Should I take this in-house opportunity? Forum

[lawyernyc]

I’m a second year corporate associate at an NYC v20. I recently interviewed for, and was offered, an Assistant General Counsel position at a medium-sized health and life insurance company. Salary is 150k plus bonus of approximately 10%. 401k match of 5%. Hours are very stable/predictable 9-5pm.

I’d ultimately like to go in house, but would ideally like to be at a healthcare related company or nonprofit. My main concern is that taking this opportunity will limit future in-house opportunities because I will have fewer years of biglaw experience. This position would be more regulatory compliance (some of which is health care related), along with corporate gov matters, employment etc. It seems like the chance to learn is still there.

I planned to stay at my firm for at least another year. I don’t mind the work and the people are great. I also have, to some extent, an okay work-life balance. But I hate the unpredictability of workflow and don’t really ever feel in control of my schedule.

If anyone had any thoughts, I’d really appreciate hearing them! Thank you!

[Anonymous User]

I’m a second year corporate associate at an NYC v20. I recently interviewed for, and was offered, an Assistant General Counsel position at a medium-sized health and life insurance company. Salary is 150k plus bonus of approximately 10%. 401k match of 5%. Hours are very stable/predictable 9-5pm.

I’d ultimately like to go in house, but would ideally like to be at a healthcare related company or nonprofit. My main concern is that taking this opportunity will limit future in-house opportunities because I will have fewer years of biglaw experience. This position would be more regulatory compliance (some of which is health care related), along with corporate gov matters, employment etc. It seems like the chance to learn is still there.

I planned to stay at my firm for at least another year. I don’t mind the work and the people are great. I also have, to some extent, an okay work-life balance. But I hate the unpredictability of workflow and don’t really ever feel in control of my schedule.

If anyone had any thoughts, I’d really appreciate hearing them! Thank you!

I think the answer is it depends. Is this the "AGC" role (are you going to be the #2 attorney)? I think if the answer is yes, you take this and never look back. You typically need to be more senior for that type of position, the pay is decent, and I would argue your experience will be as good as at the firm. If this is a "compliance attorney" role where you are one of an army of lawyers (or even if you are number 4 or lower) and you will be primarily reviewing contracts, I would not do it. It is hard to move up from these positions and the salary can stagnate (which typically happens in-house).

When I made the move I was a year further in than you and I got the AGC offer from a client and couldn't say no, I also think it would be VERY easy to go back to a firm in the first 2 years if you hated it. That compensation is decent for less than 2 years of experience.

[Anonymous User]

I’d ultimately like to go in house, but would ideally like to be at a healthcare related company or nonprofit. My main concern is that taking this opportunity will limit future in-house opportunities because I will have fewer years of biglaw experience. This position would be more regulatory compliance (some of which is health care related), along with corporate gov matters, employment etc. It seems like the chance to learn is still there.

I'm in-house in Healthcare, though I went there immediately upon graduation.

I don't know how senior this position is - we have a few ranks above Assistant General Counsel. However, from my perspective if we were hiring we'd prefer the practical Healthcare experience over your firm experience unless you're at an established and well recognized healthcare firm like MWE, Epstein, etc.

If you're at a firm like that, the in house patron still wouldn't be a hindrance if you're going to a big insurer.