Going from biglaw to bigpharma Forum

[Anonymous User]

I'm currently a mid-level at a large law firm and about a month ago an internal recruiter for a big pharma company (he works for the company) began persistently emailing me about an opportunity. While my current job is going great and I haven't (prior to this) considered a move, the opportunity does very closely match what I currently do. Anyways, we have a call later this week but I have a couple questions for you nice folks in advance of that call:

(1) once you go from law firm to in-house, does that pretty much end your law firm career prospects? I vaguely recall stories on here about hiring partners directing in-house resumes to the trash. I'm uneasy about this opportunity in case I don't like in-house but end up blackballed for law firm jobs.

(2) any idea as to the competitive salary range for pharma? I will of course ask the recruiter, but would like to know what is considered the competitive range.

(3) is there anything to be said about job security for in-house jobs at large pharma companies? I've heard stories about companies getting acquired and slicing the legal department (presumably because the acquiring company already has their own). Any insight on whether these jobs are generally a safe move, or does that vary widely?

Anon because some co-workers know my TLS handle. Thanks in advance and don't be a dick.

[Anonymous User]

1. The general consensus is that going in-house is the "settling down" move, wherein most that go in-house don't attempt to go back to big law. However, I certainly don't think it's impossible for you to go back to big law from in-house, especially if your big pharma experience is materially relevant to your prospective big law practice. For example, it's common to see mid-level litigation associates go into prosecution to get trial experience and jump back into big law after obtaining that experience. I don't see why it would be that much different in your situation.

2. It largely depends on the company of course. Again, general consensus is that in-house will pay you lower than what you are currently earning in big law. I think I have heard somewhat established pharma companies pay around $140-180K depending on the circumstances. But again I'd caution that it really just depends on the company.

3. I can't speak to the "slicing" you refer to, but it is true that pharma and biotech companies merge/acquire all the time. This is pretty common practice within the life sciences/healthcare industry. You've already presumably done your research on the company, so you'd probably have a better idea if the company is one that is likely to acquire or one that gets acquired.

[Anonymous User]

Many thanks anon. This is helpful information.

Sincerely,
OP anon

[Anonymous User]

I can speak anecdotally about number 3. I had a friend go from the top big law firm in a secondary market to a pharmaceutical company located in the same market. Within less than a month of being there they started getting interest to be bought out. Deal went through, he lost his job, then ended up starting a solo firm doing completely unrelated work. So yes, you should be cautious if it looks like it could be a potential takeover target.

[Anonymous User]

Helpful. While impossible to predict with certainty, how does one go about assessing the likelihood that a particular pharma company will merge/be acquired? Seems like a crapshoot. The example you posed is precisely my nightmare and the primary reason why I'd be hesitant to make a move.

[Anonymous User]

Helpful. While impossible to predict with certainty, how does one go about assessing the likelihood that a particular pharma company will merge/be acquired? Seems like a crapshoot. The example you posed is precisely my nightmare and the primary reason why I'd be hesitant to make a move.

The 2 biggest indicators are: (1) establishment and (2) portfolio.

1. Establishment: the title of this thread refers to "bigpharma" which loosely describes the top 10-25 pharmaceutical firms in the world (i.e., Pzifer). These companies are generally those that acquire, not get acquired. However, most pharmaceutical firms are early-stage, either in R&D or just entering the marketplace. These companies of course are likely to get acquired by larger firms in order to acquire clinical trial data and their resulting products. Given this spectrum, you can probably gauge the likelihood of an acquisition.

2. Portfolio: the number and type of drugs a pharmaceutical firm has under its belt is also an indicator of possible acquisitions. Historically, pharmaceutical companies that have a limited number of drugs that treat specific diseases/illnesses get acquired by larger firms that want to diversify their portfolios. Same vise versa. So again, you could use this as a spectrum to gauge the likelihood of an acquisition.

[Anonymous User]

you'd make perhaps similar to your senior associate job. High level officials in pharma makes more than senior associate (pay rank similar to partner ina law firm for sure, and work load is prob the same, they travel all the time as my ex is in the same business).

I'd say if your target is really dominating in the industry your job security is perhaps better than in a biglaw. My idea is that you don't have to go in-house unless they pay even better than your biglaw gig.