In House Counsel Forum

[petepilsh]

Working as in-house counsel for a company sounds lucrative. Is it possible to be hired as in-house counsel without any previous firm experience?

[Anonymous User]

it's not always lucrative. and yes, but it's fairly rare.

[rpupkin]

Working as in-house counsel for a company sounds lucrative. Is it possible to be hired as in-house counsel without any previous firm experience?

It's not lucrative in the financial sense: big law lawyers generally make more than in-house lawyers at the same level of seniority.

Also, I'll pass on an observation from a friend who is currently working in-house after five years in big law: although his company will hire people straight out of law school, those hires have limited prospects for advancement because of their lack of big law exprience. Look at the bio of almost any successful in-house attorney: you'll see several years in big law at the start of their careers.

If your dream is to be a successful in-house attorney, you probably should work at a law firm first.

[Anonymous User]

Working as in-house counsel for a company sounds lucrative. Is it possible to be hired as in-house counsel without any previous firm experience?

It's certainly possible. For example, I was hired as in-house counsel at a Fortune 500 after working a couple of years as a contracts negotiator. Now, will I ever be the GC? Probably not, but there are a few people on our legal team without any firm experience.

Also, the company I used to work for as a contracts negotiator had several in-house counsel individuals who did not have firm experience.

Now, it may still be quite rare, but I've worked at two companies in completely different sectors where previous firm experience was not a requirement to go in-house.

[petepilsh]

Working as in-house counsel for a company sounds lucrative. Is it possible to be hired as in-house counsel without any previous firm experience?

It's not lucrative in the financial sense: big law lawyers generally make more than in-house lawyers at the same level of seniority.

Also, I'll pass on an observation from a friend who is currently working in-house after five years in big law: although his company will hire people straight out of law school, those hires have limited prospects for advancement because of their lack of big law exprience. Look at the bio of almost any successful in-house attorney: you'll see several years in big law at the start of their careers.

If your dream is to be a successful in-house attorney, you probably should work at a law firm first.

You say it is not lucrative in the financial sense, which i slightly disagree with. Depending on the company you are in house for, you are paid a competitive salary, benefits, bonus, and stock options (depending on the company this could be great). Also, consider the amount of hours required versus billable hours. There are a lot of lucrative things about being in house counsel. In my opinion, those things make up for the $20,000 salary difference that your stock options and bonus as in house counsel would clearly surpass.

[rpupkin]

You say it is not lucrative in the financial sense, which i slightly disagree with. Depending on the company you are in house for, you are paid a competitive salary, benefits, bonus, and stock options (depending on the company this could be great). Also, consider the amount of hours required versus billable hours. There are a lot of lucrative things about being in house counsel. In my opinion, those things make up for the $20,000 salary difference that your stock options and bonus as in house counsel would clearly surpass.

For most in-house positions, the difference in salary is a lot more than $20K. Keep in mind that a fifth-year associate makes $300K right now in big law. If that associate laterals in-house, they're probably going to take a significant pay cut.

I'm aware of a few in-house positions in tech companies that have total compensation packages that are competitive with big law. But for what it's worth, my friends in those positions work more hours than I do.

[petepilsh]

Big law in my area doesn't pay $300k for a fifth year associate. Also, I was inquiring about a starting position not someone with 5 years experience.

I've also noticed a trend that in-house people are often promoted to executive level jobs in addition to their legal roles, such as COO and CEO, obviously after several years of experience.

I think in-house might be the way to go; however, I understand many people make a great living and love what they do at big law.

[rpupkin]

Big law in my area doesn't pay $300k for a fifth year associate. Also, I was inquiring about a starting position not someone with 5 years experience.

I was comparing apples to apples, as the vast majority of in-house positions go to lawyers who have spent several years in big law. Although in-house positions do exist for grads, they're rare. And the ones I've seen tend to be rather low paying (like in the $70K to $100K range). The basic point--that compensation is generally lower for in-house attorneys when compared to their big law counterparts at the same level of seniority--is at least as true for junior lawyers as it is for senior lawyers

In any event, it sounds like you've got it all figured out. I'm not sure what the point of your thread is.

[Anonymous User]

How does one go about finding these entry-level in-house jobs? I am willing to hustle and work to find them, I'm just not really sure where to start.

[whats an updog]

HP has a program to hire right out of law school now. Seems pretty cool.

[Anonymous User]

Additional questions:

1. if I leave biglaw after 2 years, is that "too early" and could limit my advancement in-house? what if I get hired into a position where they were looking for someone with 3-5 years of experience?

2. do people get pigeon-holed/trapped by going in-house? any views on this in the Bay Area? does working at Twitter mean you won't be able to work at Google, or does it open that door? What about switching from industry to industry -- like from an Autodesk to, say, a Tesla?

[Anonymous User]

hoping to hear some thoughts on the above 2 questions

[petepilsh]

hoping to hear some thoughts on the above 2 questions

Sorry, I do not know the answer to your two questions above.

[Anonymous User]

There's no simple answer to your 2 questions as they're circumstance specific and depend on your department, your supervisor, the GC and health of the company.

I will say that titles matter. Try to go into an assistant GC position even if that means you go to a smaller company or startup rather than as a counsel or deputy counsel. It will be easier to lateral to a bigger company with the same title than to advance titles.

When i left, i had a choice between IBM or a smaller company with only a handful of lawyers. I chose the latter even though i was worried i would have less job security. Well it turns out IBM just did a massive round of layoffs around February and many attorneys were cut. Im sure i would've been on the chopping block. Remember that in house attorneys are more subject to layoffs than biglaw lawyers.