Top Law Schools

I'm about to be a first year lit associate. I really don't enjoy corporate work as much and don't want to do corporate just for the purpose of trying to get in-house as an exit option. I'm not entirely sure I even will want to get out of BigLaw eventually, but if I did, I think I would want to get in-house (preferably doing a mix of transactional and litigation and not just all transactional, because as I said, I just don't enjoy the transactional work as much). I'm just wondering if it's totally impossible to get in-house as a lit associate? I'm not sure what type of lit I'll go into once I have to specialize. I don't want to pigeonhole myself by doing lit, but I also don't want to switch to corporate just because of exit option reasons... Any advice? Is it really impossible to go in-house as a lit associate?

Yes there are litigation options in house.

There are some in-house litigation options, but they aren't too common. If you want to remain on the lit side, but still want to make yourself marketable for in-house options, choose a specialized litigation area that will make you more in demand.

For example, labor & employment is a lit-based group that would open up many doors for in-house jobs. Something like IP litigation could open doors as well. But if its just general commercial lit, its tough to make an in-house move.

It's not impossible, and you won't be limited only to in-house litigation jobs. In my experience, larger in-house departments sometimes have a "get the best person" approach to hiring instead of "get the one with the most relevant experience."

But it will be more challenging, and you will probably have to start hunting earlier and more strategically to find a good fit.

I was a general litigation associate, and went in-house to work in a niche practice area, to which I only had tangentially relevant exposure. I also had another offer for an in-house role in a totally different area where I had no relevant experience. So it can be done. But you shouldn't expect to be able to make the move on short notice.

Anonymous User wrote:It's not impossible, and you won't be limited only to in-house litigation jobs. In my experience, larger in-house departments sometimes have a "get the best person" approach to hiring instead of "get the one with the most relevant experience."

But it will be more challenging, and you will probably have to start hunting earlier and more strategically to find a good fit.

I was a general litigation associate, and went in-house to work in a niche practice area, to which I only had tangentially relevant exposure. I also had another offer for an in-house role in a totally different area where I had no relevant experience. So it can be done. But you shouldn't expect to be able to make the move on short notice.

I thought lit typically went in-house a little later than corp associates do (my understanding was because you need more experience to be able to make judgement calls when managing litigation); what year did you make a move?

Also, how do the larger in-house departments determine "best person" if it's not most relevant experience? Is it firm prestige, law school grades/pedigree, etc.?

I'm a former Biglaw litigator who went in-house as a fifth year in a secondary market.

Folks here are right that there are options but they tend to be fairly limited. I've also found that litigators once they do go in-house tend to stick around, so positions turn over less often.

And the disparity between lit and non-lit jobs at major companies is remarkable. I'm at a F200 company with quite a large in-house team (about 100 lawyers). There are about a dozen of us who do litigation or litigation-adjacent work - between commercial litigation, L&E, investigations, etc. Though there are some former litigators who came in-house in regulatory and compliance roles, so the total number of biglaw refugees is a bit larger.

L&E, internal investigations, and general regulated-industry work (like healthcare) I've found give the best opportunities to hop in-house. I've found that most of my friends and colleagues who have been able to do it have come in around years 5-7.

Happy to answer any questions if you have them!

Anonymous User wrote:I'm a former Biglaw litigator who went in-house as a fifth year in a secondary market.

Folks here are right that there are options but they tend to be fairly limited. I've also found that litigators once they do go in-house tend to stick around, so positions turn over less often.

And the disparity between lit and non-lit jobs at major companies is remarkable. I'm at a F200 company with quite a large in-house team (about 100 lawyers). There are about a dozen of us who do litigation or litigation-adjacent work - between commercial litigation, L&E, investigations, etc. Though there are some former litigators who came in-house in regulatory and compliance roles, so the total number of biglaw refugees is a bit larger.

L&E, internal investigations, and general regulated-industry work (like healthcare) I've found give the best opportunities to hop in-house. I've found that most of my friends and colleagues who have been able to do it have come in around years 5-7.

Happy to answer any questions if you have them!

From what you have seen of F200 companies, are GCs typically law firm partners who come into the role, previous GCs, or persons promoted from within?

cali7802000 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I'm a former Biglaw litigator who went in-house as a fifth year in a secondary market.

Folks here are right that there are options but they tend to be fairly limited. I've also found that litigators once they do go in-house tend to stick around, so positions turn over less often.

And the disparity between lit and non-lit jobs at major companies is remarkable. I'm at a F200 company with quite a large in-house team (about 100 lawyers). There are about a dozen of us who do litigation or litigation-adjacent work - between commercial litigation, L&E, investigations, etc. Though there are some former litigators who came in-house in regulatory and compliance roles, so the total number of biglaw refugees is a bit larger.

L&E, internal investigations, and general regulated-industry work (like healthcare) I've found give the best opportunities to hop in-house. I've found that most of my friends and colleagues who have been able to do it have come in around years 5-7.

Happy to answer any questions if you have them!

From what you have seen of F200 companies, are GCs typically law firm partners who come into the role, previous GCs, or persons promoted from within?

