Texas In-House Compensation Forum

[oiloiloil]

Can anyone here share salary points and stories for in house positions in Texas?

Specifically thinking about what salary is for a junior going in house with 1-3 years experience of corporate work at a V100. Have not been able to find any recent online information specific to the Texas (Houston/Dallas) market on salary points.

All data points and stories appreciated.

[Anonymous User]

For someone in your position, I would expect 150-160ish base for large-cap energy companies. Good companies should add at least 30% to that between bonus and stock, and also have things like 401k match or pension contributions that make the base salary a bit difficult to compare directly to biglaw. That said, 1-3 years is a bit junior for the best in-house jobs- closer to 5 years of biglaw will usually make for a better job search.

[BrainsyK]

Recently moved in-house from biglaw (was at firm for 3 years) - TX.
Energy
Base: $175,000
Bonus (target): $50k
RSU (4 year vesting schedule): $50k

No 401K match and medical/benefits cost is same as it was at firm.
Hours: 8:30-6:00 (sometimes earlier rarely later)
Sometimes work at night to catch up, have not had to work over the weekend yet. Been a good move so far, like all the people I work with.

Not mine, but saw this elsewhere.

[Anonymous User]

Can anybody shed some light on obtaining a TX In-House position from a NYC V10?

[Anonymous User]

I think it would be helpful to know any stories from NYC to Texas in-house corp

[Anonymous User]

Can anybody shed some light on obtaining a TX In-House position from a NYC V10?

I went from an NYC v100 to Tx in-house. However, I grew up in the city and had a reasonably strong network there (built from people I knew growing up and informational interviews). Building a network, if you don't already have one, is probably the most important thing you can do. Ideally, you should always have an insider who at least knows who you are when applying.

[Anonymous User]

Can anybody shed some light on obtaining a TX In-House position from a NYC V10?

I am in-house after doing a top TX corp shop for a couple years. Will only hurt you that you are not at a Kirkland/VE/BB/Latham in Houston (if looking at Houston), because these people have the connections and will also be gunning for the good jobs. Mine was never even publicized, client reached out and offered me the job. You can get close to all in comp of $250k+ (including equity for public companies), but those will be the ones that everyone is going for already. Your best bet to get in-house in TX would be to lateral to one of the top TX firms and do that until you find the gig.

[Anonymous User]

Recently moved in-house from biglaw (was at firm for 3 years) - TX.
Energy
Base: $175,000
Bonus (target): $50k
RSU (4 year vesting schedule): $50k

No 401K match and medical/benefits cost is same as it was at firm.
Hours: 8:30-6:00 (sometimes earlier rarely later)
Sometimes work at night to catch up, have not had to work over the weekend yet. Been a good move so far, like all the people I work with.

Not mine, but saw this elsewhere.

Went in-house in TX (not in energy); left from V50 located in Texas w/in last 2 years; did corporate/transactional work.

Base: $155K (annual raise of $5K-10K)
Bonus (target): 25% of base, with cumulative individual and company performance modifiers (e.g., I got 25% of base + another ~$30K last year)
RSUs/Options (3-year vesting schedule): 25-30% of base
401K match: up to 6% of base (~$9K+ tax free)

Medical/benefits: cost is cheaper than at firm, but probably little lower quality options and some coinsurance up to deductible, so maybe a wash.

Hours: 9:30/10 - 5:30/6:00, with some work/emails at night (not every night, but respond to important ones from GC/AGC or executives). Only weekend work has been transaction-related, but generally no weekend work. Upside of being transactional lawyer is that I can leverage outside counsel to pick up the weekend slack, if needed, and it gets capitalized as transaction cost, so it doesn't even hit Legal's budget.

Been a good move so far - like all the people I work with, work closely with GC and other executives/senior management on daily basis, and have gotten lots of substantive/diverse experience, including project management.

Job skills/experience are fairly portable so I frequently get calls/emails from other in-house recruiters (some in TX, some not). Since I always hear what they have to say, my anecdotal survey of other in-house salaries for comparable positions put my current comp package above median. Some of these positions have been at higher base salaries but then don't offer equity or have lower bonuses/targets.

