Advice on how to answer in-house question Forum

[Anonymous User]

I've been in litigation for a few years now and I think I'm ready to jump ship to in-house work. I expect employers will ask me why I'm making the jump from lit to in-house. What do you guys think would be an appropriate response? thanks

[elendinel]

The truth is generally an appropriate response, unless the truth is only "Because biglaw sux and I wanna coast to retirement," in which case it's best to find some things you like about in-house work and then sell those based on how you and your personality mesh with those things you like.

[Anonymous User]

The truth is generally an appropriate response, unless the truth is only "Because biglaw sux and I wanna coast to retirement," in which case it's best to find some things you like about in-house work and then sell those based on how you and your personality mesh with those things you like.

OP here. Maybe i should've given more details. Litigation was never really my thing. I've always envisioned working for a company rather than being in a courtroom and worrying about billables. Also, my lit experience isn't biglaw and really, I'm not making the jump for the money. I'm doing it because I think it's the best fit for my skills. After law school, I couldn't find any in-house jobs so really litigation was the only route.

I suppose everything I said above is what I should be telling the interviewer. I guess I'm trying to find a better way of saying "Litigation and I don't mesh" without sounding like I'm incapable of things.

[elendinel]

IMO, as a general practice, you should only be critical of your current path insofar as it distinguishes your current path from where you want to go.

I.e., you don't need to have a long drawn-out explanation for why you don't like lit (no "Here are all the things I hate about lit; I'm hoping I don't have to do any of it in-house"). Because you never know what your interviewer is going to assume from your giving a laundry list of things you don't want to do, or what (s)he'll assume about your not wanting to do some particular thing.

But what you can and should do is "These are some things I like about in-house work; my lit job doesn't have ___/I don't think I can get ___ in lit. Here's a bunch of stuff I like about your company in particular. I also can't get ____ where I am now. So this position at your company seems like a perfect fit." I.e., explain what this job's going to give you, and explain how your job can't get you that.

[jhett]

I think you should say you are looking for a different role and the ability to develop new skills and experience outside of litigation, and at the same time sell how the litigation skills you've developed so can benefit you in the in-house role. For example, you can say that your litigation negotiation skills carry over to contract negotiation, or that litigation helps you spot and mitigate risks to a company (something they'll love to hear). That way, you can spin your experience as a positive while also convincing them that you are willing and able to handle something different.

[BigLaw Associate]

Having made this litigation to in-house transition myself recently, I found that what the employer is really asking is this -- how do your skills bring value to this legal department? My general approach in answering this question was to talk about my experience first, tie that experience to something that was going on at the company, and then present an example of how my experience would help the legal department.

So, for instance, why do you want to go in house?

Sample answer = I want to get closer to the business in X industry. I have experience with clients in X industry, including doing A, B, and C. From reading your recent SEC filings, it looks like your legal department may currently be involved in something similar to A/B/C. I'm interested in helping one client manage and mitigate risk, especially in areas A, B, and C, and that's why I not only want to go in-house but why I'm particularly interested in this job.

[Note that A, B, and C would change depending on who I was interviewing with. I'd tailor it to things they were likely involved in. Needless to say, do your research (LinkedIn, Google, etc.) before your interview.]

Similarly, to your specific question, why do you want to leave litigation?

Sample answer = What I like about litigation is A. In my most recent case, I took the lead in and formulated strategy around A. From your recent press filings, it looks like A is currently a major focus for your legal department. The reason I'm looking at in house positions is to do more of A, and that's why I'm particularly interested in this role.

And so on.

[Anonymous User]

I've worked as a corporate associate in biglaw and as a transactional specialist inhouse.

This may be different from litigation but I answered it by saying that I wanted to be closer to seeing how business decisions were made and to be able to actually understand a company and its inner working. Not sure if it works for a litigation person.

Is this role a litigation role or is it a transactional role? or is it a mixture of both?