to big law folk: what is the goal if not partner Forum

[Anonymous User]

New anon. Just to chime here with a data point, last year I interviewed (as a 3rd year) for a corporate associate position at a private green energy company on the west coast and during the interview was told they attempt to match salary and provide a small sweetener of 5-10% of that salary (did not end up getting the job though as they went with a more experienced candidate).

[ghostoftraynor]

Goals:
2. Go in house or take a non-legal job with a strict 9-5 schedule and low pressure. Make less money but that's fine given #1.

I have no intention of gunning for partner; my plan has always been 3 years and out, and even that seems challenging at times. But I stay in biglaw for two reasons: #1, no other job on the planet would pay me close to as much,

I don’t know where this trope got started, but it’s patently false. As an anecdote, of all the associates who have left my particular group to go in-house over the past five or so years (a healthy number), all but one have had their salary matched or improved upon by their next employer. The pessimism on this board is honestly pathetic. Have some self-confidence.

OK. As another anecdote, I went in house and I now make less money. And it's the same situation for everyone taking the same path that I know in my secondary market. But feel free to aim for the stars, anon.

Yeah, I'm always highly skeptical of anonymous individuals claiming sky high in house salaries. During the interview process, I've personally discussed salary specifics with a number of companies in different industries, and have talked closely with friends who have gone in house as well. Outside of the occasional unicorn job at Renaissance or Google or wherever, no one is meeting their biglaw comp when they leave, let alone substantially increasing it. And the reputable public evidence available (e.g., the Robert Half salary guide) confirms that.

I’m the anon from above and honestly couldn’t care less what you believe. Ironically, another colleague in my group gave notice TODAY that they are taking an in-house job and informed me separately they it was for an increase in pay. But by all means, continue thinking that all these people are unicorns and that your post-Big Law value is sub-six figures. Makes no difference to me.

I don't think anyone here is saying post-Big Law people make sub-six figures. I also don't think it's controversial that most people take a paycut, often a big one, when they leave big law. If people in your group tend to lateral to in-house positions with better hours and higher pay, great, but its pretty silly to pretend that's normal.

[jagpaw]

It would be great to hear what sort of practice areas offer these types of in-house rules (even just the broader industry if you don't want to reveal the specific practice group).

My understanding is that energy and healthcare positions typically offer competitive in-house salaries with reasonable hours. From the tone of this thread (and the board generally) is the consensus pretty much that there are no legal jobs that offer (i) interesting/fulfilling/rewarding work, (ii) a 9-6 schedule (or at minimum <50 predictable hours), and (iii) $200k-$300k+ salaries?

[BU/UH/SMU filthyaf]

I read threads like these and it makes it incredibly apparent how many people on this site who purport to do so actually don’t work in biglaw. Any person who gets “ambient anxiety” because of a clients’ opinion on a comma doesn’t work in big law. No client in a serious market notices a comma. Why? Clients don’t look for commas, they look for commercial issues (these are the things that actually matter). That’s not how it works (they don’t care about commas, they have significantly better things to do, and if they care they are the resident moron in their legal department).

You also do not get pay raises (99 percent of the time) for going in-house. Otherwise, the vast majority of people would just go in-house.

There are tons of other options if you don’t want to be a partner at a law firm, there is just a significant chance you won’t make as much. That is the truth, anyone else telling you otherwise doesn’t do this for a living. You either work the hours or don’t get paid as much. Pretty simple.

[elbg]

I read threads like these and it makes it incredibly apparent how many people on this site who purport to do so actually don’t work in biglaw. Any person who gets “ambient anxiety” because of a clients’ opinion on a comma doesn’t work in big law. No client in a serious market notices a comma. Why? Clients don’t look for commas, they look for commercial issues (these are the things that actually matter). That’s not how it works (they don’t care about commas, they have significantly better things to do, and if they care they are the resident moron in their legal department).

ya there definitely aren't clients out there who demand perfection for the money they're paying and are happy to raise a stink over minor typos. definitely aren't any partners who care either.