At my company, our current GC, #2, and #3 lawyers are all former law firm partners. Most of the other senior leaders though are long-time in-house folks who spent time at other companies before becoming VPs here.

Anonymous User wrote:
L&E, internal investigations, and general regulated-industry work (like healthcare) I've found give the best opportunities to hop in-house. I've found that most of my friends and colleagues who have been able to do it have come in around years 5-7.

Former big law L&E litigator here. Completely agree. I'd say almost everyone who doesn't make partner goes in-house (and plenty of partners leave to go in-house too). There are TONS of L&E in-house positions because every company has HR issues, unhappy current and former employees, and arcane L&E laws to comply with that are always changing and can be confusing. I also agree that 5+ years is probably necessary before anyone will look at you seriously. It also seemed like 10 years was the sweet spot - once you hit that, lots of doors seemingly open.

I'm also former biglaw L&E attorney. I had just finished up my 6th year in biglaw when I moved in-house. Had tons of opportunities, in essentially any industry I was interested in going into (though it helps to have some industry experience, whether before law school or from client work in biglaw). As someone mentioned, every company needs L&E counsel, so it opens up many in-house doors. Most opportunities I saw posted were looking for no less than around 5 years experience, so I think that 5 to 6 year mark is the sweet spot where you will be ready to contribute from day 1 in house.

Any uplifting stories from IP/patent litigators (or people who know one that went in-house)? I like my job so far but one can only tolerate putting-out-biggest-fire-atm mode for so long, especially since the fires only ever get bigger and more numerous the more senior you get.

It'd be nice to know what my prospects look like at around 6 years.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:It's not impossible, and you won't be limited only to in-house litigation jobs. In my experience, larger in-house departments sometimes have a "get the best person" approach to hiring instead of "get the one with the most relevant experience."

But it will be more challenging, and you will probably have to start hunting earlier and more strategically to find a good fit.

I was a general litigation associate, and went in-house to work in a niche practice area, to which I only had tangentially relevant exposure. I also had another offer for an in-house role in a totally different area where I had no relevant experience. So it can be done. But you shouldn't expect to be able to make the move on short notice.

I thought lit typically went in-house a little later than corp associates do (my understanding was because you need more experience to be able to make judgement calls when managing litigation); what year did you make a move?

Also, how do the larger in-house departments determine "best person" if it's not most relevant experience? Is it firm prestige, law school grades/pedigree, etc.?

I moved in my sixth year, but my role is not about managing outside litigation counsel.

As for the "best person," I am honestly not entirely clear on it, but it seems to be a combination of the usual pedigree factors that law firms like, plus the caliber of law firm, plus certain kinds of non-law education and experience matter more than to firms. Also, being personable, non-arrogant, and generally seeming like someone who people will like and want to work with is really important. Like, really important.

Anonymous User wrote:As for the "best person," I am honestly not entirely clear on it, but it seems to be a combination of the usual pedigree factors that law firms like, plus the caliber of law firm, plus certain kinds of non-law education and experience matter more than to firms. Also, being personable, non-arrogant, and generally seeming like someone who people will like and want to work with is really important. Like, really important.

Just out of curiosity, how do litigation in-house people view litigation boutiques? I ask because a lot of selective boutiques (above market comp, high stakes work, etc.) are unknown to even biglawyers. Most people know about Susman, Kellogg, and Bartlit Beck, but even Hueston Hennigan, Kaplan Hecker & Fink, Dovel & Luner, MoloLamken, etc. garner a "what's that?" from people in biglaw.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:As for the "best person," I am honestly not entirely clear on it, but it seems to be a combination of the usual pedigree factors that law firms like, plus the caliber of law firm, plus certain kinds of non-law education and experience matter more than to firms. Also, being personable, non-arrogant, and generally seeming like someone who people will like and want to work with is really important. Like, really important.

Just out of curiosity, how do litigation in-house people view litigation boutiques? I ask because a lot of selective boutiques (above market comp, high stakes work, etc.) are unknown to even biglawyers. Most people know about Susman, Kellogg, and Bartlit Beck, but even Hueston Hennigan, Kaplan Hecker & Fink, Dovel & Luner, MoloLamken, etc. garner a "what's that?" from people in biglaw.

F200 in-house person from above.

Our company has a preferred panel of outside counsel firms and tends to hire attorneys from those firms. Maybe 1-2 boutiques are on that list (and they're local, not the "major" ones you list). Here, it's much more likely to be hired if you are an associate at one of our preferred firms, even if you don't do a ton of work for us yourself, than you would be with better credentials from a firm we don't normally work with. I can't say I agree with the approach, but it's true across the entirety of our legal department.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:As for the "best person," I am honestly not entirely clear on it, but it seems to be a combination of the usual pedigree factors that law firms like, plus the caliber of law firm, plus certain kinds of non-law education and experience matter more than to firms. Also, being personable, non-arrogant, and generally seeming like someone who people will like and want to work with is really important. Like, really important.

