delete Forum

[Anonymous User]

-

[Briney Spring Gun]

I'd be wary to give much weight to a poll that is likely to only be voted on by current law students with little or no clue about the merits and pitfalls of making the decision you currently face. You should really speak to people at your current firm, attorneys at the Corporation who have transitioned in-house, and basically anyone else who works in law who will give an educated, honest, and objective answer. Good luck.

[Anonymous User]

I'd be wary to give much weight to a poll that is likely to only be voted on by current law students with little or no clue about the merits and pitfalls of making the decision you currently face. You should really speak to people at your current firm, attorneys at the Corporation who have transitioned in-house, and basically anyone else who works in law who will give an educated, honest, and objective answer. Good luck.

Biglaw could be a good way to polish your skills before going in-house. Going in-house directly may probably limit your lifetime earnings as it is difficult to climb up the ladder as a staff attorney (I'm guessing you won't be an associate general counsel or in a similar position).

[FSK]

2L here, but it seems like going in house is so hard that you can't pass the opportunity up.

[Anonymous User]

Anon from above. My comment are based on a GC and an associate GC's opinion. They both began their careers in biglaw (3-5 years). I specifically asked them about going directly in-house and there response was that there is little space for growth

[Anonymous User]

I would echo the advice of Briney above, but add that you should also consider talking to recruiter who might be able to tell you the pros/cons of working on moving in-house now vs moving in-house with a few more years of biglaw under your belt (like closing potential doors due to industry choice). For example, I'm a 2L with several years of prior WE and did 1L in house, but over the summer I spoke with a regional recruiter about biglaw options. In the course of the conversation she mentioned that when recruiting for GC positions she looks for people with X years experience in Biglaw and for some companies the lack of X would affect your potential career path. I think the kinds of information you need would be best obtained by those who took your desired career path and those who hire for it.

[ClerkAdvisor]

Anon from above. My comment are based on a GC and an associate GC's opinion. They both began their careers in biglaw (3-5 years). I specifically asked them about going directly in-house and there response was that there is little space for growth

Did people not read OP's post? She's not asking about whether to go straight in-house, she's asking whether to go in-house with 2 years experience or lateral to a larger firm.

[TooOld4This]

No easy answer, but chances are jumping now will be career limiting.

Some factors to consider:
What type of work have you even doing and for what cadre of clients? Mid-law tends to handle more bread and butter corporate work. Only 2 years probably means that the breadth of your experience is probably pretty limited too.

How many years experience was the in house job asking for? If it was 0-3, then chances are they are overselling how much substantive work you will be doing.

How much M&A does the company do? 1-2 deals a year, 1-2 deals a quarter?

Why does non-tech bother you?

Do you like the industry at all? As you progress in house, companies tend to want attorneys with experience in their sector for more senior slots.

Where does the company see you in 5 years? Are they growing the department? Have turnover? Or are you going to be junior guy for the next 10 years? And if so, will you be collecting the skills you need to move up and on?

If you really want to be GC at a major company, you should probably do the BigLaw firm for 2-3 years and then jump to a higher level in house. You will get more exposure, have access to great forms that you can learn from, and bolster your street cred for future, more senior positions. If you don't really care about GC or are interested in much smaller businesses, jumping in house now is less risky. And it is possible that you have found that rare species of junior in house positions where you will get the breadth of experience and support to climb the ladder.

Oh, and once you jump out of firm life, it is hard to jump back in (and going from your firm to in house to BigLaw would probably require and 1998-style boom).

[Anonymous User]

-

[TooOld4This]

Once you leave firm life, there is no path. You have to carve it out yourself. A lot of times you will need to swim against the current to get to where you want to go.

In the abstract, a mid law associate with two years experience before jumping in house is going to have a different set of options than someone with 4-6 years and BigLaw before jumping. (And I'm talking long term options, not just where you initially land). But this isn't the abstract. You should talk with people who are familiar with this company.

[Anonymous User]

Once you leave firm life, there is no path. You have to carve it out yourself. A lot of times you will need to swim against the current to get to where you want to go.

In the abstract, a mid law associate with two years experience before jumping in house is going to have a different set of options than someone with 4-6 years and BigLaw before jumping. (And I'm talking long term options, not just where you initially land). But this isn't the abstract. You should talk with people who are familiar with this company.

Not OP, but also interested in this. Could you elaborate on what you see as the different options? Understand this is probably a difficult question to answer in the abstract.

[Anonymous User]

Once you leave firm life, there is no path. You have to carve it out yourself. A lot of times you will need to swim against the current to get to where you want to go.

