Top Law Schools

How important is law school ranking when it comes to getting an in-house job? For example, say I am an associate at a V20 firm for 5 years and then look to go in-house...how much of a difference would it be for me to have graduated from U. Chicago vs. Notre Dame?

That's not how this works. Everyone has some kind of biases related to school ( not all ranking related). But the main difference will be what firm you're coming from. It's really hard to guarantee Kirkland Chicago from Notre Dame or U Chicago, but it's much more likely at U of C than it is at ND.

Why would someone go to law school with the intent of going in house in a corporation? That's the better question.

If you want to be a lawyer, go to law school. If you want to work at a corporation, go into finance or engineering or something, not law.

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:Why would someone go to law school with the intent of going in house in a corporation? That's the better question.

If you want to be a lawyer, go to law school. If you want to work at a corporation, go into finance or engineering or something, not law.

Are you a litigation associate?

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:Why would someone go to law school with the intent of going in house in a corporation? That's the better question.

If you want to be a lawyer, go to law school. If you want to work at a corporation, go into finance or engineering or something, not law.

since when was in-house not a lawyer? and more importantly since when was 5 years in biglaw -> in house not an extremely common, and even recommended, career goal out of law school?

Cobretti wrote:

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:Why would someone go to law school with the intent of going in house in a corporation? That's the better question.

If you want to be a lawyer, go to law school. If you want to work at a corporation, go into finance or engineering or something, not law.

since when was in-house not a lawyer? and more importantly since when was 5 years in biglaw -> in house not an extremely common, and even recommended, career goal out of law school?

My understanding is that a lot of in house jobs are mostly compliance-type positions that involve a lot of reviewing of company Twitter feeds and other asinine bullshit that has nothing to do with actually practicing law. I have asked a number of my former colleagues what they do in their in house jobs and none of it really sounds like practicing law. I mean, they farm out basically ALL of the legal research, case management, etc. You cannot seriously tell me that overseeing deals or cases at such a high level is practicing law in nearly the same sense as what people in firms do.

I agree that in house is preferable to biglaw (as I am getting ready to leave biglaw right now for a much lower paying job). But the fact remains that you are unwanted overhead in any corporation. You do not add nearly as much value as the people who are intimately involved in product/service development and other core aspects of the company.

v5junior wrote:

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:Why would someone go to law school with the intent of going in house in a corporation? That's the better question.

If you want to be a lawyer, go to law school. If you want to work at a corporation, go into finance or engineering or something, not law.

Are you a litigation associate?

Of course.

Cobretti wrote: since when was in-house not a lawyer? and more importantly since when was 5 years in biglaw -> in house not an extremely common, and even recommended, career goal out of law school?

Spending 5 years in biglaw is not extremely common, so never?

Eh, there are actual lawyer-ly in-house positions - a friend of mine works for an oil and gas company and she negotiates and drafts contracts about access to natural resources. (She also makes more than she did in biglaw, works 8-5, and gets one day off every other week.)

It seems like what you describe as "practicing law" is really litigation, which everyone agrees is not something you really do as an in-house attorney, but that doesn't mean that all in-house jobs don't involve practicing law. It's just transactional stuff, not litigation stuff.

Besides, since most lawyers seem to hate practicing law, in-house sounds right up their alley.

I went from HYS--> V5 for 2 years --> in house as an AGC. Many people interviewed for my position including others many years my senior from top firms but not V5 but I got it mostly because I connected with the GC best. However, my law school and firm mattered in selling me and my apparent inexperience to upper management. The GC liked me but the CEO questioned my experience and it was easier to bat for me since I had top credentials.

I do more lawyerly stuff overall than I did at biglaw. We farm a lot out to big firms when we do M&A deals but I'm the one sitting in the room discussing the term sheets with the business folks and then the one calling the partner at the firm to draft up the terms. I then work with the firm to put together the SPA and negotiate with the other side. I also draft all the corp governance stuff (resolutions, SEC reporting etc.) and then send out to firms to review etc.

I never touch litigation though. We just farm all of that out but it usually only happens in connection with mergers and we throw the plaintiffs bar a small settlement fee to go away.

