Google Salary Forum

[Anonymous User]

I was reached out to by a recruiter at Google for an in-house corporate role. Any idea what they typically pay a junior/midlevel in-house there? What are the other benefits like?

Is it a cushy in-house gig, or more like biglaw hours, just with the Google lifestyle (whatever that may be--I assume I could pretty much wear jeans every day, and possibly have on-site meals)?

[Anonymous User]

JFollowing. Info on any of the big techs - Google, FB, Microsoft would be truly appreciated. I've heard Amazon is a sweatshop

[Anonymous User]

I was reached out to by a recruiter at Google for an in-house corporate role. Any idea what they typically pay a junior/midlevel in-house there? What are the other benefits like?

Is it a cushy in-house gig, or more like biglaw hours, just with the Google lifestyle (whatever that may be--I assume I could pretty much wear jeans every day, and possibly have on-site meals)?

What kind of experience or credential would you need to in-house there? I've heard generally in-house (not google, but generally) get somewhere like 130 to 140k base?

[Anonymous User]

I was reached out to by a recruiter at Google for an in-house corporate role. Any idea what they typically pay a junior/midlevel in-house there? What are the other benefits like?

Is it a cushy in-house gig, or more like biglaw hours, just with the Google lifestyle (whatever that may be--I assume I could pretty much wear jeans every day, and possibly have on-site meals)?

Also, do their recruiters just reach out to everyone, or is that actually a good sign if a recruiter has reached out to you based on your background/experience?

[Anonymous User]

I've interviewed at a number of big Bay Area tech companies. Google blew them away in terms of comp offered (as a midlevel-to-senior applying for their entry level counsel role). Their entry level role is "Associate Counsel" or something like that and, at least when I applied, would've actually offered an increase in comp (all-inclusive) over biglaw base, but not biglaw+bonus. Something like low to mid 200s + another 100 or so in RSUs and bonus each year. It was by easily the most generous package I've encountered in my unfortunately numerous interviews, though I didn't get a final offer so I don't know if the recruiter's initial projections were on point or not. They require a minimum of 3 years experience but are often looking for more.

In terms of hours, it will vary wildly based on what group you get slotted into, but I got the impression it can easily be biglaw-esque, perhaps fewer fire drills but just as much of a day to day grind (not a cushy 9-5 in house gig). Significant advancement can be limited because of a steep pyramid structure, but with solid comp, perks, and job security that wasn't a huge concern for me.

All of the above may change if your role isn't one of the generic product/commercial counsel types (e.g. you're applying for lit or copyright counsel or something in a specialized area of law).

The fact that their recruiter reached out is nice but isn't worth too much. They conduct the first phone screen and that's it. Because it's Google, there will almost certainly be dozens of qualified candidates trying to get hired for each role. Getting past the attorney and in-person screens are much, much more difficult.

FWIW, Google's recruiting team is notoriously poor and disorganized. Read around the web for countless examples of ghosting, missed connections, etc. - so even if the recruiter likes you, it's not a guarantee they'll find a group that's willing to even interview you. Good luck.

[Anonymous User]

All of the above may change if your role isn't one of the generic product/commercial counsel types (e.g. you're applying for lit or copyright counsel or something in a specialized area of law).

Many thanks for the detailed info. To your knowledge, would a position in a more niche area, like IP, at Google entail a significantly lower salary than a generalist position?

[Anonymous User]

All of the above may change if your role isn't one of the generic product/commercial counsel types (e.g. you're applying for lit or copyright counsel or something in a specialized area of law).

Many thanks for the detailed info. To your knowledge, would a position in a more niche area, like IP, at Google entail a significantly lower salary than a generalist position?

Not sure about comp, but my impression from talking with the recruiter was that the specialist counsel roles (I was potentially qualified for an IP-specific one) would leave me significantly more "stuck" in terms of upward mobility. At other companies with smaller legal departments you might be able to move up from, say, copyright and trademark counsel, to IP counsel, to AGC (lit & IP), to GC or something like that (or at least I know one person who took that path). At Google you'll get paid handsomely to be their copyright counsel or whatever, but with an in-house roster the size of a large law firm, there's just less room to make big moves up from the specialist ranks.

Edit: I also got the sense that the specialist role I briefly discussed would have a better QOL than the generic counsel roles, for what it's worth. Not sure the recruiter really had too much insight into that, though, and I didn't move on to the real interviews for that position, so it could've just been BS on the recruiter's part.

[Anonymous User]

All of the above may change if your role isn't one of the generic product/commercial counsel types (e.g. you're applying for lit or copyright counsel or something in a specialized area of law).

Many thanks for the detailed info. To your knowledge, would a position in a more niche area, like IP, at Google entail a significantly lower salary than a generalist position?

Not sure about comp, but my impression from talking with the recruiter was that the specialist counsel roles (I was potentially qualified for an IP-specific one) would leave me significantly more "stuck" in terms of upward mobility. At other companies with smaller legal departments you might be able to move up from, say, copyright and trademark counsel, to IP counsel, to AGC (lit & IP), to GC or something like that (or at least I know one person who took that path). At Google you'll get paid handsomely to be their copyright counsel or whatever, but with an in-house roster the size of a large law firm, there's just less room to make big moves up from the specialist ranks.

Edit: I also got the sense that the specialist role I briefly discussed would have a better QOL than the generic counsel roles, for what it's worth. Not sure the recruiter really had too much insight into that, though, and I didn't move on to the real interviews for that position, so it could've just been BS on the recruiter's part.

Thanks for the additional info! Very helpful.