Dumb/lazy colleagues in-house Forum

[Anonymous User]

Wondering if one of the seriously underrated downsides of going in-house is having to work with (on average) dumber/more incompetent/lazier colleagues. This thought occurred to me (a corporate midlevel) as I am working with a tax person at a pubco who's literally dumber than a doornail and cannot be reasoned with (by which I mean, really really struggles to keep track of the different entities in a simple tax restructuring).

I see a lot of corporate colleagues land in-house gigs only to return to a firm after 1-2 years. Always wondered why (surely they wouldn't go back if it was a chill 9-to-5). Aside from redundancies, I think interpersonal issues must be main reason, and working with people of TTTT intelligence/work ethic must be irritating when you are used to working with mostly top-notch people at firms.

[nixy]

Have you worked with more than one in-house person? If so, are they actually all stupid? Where do you think the top notch people at firms go when they don't make partner? Where do companies hire in-house counsel from?

[dabigchina]

Yes, people care less, but they're generally not stupid. That's the whole point of going in house. If you want to be the best lawyer known to man, stay at a law firm. If you want to be somewhere where it's ok to get occasionally mixed up and leave at 5, go in house.

edit: I should also add, the shit that biglawyers do day-to-day is typically stuff that gets done once a year at most in house. In the case of a restructuring, it's something that gets done maybe once every 3-5 years at most. Something that looks like a simple restructuring to you is going to be something fairly novel to someone in house.

[Wild Card]

Just curious, aren't these in-house positions extremely coveted and selective? And aren't these in-house counsel at-will employees, just as biglaw associates are? If so, then how is it that these people can be so incompetent yet stay employed?

[spyke123]

Just curious, aren't these in-house positions extremely coveted and selective? And aren't these in-house counsel at-will employees, just as biglaw associates are? If so, then how is it that these people can be so incompetent yet stay employed?

First, we don't even know if this in house person is really "incompetent". As you noted and most are aware, a lot of these in house positions go to ex-biglaw mid-level associates and im assuming these folks generally arent "incompetent". If even we assume that this in house person is "incompetent", there are always lags and frictions in the labor market. It simply isnt efficient, whether in biglaw or corp america. Even in biglaw, it could take a year or so before someone gets pushed out. We have "how to coast in biglaw" threads here for a reason. I am not sure why you think corp america is any better, if anything with more bureaucracy, it takes longer to fire someone.

[LaLiLuLeLo]

It’s not really been my experience that they are dumb. Rather, it’s a combination of things:

1. Their background doesn’t neatly fit their current role. I’ve worked with corporate counsel who were former IP litigators. They were clueless about basic corporate things, but I don’t blame them and they learn. I’d be equally clueless about litigation matters.

2. They have other duties and other things going on. While the transaction might be the center of my world, it’s not the center of theirs. They have day to day duties and other projects.

3. They simply aren’t to work as much. You don’t go in house to slave away. I’ve no doubt in my mind they aren’t reading all the emails and not really tracking what’s going on. They need to be spoon fed.

[1styearlateral]

Yes, people care less, but they're generally not stupid. That's the whole point of going in house. If you want to be the best lawyer known to man, stay at a law firm. If you want to be somewhere where it's ok to get occasionally mixed up and leave at 5, go in house.

edit: I should also add, the shit that biglawyers do day-to-day is typically stuff that gets done once a year at most in house. In the case of a restructuring, it's something that gets done maybe once every 3-5 years at most. Something that looks like a simple restructuring to you is going to be something fairly novel to someone in house.

Lol, wut.

[The Lsat Airbender]

dabigchina's right. You've got to play major-league ball to set the records. Clarence Darrow, Thurgood Marshall, Martin Lipton all made their names in traditional private practice.

[whats an updog]

i would much rather be a functional-fuck-up in house than a perfect big law associate

[QContinuum]

Yes, people care less, but they're generally not stupid. That's the whole point of going in house. If you want to be the best lawyer known to man, stay at a law firm. If you want to be somewhere where it's ok to get occasionally mixed up and leave at 5, go in house.

edit: I should also add, the shit that biglawyers do day-to-day is typically stuff that gets done once a year at most in house. In the case of a restructuring, it's something that gets done maybe once every 3-5 years at most. Something that looks like a simple restructuring to you is going to be something fairly novel to someone in house.

