ignoring the objective perspective of whether you should or shouldn't do one or the other (because you have idiosyncratic reasons for considering both options), generally speaking, what kind of money would you be likely to make with the same employer 10 years after choosing either option?Fresh Prince wrote:Exactly. Same thing with second year laterals into big firms. If you want to move inhouse, the later in your career you do it, the more senior you will be and the greater chance you'll have at making GC.EvilClinton wrote:
If you take an in house position during your 2L summer you will be neither of these things. GC's come from firms.
Again, most of the F100 GC have big law backgrounds. That means they did not promote from within to fill the role. Why not go with the option that could give you a choice later on down the road?
How is it helpful? Those salaries aren't applicable to 99.99999% of the posters here, including you. I might as well start listing salaries of pro football players, because you have about an equal chance of becoming one.Anonymous User wrote:, however, think that the link that jc1988 posted was very helpful.
It is one of few posts so far that contains any helpful data or experiences. It is one of few posts that adds greater than zero value. I appreciate that he (or she) just tried to be helpful. That is more than I can say for some of the posts in this thread. Let's just say he has set the bar low, but at least he has set it above the ground, so to speak.Fresh Prince wrote:How is it helpful? Those salaries aren't applicable to 99.99999% of the posters here, including you. I might as well start listing salaries of pro football players, because you have about an equal chance of becoming one.Anonymous User wrote:, however, think that the link that jc1988 posted was very helpful.
ITT: people who ask a stupid question, get reasonable answers pointing them on the right track, then fixate on the one answer that indulges the stupidity of their question.Anonymous User wrote:It is the only post so far that contains any helpful data or experiences. It is the only post that adds greater than zero value. I appreciate that he (or she) just tried to be helpful. That is more than I can say for some of the posts in this thread. Let's just say he has set the bar low, but at least he has set it above the ground, so to speak.Fresh Prince wrote:How is it helpful? Those salaries aren't applicable to 99.99999% of the posters here, including you. I might as well start listing salaries of pro football players, because you have about an equal chance of becoming one.Anonymous User wrote:, however, think that the link that jc1988 posted was very helpful.
I think that's all probably true. Do you have any data or personal knowledge of individual situations and outcomes?IAFG wrote:What's the offer rate for summers in GC offices? How likely are they to promote someone from within without ANY firm experience? Are you more likely to end up GC by doing firm work than by staying in-house the whole time? What's the attrition? If you fail to shine at your F100, who will have you on the lateral market?
It's asinine to look at potential outcomes without also looking at likelihoods. You're asking all the wrong questions.
--LinkRemoved--rayiner wrote:ITT: people who ask a stupid question, get reasonable answers pointing them on the right track, then fixate on the one answer that indulges the stupidity of their question.Anonymous User wrote:It is the only post so far that contains any helpful data or experiences. It is the only post that adds greater than zero value. I appreciate that he (or she) just tried to be helpful. That is more than I can say for some of the posts in this thread. Let's just say he has set the bar low, but at least he has set it above the ground, so to speak.Fresh Prince wrote:How is it helpful? Those salaries aren't applicable to 99.99999% of the posters here, including you. I might as well start listing salaries of pro football players, because you have about an equal chance of becoming one.Anonymous User wrote:, however, think that the link that jc1988 posted was very helpful.