In-House Regrets Forum

[goingwest]

Is anyone who transitioned to an in-house counsel position from biglaw regretting their decision? I recently heard about a transactional lawyer who went in-house on the promise of better work-life balance, but who is regularly working 12-hour days (sometimes longer) at a bank in NYC. Hoping to get some additional insight into what it's really like.

[CiFULA]

myth firms perpetuate to keep midlevels where they are. but joking aside, experiences are just going to vary, no? i also wouldn't put too much stock in going inhouse to a bank as indicative of inhouse experiences as a whole. i mean, if you end up at a bank then chances are your hours are still going to be shit. from one guy i know, i think the one thing they might do better is respect vacation time.

[nealric]

Is anyone who transitioned to an in-house counsel position from biglaw regretting their decision? I recently heard about a transactional lawyer who went in-house on the promise of better work-life balance, but who is regularly working 12-hour days (sometimes longer) at a bank in NYC. Hoping to get some additional insight into what it's really like.

In-house jobs aren't a mono culture. You'l find in-house lawyers who grind out crazy hours and ones who do a chill 9-5 with a 3 martini lunch. If you are thinking about going in-house it's important to do a lot of due diligence on the company you are joining and understanding what your role will be like. I interviewed at a company where several people I interviewed remarked that the hours were worse than they expected- the culture there was for a lot of facetime and a lot of work. My current gig is pretty easy/regular hours. I don't think my company necessarily has any less work to do than the other one, but the culture surrounding the work is better here. You want to find a place that doesn't reward being a workaholic or working for the sake of working.

One thing that is very nice about being in-house is that it opens up the possibility of "working smarter, not harder." The billable hour in law firms means you can't just be more efficient to work less. In-house, you can much better manage your workload to keep your hours reasonable.

[Anonymous User]

Is anyone who transitioned to an in-house counsel position from biglaw regretting their decision? I recently heard about a transactional lawyer who went in-house on the promise of better work-life balance, but who is regularly working 12-hour days (sometimes longer) at a bank in NYC. Hoping to get some additional insight into what it's really like.

In-house jobs aren't a mono culture. You'l find in-house lawyers who grind out crazy hours and ones who do a chill 9-5 with a 3 martini lunch. If you are thinking about going in-house it's important to do a lot of due diligence on the company you are joining and understanding what your role will be like. I interviewed at a company where several people I interviewed remarked that the hours were worse than they expected- the culture there was for a lot of facetime and a lot of work. My current gig is pretty easy/regular hours. I don't think my company necessarily has any less work to do than the other one, but the culture surrounding the work is better here. You want to find a place that doesn't reward being a workaholic or working for the sake of working.

One thing that is very nice about being in-house is that it opens up the possibility of "working smarter, not harder." The billable hour in law firms means you can't just be more efficient to work less. In-house, you can much better manage your workload to keep your hours reasonable.

I agree with this. I just moved in-house recently. I would say that the culture and people are going to make all the difference. I was not burned out at all in biglaw, but really like the people and lifestyle at the company where the offer came from, so figured I would give it a shot. I generally work 8:30(ish) to 5:30(ish). But the no billable hour is life changing. But if you don't like the GC (or whoever you will be working a lot with), it could be trouble because unlike at a firm, you can't avoid working with that person (unlike a specific associate or partner you don't like). So make sure you interact with the people you are going to be working with as much as possible before deciding. Also, in-house at a bank tends to be worse hours than at a company from everyone I know who has made moves.

I will caution on one point - if you greatly value how much you make, or you place a high value on cash comp, you could have regrets. My all in is about 300k, but a lot of that is RSUs and end of year bonus, neither of which are guaranteed and the former which doesn't vest for 3-4 years. So while the pay is decent, I am missing that 255k cash salary and year end 70k cash bonus. I placed high value on having that huge paycheck hit my account every two weeks, and I do miss that part (moved same week raises came out, ouch). I will say, I am not missing it enough to go back, which my firm left the door open to, but I sometimes wonder if I made the right move giving up such a high cash comp system. So just a warning, the grass is greener on the in-house side for the most part, but there is always a downside (in my case, lower cash comp).

[Anonymous User]

Biglaw --> bank here. My experience has been similar to Anon above. Hours are 9-6, which is the biggest benefit by far. Re comp package, it tends toward high bonus/lower base. You won't be starving, but you will definitely make less than in biglaw...but you already knew that. I do think people at firms think in-house attorneys make less than they actually do. Also, like above Anon pointed out, it's difficult to get away from working with people you don't like. I don't like my boss, although luckily I like mostly everyone else at work, and it can make my day-to-day stressful. Getting away from him would involve going over his head to his manager and requesting a reassignment to another manager/team, which I'm not willing to do, at least not at this point. What else -- lawyers don't get offices here unless they're very senior, which I'm not. Having no office sucks.

