Lateral vs. FAANG Forum

[Anonymous User]

I'm a midlevel corporate considering a lateral offer, which will involve a sizable amount of cash via guaranteed EOY bonus, signing bonus, etc.

I also have a final round interview this week with a FAANG, and they said they would have a decision to me later this week.

From what I hear, it seems like FAANG jobs are hard to come by (my background isn't crazy special, v30 firm, K-JD, etc.), so would it be crazy to consider the lateral offer if I receive an offer from the FAANG? It's less money than the lateral firm, but I'm told the ballpark range of total package is $250k-$270k, so still a lot of money.

Not a troll, just want to confirm I'm not crazy for considering leaving the law firm money on the table considering what firms are offering in bonus guarantees (and I know it's far from a guarantee that I even get an offer from the FAANG).

[Anonymous User]

What's the difference in comp. package for first year at FAANG versus your all-in lateral offer?

[Anonymous User]

Could still negotiate a bit on the signing bonus for lateral, but lateral offer is $355k (inclusive of salary, plus guaranteed bonus money), and then next year would be normal biglaw scale.

FAANG would probably stay at $250-$270k all in for first few years, with potential for more if the stock does well (historical practice has been to make you whole if the stock does poorly and you come in short of your target comp for the year).

[Internationalist]

Depending on the FAANG, they could keep your offer open for 12-18 months so your could cash-in on the lateral offer then go FAANG. I know Google and Facebook keep offers open, not sure if the others do.

[ggqkhwaofnpoyqpmis]

If you can tolerate it, I’d suggest staying in biglas for a little longer and get that $$$$. You can always go in-house from biglaw, but it’s difficult to go back to biglaw once you’re in-house.

[Anonymous User]

If you can tolerate it, I’d suggest staying in biglas for a little longer and get that $$$$. You can always go in-house from biglaw, but it’s difficult to go back to biglaw once you’re in-house.

OP here. So am I overestimating the difficulty to land a role at a FAANG? My thinking was that if I am looking for an in-house role in 2 years that the market may have cooled or maybe I just don't get lucky that time around and end up with less desirable in-house opportunities.

[Anonymous User]

My advice is to stay in biglaw. Nothing beats cash at the beginning of your career. FAANG is cool and all, but most of these companies are bloated with legal staff (making them susceptible to cuts in the next downturn), make their lawyers specialize in niche areas, and have little movement in terms of getting into SVP level or C-Suite. Their stock price is largely stable, so I'm not sure there's that much potential for growth at any of them now.

Is it hard to get FAANG? Yes, but those are also the companies people wanted to be at 5-10 years ago. I would look at other tech companies like Tesla which has a relatively small legal team and plenty of stock upside as potential targets when you decide to leave biglaw.

[The Lsat Airbender]

Tesla [...] plenty of stock upside

hi elon

[nealric]

My advice is to stay in biglaw. Nothing beats cash at the beginning of your career. FAANG is cool and all, but most of these companies are bloated with legal staff (making them susceptible to cuts in the next downturn), make their lawyers specialize in niche areas, and have little movement in terms of getting into SVP level or C-Suite. Their stock price is largely stable, so I'm not sure there's that much potential for growth at any of them now.

Is it hard to get FAANG? Yes, but those are also the companies people wanted to be at 5-10 years ago. I would look at other tech companies like Tesla which has a relatively small legal team and plenty of stock upside as potential targets when you decide to leave biglaw.

Anecdotally, I've heard Tesla comp is pretty poor relative FAANG. Those who have been there for a while have benefitted from the meteoric rise in the stock, but it's a big assumption to make that will continue. If you believe in Tesla that much, you could invest on your own dime with higher comp elsewhere.

[ggqkhwaofnpoyqpmis]

If you can tolerate it, I’d suggest staying in biglas for a little longer and get that $$$$. You can always go in-house from biglaw, but it’s difficult to go back to biglaw once you’re in-house.

OP here. So am I overestimating the difficulty to land a role at a FAANG? My thinking was that if I am looking for an in-house role in 2 years that the market may have cooled or maybe I just don't get lucky that time around and end up with less desirable in-house opportunities.

I can't speak to the difficulty to land a role at FAANG -- my limited understanding is that it's easier to get a job at Amazon and more difficult at Google, with the other three in between in terms of difficulty. I do stand by my suggestion because you are essentially choosing between $$$$ at hand, right now, and the potential of growth in the future. It could be that in a couple of years FAANG stock may not do that well; it could be that you may get pigeonholed in your FAANG job with limited growth; and there is no guarantee that your in-house job will be easier than biglaw (there are quite a few posts about in-house counsel workload at Amazon)... a lot of things can happen in the future, so I'd probably choose the money you are guaranteed to get at biglaw, if you can handle the stress and hours.

[Anonymous User]

If you can tolerate it, I’d suggest staying in biglas for a little longer and get that $$$$. You can always go in-house from biglaw, but it’s difficult to go back to biglaw once you’re in-house.