Lol, wut.

And what about if one wants to be the best lawyer known to woman??

[veers]

I disagree. Often the people who go in house are the associates who know they have no real shot at making partner and are looking for an exit strategy. The real top tier associates either stay in the firm to make partner and get a big payday$$$, move to the business side (in many different ways) or hold out for a grandslam level in house gig (few and far between, tbh, and they often go to biglaw partners rather than associates).

The actual line level in house lawyers tend to be overwhelmingly mediocre and clearly not biglaw partner caliber. In addition, the in house environment lends itself to becoming a generalist and not developing highly technical specialized legal skills, which ultimately makes you a worse attorney with less earning potential.

So no, consider me completely unsurprised that day to day interactions with in house counsel left you saying "wtf, did this dude actually practice in biglaw? No way!".

It’s not really been my experience that they are dumb. Rather, it’s a combination of things:

1. Their background doesn’t neatly fit their current role. I’ve worked with corporate counsel who were former IP litigators. They were clueless about basic corporate things, but I don’t blame them and they learn. I’d be equally clueless about litigation matters.

2. They have other duties and other things going on. While the transaction might be the center of my world, it’s not the center of theirs. They have day to day duties and other projects.

3. They simply aren’t to work as much. You don’t go in house to slave away. I’ve no doubt in my mind they aren’t reading all the emails and not really tracking what’s going on. They need to be spoon fed.

[nixy]

Being “biglaw partner caliber” only matters if you’re actually a biglaw partner. It’s not actually an objective rating of being the best lawyer out there. In many contexts, being a generalist actually makes you a better lawyer, if that’s what your job calls on you to do.

Also, lots of people who don’t have a “shot” at making partner are excellent attorneys. Making partner is contingent on way more than individual skill.

[TigerIsBack]

Yes, people care less, but they're generally not stupid. That's the whole point of going in house. If you want to be the best lawyer known to man, stay at a law firm. If you want to be somewhere where it's ok to get occasionally mixed up and leave at 5, go in house.

edit: I should also add, the shit that biglawyers do day-to-day is typically stuff that gets done once a year at most in house. In the case of a restructuring, it's something that gets done maybe once every 3-5 years at most. Something that looks like a simple restructuring to you is going to be something fairly novel to someone in house.

Lol, wut.

And what about if one wants to be the best lawyer known to woman??

Pretty sure Berkeley removed all references to man in their municipal code or something. So manhole covers are just hole covers I guess? Something to that effect.

To answer your question, become the best lawyer in Berkeley.

[ajax]

I disagree. Often the people who go in house are the associates who know they have no real shot at making partner and are looking for an exit strategy. The real top tier associates either stay in the firm to make partner and get a big payday$$$, move to the business side (in many different ways) or hold out for a grandslam level in house gig (few and far between, tbh, and they often go to biglaw partners rather than associates).

The actual line level in house lawyers tend to be overwhelmingly mediocre and clearly not biglaw partner caliber. In addition, the in house environment lends itself to becoming a generalist and not developing highly technical specialized legal skills, which ultimately makes you a worse attorney with less earning potential.

So no, consider me completely unsurprised that day to day interactions with in house counsel left you saying "wtf, did this dude actually practice in biglaw? No way!".

It’s not really been my experience that they are dumb. Rather, it’s a combination of things:

1. Their background doesn’t neatly fit their current role. I’ve worked with corporate counsel who were former IP litigators. They were clueless about basic corporate things, but I don’t blame them and they learn. I’d be equally clueless about litigation matters.

2. They have other duties and other things going on. While the transaction might be the center of my world, it’s not the center of theirs. They have day to day duties and other projects.

3. They simply aren’t to work as much. You don’t go in house to slave away. I’ve no doubt in my mind they aren’t reading all the emails and not really tracking what’s going on. They need to be spoon fed.

I disagree. At my former firms, V10 and V20, I saw many of the best associates leave because of adverse selection--they got absolutely crushed because they did good work. One of the main reasons I departed as well. Granted there were some A+ associates that were able to handle that amount of work year in and year out who made partner, but there were also barely competent associates that made partner who were very good at networking both internally and externally.

[Anonymous User]

I disagree. Often the people who go in house are the associates who know they have no real shot at making partner and are looking for an exit strategy. The real top tier associates either stay in the firm to make partner and get a big payday$$$, move to the business side (in many different ways) or hold out for a grandslam level in house gig (few and far between, tbh, and they often go to biglaw partners rather than associates).

