In-house attorneys, what are you looking for when interviewing? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I have an interview coming up for an in-house position and am wondering if anyone that is currently in-house could shed light on what you are (and are not) looking for when you're interviewing a candidate? General enthusiasm for the practice area, practical/generalist mentality, ability to provide quick/clear responses to complicated questions? Also, what are some things that you've seen that are instant dings? Thanks!

[Anonymous User]

I interview fairly often when my legal department has openings, so I can speak to some of the things I look for:

1. Has this person carefully and thoughtfully considered why they want to move in house? You wouldn't believe how many candidates seem like they never really sat down and thought about why in-house is the best move for them. To me, this is the most important piece. You want to not only show that you understand the differences between in-house and firm practice, but you want to then turn those differences into selling points for why this move is right for you.

2. What kind of client counseling experience does the candidate have? Much of the work for an in-house attorney is day-to-day counseling, with zero buffer between you and your client. As an in-house lawyer, you will often be put into unfamiliar situations without notice, which can be a bit jarring at first. Its important to know that the candidate has experience dealing directly with clients, fielding phone calls and advising clients, meeting directly with clients, etc. If you have clients at your firm who bypass the partner and call you directly, or if you do site visits or other types of client meetings where there is no buffer, that can be a good selling point.

3. Does this person have a collaborative mindset, and could I see myself working with them? In-house work tends to be much more collaborative, and far less adversarial. The high-level crux of it is working in partnership with client groups in order to achieve business objectives. So I always ask questions that get at collaboration and teamwork. Some people are sharks by nature, and that often works well in a law firm environment, but that is often a less desirable trait when in-house (though that can vary by company).

4. Does this person have the substantive legal knowledge necessary for the position? This one is pretty self-explanatory, but I'm generally looking for someone with years of experience within a single practice area. My particular legal department generally doesn't hire firm lawyers until they have around 6 years of experience. So you want to speak to the depth and breadth of your substantive experience in your practice area. And then build on that by highlighting examples that are going to be particularly relevant for the company.

I've never seen anything that was an instant ding, though there are a few examples of things that really worked against the candidate in my experience:

1. Trashing their current firm, or making clear (often unintentionally) that the driving reason for applying is a desire to leave biglaw. I of course know that many big firm lawyers aren't exactly thrilled with their current roles. And no one would fault you for making that part of the calculus. But at the interview, focus on what you are shooting for, rather than what you are trying to move away from. The one caveat is that its perfectly fine to be critical of certain aspects of firm practice generally if you are highlighting the differences between firm practice and in-house practice, and explaining why in-house better aligns with you.

2. Relates to the first question above, but failing to demonstrate a genuine understanding of what in-house lawyers do and how they function.

3. Failing to sufficiently research the company itself. You can tell very quickly what kind of research the person did beforehand, even though I never make it a pop quiz.

[Elston Gunn]

The above is great advice. I’d also add a couple of related points:

(1) We look for someone with risk tolerance. Sometimes counseling at a law firm is about capturing every possible risk and nuance and (to put it unkindly) covering your ass. In contrast, we want someone who, instead of just telling the business no, you can’t do that, will proactively work with them to come up alternative solutions, even if they don’t resolve all the legal risk.

(2) We want someone who can be independent. Sometimes it is clear that candidates have such a hierarchical experience at their law firm that they’ve never really had to prioritize or own significant projects on their own. We want someone who can run with their areas of responsibility without constantly being monitored or instructed.

[Anonymous User]

OP here, thanks for the advice!

[Anonymous User]

I have an interview coming up for an in-house position and am wondering if anyone that is currently in-house could shed light on what you are (and are not) looking for when you're interviewing a candidate? General enthusiasm for the practice area, practical/generalist mentality, ability to provide quick/clear responses to complicated questions? Also, what are some things that you've seen that are instant dings? Thanks!

Other comments above are good data points. I will include my thought process:

1) Anybody who gets an interview has satisfied the basic academic and experience thresholds we screen for. But when you get people talking about the sort of work they do, you quickly figure out the level that they were operating at. At the end of the day, our biggest consideration is that we need people we can trust to just run with things. You don't have a partner looking over your shoulder in-house. If you are a subject matter expert, there may be nobody at the company qualified to look over your shoulder. We need to be confident that you have deep enough experience to give good advice independently, and can issue spot well enough to know when something needs outside counsel input.