Anonymous User wrote:I went from HYS--> V5 for 2 years --> in house as an AGC. Many people interviewed for my position including others many years my senior from top firms but not V5 but I got it mostly because I connected with the GC best. However, my law school and firm mattered in selling me and my apparent inexperience to upper management. The GC liked me but the CEO questioned my experience and it was easier to bat for me since I had top credentials.

I do more lawyerly stuff overall than I did at biglaw. We farm a lot out to big firms when we do M&A deals but I'm the one sitting in the room discussing the term sheets with the business folks and then the one calling the partner at the firm to draft up the terms. I then work with the firm to put together the SPA and negotiate with the other side. I also draft all the corp governance stuff (resolutions, SEC reporting etc.) and then send out to firms to review etc.

I never touch litigation though. We just farm all of that out but it usually only happens in connection with mergers and we throw the plaintiffs bar a small settlement fee to go away.

If you're willing to share, I'd love to hear what your compensation and career prospects (promotions? exiting?) look like. How long have you been in your position?

Wow, putting together term sheets and filling out SEC forms sounds... riveting.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:It seems like what you describe as "practicing law" is really litigation, which everyone agrees is not something you really do as an in-house attorney, but that doesn't mean that all in-house jobs don't involve practicing law. It's just transactional stuff, not litigation stuff.

Yeah, this is basically right. I view all transactional attorneys as failed finance or business people who went to law school.

My understanding is that a lot of in house jobs are mostly compliance-type positions that involve a lot of reviewing of company Twitter feeds and other asinine bullshit that has nothing to do with actually practicing law.

I think we found the problem.

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:Wow, putting together term sheets and filling out SEC forms sounds... riveting.

Valid point. A lot of people on TLS idealize inhouse jobs but legal departments at companies are basically a support team for the core groups of most businesses - product, engineering, R&D, sales (as V20 put it, an overhead expense). You may get to see more of the moving parts in a business organization, but you're not the "deal maker" - you're the person who crosses the t's and dots the i's for someone else's deal.

Anonymous User wrote:

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:Wow, putting together term sheets and filling out SEC forms sounds... riveting.

Valid point. A lot of people on TLS idealize inhouse jobs but legal departments at companies are basically a support team for the core groups of most businesses - product, engineering, R&D, sales (as V20 put it, an overhead expense). You may get to see more of the moving parts in a business organization, but you're not the "deal maker" - you're the person who crosses the t's and dots the i's for someone else's deal.

The in-house attorneys I worked with said they had a reputation for being "deal killers" since they were the ones who would veto deals over contract terms. The guys trying to make the deals were never big fans of the attorneys.

JoanSloan wrote:

My understanding is that a lot of in house jobs are mostly compliance-type positions that involve a lot of reviewing of company Twitter feeds and other asinine bullshit that has nothing to do with actually practicing law.

I think we found the problem.

Why don't you post something useful like why I'm wrong rather than something useless and passive aggressive?

Just because you want to work for a corporation doesn't mean you don't want to be a lawyer. The roles are totally different. You might find real estate boring, but the rules regulating it interesting.

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:Wow, putting together term sheets and filling out SEC forms sounds... riveting.

You're right. At the end of the day I'm still a lawyer and not the business guy but I knew that coming in. However, I'm still at the table with the big shots and even though I'm not calling the shots I do have a voice and input. Guess it depends on what you want out of life but most of my friends my age at business level jobs are no where near the table.

To the person asking about comp etc. I've been here a little over a year, I make 185K before bonus. Last year I got a $20K bonus. Full benefits all paid for. No room for promotion unless the GC leaves but they'll bring someone else in. Current GC was a former partner at a V10 so its not like they'll promote me to GC.

Hours are decent as well especially compared to biglaw where I billed 2500+ each of my first 2 years. I'm usually in at 9 and out by 7 with no work at home or weekends.

Anyway I like my job. Didn't hate biglaw but couldn't do it forever with 2 kids. I can see myself working at this job for a long time. When I was choosing law schools I went to HYS because I wanted to chase the prestige and do something super amazing with my life. Then I met my spouse and got married and had 2 kids and my perspective changed. Now I just want a good paying job with decent hours and not too much stress and in house fit the bill perfectly.