The actual line level in house lawyers tend to be overwhelmingly mediocre and clearly not biglaw partner caliber. In addition, the in house environment lends itself to becoming a generalist and not developing highly technical specialized legal skills, which ultimately makes you a worse attorney with less earning potential.

So no, consider me completely unsurprised that day to day interactions with in house counsel left you saying "wtf, did this dude actually practice in biglaw? No way!".

It’s not really been my experience that they are dumb. Rather, it’s a combination of things:

1. Their background doesn’t neatly fit their current role. I’ve worked with corporate counsel who were former IP litigators. They were clueless about basic corporate things, but I don’t blame them and they learn. I’d be equally clueless about litigation matters.

2. They have other duties and other things going on. While the transaction might be the center of my world, it’s not the center of theirs. They have day to day duties and other projects.

3. They simply aren’t to work as much. You don’t go in house to slave away. I’ve no doubt in my mind they aren’t reading all the emails and not really tracking what’s going on. They need to be spoon fed.

I disagree. At my former firms, V10 and V20, I saw many of the best associates leave because of adverse selection--they got absolutely crushed because they did good work. One of the main reasons I departed as well. Granted there were some A+ associates that were able to handle that amount of work year in and year out who made partner, but there were also barely competent associates that made partner who were very good at networking both internally and externally.

This was my experience as well, most of the "brightest" leave for in-house. Most attorneys who made partner at my firm (top M&A in non-NYC market) were not that intelligent. They grind hard, know how to utilize good associates on their teams and networked their ass off. Firms understand that being the "smartest" in the room doesn't make the best partner. There is a certain level of competency that is needed, but once that threshold is passed, it doesn't make much difference. I can only speak for corporate (M&A and Securities), but the work is not that difficult. Sure, some deals are complex and some of those PE deal LPAs are a bear, but I don't think its about intelligence, I think its about understanding deal process and getting your reps in.

In the end I went in-house because of lifestyle and opportunity. If you want to grind forever, a firm is a fantastic place to be. I debated staying and if you had asked me days before my offer, I would have said I was in it for the long haul (very few left in my class, was told Partner was a real possibility). But then an opportunity came to make similar money while being able to have dinner with my family every night. Not seeing your child before they are asleep for 4 days a week is tougher on some people than others (or seeing them for an hour while working).

Also, I think OP means the NON-LAWYERS in a company. Having to work with the other people at the company who are not lawyers. My legal team is full of very intelligent and great (former biglaw) associates. I think he is talking about having to deal with a bunch of business guys who may not be at the same level, and yes that is a downside of in-house.

[2013]

Some people on here seem to think that associates are getting the most coveted in-house gigs and that those who leave earlier are subpar or “incompetent.” Those gigs are reserved for partner-level attorneys who decide they no longer want to work at a firm. Many of the “coveted” in-house job people I interact with regularly were partners at AmLaw/Vault firms before transitioning over.

[Anonymous User]

These aren’t your colleagues if they are in-house, they are your employer, no matter how “incompetent” they might be.

As someone who works in-house, now on the business side, I see the difference and allowance in quality, nevertheless in-house pays biglaw bills.

[1styearlateral]

In my experience, there are incompetent and lazy attorneys no matter where you look. It’s inevitable, but I don’t think it’s necessarily specific to law. I deal with incompetent/lazy people in other verticals all the time (internally and externally).

[veers]

I don't really agree with this. Wachtell is unlikely to have many incompetent/lazy people running around, nor is DE Shaw. Random ID firm in middle of nowhere land is likely to have tons of incompetent/lazy people running around. Higher caliber employers are going to be more selective in who they hire, and generally performance will be commensurately higher.

Similarly on the in house side - an investment bank or insurance company looking to pay in house counsel as little as possible is likely to hire far more lazy/incompetent people than a tier 1 hedge fund paying 2x market who won't even look at a resume without HYS on it.

In my experience, there are incompetent and lazy attorneys no matter where you look. It’s inevitable, but I don’t think it’s necessarily specific to law. I deal with incompetent/lazy people in other verticals all the time (internally and externally).

