What's it actually like to practice at non-biglaw? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Apologies in advance if I'm in the wrong place for this post.

Right now I'm studying for the February bar exam because I failed the July one. Fortunately, I have an offer from a non-biglaw firm that will pay about $100K, and I just wanted to hear about how life actually is to work in the secondary market. I was so delighted when I first got the offer, but now I'm kinda feeling blue after reading/hearing so many things about how the legal market is shit and going to law school isn't worth it if you aren't paid biglaw salary. Is this true? Should I keep trying to get into biglaw? Are people in smaller firms really unhappy with their work and pay?

I may be just feeling like shit from having to take the bar again and reading depressing things about my future isn't really helping. Thanks.

[nealric]

Apologies in advance if I'm in the wrong place for this post.

Right now I'm studying for the February bar exam because I failed the July one. Fortunately, I have an offer from a non-biglaw firm that will pay about $100K, and I just wanted to hear about how life actually is to work in the secondary market. I was so delighted when I first got the offer, but now I'm kinda feeling blue after reading/hearing so many things about how the legal market is shit and going to law school isn't worth it if you aren't paid biglaw salary. Is this true? Should I keep trying to get into biglaw? Are people in smaller firms really unhappy with their work and pay?

I may be just feeling like shit from having to take the bar again and reading depressing things about my future isn't really helping. Thanks.

"Non-biglaw" can mean anything from SSDI settlement mill, to an elite plaintiff's firm run by folks with 8 figure net worths, to an employee benefits boutique, to a patent prosecution firm, to a solo practitioner in the middle of nowhere. I'm not sure there's many blanket statements that would apply to such diverse practices.

It sounds like you have an offer that will pay reasonably well if you pass the bar. Only you can decide if it was worth it. But the decision has been made, so I'm not sure it makes any sense to obsess over it. Once you pass the bar and start working, focus on doing as well as you can at that job. After a few years, you will in a much better position to decide what you want in a career.

[The Lsat Airbender]

Do you have much student debt? What market?

$100k is "richest guy on the block" money if you have no debt and live in Indianapolis and it's starvation wages if you're living in NYC and trying to service $300k of loans.

[LSATWiz.com]

Speaking from someone in-house in a dual in-house counsel/market research role at a non-fortune 500 company, there are no billable hours so the impression of working is equally important to actually working. Nobody really has any idea what goes into your work or how much time your tasks are supposed to take so depending on the complexity, you can either do 10 minutes of work over 8 hours and get commended for grinding or do 12 straight hours of work and have people complaining you take too long.

Face time is significantly more important, and you often have nobody reviewing or reading your work. Bonuses are also much more subjective and largely pre-determined much like how people generally know how much they'll tip their waiter before sitting down, which can limit your incentive to grind. In addition, because most people, even exceedingly wealthy people are terrible writers, you may be asked to write e-mails or letters that have nothing to do with your practice just to help upper management sound more intelligent. You may find yourself going from considering yourself a mediocre writer to the next Mark Twain simply by virtue of being around intelligent people who write like idiots. Being liked is just as if not more valuable than doing good work, which is good if you like the people above you but bad if you dislike them and you aren't the type to fake respect and friendship.

On the negative end of the spectrum, peak potential can be limited by the fact that you're largely seen as a necessary part of the inner circle but never quite in that circle. Although the Godfather is an imperfect example, you're always going to be the Robert Duvall character but are never going to be the don. In addition, even if you have a good sense of humor, you're not going to be the people others joke around with. In addition, because you're a lawyer, coworkers can be timid around you. Further, people don't like lawyers. While you'll sometimes be able to mold a creative idea to increase revenue into something actionable, 9 times out of 10 you're the voice that poopoos the idea so you're seen as a stickler and/or bearer of bad news. Lastly, because you're a lawyer and laypeople, particularly those in lower positions don't necessarily understand that big law associates don't really practice law, you are frequently approached by people to help them with personal issues like DUI's, trust and estates stuff, even divorce stuff. It's the same crap you get from family members, but now you have a lot more people with families.

On the positive end, you get to know the business model of where you're in-house on a very intimate level. This means that the work you do has a direct on the business, and also means that you're not easy to replace, which means you have much more security. Because you are infinitely more valuable a year in than you were when you started, it's easy to renegotiate a significant raise once you're around a year in, particularly if you're willing to jump ship. In fact, if they are worried about your l/t stability, you may be pushed into a multiyear contract that spells out a high amount of money if you leave but also makes it exceedingly difficult to fire you irrespective of the economy. This is good if you like stability, but bad if you like freedom.