[Anonymous User]

I read threads like these and it makes it incredibly apparent how many people on this site who purport to do so actually don’t work in biglaw. Any person who gets “ambient anxiety” because of a clients’ opinion on a comma doesn’t work in big law. No client in a serious market notices a comma. Why? Clients don’t look for commas, they look for commercial issues (these are the things that actually matter). That’s not how it works (they don’t care about commas, they have significantly better things to do, and if they care they are the resident moron in their legal department).

You also do not get pay raises (99 percent of the time) for going in-house. Otherwise, the vast majority of people would just go in-house.

There are tons of other options if you don’t want to be a partner at a law firm, there is just a significant chance you won’t make as much. That is the truth, anyone else telling you otherwise doesn’t do this for a living. You either work the hours or don’t get paid as much. Pretty simple.

I’m the original anon, and I work at a V5. I don’t say that to brag (as I’m anon), but rather to put my comment in context. Maybe if you work in regional big law or something a pay match/increase isn’t really in the cards. That’s fine. But to suggest that as an industry standard you can’t get a pay raise, and to then invent a statistic, is just stupid.

Also, you can project your insecurities all you want, but your bolded comment doesn’t make sense. Why would non-big law workers come on here to spread disinformation regarding in-house jobs as a general matter? Do you think we work as lobbyists for some non-existent in-house promotion firm?

Also, your logic (underlined) regarding people staying in big law holds no water (although, in the end, most corporate lawyers probably do end up in house). People stay in big law for many reasons, not least of which is that it makes them more marketable. For someone at a top firm, that goal could be partnership at another firm or a GC role at a new or small company. You don’t get handed pay increases in year 1 simply because you don’t know anything in year 1. The reason people put up with big law other than the money is that it increases your marketability and skills and makes you an attractive candidate for good in-house roles.

You’d know that if you worked in big law.

[ghostoftraynor]

This is a weird troll.

[shock259]

I’m the anon from above and honestly couldn’t care less what you believe. Ironically, another colleague in my group gave notice TODAY that they are taking an in-house job and informed me separately they it was for an increase in pay. But by all means, continue thinking that all these people are unicorns and that your post-Big Law value is sub-six figures. Makes no difference to me.

Have you considered that some people may be willing to fudge what they tell you about their new salary to look more important and have their colleagues be jealous of their opportunity? It's not like anyone has actual insight into what this person will be making.

Just to be clear, I'm not disputing that some people do get pay raises for going in house. But I think it's a little disingenuous to say that's the norm and that people just have to try harder, or whatever you were trying to say from your initial post. From what I have seen, people getting raises are mostly folks going into super specialist roles or going into companies where you're going to be expected to work close to biglaw hours (PE, funds). Also, no one's saying that former biglaw people should be settling for less than 6 figures. That's insanely low.

I just checked the the Robert Half legal guide for 2019. Here's the salary data for an average in house counsel with 4-9 years experience in the US: 25th percentile is $77,250, 50th percentile is $110,000, 75th percentile is $135,500, and 95th percentile is $193,000. This presumably includes people of all backgrounds, including non-biglaw backgrounds, so I'm sure it skews low. But it's a data point nonetheless. Based on what I've seen, for a midlevel, all in of about $175k in a secondary market and about $200-225k on the coasts is average.

[Anonymous User]

My goal is to do this for about 5-10 years, then go into the government and then get some type of appointed gig. Don't know if it will happen, but Big Law had to happen first for me to have a chance later on.

[Anonymous User]

I work in a v10 in NYC and I've never known anyone to take a pay *raise* to go in-house.

[miskellyjohnson]

If 'everyone' that left your law firm gets paid more in-house, then your firm salaries must be ridiculously low. Unless its a situation like, they went to an oil company, and got a huge bonus this last year because oil prices are high right now-- but then when oil prices drop, they will make much less. Or you are counting some one time signing bonus or relocation bonus in there to say they got "paid more", or something.

[birdy01]

The goal is to make "of counsel" or last as long as they will have you while stocking up cash and/or paying off debt.

What's the deal with making "of counsel"? People seem to think of it as both positive and negative, but it seems like a pretty sweet deal to me.

[LBJ's Hair]

I read threads like these and it makes it incredibly apparent how many people on this site who purport to do so actually don’t work in biglaw. Any person who gets “ambient anxiety” because of a clients’ opinion on a comma doesn’t work in big law. No client in a serious market notices a comma. Why? Clients don’t look for commas, they look for commercial issues (these are the things that actually matter). That’s not how it works (they don’t care about commas, they have significantly better things to do, and if they care they are the resident moron in their legal department).