In the abstract, a mid law associate with two years experience before jumping in house is going to have a different set of options than someone with 4-6 years and BigLaw before jumping. (And I'm talking long term options, not just where you initially land). But this isn't the abstract. You should talk with people who are familiar with this company.

Not OP, but also interested in this. Could you elaborate on what you see as the different options? Understand this is probably a difficult question to answer in the abstract.

Op here: Yes I have heard that this may be the case.

I've talked to others that said that someone with mixed experience may actually have an easier time finding their next inhouse job vs someone in biglaw with 3-5 years experience.

Do you think that is true?

Thanks

[Anonymous User]

I'm just a 3L so alternate viewpoints on this are welcome. However, I've been led to believe that going in-house, particularly as a junior associate, should be considered a one-way trip. If you make the jump, be damn sure that you will be happy there, because your career development as a firm attorney is effectively over. Moveover, many corporations (not all, but many) tend to hire outside GCs and promotion from within is relatively rare.

[ruski]

i think pple in this thread are underestimating how hard it is to find a (good) in house job. its not as easy as telling OP to go to biglaw for another 2 years and then go in-house. there aren't as many openings for in-house jobs and competition is fierce. they hire on an as-needed basis, so theyre typically only looking for one position, for which hundreds of biglaw (and non biglaw lawyers) compete. I know plenty of pple at v20 who have/had trouble going in house. it's not so easy, even from a top shop. you can't just decide at year 5 of biglaw you had enough and go in house. the v20 associates i know who went in-house spent a full year or more looking. this is obv all in relation to the "real" in house jobs that pay 175k+ (all in). no clue about the ones that pay around the 120k range as none of my biglaw friends would ever settle for that.

also as OP alluded to, in house jobs actually prefer pple with in-house experience. in-house runs much different than a law firm does and they don't want to be the company that helps the person transition. ideally they want a candidiate who started at a biglaw firm for 4 years, went in-house somewhere else, and is now coming to them. having in house experience puts you at a great advatage, especially if it gives you relevant experience in a certain industry that can carry to other firms.

[Anonymous User]

i think pple in this thread are underestimating how hard it is to find a (good) in house job. its not as easy as telling OP to go to biglaw for another 2 years and then go in-house. there aren't as many openings for in-house jobs and competition is fierce. they hire on an as-needed basis, so theyre typically only looking for one position, for which hundreds of biglaw (and non biglaw lawyers) compete. I know plenty of pple at v20 who have/had trouble going in house. it's not so easy, even from a top shop. you can't just decide at year 5 of biglaw you had enough and go in house. the v20 associates i know who went in-house spent a full year or more looking. this is obv all in relation to the "real" in house jobs that pay 175k+ (all in). no clue about the ones that pay around the 120k range as none of my biglaw friends would ever settle for that.

also as OP alluded to, in house jobs actually prefer pple with in-house experience. in-house runs much different than a law firm does and they don't want to be the company that helps the person transition. ideally they want a candidiate who started at a biglaw firm for 4 years, went in-house somewhere else, and is now coming to them. having in house experience puts you at a great advatage, especially if it gives you relevant experience in a certain industry that can carry to other firms.

My job total compensation with bonus is roughly around the first year starting salary for biglaw NYC.

What is your definition of a "good" inhouse job?

[ruski]

i think pple in this thread are underestimating how hard it is to find a (good) in house job. its not as easy as telling OP to go to biglaw for another 2 years and then go in-house. there aren't as many openings for in-house jobs and competition is fierce. they hire on an as-needed basis, so theyre typically only looking for one position, for which hundreds of biglaw (and non biglaw lawyers) compete. I know plenty of pple at v20 who have/had trouble going in house. it's not so easy, even from a top shop. you can't just decide at year 5 of biglaw you had enough and go in house. the v20 associates i know who went in-house spent a full year or more looking. this is obv all in relation to the "real" in house jobs that pay 175k+ (all in). no clue about the ones that pay around the 120k range as none of my biglaw friends would ever settle for that.

also as OP alluded to, in house jobs actually prefer pple with in-house experience. in-house runs much different than a law firm does and they don't want to be the company that helps the person transition. ideally they want a candidiate who started at a biglaw firm for 4 years, went in-house somewhere else, and is now coming to them. having in house experience puts you at a great advatage, especially if it gives you relevant experience in a certain industry that can carry to other firms.

My job total compensation with bonus is roughly around the first year starting salary for biglaw NYC.

What is your definition of a "good" inhouse job?

i basically alluded to it with the salary info. usually anything north of 200k is what we would call winning the in house lottery. something around 175/180 is usually acceptable. anything paying 150k or below pple are usually hesitant to take, and only take if they really hate biglaw and want out now. most would pass this up for a more lucrative opp down the road. this is assuming you really have no preference for industry/sector/type of work, which most dont, they just want to get out of biglaw. btw this is all nyc focuses, in a regional market which you said you are in160 sounds pretty good.