2) A key part of any interview (legal or not) is just going to be "clicking" with the team. Whether I enjoyed conducting the interview tends to play a large role in how I feel about an offer being extended. A good interview flies by because both parties are engaged in the conversation.

3) There are few "instant dings" other than grossly inappropriate comments (anything racist/sexist, etc.). However, I did interview a candidate who dinged himself pretty quickly by talking about money over and over again. The funny thing was that the role probably would have been a pay bump for the candidate, but the attitude was extremely off-putting. It was a "what are you going to do for me?" attitude instead of "what can I bring to the company?" The party to talk about pay with is HR, not the hiring manager. At least at my company, the hiring manager has little input on the money offered to a candidate. We can influence it based on the level of the hire, and might be able to fight for a candidate at the margins, but at the end of the day HR sets comp.

4) Enthusiasm can be a mixed point. If you are a specialist, I need to be confident that you aren't such a nerd that you can't communicate in layman's terms, or that you won't go too far into the weeds. Don't get me wrong, I'm not looking for an Eeyore, but I don't need a Tigger either. You want someone excited about the prospect of working for you, but you also want to avoid feigned enthusiasm or coming on too strong. The coming on too strong issue tends to be a bigger problem for entry level hiring (our company doesn't do any, but I remember from the law firm days).

[Anonymous User]

I have an interview coming up for an in-house position and am wondering if anyone that is currently in-house could shed light on what you are (and are not) looking for when you're interviewing a candidate? General enthusiasm for the practice area, practical/generalist mentality, ability to provide quick/clear responses to complicated questions? Also, what are some things that you've seen that are instant dings? Thanks!

Other comments above are good data points. I will include my thought process:

1) Anybody who gets an interview has satisfied the basic academic and experience thresholds we screen for. But when you get people talking about the sort of work they do, you quickly figure out the level that they were operating at. At the end of the day, our biggest consideration is that we need people we can trust to just run with things. You don't have a partner looking over your shoulder in-house. If you are a subject matter expert, there may be nobody at the company qualified to look over your shoulder. We need to be confident that you have deep enough experience to give good advice independently, and can issue spot well enough to know when something needs outside counsel input.

OP here, thanks! Regarding the above, if the in-house position only requires a few years of experience, is this still the expectation when interviewing? I imagine a position that is this junior would entail a degree of supervision from other attorneys above you but I could be wrong on that. I guess I don't want to superficially come across as a completely independent associate when only having worked at a firm for a few years, if that makes sense.

[Anonymous User]

I have an interview coming up for an in-house position and am wondering if anyone that is currently in-house could shed light on what you are (and are not) looking for when you're interviewing a candidate? General enthusiasm for the practice area, practical/generalist mentality, ability to provide quick/clear responses to complicated questions? Also, what are some things that you've seen that are instant dings? Thanks!

Other comments above are good data points. I will include my thought process:

1) Anybody who gets an interview has satisfied the basic academic and experience thresholds we screen for. But when you get people talking about the sort of work they do, you quickly figure out the level that they were operating at. At the end of the day, our biggest consideration is that we need people we can trust to just run with things. You don't have a partner looking over your shoulder in-house. If you are a subject matter expert, there may be nobody at the company qualified to look over your shoulder. We need to be confident that you have deep enough experience to give good advice independently, and can issue spot well enough to know when something needs outside counsel input.

OP here, thanks! Regarding the above, if the in-house position only requires a few years of experience, is this still the expectation when interviewing? I imagine a position that is this junior would entail a degree of supervision from other attorneys above you but I could be wrong on that. I guess I don't want to superficially come across as a completely independent associate when only having worked at a firm for a few years, if that makes sense.

Most people in-house were biglaw associates. We know a 3rd year probably wasn't running deals/cases all by themselves. Don't try to exaggerate your experience, as it is likely to show. But unless you are going to a very large company (50+ lawyers), the level of supervision is likely to drop substantially. There are a few mega companies with enormous legal departments that take entry level attorneys, and I frankly can't speak for how such organizations operate. My experience is with a F500 company with a law department in the 20-40 attorney range (including a few attorneys who sit outside of law).

