How to explain desire to go in-house on interviews? Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 428520
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
How to explain desire to go in-house on interviews?
I'm working at my 3rd law firm (6th year) and I hate them all. Billable hours, the people, the structure, y'all know what I'm talking about. So I'm going on an interview for an in-house position and during my interview prep I am struggling to articulate why I want to go in-house and explain how I think it will be different. Anyone here make the transition and explained it a certain way or have any recommendations?
-
kaiser
- Posts: 3019
- Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 11:34 pm
Re: How to explain desire to go in-house on interviews?
I recently shifted to an in-house role myself after 6+ years in biglaw, so I can share some perspective on this. The fact that you are asking this question sort of suggests that your real driver for making the move is dissatisfaction with biglaw. And in-house employers are going to sense real fast that this is the true reason you are looking to make a move. Thats not to say that dissatisfaction with biglaw is an invalid reason to look to go in house. Its a totally valid reason, and they will understand and even touch upon some of that. But its important to have some fully independent, positive reasons to articulate.
For me, I always preferred counseling over litigation work. I love getting on the phone with clients, talking through issues, and offering proactive solutions. I try to think like a businessperson in doing so, and that helps me form solid advice for clients. And thats what an in-house role largely is (i.e., thinking like a business person and helping the client achieve business success while navigating around legal risks). I also really like the idea of learning everything I can about a particular business or industry. At a firm, you can only learn so much about what each client does since you have so many. Finally, I really like managing projects and seeing projects through to their end. At a firm, you provide legal advice, but its unclear how that advice is utilized and put into effect, if at all. When you are in-house, you take that advice and actively implement it to help improve the business. So you get to take ownership of projects and really see the fruits of your labor.
There are many more reasons why in-house work is great (along with a number of cons), but the above were some of the important things to me. You are smart to be asking about this because it will be one of the most, if not the most, important thing to articulate during your in-house interviews.
For me, I always preferred counseling over litigation work. I love getting on the phone with clients, talking through issues, and offering proactive solutions. I try to think like a businessperson in doing so, and that helps me form solid advice for clients. And thats what an in-house role largely is (i.e., thinking like a business person and helping the client achieve business success while navigating around legal risks). I also really like the idea of learning everything I can about a particular business or industry. At a firm, you can only learn so much about what each client does since you have so many. Finally, I really like managing projects and seeing projects through to their end. At a firm, you provide legal advice, but its unclear how that advice is utilized and put into effect, if at all. When you are in-house, you take that advice and actively implement it to help improve the business. So you get to take ownership of projects and really see the fruits of your labor.
There are many more reasons why in-house work is great (along with a number of cons), but the above were some of the important things to me. You are smart to be asking about this because it will be one of the most, if not the most, important thing to articulate during your in-house interviews.
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 428520
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: How to explain desire to go in-house on interviews?
I'm getting ready to start in an in-house role and agree with everything Kaiser said. Definitely take that advice. However, I have a slightly different take because I was actually very happy where I was when I interviewed. I even said as much during interviews, and I think the interviewers appreciated that, even though I wasn't desperate to leave my gig, I was still enthusiastic about joining their company.
So from my perspective, in addition to just your positive perceptions of what in-house work entails, I think it's a good idea to really nail home things about that specific company that you like. That should lessen the importance of how convincing your justification for going in-house is. For me it was talking points about changes that I anticipate the company will undergo (very public) and being part of that process. How I love the work the company does and am excited to be part of that work. Being knowledgeable about what the company does (and doesn't do). Stuff like that. If you really nail that aspect, then I can't imagine most interviewers will care as much why you want to leave your biglaw job for in-house--they'll just accept that you want to join their company.
I personally like hedging toward that approach because it shows a) enthusiasm for their in-house roles rather than just 'any' in-house role, and b) makes it less likely that you'll blunder if you don't actually know what the day-to-day is like. Nonetheless, I do still think you should have answers prepped like Kaiser suggested; and covering both bases will probably pay off since different interviewers may care more about one than the other.
Good luck!
So from my perspective, in addition to just your positive perceptions of what in-house work entails, I think it's a good idea to really nail home things about that specific company that you like. That should lessen the importance of how convincing your justification for going in-house is. For me it was talking points about changes that I anticipate the company will undergo (very public) and being part of that process. How I love the work the company does and am excited to be part of that work. Being knowledgeable about what the company does (and doesn't do). Stuff like that. If you really nail that aspect, then I can't imagine most interviewers will care as much why you want to leave your biglaw job for in-house--they'll just accept that you want to join their company.
I personally like hedging toward that approach because it shows a) enthusiasm for their in-house roles rather than just 'any' in-house role, and b) makes it less likely that you'll blunder if you don't actually know what the day-to-day is like. Nonetheless, I do still think you should have answers prepped like Kaiser suggested; and covering both bases will probably pay off since different interviewers may care more about one than the other.
Good luck!
