Substituting a year at Amazon/FB for last year in Big Law? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Probably a somewhat niche question but figure I might as well ask. I'm a junior at a NYC V20 doing IP transactions and general M&A. Like many, I've always intended big law to be a 4 year stint to pay down my loans and get enough experience to land a decent in-house job, preferably somewhere a tech-focused (I'm not picky between an IP or general corporate role once in-house). Having heard that going from one in-house position to another is substantially easier than going from big law to in-house, is there any downside to dipping out of big law a year earlier than expected to spend that time in an in-house position at Amazon/Facebook/etc? They hire pretty regularly from our 3rd year class and comp is relatively on par with NYC market from what I've heard. I also know that they're not the most pleasant places to work and the hours and culture will likely be on par with big law - but I figure if I'm going to dealing with that in big law anyway, I might as well be gaining experience in an in-house position that I can more readily use as a springboard to a cushier gig.

Am I way off base here? Is a year at one of these places equivalent to a year in big law for the purposes of landing a more ideal in-house position somewhere else?

[Sackboy]

A 3rd vs 4th year biglaw associate is going to be a pretty marginal difference. In both cases, you're a junior biglaw attorneys, one is just slightly less junior. I'd go 3yrs big law + 1yr Amazon, personally. That way you differentiate yourselves from other junior biglaw attorneys that are all marginally different and from a slew of different but similar biglaw firms. Even a year in-house gives you the ability to say that (1) you like the work environment and (2) you understand the business/in-house side of things. I think it's a solid differentiating credential to have.

[Anonymous User]

Dip a year early for FB/Amazon/another tech company.

My SO currently works for one of the big tech companies and is looking to switch companies. He is getting a lot of interviews, even in this economy, and has made it to the final round at a big tech company.

On the other hand, I know people whose only experience is working in the IP group at a V20 who are struggling to even get a screener at one of the big tech companies. Obviously, this is anecdotal, but it makes me think that the large tech companies vastly prefer someone with experience at a peer company over someone who has only worked in biglaw. If your goal is to work and tech and you can land FB/Amazon/Google/etc., then I would take the tech company over biglaw any day.

[RedGiant]

If you feel ready to go in-house, go for it.

However, specifically wrt Amazon, note that their incentive comp is heavily back-end loaded. So if you do your first year there and anticipate leaving for another in-house gig, you'll get less than 1/4 of your shares vested after that first year. They try to incentivize you to stay.

Your background (mix of corporate and IP) will be compelling to many tech companies. And I can cosign the advice that many tech companies prefer someone with firm + in-house experience to more firm experience, but it depends on which level you you come in at--if you're a counsel, likely no preference. If you're a Senior Counsel/AGC, many places want quite a bit of firm + quite a bit of in-house or a lot of in-house. If you can't stand firm life, I can see why you might want to leave now. The salary differential between counsel and Sr/AGC can be significant (sometimes, all-in, nearly 100% more).

Last, while you may picture most tech jobs as cushier than biglaw (and certainly cushier than the EMERGENCY-ALL-THE-TIME nature of M&A), a lot of companies still require long hours and a lot less support staff to get things done. IME, often that means fewer weekends/plans cancelled, but I still work pretty long/late--there is a surprising amount to do when you're in-house--more than you can imagine looking in from biglaw. This will depend a lot on the size of the legal department, stage of the company and your role in the org though. I do think that most tech companies are not as rough as Amazon though. I have a number of friends who have worked there in Legal and it's pretty harsh. And they worked in rough groups in biglaw too. You're right to have that as a specific consideration.

[YourCaptain]

Dip a year early for FB/Amazon/another tech company.

My SO currently works for one of the big tech companies and is looking to switch companies. He is getting a lot of interviews, even in this economy, and has made it to the final round at a big tech company.

On the other hand, I know people whose only experience is working in the IP group at a V20 who are struggling to even get a screener at one of the big tech companies. Obviously, this is anecdotal, but it makes me think that the large tech companies vastly prefer someone with experience at a peer company over someone who has only worked in biglaw. If your goal is to work and tech and you can land FB/Amazon/Google/etc., then I would take the tech company over biglaw any day.

Purely anecdotal but recruiters have been emailing me pretty much 5x a day for tech inhouse positions. I don’t ever look at the position because I don’t want to go in-house but the vibe I’m getting (including from their cold calls) is that they have a bunch of seats to fill.