So to sum it up - less stress, 9-5, no weekends, more day-to-day freedom, less actual freedom, guaranteed six-figure salary for years, less peak earning potential and a very clear cap on your 9-5 income, more authority and less authority at the same time.

[nixy]

^ this all sounds great, but I’m confused how it relates to the OP going to work at midlaw/a firm?

[LSATWiz.com]

^ this all sounds great, but I’m confused how it relates to the OP going to work at midlaw/a firm?

Ah I didn't read smaller firm as specifically referring to a smaller law firm. I wouldn't voluntarily leave big law for a $100k midlaw firm offer unless it's 9-5. A difference of 200 hours isn't worth $50k-100k, and I think that cost of living calculators overestimate the expensiveness of certain parts of the countries, particularly for lawyers who are often living almost entirely off of food provided by the firm.

[QContinuum]

On the positive end, you get to know the business model of where you're in-house on a very intimate level. This means that the work you do has a direct on the business, and also means that you're not easy to replace, which means you have much more security. Because you are infinitely more valuable a year in than you were when you started, it's easy to renegotiate a significant raise once you're around a year in, particularly if you're willing to jump ship. In fact, if they are worried about your l/t stability, you may be pushed into a multiyear contract that spells out a high amount of money if you leave but also makes it exceedingly difficult to fire you irrespective of the economy. This is good if you like stability, but bad if you like freedom.

So to sum it up - less stress, 9-5, no weekends, more day-to-day freedom, less actual freedom, guaranteed six-figure salary for years, less peak earning potential and a very clear cap on your 9-5 income, more authority and less authority at the same time.

We're off-topic, as nixy kindly pointed out, but while we're at it I wanted to offer an alternate perspective on the above. At many large companies, job security isn't all that great. In-house legal is viewed as a cost center (even though, in reality, it saves companies wads of money over relying on external BigLaw firms for everything), and when belt-tightening's the order of the day, it's often very tempting to trim down on the legal staff. I'm sure there are companies where job security is great, but there are also many, including well-known names, where job security is frankly pretty awful and you're always living in fear of the next lackluster earnings announcement.

[dabigchina]

On the positive end, you get to know the business model of where you're in-house on a very intimate level. This means that the work you do has a direct on the business, and also means that you're not easy to replace, which means you have much more security. Because you are infinitely more valuable a year in than you were when you started, it's easy to renegotiate a significant raise once you're around a year in, particularly if you're willing to jump ship. In fact, if they are worried about your l/t stability, you may be pushed into a multiyear contract that spells out a high amount of money if you leave but also makes it exceedingly difficult to fire you irrespective of the economy. This is good if you like stability, but bad if you like freedom.

So to sum it up - less stress, 9-5, no weekends, more day-to-day freedom, less actual freedom, guaranteed six-figure salary for years, less peak earning potential and a very clear cap on your 9-5 income, more authority and less authority at the same time.

We're off-topic, as nixy kindly pointed out, but while we're at it I wanted to offer an alternate perspective on the above. At many large companies, job security isn't all that great. In-house legal is viewed as a cost center (even though, in reality, it saves companies wads of money over relying on external BigLaw firms for everything), and when belt-tightening's the order of the day, it's often very tempting to trim down on the legal staff. I'm sure there are companies where job security is great, but there are also many, including well-known names, where job security is frankly pretty awful and you're always living in fear of the next lackluster earnings announcement.

as opposed to the great job security that law firm life provides?

[QContinuum]

as opposed to the great job security that law firm life provides?

Sure, so if you're a 6th or 7th year about to get forced out, then obviously going in-house is a great play, and enhances your job security in that you would otherwise be out of a job in the very near future.

But it's very possible that, say, a third or fourth-year going in-house is actually reducing their job security. Again, depends greatly on which company you're going to and which firm you're leaving.

[trebekismyhero]

as opposed to the great job security that law firm life provides?

Sure, so if you're a 6th or 7th year about to get forced out, then obviously going in-house is a great play, and enhances your job security in that you would otherwise be out of a job in the very near future.

But it's very possible that, say, a third or fourth-year going in-house is actually reducing their job security. Again, depends greatly on which company you're going to and which firm you're leaving.

I think legal being a cost center is a little over blown. It is company dependent, but if you have a good GC that advocates for the department and shows the savings legal brings you aren't viewed only as a cost center and there are plenty of other departments in large companies that would also qualify as cost centers. Also, obviously completely anecdotal and it is a good economy, but I know a couple dozen people that have gone in-house over the last 5 years and no one has been laid off, whereas I know plenty of people that got pushed out of big law.