You also do not get pay raises (99 percent of the time) for going in-house. Otherwise, the vast majority of people would just go in-house.

There are tons of other options if you don’t want to be a partner at a law firm, there is just a significant chance you won’t make as much. That is the truth, anyone else telling you otherwise doesn’t do this for a living. You either work the hours or don’t get paid as much. Pretty simple.

I’m the original anon, and I work at a V5. I don’t say that to brag (as I’m anon), but rather to put my comment in context. Maybe if you work in regional big law or something a pay match/increase isn’t really in the cards. That’s fine. But to suggest that as an industry standard you can’t get a pay raise, and to then invent a statistic, is just stupid.

Also, you can project your insecurities all you want, but your bolded comment doesn’t make sense. Why would non-big law workers come on here to spread disinformation regarding in-house jobs as a general matter? Do you think we work as lobbyists for some non-existent in-house promotion firm?

Also, your logic (underlined) regarding people staying in big law holds no water (although, in the end, most corporate lawyers probably do end up in house). People stay in big law for many reasons, not least of which is that it makes them more marketable. For someone at a top firm, that goal could be partnership at another firm or a GC role at a new or small company. You don’t get handed pay increases in year 1 simply because you don’t know anything in year 1. The reason people put up with big law other than the money is that it increases your marketability and skills and makes you an attractive candidate for good in-house roles.

You’d know that if you worked in big law.

I mean, I think it's worth noting that the stuff people are posting is all stuff they've heard from other people lmao, not salaries they themselves have been offered/make

Like, many (not all, but many) people just...lie about their reasons for leaving their firm, their comp, etc. "I got a pay raise to go in-house" sounds a lot better than "I was told I should consider leaving the firm and this was the best option I found after interviewing for 3 months."

I'm sure some people get a pay raise at IDK, a Google or something, but as a first principle, you're probably not going to get paid *more money* to work *fewer hours* at a corporation that (correctly) views legal as a cost center and budgets accordingly.

[QContinuum]

The goal is to make "of counsel" or last as long as they will have you while stocking up cash and/or paying off debt.

What's the deal with making "of counsel"? People seem to think of it as both positive and negative, but it seems like a pretty sweet deal to me.

Well, firstly there's the prestige factor. There are those who view counsels as "failed" would-be partners. That way of thinking is, of course, wrong. Some counsels never even made a run at partner - not everyone wants the business development stress or the requisite political jockeying. Also, it's increasingly common for BigLaw firms to first make associates counsels before then (possibly) promoting them to partner some years later - the partnership track has been getting longer and longer for some years now. Finally, even if a particular counsel did make a run at partner, and failed, that's not objectively any "worse" than the person next door who made a run at partner, failed, and then left for a different gig.

(When I refer to "partner" above, I mean "equity partner." Some firms have non-equity partners that are really equivalent to senior associates or counsels at other firms.)

The second factor is more firm-dependent. At some firms, counsel positions are kind of rickety in terms of long-term stability, and it may be difficult to lateral to a counsel position at a different firm should that become necessary or desirable. But I don't see that as a negative either; counsels are in no different of a position than senior associates. They can still lateral out of BigLaw, which is what the vast majority of BigLawyers do anyway.

[Anonymous User]

I read threads like these and it makes it incredibly apparent how many people on this site who purport to do so actually don’t work in biglaw. Any person who gets “ambient anxiety” because of a clients’ opinion on a comma doesn’t work in big law. No client in a serious market notices a comma. Why? Clients don’t look for commas, they look for commercial issues (these are the things that actually matter). That’s not how it works (they don’t care about commas, they have significantly better things to do, and if they care they are the resident moron in their legal department).

You also do not get pay raises (99 percent of the time) for going in-house. Otherwise, the vast majority of people would just go in-house.

There are tons of other options if you don’t want to be a partner at a law firm, there is just a significant chance you won’t make as much. That is the truth, anyone else telling you otherwise doesn’t do this for a living. You either work the hours or don’t get paid as much. Pretty simple.