[Anonymous User]

-

[Anonymous User]

Spoke to many people in the legal industry. The advice going inhouse ranged from "careful, it may limit your future opportunities" to " this is a rare unicorn opportunity."

Anyone else care to chime in.

[Anonymous User]

Currently working in-house for a fortune 500.

The decision basically comes down to asking where you ultimately want to end up. Do you think you still enjoy firm life or do you see yourself eventually prefering to end up in-house anyways. I agree with those who have suggested that if you make the jump you are unlikely to go back to a firm. Mostly because those who make the jump never want to look back. Furthermore, if you've always known that you wanted to go in-house, is working 40-50 hour weeks without having to worry about billables or bringing in clients while making around 150k such a bad situation to be stuck at? If you go with the V75, there is no guarantee you'll have the same opportunity again. Certainly try to find out if the company you are working for has a good culture and whether you'll fit in, etc. However, know that you aren't stuck in the company forever. Other companies having in-house vacancies prefer to hire those who have prior in-house experience over someone who is just making the transition to in-house from a firm.

As for potential for growth in-house, its not a huge consideration at all. When you move in-house you become assistant general counsel or associate general counsel. There's really no need to worry about mobility because its basically 2 or 3 rungs at most. The only real promotion is to become the general counsel, which is way more based on company/office politics than how many years of firm experience you've had. The qualities sought for general counsel have way more to do with relationships within the company, in-house experience at the company or at a different company, business judgement than the difference between 2 years and 5 years of firm experience. Think of in-house mobility like law professors at law schools. Most tenured professors are basically the same and you shouldn't really worry about your chances of becoming Dean because its just so rare to worry about.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks for your info. If I go to a v75 people have been telling me that I could get at least the same job if not better. They say that if I get the job now why wouldn't I get it in 2 more years with more experience and a better pedigree.

Honestly I've applied to inhouse jobs for the last 3 months with over 50 apps and I've only gotten 3 interviews and 1 offer. Law firms I've applied to 2 and gotten 2 offers. Clearly it is much easier for me to lateral now to a law firm vs inhouse.

Also how easy is it to transition out of law into a different role and what about also getting an mba?

Currently working in-house for a fortune 500.

The decision basically comes down to asking where you ultimately want to end up. Do you think you still enjoy firm life or do you see yourself eventually prefering to end up in-house anyways. I agree with those who have suggested that if you make the jump you are unlikely to go back to a firm. Mostly because those who make the jump never want to look back. Furthermore, if you've always known that you wanted to go in-house, is working 40-50 hour weeks without having to worry about billables or bringing in clients while making around 150k such a bad situation to be stuck at? If you go with the V75, there is no guarantee you'll have the same opportunity again. Certainly try to find out if the company you are working for has a good culture and whether you'll fit in, etc. However, know that you aren't stuck in the company forever. Other companies having in-house vacancies prefer to hire those who have prior in-house experience over someone who is just making the transition to in-house from a firm.

As for potential for growth in-house, its not a huge consideration at all. When you move in-house you become assistant general counsel or associate general counsel. There's really no need to worry about mobility because its basically 2 or 3 rungs at most. The only real promotion is to become the general counsel, which is way more based on company/office politics than how many years of firm experience you've had. The qualities sought for general counsel have way more to do with relationships within the company, in-house experience at the company or at a different company, business judgement than the difference between 2 years and 5 years of firm experience. Think of in-house mobility like law professors at law schools. Most tenured professors are basically the same and you shouldn't really worry about your chances of becoming Dean because its just so rare to worry about.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks for your info. If I go to a v75 people have been telling me that I could get at least the same job if not better. They say that if I get the job now why wouldn't I get it in 2 more years with more experience and a better pedigree.

Honestly I've applied to inhouse jobs for the last 3 months with over 50 apps and I've only gotten 3 interviews and 1 offer. Law firms I've applied to 2 and gotten 2 offers. Clearly it is much easier for me to lateral now to a law firm vs inhouse.

Also how easy is it to transition out of law into a different role and what about also getting an mba?

Currently working in-house for a fortune 500.

The decision basically comes down to asking where you ultimately want to end up. Do you think you still enjoy firm life or do you see yourself eventually prefering to end up in-house anyways. I agree with those who have suggested that if you make the jump you are unlikely to go back to a firm. Mostly because those who make the jump never want to look back. Furthermore, if you've always known that you wanted to go in-house, is working 40-50 hour weeks without having to worry about billables or bringing in clients while making around 150k such a bad situation to be stuck at? If you go with the V75, there is no guarantee you'll have the same opportunity again. Certainly try to find out if the company you are working for has a good culture and whether you'll fit in, etc. However, know that you aren't stuck in the company forever. Other companies having in-house vacancies prefer to hire those who have prior in-house experience over someone who is just making the transition to in-house from a firm.