[RedGiant]

I disagree. At my former firms, V10 and V20, I saw many of the best associates leave because of adverse selection--they got absolutely crushed because they did good work. One of the main reasons I departed as well. Granted there were some A+ associates that were able to handle that amount of work year in and year out who made partner, but there were also barely competent associates that made partner who were very good at networking both internally and externally.

^^^So much this.

I work in-house in tech in SF. My colleages are very smart, and most of them are not lawyers. I learn all sorts of interesting things (data analytics, how to manage a server team, how to level comp, etc.) from my colleagues every day!

One difference, depending on where you go in-house--most of Corporate America doesn't have the "let me get right back to you ASAP" mentality that biglaw has. So, depending on which colleagues you're dealing with, you may not get an answer to a query for a day or two, which is jarring if you're used to "the 20 minute rule" of biglaw.

If you're in-house in a small legal team, at a growing company, I promise you your day is as busy and varied and challenging as biglaw. Maybe even moreso.

I spent a lot of years chasing dat Preftige because I too thought that in-house would be way worse. It's isn't! I have (some of) my nights and (nearly all of) my weekends back! I make as much as I made before PLUS stock options! I get to send emails to outside counsel and make them do things FOR ME! Honestly, it's the bees knees.

[nealric]

I don't really agree with this. Wachtell is unlikely to have many incompetent/lazy people running around, nor is DE Shaw. Random ID firm in middle of nowhere land is likely to have tons of incompetent/lazy people running around. Higher caliber employers are going to be more selective in who they hire, and generally performance will be commensurately higher.

Similarly on the in house side - an investment bank or insurance company looking to pay in house counsel as little as possible is likely to hire far more lazy/incompetent people than a tier 1 hedge fund paying 2x market who won't even look at a resume without HYS on it.

In my experience, there are incompetent and lazy attorneys no matter where you look. It’s inevitable, but I don’t think it’s necessarily specific to law. I deal with incompetent/lazy people in other verticals all the time (internally and externally).

To add to this: in-house legal departments are even more diverse in biglaw in terms of quality and culture. It would be rare for a top paying high-caliber company to be full of lackluster employees. But there are companies that are walking disasters. The OP mentioned a tax person. I know of a company in a related industry that had to essentially fire their entire tax department because of massive deficiencies that caused them to have to restate their financial statements. There are tax departments that are well-oiled machines (I like to think ours is), but others that are disasters. If you talk to one of the disasters you will get a very negative impression.

It probably is more possible to find lazy/incompetent in-house attorneys just because of the nature of a company as opposed to a firm. You don't bill hours, and it is often difficult to tell how much a given person is actually working. Moreover, there's a lot less oversight in-house. In some cases, there is nobody else at the company that it a subject matter expert like a given attorney. For example, if the company only has one benefits person, there's nobody else who knows enough about benefits to know whether they really know their stuff. At a firm, an incompetent benefits attorney would probably stick out like a sore thumb. In house, they may be able to coast and rely on HR/Outside counsel to do most of their work. Not picking on benefits here, just using it as an example of a specialty that most non-specialists know little about.

There's also the generalist/specialist point. Because my title has "Tax" in the name, I get asked about literally anything with the word "tax" in it by internal clients. That could be something as esoteric as tribal taxation in some random western state. That's stuff that wouldn't go to biglaw outside counsel unless we found a very specific subject matter expert who does it all the time. It can be fun to be in left field, but it also means I don't spend all day working on bread and butter technical issues like I did at a firm. After a decade or more of that, you may not be quite as sharp technically as a biglaw person who gets to stay in their lane.

I disagree with the notion that the best in-house jobs go to partners. None of the top 3-4 people in our law department were ever law firm partners. We have had people leave to go back to firms who later made partner.

[shock259]

I think there is definitely truth to the idea that many people in corporate America (a) aren't all that intelligent and (b) don't want to do more work than necessary. I'd say at least half of the folks I interact with on the business side would fit that description. That said, the legal department at my company is much different. People are very adamant about boundaries, but if you can get their time and attention, they are very competent and intelligent.

That said, it's hard to overstate how many different directions I am pulled in on a regular basis in house. That, combined with a fire drill status on a lot of things, leads to no real ability to develop specialized skills or knowledge useful to a certain legal area. My department is extremely lean, and as such, we need to rely on external counsel a lot. I'm sure a lot of those outside counsels think I'm dumb, but I'm not sure many can appreciate how many different hats I have to wear that are completely outside of the areas of law I was trained in.