[oiloiloil]

These responses have been enlightening. I'm somewhat surprised that people are giving salaries so high for someone making the jump so junior.

The line my firm feeds me is that if you go in house before year 5 you're career is doomed so its good to hear that things don't sound so bleak.

[Anonymous User]

3L in Texas (July 2019 Bar so pray for me).

I've accepted a job at a mid-size litigation firm, but I have no real interest in litigation and have always wanted to do corporate transactional work (got no offered at the firm I was a SA at) - so I took the litigation offer to make sure I at least had a job.

Don't have the grades/resume to get a look from any big law or really any mid-size firms on the transactional side.

Just got an offer for an in-house position with a fairly large company (1,500+ employees worldwide) and am extremely excited about it - it's the type of law I'm interested in, in the city I want to be in, etc.

Never seen the "going in-house in first 5 years will doom your career" perspective - so I was curious what the reasoning was behind your firm saying that? Is going in-house right out of the gate instead of a litigation factory really that bad for your career?

[oiloiloil]

My honest opinion of why they say it is because big law (at a place like KE/VE/BB/STB/LW Texas) is a sweatshop and they have to find ways to try and get people to justify staying. I think the official line would be that its about skills building.

What was your starting salary/benefits for taking the job right out of law school if you don't mind my asking?

[Anonymous User]

Recently moved in-house from biglaw (was at firm for 3 years) - TX.
Energy
Base: $175,000
Bonus (target): $50k
RSU (4 year vesting schedule): $50k

No 401K match and medical/benefits cost is same as it was at firm.
Hours: 8:30-6:00 (sometimes earlier rarely later)
Sometimes work at night to catch up, have not had to work over the weekend yet. Been a good move so far, like all the people I work with.

Not mine, but saw this elsewhere.

This is me. I agree that going in-house early doesn't hurt you unless you want to make partner. I think if a Company is looking for an AGC or GC they are going to want someone who has some firm and some in-house experience ideally. I was only at the firm 3 years, I am hoping that after 4-5 years here I will be in a position to move into a GC spot when the opportunity comes. There is so much done in-house that you would never experience at a firm. We also do a good amount of M&A so I don't feel as though I have fallen behind at all. I imagine if I wanted to, it would be extremely easy to go back to a firm.

[Anonymous User]

3L in Texas (July 2019 Bar so pray for me).

I've accepted a job at a mid-size litigation firm, but I have no real interest in litigation and have always wanted to do corporate transactional work (got no offered at the firm I was a SA at) - so I took the litigation offer to make sure I at least had a job.

Don't have the grades/resume to get a look from any big law or really any mid-size firms on the transactional side.

Just got an offer for an in-house position with a fairly large company (1,500+ employees worldwide) and am extremely excited about it - it's the type of law I'm interested in, in the city I want to be in, etc.

Never seen the "going in-house in first 5 years will doom your career" perspective - so I was curious what the reasoning was behind your firm saying that? Is going in-house right out of the gate instead of a litigation factory really that bad for your career?

I would say it's a big "it depends." No, it won't doom your career, but it can be somewhat difficult to climb the latter if you are coming in-house from no experience. I know good competent people who have struggled to get promoted to the level that biglaw folks were initially hired at. However, 3-5 years is enough if you can get in the door- you will get treated as an experienced attorney at that point. I went in-house at year 3 and don't think I suffered from it in the least. My sense is that litigators benefit more from having more firm experience- you don't get to take depositions or go to court (except perhaps as an observer) in-house.

In this situation, if the choice is between doing the type of law you want in the city you want or a fallback job, take the in-house job for sure.

[Anonymous User]

I have always heard the "you cant get an in-house gig with less than 5 years" experience mantra as well. Not that it would doom your career, just that it was impossible to get. I hated firm life, went in house after a little more than a year and maybe 3 months of searching (so I applied with actually less than a year), making 160K salary with really good benefits, and work ~9:30-5:30. My interview was all about how firms often add very little value compared to price they charge, which is why I wanted to leave and go in house, and the interviewer ate it up. Partners at biglaw firms tend to overvalue big law firms (both the services they provide clients and the experience they provide junior associates).

[oiloiloil]

160k base salary + bonus after 1 year of big law experience? Sign me up! The future doesn't look so dark.