This Happen to Anyone? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I moved inhouse from biglaw during the pandemic, been here about a year. Stress is much less and hours are better, but I’m making much less money and more importantly it’s very hard for me to find motivation or work efficiently or effectively.

I believe my work product has suffered and while I haven’t made any super significant mistakes I can’t help but feel like I’m languishing and becoming a worse associate. I’d say quality of my work product is roughly 70% of what it was at a firm and I can’t help but feel unhappy and unfulfilled.

Anyone share the sentiment? Any advice? Thinking about therapy but I’ve never done it before and not sure if that route is necessary just yet.

[Anonymous User]

Therapy isn't just about fixing things when they get bad.

It's also preventative. On the scale of when it would be best to seek therapy ranging from 1: Don't need it -to- 10: In-Patient Care; you are probably at a 3 or 4. I'm not a psych, just married to one. But, my former special operations unit in the military used therapy to help us gain a cognitive advantage. It was surprising to learn how many of us had those 3 or 4 level concerns, that we weren't addressing, stopping us from doing our best.

Making the huge tribal shift from Biglaw to Inhouse is tough. You leave behind a regimented machine to go work in an ambiguous area that thrusts you into areas of law you are less comfortable in.

You may get some good advice here, but the best would be to seek out a therapist who works with high performing athletes or corporate executives. I like to work with PsyD or PhD therapists, because its at least a better bet you are getting real research backed advice than pseudo-science.

Some words you used:

1. unhappy
2. unfulfilled
3. "I" believe my work product has suffered
4. Hard to find: motivation / work efficiently / effectively
5. Languishing
6. Becoming a worse associate

Seek out a therapist. Mine helps me take a "thought" like those numbered above and understand if they are rational. The easiest one for me to look at is the "I believe my work product has suffered". Is there some explanation for that outside of blaming yourself? Your resources, peers, and work expectations are different. Is it okay for work product to suffer some? Has anyone addressed your work product with you or are you just judging yourself?

Your significant and friends are not great therapists. It also burdens relationships needlessly. Pay someone to listen to you and give you expert advice.

Also, an easy easy easy trick is to think two happy thoughts for every negative one. Its a lie. You know its a lie, but some parts of your brain don't rationalize the lie out as a lie. If you increase positive self-talk, you will begin to train those pathways and in a stressful or low moment, maybe a positive thought comes instead of a negative one.

Congrats on the inhouse role! Learn to reward the non-workaholic part of your personality. It will take a while.

[Anonymous User]

I felt a bit this way when I went in-house and ended up going back to a law firm. For all a law firm's flaws (and there are many), it's pretty clear what you are trying to do. You gradually specialize in one area and get really good at it and then the law firm can sell that expertise.

At an in-house position, things can be much more murky. Work quality can be mixed because frankly for small things, work quality doesn't actually need to be all that high (stakes are too low). You have a lot more matters, none of which is all that important. Depending on the nature of the position, you can end up becoming much less a "legal" specialist and much more of a specialist in how your particular company works, leading you to wonder whether you have any transferrable skills (even while your value to your particular company is increasing because you know the ins and outs of that company). There can be a lot of politics (I dare say more so than at a law firm) because there are so many competing factions and the politics can make in-house work feel like you're trying to simply keep peace between departments.

[jhett]

Why do you think you lost motivation? Do you not like the work, or your co-workers/boss? Do you not like the in-house environment in general? Are there personal issues that you are dealing with?

[Anonymous User]

OP, thank you for starting this thread and being so candid about your transition to in-house life.

I left biglaw as a mid-level and now have spent more years in-house than I did in biglaw. I experienced (and still share) the same feelings as you. As a poster pointed out above, in-house is about being "good enough" (which is very, very different than the perfection expected in biglaw). It's a weird adjustment.

If you are having these internal thoughts, have you considered simply asking your manager? Something like: "Now that I've been here for a while, I'd like to request your feedback on my substantive work product."

