In-House vs NYC Big Law Forum

[Anonymous User]

Longtime lurker here, went straight from law school to in-house at a large company and have worked there for the past couple of years. I’m considering an offer from an NYC firm in the lower half of the V100. The practice group would be the same as what I’m doing in-house (sorry for being vague here but I’m a little paranoid about outing myself). My in-house job is not in NYC or close to it. Firm job would be about double my current salary, but the benefits would be significantly worse and rent would be 3-4x what I pay now. FWIW I have ~$160k in student loans and ~$85k in savings.

The lifestyle at my company is very chill, usually 9-6 with no weekend work, but my company is constantly trying to cut costs so job security is always an issue. I’d really like to be in-house long term, so I think a big concern for me is exit options down the road as I have no idea what I could expect as someone who has always been in-house or whether other companies would be open to hiring me without firm experience. I’m also not entirely sure what the exit options are from a firm in the lower half of the V100, but the practice group is ranked pretty well so I would think it could potentially open at least some doors to other in-house positions. On the flip side, I feel like I kind of have a unicorn job right now in terms of salary/hours that gives me time for hobbies and dating/social life, and I'm not sure I want to give that up, even if it is a risk.

What would you do in my position?

[Anonymous User]

V100 only really matters for m&a, so don’t focus too much on that. Yes, working at a v5 probably opens more doors, but working at a firm in the lower half isn’t going to doom you.

With that said, I wouldn’t leave for a firm job if I already had an in-house gig.

Go onto one of those paycheck calculator sites and see how much more you really take in in NY post-tax. There’s state and city tax. That 100k (assuming) difference is probably less than 50k after tax. That’ll cover your rent.

And kiss 9-6 goodbye if you’re at any big firm in NY. My friends in “lower v100” firms still have crazy hours (10-9 regularly). My office in NY is always busy. I leave at like 630-7 every night and my colleagues in NY hate me for it. I make less, but that extra two hours a day is worth it.

Sorry for rambling. I think that the extra salary probably will end up being a few extra hundred dollars a month. Not worth the headache. Would search for other in-house jobs if I were you.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah I think most biglaw attorneys (myself included) are looking for your sort of job as an exit... and based on your math, the COL adjustment for NYC will offset your pay anyways. Stay.

[Anonymous User]

I am in a similar position in that I started in-house and I have been thinking about this lately as well. Given the opportunity to switch to a firm I would do it even for one or two years. I definitely understand what you mean re: job insecurity, especially if you work in a very specific area. My area is very niche and if I lost my job for whatever reason, I do not see similar companies taking me on as they tend to require more years of experience for similar roles, and I am not sure how transferable what I am doing would be to other areas. In your shoes, if I had the opportunity to diversify I would take it.

There are ways in which you could lower your cost of living in NYC for sure. You also still have quite a lot of student debt left (as do I), and switching to a law firm could help you pay that off at a much faster rate. I'm not sure what year you would be entering as but with your savings + a little frugal living it seems as though you might even be able to pay of your debt entirely with just a year or two. That would afford you so much more financial freedom afterwards.

Do you mind if I ask - were you actively looking for a firm job or did a recruiter reach out to you?

[mvp99]

What about exit opprtunities within the same industry you're now?

[Anonymous User]

Thanks for all the feedback. Good points both for and against making the transition. I definitely see the potential value in diversifying by having a firm on my resume, but from everything I've heard (not just from people on here but from friends who have worked there, including at the firm I'm considering) the lifestyle in NY biglaw seems so miserable that I'm not sure the tradeoff is worth it. I'm going to keep thinking about it and any other advice/perspectives would be much appreciated, but I think I'm leaning toward staying in house at this point.

Do you mind if I ask - were you actively looking for a firm job or did a recruiter reach out to you?

I reached out to a recruiter who had previously connected with me on LinkedIn.

[Anonymous User]

I'm also in-house and as far as hours, I'd say mine are similar. While I haven't given a ton of consideration as far as exit options, I would not leave for a lower quality of life, unless there was a significant pay bump - like full on equity partner at a V100. It sounds like the seemingly large pay bump would really be a wash after factoring in COL in NYC.

[nealric]

I went the other direction (NYC biglaw to smaller city in-house), and I wouldn't go back for double the salary. The pay increase will be mostly offset by COL, additional taxes (especially if you are in a no state income tax state like I am), and reduced benefits. Your hourly pay will plummet.

[Anonymous User]

I know there's not a clear answer, but is it easier to go from an in-house position to another in-house position or from a firm to an in-house position? Say one person has 3 years at a firm and then goes in-house for 2 years, whereas someone else has 5 years at a firm, and they're both applying to another in-house job. Which one do you think the in-house employer would prefer (assuming these are generalist corporate counsel roles)?

[nealric]

I know there's not a clear answer, but is it easier to go from an in-house position to another in-house position or from a firm to an in-house position? Say one person has 3 years at a firm and then goes in-house for 2 years, whereas someone else has 5 years at a firm, and they're both applying to another in-house job. Which one do you think the in-house employer would prefer (assuming these are generalist corporate counsel roles)?

Probably slight advantage to the one with in-house experience, but details matter. If it's a well-regarded competitor and the other in-house candidate has a good reason for leaving, that's totally different from an in-house job in a different industry from a company with a bad reputation. Same thing with firm. If it's a firm the company uses a lot as outside counsel, that's going to be looked at very differently from some random firm they haven't heard of.

[1styearlateral]

I don't see why people on this forum undervalue in house experience. Most openings I see for in house positions require some prior in house experience. Working at a firm gives you experience with a variety of clients in a specific area, whereas in house gives you experience in a variety of areas with exposure to only one client (the company). I really don't see the downside to either unless you want to specialize (firm) or want to be more diversified (in house), and it seems to me that people don't have any problem going from one company to another or from a company to a firm.