As for potential for growth in-house, its not a huge consideration at all. When you move in-house you become assistant general counsel or associate general counsel. There's really no need to worry about mobility because its basically 2 or 3 rungs at most. The only real promotion is to become the general counsel, which is way more based on company/office politics than how many years of firm experience you've had. The qualities sought for general counsel have way more to do with relationships within the company, in-house experience at the company or at a different company, business judgement than the difference between 2 years and 5 years of firm experience. Think of in-house mobility like law professors at law schools. Most tenured professors are basically the same and you shouldn't really worry about your chances of becoming Dean because its just so rare to worry about.

I agree that if you take the v75, you'll have about the same chances to eventually get another in-house offer again. For the average biglaw associate it may be tough to land a in-house offer just because the average biglaw associate doesnt necessarily develop the particular skills (ie the correct practice area) to be useful for companies, I think the fact that you have this offer now shows that you've got skills that other associates may not have.

Therefore, I do believe that going the v75 way opens up more opportunities (you have the option to remain in firm life) for you because you can still eventually go in-house assuming you develop the same skills at your new firm as before. However, the supposed lack of mobility because you are making the transition to in-house too early is not a good enough reason to turn down the offer now especially if you ultimately want in-house. If anything, making the transition earlier increases your chance (although still very low odds) of making general counsel somewhere because it gives you a head start. Seriously, no one at the company cares how long you've worked a firm before. Also this supposed lack of attorney development is laughable. Yes, your firm attorney development is hindered but your in-house attorney development is not hurt all.

Most companies don't hire associates who have 1-2 years of firm experience so the vast majority of in-house hires have 3-6 years of experience. And when people see that certain General Counsels have x amount of firm experience, they think oh I guess you must have x amount of firm experience or perhaps the companies require/prefer x amount of experience. When in fact, the reason candidates are picked for GC has nothing to do with their years of firm experience and way more to do with their other qualities. Just the sheer greater number of in-house attorneys who have many years of firm experience makes it appear as if GC must have many years of firm experience.

I haven't seen many lawyers transition into other roles just because there's no good reason to do so. In most companies assistant or associate GCs are way better off than the other professionals (ie Engineers/Accountants) and there's a much shorter path to what is usually the 3rd or 4th highest ranking officer in a huge publicly traded company.

[TooOld4This]

While in house positions often want prior in house experience, they don't want any in house experience. They are looking for particular skill sets. Often very strange combinations of skills, so you might not hit all of the boxes, but you need to hit some. And as you progress up the ladder, especially at larger companies, the ideal candidate will have something 4-6 years prestigious law firm experience, 3-5 years in house, with a particular focus on a set of skills that no sane person would think should be lumped together in one job.

Job titles in house don't mean much. Associate General Counsel can be the guy just walked in the door with 2 years experience, or it can be the number 2, with 2 decades under his belt. (Some places Associate is more senior than Assistant, in others it is reversed, there are also senior counsels, corporate counsels, counsel level 1, 2, or 3, and a whole other host of titles that get handed out. Sometimes they are keyed to non-attorney hierarchies in companies, sometimes HR spun a wheel of adjectives that could be put in front of either counsel or attorney.) Job descriptions do matter. And they do matter when changing jobs.

Also, structures differ widely. Some legal departments are very flat. Some are very hierarchical. Sometimes small legal departments give excellent experience because they have to do everything. Sometimes small legal departments give very little experience, because all you do is the boring stuff and farm out the interesting stuff to outside counsel. Sometimes there is room for growth inside a legal department, sometimes you need to wait for someone to retire to be given new responsibilities.

Moving between companies requires patience. Slots open sporadically. It often requires networking, because many slots get filled through word of mouth and reputation. You also need to be able to check enough boxes that the GC (or whichever attorney is screening) believes you can hit the ground running and pick up the rest quickly. The more senior the position, the fewer jobs will fit your resume.

OP, you may have found a unicorn, they do exist, and if so, you should go for it. The place you don't want to be in 3 years, though if you have any ambition of climbing the ladder, is looking for your next job and trying to sell 3 years of routine contract review, occasional low level diligence on deals, and proof reading 8-Ks. (And yes, GC of GE is a pipe dream, but GC (or Deputy GC -- or whatever they call the number 2) of a small or mid cap or PE company is reasonable goal, but there is a progression that your resume needs to show and you need to be strategic about what skills you are getting.)