In house interview - technical questions? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I have an interview coming up for an in-house position. It's a specialist (rather than generalist) role for an experienced mid-level lawyer. I've made it to the fourth and final round and so far, the interview questions have been quite conversational and "soft" - things like "tell me about yourself / your background", "why do you want to work here?" etc. Standard stuff.

I am wondering whether, since I'm now in the final round, they'll ask technical legal questions to assess my substantive skills. Specific questions about the law, or how would I draft or negotiate a particular issue / clause for a commercial agreement etc.?

Would anyone have any experience in this? Grateful also for any tips on acing in-house interviews! (This role would be a dream for me)

[nealric]

It's theoretically possible, but I somewhat doubt it. Does the company also have other similar specialists? There may be nobody at the company who is even able to delve into the technical details.

Having interviewed for technical in-house positions (tax), I've found it's usually not necessary. You can get a pretty good feel for someone's technical background by how they talk about the work they've done in their prior roles.

I don't think there's anything particularly special about interviewing for in-house roles compared to law firms or any other legal job. Except for HR (who typically have no idea how to evaluate legal candidates), most of the people interviewing typically have little to no training on how to interview. They are just trying to get to know the candidates and assess how they might fit in with the company. Often times, the final round is 100% fit/personality based.

[namefromplace]

The only reason I would see it making sense for them to save technical questions for the final round as opposed to the first is if there are only a couple people with the required knowledge to evaluate your answers to technical questions and they could only be available to interview candidates who have made it on to the final round. Otherwise I think you should be fine.

[kaiser]

I do L&E and technical or substantive questions rarely came up during my in-house interviews. Though the head L&E lawyer at one company did pose 3 hypothetical scenarios that both tested my knowledge of L&E, and gauged how I would think about and approach the situation as a practical matter. Probably rare but it does happen every now and then.

[Anonymous User]

For in-house work, as compared to firms, there really is no standard protocol with respect to hiring/raises/salaries/etc. It could just be that the person who was supposed to ask you technical questions was sick or out of the office for the first interview, and they are bringing him in this time. It's really not possible to know.

Just to share one anecdote: I worked in-house at a tech startup (software mostly), and not only was the interview process full of tech questions, but they actually made me draft a complete brief and submit it as part of the (latter stages of the) interview process. This really turned me off, and I considered not doing it, but in the end I got a job that paid very well, the hours were outstanding, and the work was interesting. Apparently, for hiring of engineers in the tech/software world, it is entirely normal to give potential hires mock problems and make them spend several hours coding an actual solution. There are even software programs that let interviewees monitor candidates while they code, so that the interviewers can evaluate not just the end product but how they work. Given that the founders were used to this type of hiring, these techniques carried over to hiring in-house attorneys. I would hope this does not become standard, but it just shows that in the in-house/startup world it really can just depend on what the founders like to do.

[nealric]

For in-house work, as compared to firms, there really is no standard protocol with respect to hiring/raises/salaries/etc. It could just be that the person who was supposed to ask you technical questions was sick or out of the office for the first interview, and they are bringing him in this time. It's really not possible to know.

Just to share one anecdote: I worked in-house at a tech startup (software mostly), and not only was the interview process full of tech questions, but they actually made me draft a complete brief and submit it as part of the (latter stages of the) interview process. This really turned me off, and I considered not doing it, but in the end I got a job that paid very well, the hours were outstanding, and the work was interesting. Apparently, for hiring of engineers in the tech/software world, it is entirely normal to give potential hires mock problems and make them spend several hours coding an actual solution. There are even software programs that let interviewees monitor candidates while they code, so that the interviewers can evaluate not just the end product but how they work. Given that the founders were used to this type of hiring, these techniques carried over to hiring in-house attorneys. I would hope this does not become standard, but it just shows that in the in-house/startup world it really can just depend on what the founders like to do.

Interesting that the tech world has applied these practices to law. I've heard of a lot of abuses in the tech world with interview "coding problems" turning out to actually be substantive work the company is trying to do. They've been known to take the candidate work product and take it without hiring the candidate or giving compensation.

May vary based on practice group, but I would struggle to come up with a realistic test of this nature in tax. Seems like you just end up with a contrived exam, which the candidate should already be able to demonstrate through academic course work.

[RMFT12]

It's theoretically possible, but I somewhat doubt it. Does the company also have other similar specialists? There may be nobody at the company who is even able to delve into the technical details.

Having interviewed for technical in-house positions (tax), I've found it's usually not necessary. You can get a pretty good feel for someone's technical background by how they talk about the work they've done in their prior roles.

I don't think there's anything particularly special about interviewing for in-house roles compared to law firms or any other legal job. Except for HR (who typically have no idea how to evaluate legal candidates), most of the people interviewing typically have little to no training on how to interview. They are just trying to get to know the candidates and assess how they might fit in with the company. Often times, the final round is 100% fit/personality based.

