Mid-career in-house (salaries, responsibilities, etc) Forum

[Anonymous User]

I'm a midlevel (year 5) at an NYC corporate shop and looking at my options. Some of my friends and colleagues have left for start-ups, left law, gone in-house at big law base salary matches (for their current years, but of course progression slows), etc. But the one thing I've noticed is that besides a 4-5 year timeline outlook, it is impossible to see where any of these positions will lead, especially the in-house positions. Any move I make seems to make me locked-in for a bit, so I've been hesitant to jump.

Anyone here have data or experience with what the general market is like for a NYC big law exit into:

(i) a big legal team at a bank, PE shop, public company, etc.;

(ii) a smaller legal team at an earlier stage company or a smaller fund;

(iii) staying until a super senior associate / counsel then moving to a smaller boutique / lifestyle firm; or

(iv) making junior partner and then moving to the ideal in-house exit with great compensation, some business responsibilities, etc.

Maybe it is the demographics of TLS, but I'd be very interested to hear some stories from our Gen X members and where they ended up based on the above situations. Perhaps most importantly, what is your pay? Responsibilities? Hours? Did you max out in terms of progression? How interesting is the role (do you just clock in and out because you want to? any opportunities to expand scope of role?).

[64Fl]

+1 for the post. I'd also like to hear more from our more experienced attorneys.

I'm not sure of the answer, but my general sense based off LinkedIn is that if you are willing to hate life for long enough and have the ability to make NSP and stay for a couple of years, then you have a good chance of lateraling into an Assistant/Associate GC position. Once you get one of those roles, if you hop from company to company it seems very possible to trade up in titles. Otherwise, based off my research, you'll come in as a counsel or senior counsel and have a very high chance of rarely getting promoted and have a hard time trading up in titles as you switch companies. If you can stand firm life, it seems smarter to stay longer and gun for a higher starting role in-house than going in-house early and working your way there.

Just my $0.02 based off LinkedIn browsing.

[Anonymous User]

I did an earlier exit into F500 in-house (as a Biglaw 4th year) and am coming up on 7 years in-house. Went from NYC Biglaw to non-NYC corporate HQ. Overall, it was the right decision for me. Hours are rarely more than 40hrs a week (except for the occasional travel obligation) and it's a much lower pressure environment. I'm in a specialty practice I'd have to leave if I were shooting for AGC/GC, and I'd also note that I don't sit in the legal department or report up through the GC which I think contributes a bit to the more chill environment.

All-in pay hasn't been too far off from biglaw associate levels, but with an emphasis on benefits (401k match + pension), deferred comp, and equity over up-front cash. Pay is also more variable because deferred comp and equity can fluctuate based on company performance and your own performance evaluation from year to year. That said, pay growth is likely to just track inflation (maybe a bit more) unless I want to move out of my specialty (which I have considered but am uncertain at this point).

Responsibilities: I pretty much run the show in my specialty, with quite a bit of autonomy. I get involved in various projects throughout the company, and am involved in all of the significant M&A deals. The work is at least as interesting as it was in biglaw (and quite varied), but there's less long-form drafting, fewer comments to turn, and the pace is slower. There are also a LOT more meetings to attend, as business units often need lawyers to just sit in and observe meetings to make sure there are no issues with what they are planning. However, I can see how someone who craves a fast pace could get bored. A lot of biglaw work is fundamentally pretty boring, but is on such a tight schedule that it keeps you on your toes.

As far as waiting until you are more senior: It can be tough to do. Most companies I'm familiar are looking for people with in-house experience for senior roles. I've talked to partners who have interviewed for many in-house jobs at the senior level, but ultimately lost out to candidates who had in-house experience. None of the GCs/AGCs that have come through since I started at my company were ever biglaw partners. That said, I'm sure different companies will have different hiring perspectives. Note that different companies have different attorney titles. Here, the progression is "Attorney->Senior Attorney -> Counsel -> Senior Counsel ->AGC. These can get muddled by certain special titles, however. If you want to become AGC, you'd probably want to come in as Counsel or Senior counsel, which would be doable as a senior associate.

[thelawyler]

I'm very interested in any answers to this thread as well.

I did an earlier exit into F500 in-house (as a Biglaw 4th year) and am coming up on 7 years in-house. Went from NYC Biglaw to non-NYC corporate HQ. Overall, it was the right decision for me. Hours are rarely more than 40hrs a week (except for the occasional travel obligation) and it's a much lower pressure environment. I'm in a specialty practice I'd have to leave if I were shooting for AGC/GC, and I'd also note that I don't sit in the legal department or report up through the GC which I think contributes a bit to the more chill environment.

All-in pay hasn't been too far off from biglaw associate levels, but with an emphasis on benefits (401k match + pension), deferred comp, and equity over up-front cash. Pay is also more variable because deferred comp and equity can fluctuate based on company performance and your own performance evaluation from year to year. That said, pay growth is likely to just track inflation (maybe a bit more) unless I want to move out of my specialty (which I have considered but am uncertain at this point).