More likely than not, your manager will be more than fine with your work. In reality, work product doesn't really matter all that much in-house (besides meeting a baseline level of competence). It's more your relationships/interactions/soft skills with both legal colleagues and business colleagues. And, as mentioned above, politics, politics, politics.

[unlicensedpotato]

I'm a senior associate who has only ever worked at a firm, but I cannot imagine moving to an in-house job for basically exactly this reason. My only motivators are (i) crushing time pressure and (ii) billable hours. I have a really difficult time trying to do anything until it's urgent and feel like if I were in-house I would just not do anything ever.

[Anonymous User]

Therapy isn't just about fixing things when they get bad.

It's also preventative. On the scale of when it would be best to seek therapy ranging from 1: Don't need it -to- 10: In-Patient Care; you are probably at a 3 or 4. I'm not a psych, just married to one. But, my former special operations unit in the military used therapy to help us gain a cognitive advantage. It was surprising to learn how many of us had those 3 or 4 level concerns, that we weren't addressing, stopping us from doing our best.

Making the huge tribal shift from Biglaw to Inhouse is tough. You leave behind a regimented machine to go work in an ambiguous area that thrusts you into areas of law you are less comfortable in.

You may get some good advice here, but the best would be to seek out a therapist who works with high performing athletes or corporate executives. I like to work with PsyD or PhD therapists, because its at least a better bet you are getting real research backed advice than pseudo-science.

Some words you used:

1. unhappy
2. unfulfilled
3. "I" believe my work product has suffered
4. Hard to find: motivation / work efficiently / effectively
5. Languishing
6. Becoming a worse associate

Seek out a therapist. Mine helps me take a "thought" like those numbered above and understand if they are rational. The easiest one for me to look at is the "I believe my work product has suffered". Is there some explanation for that outside of blaming yourself? Your resources, peers, and work expectations are different. Is it okay for work product to suffer some? Has anyone addressed your work product with you or are you just judging yourself?

Your significant and friends are not great therapists. It also burdens relationships needlessly. Pay someone to listen to you and give you expert advice.

Also, an easy easy easy trick is to think two happy thoughts for every negative one. Its a lie. You know its a lie, but some parts of your brain don't rationalize the lie out as a lie. If you increase positive self-talk, you will begin to train those pathways and in a stressful or low moment, maybe a positive thought comes instead of a negative one.

Congrats on the inhouse role! Learn to reward the non-workaholic part of your personality. It will take a while.

OP here, and thanks to everyone for the posts. To answer some of these:

1) I like my manager (as much as one can) and don’t have any issues/personality clashes with people I work with.

2) I’ve asked for feedback, and it’s all been positive - nobody has ever said anything negative about my work product (and I recently got slight a pay increase), although I’ve received typical markups and the like, and have made a few minor mistakes my manager has caught over time (but the types of mistakes everyone makes from time to time).

While none of these mistakes/markups are out of the ordinary, I’m just comparing myself to my law firm-standards. I can’t see a logical reason why I shouldn’t be able to perform at least as well as when my hours were much longer and stress was higher. But I’m not, and I find that I never have energy to do the tasks I’m assigned, and when I do, I feel like my work is (relatively) subpar and that I’m treading water, not developing.

The 2-1 positive thought is something I’m definitely going to try, but I believe I’m ‘sad’ because I feel like I’m wasting away, not that I’m wasting away because I feel sad.

I also don’t want to go back to a firm, because I’d like to have some control over my life and be able to spend it with family, something I didn’t have when I was billing 2800 hrs at a firm.

[Anonymous User]

This thread has some great stuff in it. I wanted to ask you all your thoughts on one thing.

I'm a v10 equity partner in lit. I find it exhausting, and feel like the work has taken over my life even more after making partner -- now in addition to legal work, I spend tons of time managing clients and dealing with internal administrative stuff.

So I often wonder about moving in house. I get that it would be a pay cut of at least 50% (probably more like 75%). Given my experience, I would be aiming for a position like head of litigation -- i.e. something ideally reporting directly to the GC.