Overall, compared to biglaw life, I love my in house setup. I took a paycut but my stress level has plummeted, I work regularly hours, never check email afters 5pm, etc. But the whole thing can be a little humbling. You're no longer the subject matter expert you used to be at a big firm, and you can pretty quickly and easily become dependent on others for basic things. But such is the life of a generalist.

[Anonymous User]

I disagree. At my former firms, V10 and V20, I saw many of the best associates leave because of adverse selection--they got absolutely crushed because they did good work. One of the main reasons I departed as well. Granted there were some A+ associates that were able to handle that amount of work year in and year out who made partner, but there were also barely competent associates that made partner who were very good at networking both internally and externally.

^^^So much this.

I work in-house in tech in SF. My colleages are very smart, and most of them are not lawyers. I learn all sorts of interesting things (data analytics, how to manage a server team, how to level comp, etc.) from my colleagues every day!

One difference, depending on where you go in-house--most of Corporate America doesn't have the "let me get right back to you ASAP" mentality that biglaw has. So, depending on which colleagues you're dealing with, you may not get an answer to a query for a day or two, which is jarring if you're used to "the 20 minute rule" of biglaw.

If you're in-house in a small legal team, at a growing company, I promise you your day is as busy and varied and challenging as biglaw. Maybe even moreso.

I spent a lot of years chasing dat Preftige because I too thought that in-house would be way worse. It's isn't! I have (some of) my nights and (nearly all of) my weekends back! I make as much as I made before PLUS stock options! I get to send emails to outside counsel and make them do things FOR ME! Honestly, it's the bees knees.

Totally agreed. I also work in-house in SF tech, on a relatively small legal team. My legal colleagues are all excellent, whip-smart attorneys, and they're also all former big-law. My non-legal colleagues are also generally smart, hardworking people who teach me a ton every day. Yeah, you're not working in an insane big law bubble with exclusively hyper-smart, high-achieving, type-A control freaks, so people are going to seem "lazy" in comparison. But "lazy" compared to big law standards is really just normal for industry.

Now, are there some in-house lawyers who are lazy idiots? Yes. They tend to be people who went straight in house 20 years ago and rose to some kind of middle/senior management level position in a 100+person legal department simply by doing the bare minimum not to get fired year in and year out. You tend to see this more at your dinosaur F500s. As someone else mentioned above, I do run into in-house lawyers whose role and responsibilities outpace their actual experience and expertise, but I wouldn't characterize these types as dumb or lazy (although that doesn't necessarily make them any less frustrating if you're working across them, lol).

Going in-house was the best decision I ever made. I don't answer emails after 6 PM or on weekends (save a few exceptional scenarios). I make a great salary *plus* equity *plus* far better benefits than I ever had in big law. I only answer to *one* supervisor instead of a half dozen or more - and my supervisor is actually invested in my career and development. Do you have to do your diligence to ensure you land in a spot that's a good fit from a culture and role perspective? Of course - but putting in that minimal amount of front-end work is well worth the benefits of having a job that you actually enjoy.

[wet.ink.sigs]

Chiming in as another SF tech in-house attorney. While I concede that the top attorneys in our legal department may not be of the same caliber as the partners at my old firm, overall attorney quality is higher at my company. Firms are weighed down by their large incoming junior classes, who are hired when it's impossible to determine how proficient they will actually be at the job. A lot of incompetent juniors get to skate by for a while because firms need warm bodies to throw on huge deals. But a company that can afford to be more selective doesn't suffer from this issue.

The nature of in-house counsel/outside counsel relationship is probably also contributing to OP's perspective. I care a lot less what my outside counsel thinks of me, compared to what my in-house colleagues think of me. So I'm more willing to fire off an email to outside counsel with a potentially stupid question (and generally lean on them), but need to put more thought and effort into matters where outside counsel isn't involved.

[shock259]

The nature of in-house counsel/outside counsel relationship is probably also contributing to OP's perspective. I care a lot less what my outside counsel thinks of me, compared to what my in-house colleagues think of me. So I'm more willing to fire off an email to outside counsel with a potentially stupid question (and generally lean on them), but need to put more thought and effort into matters where outside counsel isn't involved.

This is a really good point.