Need help - Am I going in house too soon? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I started my legal career in a gov agency and have been here for three years. I landed this gig through networking and while I have really great experience on my resume, my academic pedigree is mediocre (TT median). I've been looking to move to the private sector and have had some interviews with firms and companies and now I have a position lined up with the GC's office of one of the entities my agency regulates. It's a 15ish person legal team for a medium sized bank and I'll be expected to do a lot and it sounds like I'll be working closely with the GC (who I've been interviewing with) as well as upper-management generally.

I'm pretty interested in the position as it stands by itself, but I am worried about my career long term. At the end of the day, I want to be sure I'm not closing a ton of doors by making this move. If I take this job and stay for a few years, can I lateral to a larger company? Are firms a possibility? I think any move would probably come from connections which is fine, I just want to have a better idea on whether I'll get pushback for having this nontraditional career path. At this point I either take this position or stick it out at my agency a bit longer and keep pushing for a firm opening, but I'm seeing it's fairly difficult to make a gov to firm move as a junior without great grades or a great alma mater. What do you guys think?

[smokeylarue]

How is the pay? 120k - 180k?

Without knowing any additional details, I would say take it and run. My understanding is once you are in-house, it is easier to move lateral to other in-house opportunities. These are the types of positions 4th through 7th year associates are gunning for, so if you can do it now, why not.

[Anonymous User]

How is the pay? 120k - 180k?

Without knowing any additional details, I would say take it and run. My understanding is once you are in-house, it is easier to move lateral to other in-house opportunities. These are the types of positions 4th through 7th year associates are gunning for, so if you can do it now, why not.

OP here, thanks for the input. Compensation is the last piece that needs to be discussed and will likely be a part of the conversation I'm having next week. In all honesty it could be as low as $90k, could be as high as $150k, I really don't know. I misspoke when I said I have the positioned "lined up" as I don't have a written offer in hand right now, but the GC already told me they want me and will open a position for me, so the hesitancy has been coming from my end, not theirs.

At this point I'm leaning towards taking this opportunity, I just want to be sure I'll still be able to pursue some career progression elsewhere if desired and won't be stuck.

[Lacepiece23]

90k to 150k for a TT median grad three years out of law school? You, my friend, have won the legal lottery. I'd take it and run. Congrats!

[nealric]

I started my legal career in a gov agency and have been here for three years. I landed this gig through networking and while I have really great experience on my resume, my academic pedigree is mediocre (TT median). I've been looking to move to the private sector and have had some interviews with firms and companies and now I have a position lined up with the GC's office of one of the entities my agency regulates. It's a 15ish person legal team for a medium sized bank and I'll be expected to do a lot and it sounds like I'll be working closely with the GC (who I've been interviewing with) as well as upper-management generally.

I'm pretty interested in the position as it stands by itself, but I am worried about my career long term. At the end of the day, I want to be sure I'm not closing a ton of doors by making this move. If I take this job and stay for a few years, can I lateral to a larger company? Are firms a possibility? I think any move would probably come from connections which is fine, I just want to have a better idea on whether I'll get pushback for having this nontraditional career path. At this point I either take this position or stick it out at my agency a bit longer and keep pushing for a firm opening, but I'm seeing it's fairly difficult to make a gov to firm move as a junior without great grades or a great alma mater. What do you guys think?

I went in-house after 3-years. I don't think there is a "too early", just bad positions. You open doors with a good move, close them with a bad one. I think your lateral options may depend on what market you are in, what skills you have, and how the bank is regarded among peers. It's certainly worth considering the move.

Other things to consider is potential PSLF/student loan forgiveness, valuation of things like potential government pensions, and job security.

[Anonymous User]

90k to 150k for a TT median grad three years out of law school? You, my friend, have won the legal lottery. I'd take it and run. Congrats!

OP here, thanks! Again I'm speculating on comp at this point but based on my research I'd say that range is accurate. Definitely leaning hard towards taking this at this point.

[Anonymous User]

I started my legal career in a gov agency and have been here for three years. I landed this gig through networking and while I have really great experience on my resume, my academic pedigree is mediocre (TT median). I've been looking to move to the private sector and have had some interviews with firms and companies and now I have a position lined up with the GC's office of one of the entities my agency regulates. It's a 15ish person legal team for a medium sized bank and I'll be expected to do a lot and it sounds like I'll be working closely with the GC (who I've been interviewing with) as well as upper-management generally.

I'm pretty interested in the position as it stands by itself, but I am worried about my career long term. At the end of the day, I want to be sure I'm not closing a ton of doors by making this move. If I take this job and stay for a few years, can I lateral to a larger company? Are firms a possibility? I think any move would probably come from connections which is fine, I just want to have a better idea on whether I'll get pushback for having this nontraditional career path. At this point I either take this position or stick it out at my agency a bit longer and keep pushing for a firm opening, but I'm seeing it's fairly difficult to make a gov to firm move as a junior without great grades or a great alma mater. What do you guys think?

I went in-house after 3-years. I don't think there is a "too early", just bad positions. You open doors with a good move, close them with a bad one. I think your lateral options may depend on what market you are in, what skills you have, and how the bank is regarded among peers. It's certainly worth considering the move.

Other things to consider is potential PSLF/student loan forgiveness, valuation of things like potential government pensions, and job security.

OP here, thanks for the insight, you raise some good points. Fwiw the market is NYC and the bank is fairly well regarded and is also in the midst of an aggressive growth strategy, so all good things. Regarding the gov benefits, I'm very much set on leaving my agency for a number of reasons, so it's not really an "if" and more of a "when." Thankfully I had a scholarship for school so while I have debt, it's more than manageable (even on my gov salary).

[Anonymous User]

I moved inhouse after 2.5 years at a regional biglaw firm. IMHO, I think there is such a thing as moving inhouse too early only if you know you want to specialise in a certain field. For example, you work corporate at a biglaw shop for 2-3 years and you know you want to eventually be in tax and the VP of tax, however you still take a generalist inhouse position (which is generally commercial contracts based and may handle a whole variety of other issues). Many corporate attorneys have exposure to tax issues and you may have some exposure inhouse, but it would be difficult to consider yourself an expert and on track to become VP of Tax. Rather than going inhouse, it may be better to take a biglaw job that gives you more exposure to tax.

If you are fine with being a generalist, then I see no problems with 2-3 years of biglaw experience.

[Anonymous User]

I moved inhouse after 2.5 years at a regional biglaw firm. IMHO, I think there is such a thing as moving inhouse too early only if you know you want to specialise in a certain field. For example, you work corporate at a biglaw shop for 2-3 years and you know you want to eventually be in tax and the VP of tax, however you still take a generalist inhouse position (which is generally commercial contracts based and may handle a whole variety of other issues). Many corporate attorneys have exposure to tax issues and you may have some exposure inhouse, but it would be difficult to consider yourself an expert and on track to become VP of Tax. Rather than going inhouse, it may be better to take a biglaw job that gives you more exposure to tax.

If you are fine with being a generalist, then I see no problems with 2-3 years of biglaw experience.

OP here, thanks for this input, I actually hadn't really considered how broadening rather than specializing might be somewhat problematic. It does sound like I would be exposed to some new practice areas and now that I think about it, I could see that lack of specialization being a problem for firms. On the other hand, I could see other banks appreciating that broader exposure as these new areas will still be specific to the operations of a bank. Definitely something to think about...