What are the risks of that sort of transition? Will I face similar issues to what you all are describing? I guess also there would be a reduction in resources available to me (24-hour secretarial support, etc.). Politics? (though remember partnerships have pretty serious internal politics of their own).

Given what you all know now, would it be a crazy decision?

[Anonymous User]

I'm a senior associate who has only ever worked at a firm, but I cannot imagine moving to an in-house job for basically exactly this reason. My only motivators are (i) crushing time pressure and (ii) billable hours. I have a really difficult time trying to do anything until it's urgent and feel like if I were in-house I would just not do anything ever.

To each their own, but it is disturbing how big law crushes us all down into cogs who can only get our dried-out adrenal glands pumping in response to insane and often arbitrary deadlines. Imagine a world where a motivator included enjoying the work and being actually invested in outcomes? I've reached the point as well where the only thing keeping me engaged is a fear of screwing up (missing a deadline, missing something crucial, missing my hours). But I'm looking to move for exactly that reason. It makes zero sense to me that someone would voluntarily do something for life where the only motivation they have is time pressure and billing hours.

[glitched]

This thread has some great stuff in it. I wanted to ask you all your thoughts on one thing.

I'm a v10 equity partner in lit. I find it exhausting, and feel like the work has taken over my life even more after making partner -- now in addition to legal work, I spend tons of time managing clients and dealing with internal administrative stuff.

So I often wonder about moving in house. I get that it would be a pay cut of at least 50% (probably more like 75%). Given my experience, I would be aiming for a position like head of litigation -- i.e. something ideally reporting directly to the GC.

What are the risks of that sort of transition? Will I face similar issues to what you all are describing? I guess also there would be a reduction in resources available to me (24-hour secretarial support, etc.). Politics? (though remember partnerships have pretty serious internal politics of their own).

Given what you all know now, would it be a crazy decision?

This is interesting. I don't have anything to add, but I always thought junior partner was the absolute worst job at the firm. With summer associate being the best.

[Anonymous User]

This thread has some great stuff in it. I wanted to ask you all your thoughts on one thing.

I'm a v10 equity partner in lit. I find it exhausting, and feel like the work has taken over my life even more after making partner -- now in addition to legal work, I spend tons of time managing clients and dealing with internal administrative stuff.

So I often wonder about moving in house. I get that it would be a pay cut of at least 50% (probably more like 75%). Given my experience, I would be aiming for a position like head of litigation -- i.e. something ideally reporting directly to the GC.

What are the risks of that sort of transition? Will I face similar issues to what you all are describing? I guess also there would be a reduction in resources available to me (24-hour secretarial support, etc.). Politics? (though remember partnerships have pretty serious internal politics of their own).

Given what you all know now, would it be a crazy decision?

This is interesting. I don't have anything to add, but I always thought junior partner was the absolute worst job at the firm. With summer associate being the best.

In-house counsel here who does some lit work and recently changed jobs. At the old place, our litigation group consisted of two people: our Head of Lit (who was a BigLaw equity partner for several years and then moved in-house) and his direct report (who was equity partner at a different BL firm for a few years). I helped the direct report with some overflow lit work. 

Both were busy in different ways -- Head of Lit was in a lot of meetings with C-Suite, coordinating with different parts of legal & the business, and nearly always in contact with the GC. Politics for Head of Lit involved the usual dealings with various business units, but also (and this was new to me) defending his turf from other senior members of Legal who wanted to encroach into the Litigation space. 

Direct report did a lot more of the "legal" work -- attending depos, formulating strategy, and fielding questions from legal/business units that didn't need to go to Head of Lit. While (presumably) less stressful than being a BigLaw lit partner, direct report was always really busy managing outside counsel and traveling quite a bit to various depos/trials/etc.

To your question, do you like the substantive aspects of litigating at a firm? From your post, my takeaway was that you enjoy that part but less so on the business development aspect. If that's true, I'd try to do a compensation comparison of (i) your current position, (ii) in-house Head of Lit position, and (iii) an "Of Counsel" lit position in BigLaw. My two cents: I'd try to keep the current position until an external force tells you otherwise. While you're riding that gravy train, in the meantime, see what the comp difference is between a Head of Lit position and an "Of Counsel" position in BigLaw. 