I went in-house as a 4th year associate. Some senior attorneys double checked some of my work directly for a few weeks, and there is certainly still collaborative work where different people give feedback, but for the most part you are on your own. It didn't take that long before those senior attorneys had retired and there's nobody senior to me in my specialty- non-legal management and other senior attorneys just have to trust I know what I'm talking about.

Certainly there's a baseline level of knowledge we are looking for, but I think some of the independence is about attitude rather than experience. If a candidate seems to be expecting they will have a senior person holding their hand and telling them what to do every step of the way, they may not be ready to operate effectively in-house. You may have to operate outside your comfort zone. For example, I've had small matters arise in jurisdictions I have no familiarity with where it doesn't make financial sense to hire outside counsel. So I just had to figure things out as best I could. Or there may be something that arises that is exactly in your practice area, but you are the closest thing the company has to someone in that practice area- so it's yours.

[Anonymous User]

1. Has this person carefully and thoughtfully considered why they want to move in house? You wouldn't believe how many candidates seem like they never really sat down and thought about why in-house is the best move for them. To me, this is the most important piece. You want to not only show that you understand the differences between in-house and firm practice, but you want to then turn those differences into selling points for why this move is right for you.

Bumping this great thread to ask -- what is the best answer to this question?

[Anonymous User]

1. Has this person carefully and thoughtfully considered why they want to move in house? You wouldn't believe how many candidates seem like they never really sat down and thought about why in-house is the best move for them. To me, this is the most important piece. You want to not only show that you understand the differences between in-house and firm practice, but you want to then turn those differences into selling points for why this move is right for you.

Bumping this great thread to ask -- what is the best answer to this question?

Apparently not "leaving biglaw"!!

[jhett]

1. Has this person carefully and thoughtfully considered why they want to move in house? You wouldn't believe how many candidates seem like they never really sat down and thought about why in-house is the best move for them. To me, this is the most important piece. You want to not only show that you understand the differences between in-house and firm practice, but you want to then turn those differences into selling points for why this move is right for you.

Bumping this great thread to ask -- what is the best answer to this question?

For me, I said I'd like to be closer to the business side of things, to see how legal issues affect business decisions so that I can learn and adapt my practice to better help build the business. I pointed out that in a law firm you can be somewhat isolated from all the factors that may be in play, and so you don't know if your work is what the client is looking for. It seemed to work.

[Anonymous User]

Great thread. Question I had that has actually come up a few times. For more general corporate roles, where there is a mix of M&A and securities work required, how to deal with questions regarding securities experience when I am at a v10 doing M&A (5th year) and we have a separate group for securities?

I understand that in smaller firms the corporate associates will do both M&A and securities, but I thought some of the focus on my lack of experience in securities was a little hard to overcome. I personally feel like I am really good at M&A, and that I could pick up on securities work fast.

But I don't want to lie that I have securities experience when I don't (beyond doing some basic stuff as a 1st/2nd year), but also don't want to diminish the expertise that comes with securities by saying I am confident I could pick it up easily (even though I feel that is the case ha).

[Anonymous User]

Great thread. Question I had that has actually come up a few times. For more general corporate roles, where there is a mix of M&A and securities work required, how to deal with questions regarding securities experience when I am at a v10 doing M&A (5th year) and we have a separate group for securities?

I understand that in smaller firms the corporate associates will do both M&A and securities, but I thought some of the focus on my lack of experience in securities was a little hard to overcome. I personally feel like I am really good at M&A, and that I could pick up on securities work fast.

But I don't want to lie that I have securities experience when I don't (beyond doing some basic stuff as a 1st/2nd year), but also don't want to diminish the expertise that comes with securities by saying I am confident I could pick it up easily (even though I feel that is the case ha).

I'm in your shoes on this - 6th year M&A with minimal securities work under my belt. I highlight the items I've helped on (preparing some board presentations and answering questions, as well as assisting some securities lawyers on securities related matters (currently doing the securities side of a De-SPAC) but I point out early on that if you threw a securities question in front of me on day one I would not have the gained knowledge to answer it - I'd have to research it and get back to them. That said, our job is constantly learning new things so I am open to growth in that area.

Not sure if it's the right answer but I'd rather be honest and set expectations.