[Anonymous User]

as opposed to the great job security that law firm life provides?

Sure, so if you're a 6th or 7th year about to get forced out, then obviously going in-house is a great play, and enhances your job security in that you would otherwise be out of a job in the very near future.

But it's very possible that, say, a third or fourth-year going in-house is actually reducing their job security. Again, depends greatly on which company you're going to and which firm you're leaving.

I think legal being a cost center is a little over blown. It is company dependent, but if you have a good GC that advocates for the department and shows the savings legal brings you aren't viewed only as a cost center and there are plenty of other departments in large companies that would also qualify as cost centers. Also, obviously completely anecdotal and it is a good economy, but I know a couple dozen people that have gone in-house over the last 5 years and no one has been laid off, whereas I know plenty of people that got pushed out of big law.

I went in-house during year 4, and I may be missing something, but I think my job security is slightly worse than before. My legal department is 3 lawyers and we are a public company (small-cap), so I think if shit hits the fan I will be fine, but I could see the company cutting down to one lawyer (doubt a public company could eliminate all lawyers) in a worst case scenario. In a firm, I always felt extremely secure, sure maybe I was one of the better associates or naive, but I have NEVER heard of a biglaw attorney from my firm or our competitors (top firm in a major non-NY market) not being able to lateral to another firm. You make it 6-8 years and won't/don't make partner? Seems like everyone had a dozen offers from other firms, many are lifelong "associates" or "counsel" but its still a job making $300k+. I may be wrong, or maybe my market is different than NY, but it seems like as a 8th year passed up or pushed out you could very easily lateral or ask your firm to help you move in-house to be a client.

[trebekismyhero]

as opposed to the great job security that law firm life provides?

Sure, so if you're a 6th or 7th year about to get forced out, then obviously going in-house is a great play, and enhances your job security in that you would otherwise be out of a job in the very near future.

But it's very possible that, say, a third or fourth-year going in-house is actually reducing their job security. Again, depends greatly on which company you're going to and which firm you're leaving.

I think legal being a cost center is a little over blown. It is company dependent, but if you have a good GC that advocates for the department and shows the savings legal brings you aren't viewed only as a cost center and there are plenty of other departments in large companies that would also qualify as cost centers. Also, obviously completely anecdotal and it is a good economy, but I know a couple dozen people that have gone in-house over the last 5 years and no one has been laid off, whereas I know plenty of people that got pushed out of big law.

I went in-house during year 4, and I may be missing something, but I think my job security is slightly worse than before. My legal department is 3 lawyers and we are a public company (small-cap), so I think if shit hits the fan I will be fine, but I could see the company cutting down to one lawyer (doubt a public company could eliminate all lawyers) in a worst case scenario. In a firm, I always felt extremely secure, sure maybe I was one of the better associates or naive, but I have NEVER heard of a biglaw attorney from my firm or our competitors (top firm in a major non-NY market) not being able to lateral to another firm. You make it 6-8 years and won't/don't make partner? Seems like everyone had a dozen offers from other firms, many are lifelong "associates" or "counsel" but its still a job making $300k+. I may be wrong, or maybe my market is different than NY, but it seems like as a 8th year passed up or pushed out you could very easily lateral or ask your firm to help you move in-house to be a client.

I suppose that is true, it is harder to get another gig if you do get laid off at a company vs. a firm. I think being one of three lawyers at a public company is safer in a downturn than being one of a few hundred associates in a downturn. But it is all relative and company/firm specific

[dabigchina]

as opposed to the great job security that law firm life provides?

Sure, so if you're a 6th or 7th year about to get forced out, then obviously going in-house is a great play, and enhances your job security in that you would otherwise be out of a job in the very near future.

But it's very possible that, say, a third or fourth-year going in-house is actually reducing their job security. Again, depends greatly on which company you're going to and which firm you're leaving.

I think legal being a cost center is a little over blown. It is company dependent, but if you have a good GC that advocates for the department and shows the savings legal brings you aren't viewed only as a cost center and there are plenty of other departments in large companies that would also qualify as cost centers. Also, obviously completely anecdotal and it is a good economy, but I know a couple dozen people that have gone in-house over the last 5 years and no one has been laid off, whereas I know plenty of people that got pushed out of big law.