One thing to note is that in-house lawyers are a cost center, especially at large corporate workplaces, and you're very vulnerable to layoffs. Can't beat biglaw for job security as long as you're billing enough. They may not promote you to partner/counsel, but as long as your work is decent and you're bringing in more than you cost, most firms will let you stay on as an associate indefinitely in my observation. I don't know that I would have taken my current gig if I were the sole breadwinner for a family.

[nealric]

Biglaw --> bank here. My experience has been similar to Anon above. Hours are 9-6, which is the biggest benefit by far. Re comp package, it tends toward high bonus/lower base. You won't be starving, but you will definitely make less than in biglaw...but you already knew that. I do think people at firms think in-house attorneys make less than they actually do. Also, like above Anon pointed out, it's difficult to get away from working with people you don't like. I don't like my boss, although luckily I like mostly everyone else at work, and it can make my day-to-day stressful. Getting away from him would involve going over his head to his manager and requesting a reassignment to another manager/team, which I'm not willing to do, at least not at this point. What else -- lawyers don't get offices here unless they're very senior, which I'm not. Having no office sucks.

One thing to note is that in-house lawyers are a cost center, especially at large corporate workplaces, and you're very vulnerable to layoffs. Can't beat biglaw for job security as long as you're billing enough. They may not promote you to partner/counsel, but as long as your work is decent and you're bringing in more than you cost, most firms will let you stay on as an associate indefinitely in my observation. I don't know that I would have taken my current gig if I were the sole breadwinner for a family.

Office vs no-office is another company-by-company thing. All lawyers have offices at my company.

Disagree that job security is really all that different between in-house and firms. I don't think lawyers are necessarily more vulnerable to layoffs than other people in the corporate structure. In capital intensive industries, every employee is a cost center. Layoffs, when they happen, are often done evenly across the board in response to economic stress. However, law does have the advantage of not being an entire business line that can be cut. They may cancel a project and lay off all the associated people, but they won't lay off the entire legal department unless the whole company is going down. At the firm, you may be safe as long as your hours are good, but your hours can stop being good for circumstances completely outside of your control.

[totesTheGoat]

I'll echo some of the other comments. I've never regretted going in-house. There is still stress and there is still after-hours work on a fairly frequent basis, but it's exceedingly rare that I eclipse 55 hours per week. It has happened maybe once in two years. I work in an "open concept" office, which is a really crappy way to set up a legal department, but they're pretty lenient about working from home as long as you show your face in the office for a few hours most days. Currently, at 3:30 on a Tuesday, 60% of the people in my row are gone for the day.

Regarding layoffs, my GC goes to bat for us regularly, portraying us as a cost-savings force (we do a ton of previously outsourced work in-house these days). Usually, when layoffs come around, we are fine as long as we don't backfill the open positions. I've only heard of one layoff affecting my department, and that was more of an excuse to get rid of some habitually underperforming employees. It sounds like nobody was particularly sad to see them go.

[Anonymous User]

Biglaw --> bank here. My experience has been similar to Anon above. Hours are 9-6, which is the biggest benefit by far. Re comp package, it tends toward high bonus/lower base. You won't be starving, but you will definitely make less than in biglaw...but you already knew that. I do think people at firms think in-house attorneys make less than they actually do. Also, like above Anon pointed out, it's difficult to get away from working with people you don't like. I don't like my boss, although luckily I like mostly everyone else at work, and it can make my day-to-day stressful. Getting away from him would involve going over his head to his manager and requesting a reassignment to another manager/team, which I'm not willing to do, at least not at this point. What else -- lawyers don't get offices here unless they're very senior, which I'm not. Having no office sucks.

One thing to note is that in-house lawyers are a cost center, especially at large corporate workplaces, and you're very vulnerable to layoffs. Can't beat biglaw for job security as long as you're billing enough. They may not promote you to partner/counsel, but as long as your work is decent and you're bringing in more than you cost, most firms will let you stay on as an associate indefinitely in my observation. I don't know that I would have taken my current gig if I were the sole breadwinner for a family.