Responsibilities: I pretty much run the show in my specialty, with quite a bit of autonomy. I get involved in various projects throughout the company, and am involved in all of the significant M&A deals. The work is at least as interesting as it was in biglaw (and quite varied), but there's less long-form drafting, fewer comments to turn, and the pace is slower. There are also a LOT more meetings to attend, as business units often need lawyers to just sit in and observe meetings to make sure there are no issues with what they are planning. However, I can see how someone who craves a fast pace could get bored. A lot of biglaw work is fundamentally pretty boring, but is on such a tight schedule that it keeps you on your toes.

As far as waiting until you are more senior: It can be tough to do. Most companies I'm familiar are looking for people with in-house experience for senior roles. I've talked to partners who have interviewed for many in-house jobs at the senior level, but ultimately lost out to candidates who had in-house experience. None of the GCs/AGCs that have come through since I started at my company were ever biglaw partners. That said, I'm sure different companies will have different hiring perspectives. Note that different companies have different attorney titles. Here, the progression is "Attorney->Senior Attorney -> Counsel -> Senior Counsel ->AGC. These can get muddled by certain special titles, however. If you want to become AGC, you'd probably want to come in as Counsel or Senior counsel, which would be doable as a senior associate.

Thanks for this. From your experience, you note that your salary is unlikely to shift much due to the specialization, but how about in the general roles? Like how much does a Senior Attorney make vs a Counsel vs a Senior Counsel and the AGC? And any friends / colleagues who do try to move on up, what are their general feelings about it? Difficult and you have to gun for it, or do people just happen to merely be at the right place at the right time?

And by "not too far off from big law associate" in terms of salary do you mean when you left (aka as a 4th year associate), or did it keep pace with there say a 6th-8th year might be.

I'm trying to weigh versus an opportunity that is boring, lucrative, but very narrow (and would be an exit out of the law).

[Anonymous User]

I'm very interested in any answers to this thread as well.

I did an earlier exit into F500 in-house (as a Biglaw 4th year) and am coming up on 7 years in-house. Went from NYC Biglaw to non-NYC corporate HQ. Overall, it was the right decision for me. Hours are rarely more than 40hrs a week (except for the occasional travel obligation) and it's a much lower pressure environment. I'm in a specialty practice I'd have to leave if I were shooting for AGC/GC, and I'd also note that I don't sit in the legal department or report up through the GC which I think contributes a bit to the more chill environment.

All-in pay hasn't been too far off from biglaw associate levels, but with an emphasis on benefits (401k match + pension), deferred comp, and equity over up-front cash. Pay is also more variable because deferred comp and equity can fluctuate based on company performance and your own performance evaluation from year to year. That said, pay growth is likely to just track inflation (maybe a bit more) unless I want to move out of my specialty (which I have considered but am uncertain at this point).

Responsibilities: I pretty much run the show in my specialty, with quite a bit of autonomy. I get involved in various projects throughout the company, and am involved in all of the significant M&A deals. The work is at least as interesting as it was in biglaw (and quite varied), but there's less long-form drafting, fewer comments to turn, and the pace is slower. There are also a LOT more meetings to attend, as business units often need lawyers to just sit in and observe meetings to make sure there are no issues with what they are planning. However, I can see how someone who craves a fast pace could get bored. A lot of biglaw work is fundamentally pretty boring, but is on such a tight schedule that it keeps you on your toes.

As far as waiting until you are more senior: It can be tough to do. Most companies I'm familiar are looking for people with in-house experience for senior roles. I've talked to partners who have interviewed for many in-house jobs at the senior level, but ultimately lost out to candidates who had in-house experience. None of the GCs/AGCs that have come through since I started at my company were ever biglaw partners. That said, I'm sure different companies will have different hiring perspectives. Note that different companies have different attorney titles. Here, the progression is "Attorney->Senior Attorney -> Counsel -> Senior Counsel ->AGC. These can get muddled by certain special titles, however. If you want to become AGC, you'd probably want to come in as Counsel or Senior counsel, which would be doable as a senior associate.

Thanks for this. From your experience, you note that your salary is unlikely to shift much due to the specialization, but how about in the general roles? Like how much does a Senior Attorney make vs a Counsel vs a Senior Counsel and the AGC? And any friends / colleagues who do try to move on up, what are their general feelings about it? Difficult and you have to gun for it, or do people just happen to merely be at the right place at the right time?

And by "not too far off from big law associate" in terms of salary do you mean when you left (aka as a 4th year associate), or did it keep pace with there say a 6th-8th year might be.

I'm trying to weigh versus an opportunity that is boring, lucrative, but very narrow (and would be an exit out of the law).