I’m the original anon, and I work at a V5. I don’t say that to brag (as I’m anon), but rather to put my comment in context. Maybe if you work in regional big law or something a pay match/increase isn’t really in the cards. That’s fine. But to suggest that as an industry standard you can’t get a pay raise, and to then invent a statistic, is just stupid.

Also, you can project your insecurities all you want, but your bolded comment doesn’t make sense. Why would non-big law workers come on here to spread disinformation regarding in-house jobs as a general matter? Do you think we work as lobbyists for some non-existent in-house promotion firm?

Also, your logic (underlined) regarding people staying in big law holds no water (although, in the end, most corporate lawyers probably do end up in house). People stay in big law for many reasons, not least of which is that it makes them more marketable. For someone at a top firm, that goal could be partnership at another firm or a GC role at a new or small company. You don’t get handed pay increases in year 1 simply because you don’t know anything in year 1. The reason people put up with big law other than the money is that it increases your marketability and skills and makes you an attractive candidate for good in-house roles.

You’d know that if you worked in big law.

I mean, I think it's worth noting that the stuff people are posting is all stuff they've heard from other people lmao, not salaries they themselves have been offered/make

Like, many (not all, but many) people just...lie about their reasons for leaving their firm, their comp, etc. "I got a pay raise to go in-house" sounds a lot better than "I was told I should consider leaving the firm and this was the best option I found after interviewing for 3 months."

I'm sure some people get a pay raise at IDK, a Google or something, but as a first principle, you're probably not going to get paid *more money* to work *fewer hours* at a corporation that (correctly) views legal as a cost center and budgets accordingly.

I’m the original anon above. Feel free to believe that these people (whom you don’t know) are lying, despite the fact that I’m quite close to 2 of them. Again, doesn’t bother me.

For context, I do work in a group that isn’t one of the huge corporate practices of m&a, capital markets and banking. And I’m not suggesting that I get headhunters beating down the door everyday with huge in-house salaries above the big law scale. But, assuming you have developed knowledge and skills over your big law career that make you a valuable in-house addition, there is no reason that a salary match/improvement needs to be some unattainable goal.

[Anonymous User]

NYC biglaw associate checking in. LOL at the poster who thinks people are regularly getting pay raises to go in house. Why tf would anyone stay in biglaw if that were true!?

The only way I could see this as true is if some companies are experimenting with building out a more robust legal group to keep more work in-house. In which case the lawyers will be working biglaw hours. We are paid a premium for being available 24/7 and putting in a lot of hours generally. Take away those things and you get less money. It really is that simple.

That said, and to answer OP's question, I am banking as much as I can while still living comfortably. Like pretty much everyone else. Would love to go in-house some day and work regular hours. And yeah, 250k with regular hours in a smaller market is the dream for most of the associates I know. But 250k for an in-house job is not the norm. Somewhere in the mid 100s is more likely.

[JohnnieSockran]

I’m the original anon above. Feel free to believe that these people (whom you don’t know) are lying, despite the fact that I’m quite close to 2 of them. Again, doesn’t bother me.

For context, I do work in a group that isn’t one of the huge corporate practices of m&a, capital markets and banking. And I’m not suggesting that I get headhunters beating down the door everyday with huge in-house salaries above the big law scale. But, assuming you have developed knowledge and skills over your big law career that make you a valuable in-house addition, there is no reason that a salary match/improvement needs to be some unattainable goal.

I mean, but it is, by and large. Your friends are dope, good for them, and it sounds like maybe it's some niche practice. But, all of the evidence (not anecdotes) suggests that by and large people take a paycut to go in-house in order to have better quality of life. Some pay cuts are large, some pay cuts are small, and a few people may get an increase, but those people are unicorns.

By the way, even close friends sometimes lie about very personal things. Mind. Blown.

[JohnnieSockran]

Also to answer OP's question: I still like/don't hate biglaw, so I will decide in a few years I suppose whether I want to be a partner, and whether it is realistic/attainable (right now I do, but I am probably too junior to know for sure).

That said, I'm pretty confident that if a major golf company (Titleist, Taylormade, Callaway, etc.) ever had an in-house opening, I'd take a sizeable paycut if one of the perks was golf outings and free/discounted equipment. And generally having co-workers that love talking golf...

