Pros of firm life vs. in-house? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I am a 6th year corporate associate who is actually generally satisfied with my job around 60% of the time (the other 40% is a mix of discomfort and occasional month-long spells of utter misery). I’m in good standing, have good relationships with partners, etc. Now I am considering an opportunity to go in-house with an organization I really like, but which comes with a significant pay cut. I am leaning toward taking the job but I have concerns about a “devil you know” situation. Am I going to end up missing my mostly okay biglaw job?


I know there’s no way to be sure but I’m wondering if anyone has had an experience where they actually wanted to go back to law firm corporate work. I think what I currently enjoy most is my autonomy (I.e., nobody cares where I am or what I do as long as I get my work done; not a ton of time spent in meetings). Unclear how true these things will be at the new gig. I would appreciate hearing about anyone’s experiences with the upsides of biglaw that are missed after moving on. Or just flame for not hating senior associate M&A work.

[parkslope]

The autonomy is the single best thing about biglaw, so I understand your trepidation.

[emc91]

I'm curious about which firm gives you that much autonomy. WFH has been great for me because my firm is very "9-6 in the office."

[Anonymous User]

I'm curious about which firm gives you that much autonomy. WFH has been great for me because my firm is very "9-6 in the office."

Most if not all corporate biglaw work can be done remotely so its really just a matter of building a reputation where no one is going to give you shit for working through deals as you see fit.

[Hakki]

Stability is one reason to go in-house. Are you out of a job in 2-3 years if you don't make partner, or is there a very reliable counsel-track role at your firm?

I get not hating the big law job, but is it sustainable long-term?

[johndhi]

The level of autonomy you have in-house really depends on your manager and team. Generally it's better; for me, I've had tons of autonomy, I'd argue more, in-house. But it depends. As far as having meetings -- you're going to have more meetings in-house. But the great improvements, for me, come from no billable hours and pressure to work a certain amount of hours per day/month/year. And I prefer working on lower stakes matters; if everything is "bet-the-company" it gets stressful at the firm. Re money, make sure you look around and see your offer is market; if it's not look for another one.

[Anonymous User]

I went in-house a year ago after about 6 years in big firm practice. Here are some of the pros/cons in my mind:

Pros:
--No need to bill time
--No need to develop business (since its not up and out mentality at higher level)
--Often better work-life balance (though this varies greatly; don't assume it will inherently be better)
--You get to see the fruits of your labor as you actually work to implement solutions, as opposed to just sending legal advice memos into the ether and never knowing what happens afterward
--Extremely collaborative, project-oriented work
--You get to become an expert in your particular industry
--You get face time at the very highest level of the company and have a say on crucial business decisions

Cons:
--You may miss some of the intellectual rigor of litigation, as most of that is handled by outside counsel
--Can be very high-pressure because there is zero buffer between you and the client, whereas in a firm, a partner will often play a buffer role, plus the client can't literally walk into your office suddenly
--Legal departments are a cost center, so you are no longer a revenue generator that is central to the organization. Some in-house lawyers complain that legal isn't given sufficient funding, or is seen by the revenue generators as an impediment
--It is very tough to get back to biglaw if you decide that your in-house move was a mistake