Agree with the bolded, when I got the offer I expected a hefty pay cut. When I got the offer it was all in more than I was making, but not quite as much as the next years total. I think its the difference of it not being straight cash. I disagree with the cost center to some extent, if you are at a bank or public company, you can't get rid of all of the lawyers. I have spoken with our GC about this before coming on, and in that situation, you pull in all the outside work you can to show how much you are saving from paying firm rates (which don't decrease during a recession). I suppose this heavily depends on how large the legal department too, if there are less than 5 lawyers at a public company, you are safer than if there are 20 lawyers. I do generally think most GOOD biglaw associates are safe in a recession to the extent they are well liked and have proven themselves. The fat will get trimmed though.

[Anonymous User]

Is anyone who transitioned to an in-house counsel position from biglaw regretting their decision? I recently heard about a transactional lawyer who went in-house on the promise of better work-life balance, but who is regularly working 12-hour days (sometimes longer) at a bank in NYC. Hoping to get some additional insight into what it's really like.

In-house jobs aren't a mono culture. You'l find in-house lawyers who grind out crazy hours and ones who do a chill 9-5 with a 3 martini lunch. If you are thinking about going in-house it's important to do a lot of due diligence on the company you are joining and understanding what your role will be like. I interviewed at a company where several people I interviewed remarked that the hours were worse than they expected- the culture there was for a lot of facetime and a lot of work. My current gig is pretty easy/regular hours. I don't think my company necessarily has any less work to do than the other one, but the culture surrounding the work is better here. You want to find a place that doesn't reward being a workaholic or working for the sake of working.

One thing that is very nice about being in-house is that it opens up the possibility of "working smarter, not harder." The billable hour in law firms means you can't just be more efficient to work less. In-house, you can much better manage your workload to keep your hours reasonable.

I agree with this. I just moved in-house recently. I would say that the culture and people are going to make all the difference. I was not burned out at all in biglaw, but really like the people and lifestyle at the company where the offer came from, so figured I would give it a shot. I generally work 8:30(ish) to 5:30(ish). But the no billable hour is life changing. But if you don't like the GC (or whoever you will be working a lot with), it could be trouble because unlike at a firm, you can't avoid working with that person (unlike a specific associate or partner you don't like). So make sure you interact with the people you are going to be working with as much as possible before deciding. Also, in-house at a bank tends to be worse hours than at a company from everyone I know who has made moves.

I will caution on one point - if you greatly value how much you make, or you place a high value on cash comp, you could have regrets. My all in is about 300k, but a lot of that is RSUs and end of year bonus, neither of which are guaranteed and the former which doesn't vest for 3-4 years. So while the pay is decent, I am missing that 255k cash salary and year end 70k cash bonus. I placed high value on having that huge paycheck hit my account every two weeks, and I do miss that part (moved same week raises came out, ouch). I will say, I am not missing it enough to go back, which my firm left the door open to, but I sometimes wonder if I made the right move giving up such a high cash comp system. So just a warning, the grass is greener on the in-house side for the most part, but there is always a downside (in my case, lower cash comp).

300K all in sounds really high so congrats! Were you a 4th year? I think for anyone reading this though I don't think that's what most people should expect. I also recently moved in house to a bank/company and am really liking it so far--pretty great people and an awesome direct boss which is what I most care about. Definitely 9/9:30 to 5/6. I think my base is relatively high but lower variable comp/bonus so low to mid 200s. Though I don't really count 401K contributions or other vesting things in my comp when I think about it so it might start approaching 300K but I don't think so.

[Anonymous User]

Is anyone who transitioned to an in-house counsel position from biglaw regretting their decision? I recently heard about a transactional lawyer who went in-house on the promise of better work-life balance, but who is regularly working 12-hour days (sometimes longer) at a bank in NYC. Hoping to get some additional insight into what it's really like.

In-house jobs aren't a mono culture. You'l find in-house lawyers who grind out crazy hours and ones who do a chill 9-5 with a 3 martini lunch. If you are thinking about going in-house it's important to do a lot of due diligence on the company you are joining and understanding what your role will be like. I interviewed at a company where several people I interviewed remarked that the hours were worse than they expected- the culture there was for a lot of facetime and a lot of work. My current gig is pretty easy/regular hours. I don't think my company necessarily has any less work to do than the other one, but the culture surrounding the work is better here. You want to find a place that doesn't reward being a workaholic or working for the sake of working.

One thing that is very nice about being in-house is that it opens up the possibility of "working smarter, not harder." The billable hour in law firms means you can't just be more efficient to work less. In-house, you can much better manage your workload to keep your hours reasonable.