If I ever get fired, I'll probably try to work at a course while I figure out life and maybe just try to become an assistant pro at a nice club in an area where I can play year-round.

[Anonymous User]

NYC biglaw associate checking in. LOL at the poster who thinks people are regularly getting pay raises to go in house. Why tf would anyone stay in biglaw if that were true!?

The only way I could see this as true is if some companies are experimenting with building out a more robust legal group to keep more work in-house. In which case the lawyers will be working biglaw hours. We are paid a premium for being available 24/7 and putting in a lot of hours generally. Take away those things and you get less money. It really is that simple.

That said, and to answer OP's question, I am banking as much as I can while still living comfortably. Like pretty much everyone else. Would love to go in-house some day and work regular hours. And yeah, 250k with regular hours in a smaller market is the dream for most of the associates I know. But 250k for an in-house job is not the norm. Somewhere in the mid 100s is more likely.

I went in-house during my third year. Salary is only $165 but all in (with bonus and stock that vests over 4 years and 401K match, etc.) I am at $275k. I work in the energy industry and I know 5-6 other people from my firm in house that make either very slightly less or very slightly more (and one guy who makes insane money - more than he would be in biglaw). It is not THAT rare. The salary may be low but you can make up for it on the non-cash comp side.

[Anonymous User]

I read threads like these and it makes it incredibly apparent how many people on this site who purport to do so actually don’t work in biglaw. Any person who gets “ambient anxiety” because of a clients’ opinion on a comma doesn’t work in big law. No client in a serious market notices a comma. Why? Clients don’t look for commas, they look for commercial issues (these are the things that actually matter). That’s not how it works (they don’t care about commas, they have significantly better things to do, and if they care they are the resident moron in their legal department).

You also do not get pay raises (99 percent of the time) for going in-house. Otherwise, the vast majority of people would just go in-house.

There are tons of other options if you don’t want to be a partner at a law firm, there is just a significant chance you won’t make as much. That is the truth, anyone else telling you otherwise doesn’t do this for a living. You either work the hours or don’t get paid as much. Pretty simple.

Ambient anxiety anon here and gosh I wish that were true. Some Type A folks, incredibly, have managed to make it into legal departments at companies, even companies in serious markets. And while I was using that example to show how some clients excruciating attention to detail can be over the top and is a source of stress for me, in a regulatory practice, a lot can hinge on whether a statute has a comma or not. And when they rely on something we wrote for compliance purposes, and then a regulator months later disagrees, I get a call out of the blue from the client asking why we did what we did seven months ago. So, back the purpose of this thread, I'd like to go in-house so I am not the one who answers, but I am the one who knocks (calls).

Agree with the rest though: no one I've known has gotten a pay bump, although the stock packages might help the disparity long term, depending, I guess. I've also heard cases where the hours were nearly as bad, just more predictable.

[Anonymous User]

Honestly, I think it depends more on when you leave. If you're leaving when you're a junior (i.e., years 1 through 3), I think it's definitely possible to get a salary match or raise. I don't think it's common, but it's possible. From year 4 on, the odds of getting a match/raise drastically go down. For senior associates, I think it would almost be impossible. I made $421,500 and $435,000 the last two years I was a senior associate. I don't think any in-house gig is going to get close to that.

[Anonymous User]

NYC biglaw associate checking in. LOL at the poster who thinks people are regularly getting pay raises to go in house. Why tf would anyone stay in biglaw if that were true!?

Anon from before. Basic logic should answer this question for you. You’re overpaid as a junior associate in big law because the only thing you bring to the table is 24/7 availability. As you move up the seniority ranks you—gasp—expand your knowledge base, hone your legal skills, and, with an ounce of effort, become an employee that external companies see as adding value. If you don’t recognize that, perhaps all you’re bringing to the table is the availability.

I’m the original anon above. Feel free to believe that these people (whom you don’t know) are lying, despite the fact that I’m quite close to 2 of them. Again, doesn’t bother me.

For context, I do work in a group that isn’t one of the huge corporate practices of m&a, capital markets and banking. And I’m not suggesting that I get headhunters beating down the door everyday with huge in-house salaries above the big law scale. But, assuming you have developed knowledge and skills over your big law career that make you a valuable in-house addition, there is no reason that a salary match/improvement needs to be some unattainable goal.

