Assuming everything else is equal, is there a difference between how in-house lawyers are treated depending on whether the lawyer lateralled from biglaw or started out as in-house?
Ex. Lateral after 5 years in biglaw vs. In-house who's been there for 5 years?
Biglaw lateral into In-house vs.In-house from beginning Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 432653
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 432653
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Biglaw lateral into In-house vs.In-house from beginning
OP here. By "treat," I primarily meant promotion, compensation and benefits but I'm also wondering if there's any cultural differences or us-against-them sentiment between biglaw laterals and in-house from the start.
-
nealric
- Posts: 4394
- Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:53 am
Re: Biglaw lateral into In-house vs.In-house from beginning
It's hard to use an "all things being equal" framework because all things are rarely equal in this front. Part of the problem is that it's relatively rare for people to go straight in-house. Where I've seen it happen are in small companies (2-3 lawyers) looking for someone cheap or megacorps with enormous legal departments (100+) that have the structure and resources to train people from scratch. Those two things alone will change your trajectory as you lateral to other places.
The stature of the company in the industry matters. So if you start at Exxon (one company I know has historically hired new recruits) and go to a smaller oil company like Apache, your Exxon branding may carry weight. If you start at some small private oil company with 2 lawyers, you may have a tough time getting an offer at Exxon. It's a bit like starting at Cravath and going to a boutique or vise versa. It's also worth noting that in-house lateral moves are more common within the same industries. Companies like to hire lawyers who've worked for competitors because they are already familiar with the issues the company faces.
Some practice areas tend to value outside experience more than others. You typically need a good deal of law firm experience to effectively operate as an in-house litigator. A lot of what you are doing is managing outside counsel, and it's hard to do that when you haven't seen the inside and haven't actually directly handled cases yourself. Other areas may need less exposure to law firm workings to do effectively.
In terms of promotions, be aware that it can be hard to get significant promotions in the corporate world. As such, if your primary goal is to reach a high position, it's better to spend a bit more time in a law firm. The hierarchy in-house is usually more fixed and pyramid shape. Big law firms may have hundreds of partners whose power can wax and wane with their ability to bring in business, but there is only one General Counsel, and typically only a handful of assistants or deputies who report directly to the GC. Someone has to leave for a spot to open up at the top, and many companies look primarily to outside hires for those top slots.
The stature of the company in the industry matters. So if you start at Exxon (one company I know has historically hired new recruits) and go to a smaller oil company like Apache, your Exxon branding may carry weight. If you start at some small private oil company with 2 lawyers, you may have a tough time getting an offer at Exxon. It's a bit like starting at Cravath and going to a boutique or vise versa. It's also worth noting that in-house lateral moves are more common within the same industries. Companies like to hire lawyers who've worked for competitors because they are already familiar with the issues the company faces.
Some practice areas tend to value outside experience more than others. You typically need a good deal of law firm experience to effectively operate as an in-house litigator. A lot of what you are doing is managing outside counsel, and it's hard to do that when you haven't seen the inside and haven't actually directly handled cases yourself. Other areas may need less exposure to law firm workings to do effectively.
In terms of promotions, be aware that it can be hard to get significant promotions in the corporate world. As such, if your primary goal is to reach a high position, it's better to spend a bit more time in a law firm. The hierarchy in-house is usually more fixed and pyramid shape. Big law firms may have hundreds of partners whose power can wax and wane with their ability to bring in business, but there is only one General Counsel, and typically only a handful of assistants or deputies who report directly to the GC. Someone has to leave for a spot to open up at the top, and many companies look primarily to outside hires for those top slots.