Anonymous User wrote: You're right. At the end of the day I'm still a lawyer and not the business guy but I knew that coming in. However, I'm still at the table with the big shots and even though I'm not calling the shots I do have a voice and input. Guess it depends on what you want out of life but most of my friends my age at business level jobs are no where near the table.

To the person asking about comp etc. I've been here a little over a year, I make 185K before bonus. Last year I got a $20K bonus. Full benefits all paid for. No room for promotion unless the GC leaves but they'll bring someone else in. Current GC was a former partner at a V10 so its not like they'll promote me to GC.

Hours are decent as well especially compared to biglaw where I billed 2500+ each of my first 2 years. I'm usually in at 9 and out by 7 with no work at home or weekends.

Anyway I like my job. Didn't hate biglaw but couldn't do it forever with 2 kids. I can see myself working at this job for a long time. When I was choosing law schools I went to HYS because I wanted to chase the prestige and do something super amazing with my life. Then I met my spouse and got married and had 2 kids and my perspective changed. Now I just want a good paying job with decent hours and not too much stress and in house fit the bill perfectly.

Any thoughts on job security? Are in-house positions relatively stable, despite the lack of upward mobility?

a corsair wrote:

Anonymous User wrote: You're right. At the end of the day I'm still a lawyer and not the business guy but I knew that coming in. However, I'm still at the table with the big shots and even though I'm not calling the shots I do have a voice and input. Guess it depends on what you want out of life but most of my friends my age at business level jobs are no where near the table.

To the person asking about comp etc. I've been here a little over a year, I make 185K before bonus. Last year I got a $20K bonus. Full benefits all paid for. No room for promotion unless the GC leaves but they'll bring someone else in. Current GC was a former partner at a V10 so its not like they'll promote me to GC.

Hours are decent as well especially compared to biglaw where I billed 2500+ each of my first 2 years. I'm usually in at 9 and out by 7 with no work at home or weekends.

Anyway I like my job. Didn't hate biglaw but couldn't do it forever with 2 kids. I can see myself working at this job for a long time. When I was choosing law schools I went to HYS because I wanted to chase the prestige and do something super amazing with my life. Then I met my spouse and got married and had 2 kids and my perspective changed. Now I just want a good paying job with decent hours and not too much stress and in house fit the bill perfectly.

Any thoughts on job security? Are in-house positions relatively stable, despite the lack of upward mobility?

There's no job security anywhere anymore. Large companies downsize all the time. Small companies go under. Law firms merge or go under. But its a risk everyone faces not just lawyers. I could likely go back to a firm if things fail in the next year or two. Alternatively I could always apply to another company as well. I've been told its a lot easier to get inhouse when you have inhouse experience.

At the same token its not up or out like a firm. I dont get yearly promotions and raises but can keep my job if the company is doing fine and I'm not a fuckup so I guess there's stability in that sense.

There was a really long article on BCG that described how incredibly difficult it is to go back to a firm after you go in house. That's what I've heard from practicing in house attorneys as well. Once you get to the GC level (or close to it), you could probably make the jump back to a firm, but only a tiny fraction of in house attorneys will ever make it to that level.

Anonymous User wrote:
There's no job security anywhere anymore. Large companies downsize all the time. Small companies go under. Law firms merge or go under. But its a risk everyone faces not just lawyers. I could likely go back to a firm if things fail in the next year or two. Alternatively I could always apply to another company as well. I've been told its a lot easier to get inhouse when you have inhouse experience.

At the same token its not up or out like a firm. I dont get yearly promotions and raises but can keep my job if the company is doing fine and I'm not a fuckup so I guess there's stability in that sense.

That's fair. Do you feel then that your job is as stable as any management job at a company?

if the costs come out to being similar i can't see why a company wouldn't always go with a firm. you're probably going to get better work from a business who depends on satisfying you, and you can fire them whenever with no hr concerns. i'm assuming all these companies would be spending millions on firm fees per year without their own team?

Here's the article I was thinking of: http://www.bcgsearch.com/article/60637/ ... -In-House/