I mean, but it is, by and large. Your friends are dope, good for them, and it sounds like maybe it's some niche practice. But, all of the evidence (not anecdotes) suggests that by and large people take a paycut to go in-house in order to have better quality of life. Some pay cuts are large, some pay cuts are small, and a few people may get an increase, but those people are unicorns.

By the way, even close friends sometimes lie about very personal things. Mind. Blown.

Except they aren’t.

NYC biglaw associate checking in. LOL at the poster who thinks people are regularly getting pay raises to go in house. Why tf would anyone stay in biglaw if that were true!?

The only way I could see this as true is if some companies are experimenting with building out a more robust legal group to keep more work in-house. In which case the lawyers will be working biglaw hours. We are paid a premium for being available 24/7 and putting in a lot of hours generally. Take away those things and you get less money. It really is that simple.

That said, and to answer OP's question, I am banking as much as I can while still living comfortably. Like pretty much everyone else. Would love to go in-house some day and work regular hours. And yeah, 250k with regular hours in a smaller market is the dream for most of the associates I know. But 250k for an in-house job is not the norm. Somewhere in the mid 100s is more likely.

I went in-house during my third year. Salary is only $165 but all in (with bonus and stock that vests over 4 years and 401K match, etc.) I am at $275k. I work in the energy industry and I know 5-6 other people from my firm in house that make either very slightly less or very slightly more (and one guy who makes insane money - more than he would be in biglaw). It is not THAT rare. The salary may be low but you can make up for it on the non-cash comp side.

You must be a unicorn because all of the junior associates in this thread are assuring all readers that this is basically impossible.

Honestly, I think it depends more on when you leave. If you're leaving when you're a junior (i.e., years 1 through 3), I think it's definitely possible to get a salary match or raise. I don't think it's common, but it's possible. From year 4 on, the odds of getting a match/raise drastically go down. For senior associates, I think it would almost be impossible. I made $421,500 and $435,000 the last two years I was a senior associate. I don't think any in-house gig is going to get close to that.

I might tend to agree with this, though I think the actual range extends beyond third year. Certainly if you leave as a seventh year associate, it’s probably far less likely. I think 3-5 or so is the sweet spot, as your salary isn’t totally outrageous and you ostensibly bring some skills/knowledge to the table.

[JohnnieSockran]

I went in-house during my third year. Salary is only $165 but all in (with bonus and stock that vests over 4 years and 401K match, etc.) I am at $275k. I work in the energy industry and I know 5-6 other people from my firm in house that make either very slightly less or very slightly more (and one guy who makes insane money - more than he would be in biglaw). It is not THAT rare. The salary may be low but you can make up for it on the non-cash comp side.

You must be a unicorn because all of the junior associates in this thread are assuring all readers that this is basically impossible.

People have said from the beginning that industries like oil/energy, and places like Google, are in fact, unicorns.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a fourth-year lit associate in DC. I'm having a bad day at work and this thread is so relevant. I don't see myself putting in the sort of 110% effort-every-day-for-years and putting up with the amount of stress and loss of family/friends/meaningful-life time required to actually make equity partner. But idk what good options I really have.

1) I could go to DOJ, where I might take a paycut down to $100k (slowly growing thereafter), still work 50+ish hours a week (better, but they don't seem to be really 9-5 unless they are totally soulless and checked out), and deal with a lot of government HR bureaucracy and bullshit. (I have some experience with this and it really grated on me). Overall, maybe the best shot I have (I did a CoA clerkship; might be competitive), but not something I dream over.

2) I could go to another firm, but that might just replicate the same grind of the current firm.

3) I could try for in-house, but I'm not sure if litigation people really do this, at least in this city.

4) I could go nonprofit, at high risk of being poor and being around a bunch of sanctimonious nonprofit people, who are either married rich and still sanctimonious (the worst), or who are also poor.

Feeling kinda bleh about it.

[Anonymous User]

Just wanted to add this color to the debate on pay raises- I work in-house and my experience is that while we give a good increase or match to join the firm, you are almost never going to get the steady raises you would see in BigLaw. This leads to salary stagnation. E.g. our GC makes 40% under market but a recent new hire got a raise to come here from BigLaw.