Just out of curiosity, how do litigation in-house people view litigation boutiques? I ask because a lot of selective boutiques (above market comp, high stakes work, etc.) are unknown to even biglawyers. Most people know about Susman, Kellogg, and Bartlit Beck, but even Hueston Hennigan, Kaplan Hecker & Fink, Dovel & Luner, MoloLamken, etc. garner a "what's that?" from people in biglaw.

F200 in-house person from above.

Our company has a preferred panel of outside counsel firms and tends to hire attorneys from those firms. Maybe 1-2 boutiques are on that list (and they're local, not the "major" ones you list). Here, it's much more likely to be hired if you are an associate at one of our preferred firms, even if you don't do a ton of work for us yourself, than you would be with better credentials from a firm we don't normally work with. I can't say I agree with the approach, but it's true across the entirety of our legal department.

Are these litigation positions even publicly listed/available or simply shopped to this preferred panel first? That is, would candidates with better credentials even have the opportunity to apply?

cali7802000 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:As for the "best person," I am honestly not entirely clear on it, but it seems to be a combination of the usual pedigree factors that law firms like, plus the caliber of law firm, plus certain kinds of non-law education and experience matter more than to firms. Also, being personable, non-arrogant, and generally seeming like someone who people will like and want to work with is really important. Like, really important.

Just out of curiosity, how do litigation in-house people view litigation boutiques? I ask because a lot of selective boutiques (above market comp, high stakes work, etc.) are unknown to even biglawyers. Most people know about Susman, Kellogg, and Bartlit Beck, but even Hueston Hennigan, Kaplan Hecker & Fink, Dovel & Luner, MoloLamken, etc. garner a "what's that?" from people in biglaw.

F200 in-house person from above.

Our company has a preferred panel of outside counsel firms and tends to hire attorneys from those firms. Maybe 1-2 boutiques are on that list (and they're local, not the "major" ones you list). Here, it's much more likely to be hired if you are an associate at one of our preferred firms, even if you don't do a ton of work for us yourself, than you would be with better credentials from a firm we don't normally work with. I can't say I agree with the approach, but it's true across the entirety of our legal department.

Are these litigation positions even publicly listed/available or simply shopped to this preferred panel first? That is, would candidates with better credentials even have the opportunity to apply?

Yes, they are publicly listed, and we've hired candidates from outside the panel before. We also publicly list them so we can interview candidates from other in-house roles. But among our current litigators at my company who came from firms, I can only think of 1 who came from a non-panel firm.

Thank you for the helpful insight. Follow-up, as another commenter asked, do large companies know of the caliber of litigation boutiques: the Susmans, Kellogg, Barlitt Beck, etc?

Anonymous User wrote:Thank you for the helpful insight. Follow-up, as another commenter asked, do large companies know of the caliber of litigation boutiques: the Susmans, Kellogg, Barlitt Beck, etc?

From my experience, no. Business leaders know the 1-2 lead outside counsel they work with and trust, and often can't recall those folks' firm names. Most of the lawyers I work with would have no idea about the main litigation boutiques or how good they are.

To answer the question that might be going unasked - it would be easier to get a job at my company as a litigator coming from a mid-tier firm like Bryan Cave (not a knock - good firm, just an example that law students might not think of when OCI rolls around) than from a firm like Susman.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Thank you for the helpful insight. Follow-up, as another commenter asked, do large companies know of the caliber of litigation boutiques: the Susmans, Kellogg, Barlitt Beck, etc?

From my experience, no. Business leaders know the 1-2 lead outside counsel they work with and trust, and often can't recall those folks' firm names. Most of the lawyers I work with would have no idea about the main litigation boutiques or how good they are.

To answer the question that might be going unasked - it would be easier to get a job at my company as a litigator coming from a mid-tier firm like Bryan Cave (not a knock - good firm, just an example that law students might not think of when OCI rolls around) than from a firm like Susman.

Based on your time as an in-house counsel, would you say this is common or the default among large businesses generally?

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Thank you for the helpful insight. Follow-up, as another commenter asked, do large companies know of the caliber of litigation boutiques: the Susmans, Kellogg, Barlitt Beck, etc?

From my experience, no. Business leaders know the 1-2 lead outside counsel they work with and trust, and often can't recall those folks' firm names. Most of the lawyers I work with would have no idea about the main litigation boutiques or how good they are.

To answer the question that might be going unasked - it would be easier to get a job at my company as a litigator coming from a mid-tier firm like Bryan Cave (not a knock - good firm, just an example that law students might not think of when OCI rolls around) than from a firm like Susman.

Based on your time as an in-house counsel, would you say this is common or the default among large businesses generally?

It could just be my market, so I'd welcome views from others. And keep in mind, I'm not in NY/DC/LA/SF, but my market has multiple boutiques like that are similar to the Susmans/Bartlits/etc.

But yes, from what I've seen about in-house hiring here, this is the default across companies in my market. I think that it's something that goes under-considered for litigators with excellent credentials who may eventually want to go in-house, but I think you're much better served going to a large, well-known firm with a broad transactional practice. Those in charge of hiring you in-house, who are disproportionately non-litigation folks, are just much more likely to be able to identify those firms and their reputations in the market.