OP here. So am I overestimating the difficulty to land a role at a FAANG? My thinking was that if I am looking for an in-house role in 2 years that the market may have cooled or maybe I just don't get lucky that time around and end up with less desirable in-house opportunities.

I can't speak to the difficulty to land a role at FAANG -- my limited understanding is that it's easier to get a job at Amazon and more difficult at Google, with the other three in between in terms of difficulty. I do stand by my suggestion because you are essentially choosing between $$$$ at hand, right now, and the potential of growth in the future. It could be that in a couple of years FAANG stock may not do that well; it could be that you may get pigeonholed in your FAANG job with limited growth; and there is no guarantee that your in-house job will be easier than biglaw (there are quite a few posts about in-house counsel workload at Amazon)... a lot of things can happen in the future, so I'd probably choose the money you are guaranteed to get at biglaw, if you can handle the stress and hours.

OP here. Thank you and others for the replies. I probably should have mentioned in my original post, but I have hit multiple breaking points in my large firm, largely because of the massive workload due to COVID. I've never been one to have breakdowns prior to this job, but I was experiencing physical symptoms from the stress and anxiety, and felt like I was hitting very unhealthy levels during a period of time. If I lateral, I'm not sure that goes away, but at least I am even more highly compensated via guaranteed bonuses for tolerating it at least through the next bonus cycle.

Re: the FAANG, my assumption was that the hours are generally more stable/consistent (though still high relative to "normal" standards), but that it was an opportunity for growth and that it may open the door for other in-house roles if I wanted to continue to climb the in-house ladder. I probably need to ask more questions on the workload front. The value of the stock hasn't been much of a concern for me, because it's still plenty $$$ for me to live on and historical practice has been to do a top-up at the end of each vesting cycle if the stock underperformed the target package (though I acknowledge they could do away with that in any given cycle with no notice).

Again, I really appreciate all of the feedback.

[Anonymous User]

Hi OP, I think the decision here may also hinge on a few additional factors.

1) Do you for sure want to end up in-house or you are still open to the possibility of working at a law firm for a more extended period of time/for partnership? If former, I think it is generally better to go in-house earlier than later since unless you can enter at a higher level later on, time in the in-house position is usually more valuable down the line than time at a law firm.

2) Why do you want to work in-house? It sounds like if it's because of lifestyle choice, then that in itself may soften the difference in pay. You may be paid less but you will have to work less. (Note, from your description of the comp structure, it sounds like you may be going to one of those companies that are known to have more Biglaw-style hours).

3) What's your background and what type of in-house role are you interviewing for? If your corporate background is in a specialized group like capital markets and your role (or desired role) is in something like product counseling (which usually is fed from other practices like tech. trans.), that's a factor towards jumping at this opportunity since your background may not normally line up well with such a transition in the future.

4) Did you interview well or feel you have a good story for in-house? Related to 3), if you feel the process didn't seem particularly difficult, then that's could be an added signal that perhaps for someone in your shoes wouldn't have trouble in the future for similar opportunities.

FAANG would probably stay at $250-$270k all in for first few years, with potential for more if the stock does well (historical practice has been to make you whole if the stock does poorly and you come in short of your target comp for the year).

Note, this is not necessarily the most common comp. structure at tech companies (and among the FAANG) though at least one of them is well-known for it. At many tech companies you would get both material base and stock increases (refreshers) every year rather than having your target comp. be capped for a few years. That way, even without stock appreciation, your overall comp increase could keep up or even exceed the comp increases in Biglaw. Of course the top-up concept may be helpful but it may not be seen as a benefit since people are usually chasing the upside - people don't join a tech company to have a static comp. but rather to have increases in comp.

Additionally, depending on the FAANG, your entering comp could be pretty similar to your Biglaw comp for your year (of course, that could suggest either 1) you should take the current offer to have a better chance to lateral to another in-house place with higher comp. in the future or 2) stay in Biglaw until you have a better offer).

As an aside, while it is true in-house is a cost center at companies, I think in-house at FAANGs, given the size and wealth of these companies, in bad economic times are likely to be more stable than Biglaw positions where associates are more fungible and reserves are more limited (setting aside the fact, of course, that some of the the FAANG companies are known even in regular times to periodically cut some of the fat, so to speak, from the workforce). So yes, you can join a hot, smaller company with greater stock upside potential, but that comes with it commensurate risk.

[Anonymous User]

Hi OP, I think the decision here may also hinge on a few additional factors.


3) What's your background and what type of in-house role are you interviewing for? If your corporate background is in a specialized group like capital markets and your role (or desired role) is in something like product counseling (which usually is fed from other practices like tech. trans.), that's a factor towards jumping at this opportunity since your background may not normally line up well with such a transition in the future.

Not OP, but I have a few questions that I'd appreciate you answering:

1. Do you know if it is usually difficult to get in as product counsel? What background usually lends itself to doing so?

2. Do product counsel roles allow for solid movement within a company / strong opportunities to move to other companies?

3. Is it better to go in as product counsel vs say, capital markets or M&A?

4. Does going in as capital markets / M&A counsel potentially give the opportunity to go back to a firm or are the law firm vs. in-house roles too different?