(Anon from above)

Each step is a pay grade up. Our system is sort of like the government GS scale, which is 1-15, plus an executive scale for 16+. "Attorney is 11-12" while "Senior Counsel" is 15, AGC is 16+, and GC is on the super special C-suite package. Your salary doesn't go up all that much with each step, but the deferred comp percentage goes up a decent bit. For reference, the GC's base pay is only 2x or so what a rank and file lawyer makes, but their total package is more than 10x most years. I'd say median-ish "Attorney" would be around Biglaw 1st year comp all in, while Median-ish Senior Counsel would be close to around biglaw 7th-8th. It's not too hard to get step increases from 12-13, 13-14 (usually just requires some amount of tenure and generally good performance), but 15 is a bit more difficult, and getting the AGC+ nod requires being in the right place at the right time. I don't know what AGCs make exactly because they are in the donut hole between the published salary scale (covers 1-15) and the proxy (covers top paid officers of the company including the GC). Also keep in mind that the title names can be fluid- some companies give almost everyone an AGC title, and the number of AGCs has fluctuated even within my company (though it's still reserved for direct reports to the GC).

There was someone in my company who had a role similar to mine (same department) who ended up AGC (took about 10 years as far as I recall), and ended up lateraling to a smaller company as GC. They weren't as ensconced as a specialty person, and I think made the generalist switch relatively earlier. There are also a few who went from law to the business side.

I think the biggest question when transferring out of a legal specialty (or law altogether) is your trust in the company and your future marketability. If you are at a place where people tend to stay their entire careers, leaving law is probably not a huge risk. If you are at a place where there is more turnover, you run the risk of not getting enough experience in your new role to be marketable for similar non-law jobs at other places, but having left law makes it look like you aren't committed to the profession to other legal employers.

[RedGiant]

Recommend you check out the Lawyer Whisperer blog (Julie Brush from Solutus). She knows her stuff and goes through a lot of this.

How fast you progress depends on the size of legal dept you go to, how much of a rockstar you are, the size of the Co you join. I'm in the Bay Area, and I left biglaw early (but had a really strong pre-law finance/paralegal skillset). I was staffed as a midlevel on deals/clients before I left. I took a very slight paycut but my options have been worth much more. In a weird way, law firms are very heirarchical, and you have to "stay down low" until you're very senior, or a partner. At a company, all of a sudden I was senior, had a seat at the table, and people truly gave a $hit about my opinion--that was rarely happening at a law firm, even one that was pretty enlightened and good to its associates. Moreover, my skillset has grown way faster than when I was in biglaw--negotiations, working with C-suite closely, privacy, employment, IP portfolio management, legal ops, law department management, scaling a late stage startup (ops/People matters) and lots of commercial work. I would not have been able to get this type of exposure at a law firm. I was already all set on how to do deals and "base" legal knowledge.

My colleagues are very smart. I am challenged every day. I work nearly as much as I did in biglaw. I can take vacations and truly unplug. I don't work many weekends. It's better. I don't care if I took a small paycut...it's much better.

Go in-house somewhere that there's a robust in-house ecosystem--don't move to podunk where there's only one or two choices to lateral or you will be stuck waiting for the person above you to die to get promoted.

[thelawyler]

Recommend you check out the Lawyer Whisperer blog (Julie Brush from Solutus). She knows her stuff and goes through a lot of this.

How fast you progress depends on the size of legal dept you go to, how much of a rockstar you are, the size of the Co you join. I'm in the Bay Area, and I left biglaw early (but had a really strong pre-law finance/paralegal skillset). I was staffed as a midlevel on deals/clients before I left. I took a very slight paycut but my options have been worth much more. In a weird way, law firms are very heirarchical, and you have to "stay down low" until you're very senior, or a partner. At a company, all of a sudden I was senior, had a seat at the table, and people truly gave a $hit about my opinion--that was really happening at a law firm, even one that was pretty enlightened and good to its associates. Moreover, my skillset has grown way faster than when I was in biglaw--negotiations, working with C-suite closely, privacy, employment, IP portfolio management legal ops, law department management, scaling a late stage startup (ops/People matters) and lots of commercial work. I would not have been able to get this type of exposure at a law firm. I was already all set on how to do deals and "base" legal knowledge.

My colleagues are very smart. I am challenged every day. I work nearly as much as I did in biglaw. I can take vacations and truly unplug. I don't work many weekends. It's better. I don't care if I took a small paycut...it's much better.

Go in-house somewhere that there's a robust in-house ecosystem--don't move to podunk where there's only one or two choices to lateral or you will be stuck waiting for the person above you to die to get promoted.

Sounds like you are at a mid sized to large tech company?

And +1 on Lawyer Whisperer blog.

[RedGiant]

No--the previous company I was at grew from 130 to 275 employees in the 15 months I was there. Legal Dept of 1, although I got a paralegal about 9 months in. Company was D-E round/pre-IPO (aren't they all?!?). That's why I learned so much and had a seat at the table. I was the only legal resource. Our rev run rate was $1BN.

New company is ~250 employees, D round, about to do E. We have a CLO, and it's nice to have the CLO sit at the table and only bubble up reasonable requests (instead of having to say, nope, sorry, managing risk here--that is a risk but it's not a key risk and we're resource-constrained, so I cannot assist.) Our rev run rate is considerably less than $1BN.

I'd consider each of these mid to late-stage startups, but we're not big...not relative to many other Bay Area startups which are much larger and more mature.