I agree with this. I just moved in-house recently. I would say that the culture and people are going to make all the difference. I was not burned out at all in biglaw, but really like the people and lifestyle at the company where the offer came from, so figured I would give it a shot. I generally work 8:30(ish) to 5:30(ish). But the no billable hour is life changing. But if you don't like the GC (or whoever you will be working a lot with), it could be trouble because unlike at a firm, you can't avoid working with that person (unlike a specific associate or partner you don't like). So make sure you interact with the people you are going to be working with as much as possible before deciding. Also, in-house at a bank tends to be worse hours than at a company from everyone I know who has made moves.

I will caution on one point - if you greatly value how much you make, or you place a high value on cash comp, you could have regrets. My all in is about 300k, but a lot of that is RSUs and end of year bonus, neither of which are guaranteed and the former which doesn't vest for 3-4 years. So while the pay is decent, I am missing that 255k cash salary and year end 70k cash bonus. I placed high value on having that huge paycheck hit my account every two weeks, and I do miss that part (moved same week raises came out, ouch). I will say, I am not missing it enough to go back, which my firm left the door open to, but I sometimes wonder if I made the right move giving up such a high cash comp system. So just a warning, the grass is greener on the in-house side for the most part, but there is always a downside (in my case, lower cash comp).

300K all in sounds really high so congrats! Were you a 4th year? I think for anyone reading this though I don't think that's what most people should expect. I also recently moved in house to a bank/company and am really liking it so far--pretty great people and an awesome direct boss which is what I most care about. Definitely 9/9:30 to 5/6. I think my base is relatively high but lower variable comp/bonus so low to mid 200s. Though I don't really count 401K contributions or other vesting things in my comp when I think about it so it might start approaching 300K but I don't think so.

I was. My base is still under 200, its the target bonus and equity grant that get me there, but the equity vests over 4 years, so if at any point I leave, I will have made significantly less the last 4 years (long time). We also don't have paid for health care (about the same rates as at a firm) and no 401k match. So less on the alternative perks. Also, if our stock doesn't do well the equity won't be worth as much, so lots of variables. That is why I was saying, if you value a high cash comp package, in-house can be rough.

[Anonymous User]

I think that's fair re total cash comp but it's a trade off in predictability/hours (generally speaking). My overall firm experience wasn't bad but also wasn't sustainable. But I think to the original question, it can depend. I also know people that made the jump and it was clear it didn't work out within 1-2 months for various reasons. Just depends on the environment and maybe how senior you come in or your colleagues/bosses. It's hard to get a sense of what to expect for in house though from salaries/other comp and other things.. it can vary so much but I think I did ok.

[Anonymous User]

I never worked in Biglaw but wanted to after I saw what they paid. After spending time on this site, I am happy with my in-house position. After about 15 years in my field, I went to law school. I absolutely hated law school because of how pretentious law students and law professors are. I am pretty sure I could do well with the work at Biglaw but would be chewed up by the office politics. I am happy hanging out in my office at work with my headphones while I plow through my work with no billable hours, no partners to impress, and generally an independent work schedule. I still have a good package and live in a small town while working for a F500 company. Hoping I can retire in about 25 years without ever having to change companies again.

[Anonymous User]

Another anon data point here. My only regrets are I've stopped learning at my in-house job so not sure what skills I'll have when I leave or if I get fired, and it gets boring at times.

Other than that, it's been awesome never billing again. People are all nice. In the office from 9 to 5:30 every day, rarely any weekend work, never any emergency late nighters, legit probably working like 4 or 5 hours a day of real work, rest of time I'm just surfing the internet. I left Biglaw as a 3rd year, in-house pay was close to 200k all-in, so definitely a significant pay cut from the law firm, especially now that firms raised comp again, but I still feel like I'm overpaid for the amount of work I do.

[Anonymous User]

Another anon data point here. My only regrets are I've stopped learning at my in-house job so not sure what skills I'll have when I leave or if I get fired, and it gets boring at times.

Other than that, it's been awesome never billing again. People are all nice. In the office from 9 to 5:30 every day, rarely any weekend work, never any emergency late nighters, legit probably working like 4 or 5 hours a day of real work, rest of time I'm just surfing the internet. I left Biglaw as a 3rd year, in-house pay was close to 200k all-in, so definitely a significant pay cut from the law firm, especially now that firms raised comp again, but I still feel like I'm overpaid for the amount of work I do.

This sounds like a dream. Let me guess—you were/are a transactions associate.

[Anonymous User]

I actually think I already posted in this thread. Lay offs in house definitely happen and I don't think banking is doing too well this year.