I went in-house during year 4, and I may be missing something, but I think my job security is slightly worse than before. My legal department is 3 lawyers and we are a public company (small-cap), so I think if shit hits the fan I will be fine, but I could see the company cutting down to one lawyer (doubt a public company could eliminate all lawyers) in a worst case scenario. In a firm, I always felt extremely secure, sure maybe I was one of the better associates or naive, but I have NEVER heard of a biglaw attorney from my firm or our competitors (top firm in a major non-NY market) not being able to lateral to another firm. You make it 6-8 years and won't/don't make partner? Seems like everyone had a dozen offers from other firms, many are lifelong "associates" or "counsel" but its still a job making $300k+. I may be wrong, or maybe my market is different than NY, but it seems like as a 8th year passed up or pushed out you could very easily lateral or ask your firm to help you move in-house to be a client.

I would be curious what these 6th year associates' job security would be if they only worked 40 (or even 50) hours a week.

[Anonymous User]

as opposed to the great job security that law firm life provides?

Sure, so if you're a 6th or 7th year about to get forced out, then obviously going in-house is a great play, and enhances your job security in that you would otherwise be out of a job in the very near future.

But it's very possible that, say, a third or fourth-year going in-house is actually reducing their job security. Again, depends greatly on which company you're going to and which firm you're leaving.

It doesn't just depend on the company, but on the in-house role within the company. For example, I am at a company whose revenue depends on high stakes regulatory decisions, and the regulatory in-house team is definitely not seen as mere overhead cost. In fact, it's common for in-house regulatory counsel in my industry to be promoted to major operational business roles.

[QContinuum]

It doesn't just depend on the company, but on the in-house role within the company. For example, I am at a company whose revenue depends on high stakes regulatory decisions, and the regulatory in-house team is definitely not seen as mere overhead cost. In fact, it's common for in-house regulatory counsel in my industry to be promoted to major operational business roles.

Thanks for the input! And yes, very true that job security depends majorly on the specific in-house role at issue. That said, would you mind sharing which industry you're in? I don't think it's easy or common at all as a general practice (across different industries) for legal staff to be promoted to non-legal business roles.

I would be curious what these 6th year associates' job security would be if they only worked 40 (or even 50) hours a week.

Counterpoint, many in-house legal roles - especially the higher-paying ones - are not 9-5, 40-hours-per-week gigs. The best place to find a "true" 9-5/9-6 in the legal world isn't in-house, it's (certain) government gigs.

[1styearlateral]

I went in-house after year 3, but spent my entire career at non-biglaw firms in NYC. Coming from non-biglaw, I had a lot more substantive experience than others my class year (or higher) in biglaw. Lots of client contact (and some of my own clients), and many opportunities to work in various areas of law other than my firm's primary focus. It really helped build a solid foundation to move to a company, where in-house attorneys are always tasked with assisting with EVERYTHING (even non-law problems--sidebar: attorneys at companies, especially smaller ones, are presumed to be the most experienced people at the company, and you will constantly be sought out for advice/assurance/safety blanket, even with things you've never dealt with before). Any given day I'm working on real estate, employment, tax, IP, and compliance issues.

Biglaw definitely sets you up for solid options in the 4-to-6 year range, but I think at non-biglaw you have an opportunity to speed that process up based solely on the ability to obtain strong experience early on (as opposed to prepping sig pages for the first 2 years of practice). That being said, it's all about what you make of it. Lots of smaller firms have biglaw clients, where smaller firms can provide biglaw quality on a much smaller budget.

[burritotaco]

I went in-house after year 3, but spent my entire career at non-biglaw firms in NYC. Coming from non-biglaw, I had a lot more substantive experience than others my class year (or higher) in biglaw. Lots of client contact (and some of my own clients), and many opportunities to work in various areas of law other than my firm's primary focus. It really helped build a solid foundation to move to a company, where in-house attorneys are always tasked with assisting with EVERYTHING (even non-law problems--sidebar: attorneys at companies, especially smaller ones, are presumed to be the most experienced people at the company, and you will constantly be sought out for advice/assurance/safety blanket, even with things you've never dealt with before). Any given day I'm working on real estate, employment, tax, IP, and compliance issues.

Biglaw definitely sets you up for solid options in the 4-to-6 year range, but I think at non-biglaw you have an opportunity to speed that process up based solely on the ability to obtain strong experience early on (as opposed to prepping sig pages for the first 2 years of practice). That being said, it's all about what you make of it. Lots of smaller firms have biglaw clients, where smaller firms can provide biglaw quality on a much smaller budget.

I think there is a lot to be said about the points you make about the experience you get in big law vs smaller firms. I can think of friends in big law who didn’t argue a single motion or take a depo for 5-6 years, and friends in smaller firms who had several trials (and everything leading up to them) in the same time frame.
It really depends on what your goals are and your practice area.