This is consistent with my experience at a small in-house company, but I still expect people to be able to talk in detail about specific issues. For tax, for example, I might ask your thoughts on using targeted allocations for a partnership. I don’t really care whether you agree with me, but I want to know that you have thought about it

[Anonymous User]

I have had this happen to me at interviews for big tech companies. Both the "give me the overview of this law" type questions (law relevant to position) and "redline this contract and I'll be back in 20 minutes to discuss" or something similar. In neither case would it be something that they could take and then use for their own purposes (like the coding thing above), but they were actual substantive/technical exercises as opposed to generic "tell me about yourself" type questions that law interviews usually are.

[Anonymous User]

At one in-house interview, the GC had someone walk into his office to mention an urgent issue that had come up that touched upon the area I was interviewing for. The GC said to me, perfect test, pretend you work here, and tell me how you would advise us on that issue (with the other person standing in the room taking notes on my response). Pretty high pressure stuff.

[Anonymous User]

Is it me or are in-house jobs pretty tough to get? I had an offer in the winter that I turned down and since COVID I've had like 6 screeners/first rounds and I've gotten nothing to show for it despite being a senior M&A associate. Maybe my interview skills are lacking, but I've never had this much trouble getting a job before and I've switched firms and had a stint on the business side before firm life. Seems like without privacy/tech transaction experience no one wants to hire you anymore.

[The Lsat Airbender]

Is it me or are in-house jobs pretty tough to get? I had an offer in the winter that I turned down and since COVID I've had like 6 screeners/first rounds and I've gotten nothing to show for it despite being a senior M&A associate. Maybe my interview skills are lacking, but I've never had this much trouble getting a job before and I've switched firms and had a stint on the business side before firm life. Seems like without privacy/tech transaction experience no one wants to hire you anymore.

COVID has certainly made it tough. Law is a cost center at "normal" companies, and companies are trying to cut costs in 2020.

[kaiser]

Is it me or are in-house jobs pretty tough to get? I had an offer in the winter that I turned down and since COVID I've had like 6 screeners/first rounds and I've gotten nothing to show for it despite being a senior M&A associate. Maybe my interview skills are lacking, but I've never had this much trouble getting a job before and I've switched firms and had a stint on the business side before firm life. Seems like without privacy/tech transaction experience no one wants to hire you anymore.

In-house jobs are rarer than firm jobs, more competitive overall, and often willing to draw out the hiring process more than firms. I have a recruiter I worked with who placed me at my old firm, and who advised a bit during my in-house search. She said its entirely common for an in-house search to take 6 months or more, and that some people will take a year before they land a position worth making a move for. She also told me it can be somewhat difficult to land an in house job unless you have some kind of contact or connection within the company. She stressed the importance of networking prior to an in-house search. And finally, the more flexible you are willing to be, the greater than chance of landing something (ex. not limiting yourself to just one city, not setting too high a salary ask, etc.).

I was pretty flexible geographically and with salary, so that led to more interviews overall. I ultimately ended up with 2 in-house offers right around the same time, but it took about 5 months from my application to the final offer. And for the job I ended up taking, I found out there were 200+ applicants. So its definitely competitive and drawn out sometimes. Of course, COVID slowed things down substantially, so I wouldn't assume the delay is because of you. Things will pick up, so just keep applying to any position you see posted.

[Anonymous User]

Is it me or are in-house jobs pretty tough to get? I had an offer in the winter that I turned down and since COVID I've had like 6 screeners/first rounds and I've gotten nothing to show for it despite being a senior M&A associate. Maybe my interview skills are lacking, but I've never had this much trouble getting a job before and I've switched firms and had a stint on the business side before firm life. Seems like without privacy/tech transaction experience no one wants to hire you anymore.

In-house jobs are rarer than firm jobs, more competitive overall, and often willing to draw out the hiring process more than firms. I have a recruiter I worked with who placed me at my old firm, and who advised a bit during my in-house search. She said its entirely common for an in-house search to take 6 months or more, and that some people will take a year before they land a position worth making a move for. She also told me it can be somewhat difficult to land an in house job unless you have some kind of contact or connection within the company. She stressed the importance of networking prior to an in-house search. And finally, the more flexible you are willing to be, the greater than chance of landing something (ex. not limiting yourself to just one city, not setting too high a salary ask, etc.).

I was pretty flexible geographically and with salary, so that led to more interviews overall. I ultimately ended up with 2 in-house offers right around the same time, but it took about 5 months from my application to the final offer. And for the job I ended up taking, I found out there were 200+ applicants. So its definitely competitive and drawn out sometimes. Of course, COVID slowed things down substantially, so I wouldn't assume the delay is because of you. Things will pick up, so just keep applying to any position you see posted.

Thanks for the advice, I think for me its been hard since I've only really applied to 3 in-house positions before COVID and got final rounds at 2 and an offer at 1. Since COVID, I'm batting like 7 for 50 on screeners and then nada on next rounds so far, been pretty discouraging. I guess I should treat it like law school and just spend time everyday brushing up on interview skills.

Definitely keeping the geographic range as wide as possible and I guess just hoping for the best. Can't believe what a rat race all of this is, even 7 years into firm life, its pretty draining. Hopefully the other side is better, but really regretting turning down my offer right now given the state of the economy and the fact I'm so burnt out over firm life.