Why Do People Rush to Go In-House and Risk Being Fired Early? Forum

[avenuem]

Colleague from a V5 went in-house. Fired less than a year later. The corporation is immediately advertising the same role.

Remind me again why not ride out the biglaw wave as far as we can? I would rather make $255-280K or so as a mid-level/senior than take a large pay cut only to risk being kicked out earlier. Going in-house seems reasonable only if you know your firm is going to fire you, you're burned out and hoping it's less intense (in-house is often just as busy, from some attorneys I have spoken to, though many in biglaw assume it is universally lighter work), or you know your role will be secure.

[parkslope]

Who says job security is better in biglaw, even at a V5? I'm sure anecdotally some people get fired from in-house but people get the push out of biglaw all the time.

[cavalier1138]

So because you know one person who got fired relatively quickly after starting their in-house job, it's now statistically risky to go in-house?

Also, if your colleague started their in-house gig in--oh, I dunno... let me take a wild guess--2019, I can think of some uniquely exacerbating circumstances that led to them being fired.

[showusyourtorts]

In my fuzzy and totally unsubstantiated understanding, I had always imagined that in-house positions were generally expected to be relatively long-term. I had also generally imagined that you'd be able to find a comparable in-house opportunity just as easily (if not more easily) coming from a comparable in-house position, as opposed to coming from biglaw. I'm sure that the "answer" to those questions is industry-specific, but is that not how most people generally think about it as a rule of thumb?

With that said, I get the idea: if your first in-house gig is regarded as not especially secure, and is expected to pay higher than whatever you do following it, then why hasten your progression to that job instead of waiting until the biglaw money isn't worth it/you're going to be shown the door at your firm?

[nixy]

Some people really really hate biglaw, and don’t need the money.

[jsnow212]

Because a global pandemic/recession that lead to a quick layoff don't happen every year.

[avenuem]

So many replies so quickly.

To those who allude to the pandemic, I know that, which is why I included "The corporation is immediately advertising the same role."

Doesn't seem like a money issue.

In my fuzzy and totally unsubstantiated understanding, I had always imagined that in-house positions were generally expected to be relatively long-term. I had also generally imagined that you'd be able to find a comparable in-house opportunity just as easily (if not more easily) coming from a comparable in-house position, as opposed to coming from biglaw. I'm sure that the "answer" to those questions is industry-specific, but is that not how most people generally think about it as a rule of thumb?

With that said, I get the idea: if your first in-house gig is regarded as not especially secure, and is expected to pay higher than whatever you do following it, then why hasten your progression to that job instead of waiting until the biglaw money isn't worth it/you're going to be shown the door at your firm?

I agree and think all of the above is the case too, except for the notion that in-house at one level makes it easy to get in-house at same level. Seems people who start in biglaw and don't become partners/lead massive federal agencies or notprofits/make it big naturally have careers that trendd downward. Biglaw to midlaw to small firm or biglaw to small firm or big law to nice in house place to obscure place. But it's nice if biglaw to in house at X level to in house at X level is a thing, and it doesn't trend down there too.

Some people really really hate biglaw, and don’t need the money.

This is also a good reason.

[umichman]

So many replies so quickly.

To those who allude to the pandemic, I know that, which is why I included "The corporation is immediately advertising the same role."

Doesn't seem like a money issue.

In my fuzzy and totally unsubstantiated understanding, I had always imagined that in-house positions were generally expected to be relatively long-term. I had also generally imagined that you'd be able to find a comparable in-house opportunity just as easily (if not more easily) coming from a comparable in-house position, as opposed to coming from biglaw. I'm sure that the "answer" to those questions is industry-specific, but is that not how most people generally think about it as a rule of thumb?

With that said, I get the idea: if your first in-house gig is regarded as not especially secure, and is expected to pay higher than whatever you do following it, then why hasten your progression to that job instead of waiting until the biglaw money isn't worth it/you're going to be shown the door at your firm?

I agree and think all of the above is the case too, except for the notion that in-house at one level makes it easy to get in-house at same level. Seems people who start in biglaw and don't become partners/lead massive federal agencies or notprofits/make it big naturally have careers that trendd downward. Biglaw to midlaw to small firm or biglaw to small firm or big law to nice in house place to obscure place. But it's nice if biglaw to in house at X level to in house at X level is a thing, and it doesn't trend down there too.

Some people really really hate biglaw, and don’t need the money.

This is also a good reason.

This seems liek a pretty immature way of viewing career trajectory.

I often see associate at big law-->associate at midlaw-->partner at mid law. that is not a downgrade to go to midlaw. it is a different path. If you are purely talking about absolute dollars paid, then yes, most people's job immediately following big law is lower pay, but in the long run, many people make as much or more than they made in big law later in their career, just not as much as they would make as partner in big law

[nixy]

Seems people who start in biglaw and don't become partners/lead massive federal agencies or notprofits/make it big naturally have careers that trendd downward. Biglaw to midlaw to small firm or biglaw to small firm or big law to nice in house place to obscure place.

What's your evidence for this? (I'm not saying it never happens, it just seems hard to generalize across all the lawyers out there.)

[Elston Gunn]

You’d need a lot more than one anecdote to suggest job security is systematically worse in-house than in Biglaw. But, ignoring that, the most common reason people go in-house is to work a lot less while still making an objectively very large amount of money. My pay per hour worked has gone up substantially since leaving Biglaw.

[Iowahawk]

Seems people who start in biglaw and don't become partners/lead massive federal agencies or notprofits/make it big naturally have careers that trendd downward. Biglaw to midlaw to small firm or biglaw to small firm or big law to nice in house place to obscure place.

Midlaw* partner > biglaw associate. Size of the company you are working at is not the only relevant variable.

*Midlaw is a very imprecise category, but the sorts of midlaw firms biglaw alums go to are typically quite sophisticated (top firms in smaller markets or mid-market firms in larger markets), not insurance defense mills

[Anonymous User]

Remind me again why not ride out the biglaw wave as far as we can? I would rather make $255-280K or so as a mid-level/senior than take a large pay cut only to risk being kicked out earlier.

I am a 4th year biglaw associate in good standing looking to leave because the job makes me miserable.

In my experience, most biglaw associates will leave of their own volition rather than be pushed out eventually, and most who leave do so because of lifestyle reasons (i.e. they want to work less or they dislike the pressure that is heightened in biglaw - or they just generally hate the job).

I understand the gist of your post but I think any biglaw associate with more than a couple years of experience would understand the answer to your question without having to ask it. People give up more money in biglaw voluntarily all the time. It’s because the job often really sucks.

[target_corp]

Remind me again why not ride out the biglaw wave as far as we can? I would rather make $255-280K or so as a mid-level/senior than take a large pay cut only to risk being kicked out earlier.

I am a 4th year biglaw associate in good standing looking to leave because the job makes me miserable.

In my experience, most biglaw associates will leave of their own volition rather than be pushed out eventually, and most who leave do so because of lifestyle reasons (i.e. they want to work less or they dislike the pressure that is heightened in biglaw - or they just generally hate the job).

I understand the gist of your post but I think any biglaw associate with more than a couple years of experience would understand the answer to your question without having to ask it. People give up more money in biglaw voluntarily all the time. It’s because the job often really sucks.

Right. The job sucks for everyone, just some people can "survive" (not really thrive) better than others, which takes a combo of qualities unrelated to actual legal skill that few people possess and even fewer want to. And those coping mechanisms often inhibit the survival of others, sometimes intentionally but most of the time not, which is what makes biglaw so toxic. In other fields, there's usually some sort of backstop for these issues (timeclock, negotiating power due to marketable skills, whatever).