[Anonymous User]

This thread has some great stuff in it. I wanted to ask you all your thoughts on one thing.

I'm a v10 equity partner in lit. I find it exhausting, and feel like the work has taken over my life even more after making partner -- now in addition to legal work, I spend tons of time managing clients and dealing with internal administrative stuff.

So I often wonder about moving in house. I get that it would be a pay cut of at least 50% (probably more like 75%). Given my experience, I would be aiming for a position like head of litigation -- i.e. something ideally reporting directly to the GC.

What are the risks of that sort of transition? Will I face similar issues to what you all are describing? I guess also there would be a reduction in resources available to me (24-hour secretarial support, etc.). Politics? (though remember partnerships have pretty serious internal politics of their own).

Given what you all know now, would it be a crazy decision?

This is interesting. I don't have anything to add, but I always thought junior partner was the absolute worst job at the firm. With summer associate being the best.

If you're just looking at the work in isolation, I agree. The money and elimination of the up-or-out hurdle are nice, though, so I wouldn't actually want to go back to being a senior associate. And let's be honest, it's nice to be part of a club, even if it's a club of people who all hate their lives because they're good at a mistake of a career.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a senior associate who has only ever worked at a firm, but I cannot imagine moving to an in-house job for basically exactly this reason. My only motivators are (i) crushing time pressure and (ii) billable hours. I have a really difficult time trying to do anything until it's urgent and feel like if I were in-house I would just not do anything ever.

To each their own, but it is disturbing how big law crushes us all down into cogs who can only get our dried-out adrenal glands pumping in response to insane and often arbitrary deadlines. Imagine a world where a motivator included enjoying the work and being actually invested in outcomes? I've reached the point as well where the only thing keeping me engaged is a fear of screwing up (missing a deadline, missing something crucial, missing my hours). But I'm looking to move for exactly that reason. It makes zero sense to me that someone would voluntarily do something for life where the only motivation they have is time pressure and billing hours.

To 11:25 am, I used to agree with that before I moved in-house. Like mentioned above, though, in-house is really all about politics so (like BigLaw) it boils down to who you're working for. When I've had fantastic managers in-house, yes, I truly enjoy the work and am actually invested in the outcome. When I've had horrible managers in-house, I revert to my BigLaw mentality where it becomes a tennis match of how quickly I can get the ball back to the other side of the net.

[johndhi]

few thoughts from someone who is happy with his in-house job.

[1] jobs aren't, generally, that enjoyable. they are jobs. try to enjoy your free time and find something valuable to do with it. how's your relationship? should you take a vacation? should you find a hobby?    

[2] you're right. the requirements are different. if it's important to you, find a project that would let you build the skills you want. in-house can be very flexible. I bet there' some place inside your company, where having perfect work product is important, seek it out and get involved. If all else fails, do pro bono

[3] are you a person who complains about his circumstances, no matter what? consider looking at that.  do you actually want to be a fantastic [litigator or whatever it is you do]? perhaps there are new skills you're acquiring or could focus on building. if you think of the relationship management of working at a company as distasteful politics, could you build a skill with minimizing politics and increasing efficiency?

[unlicensedpotato]

I'm a senior associate who has only ever worked at a firm, but I cannot imagine moving to an in-house job for basically exactly this reason. My only motivators are (i) crushing time pressure and (ii) billable hours. I have a really difficult time trying to do anything until it's urgent and feel like if I were in-house I would just not do anything ever.

To each their own, but it is disturbing how big law crushes us all down into cogs who can only get our dried-out adrenal glands pumping in response to insane and often arbitrary deadlines. Imagine a world where a motivator included enjoying the work and being actually invested in outcomes? I've reached the point as well where the only thing keeping me engaged is a fear of screwing up (missing a deadline, missing something crucial, missing my hours). But I'm looking to move for exactly that reason. It makes zero sense to me that someone would voluntarily do something for life where the only motivation they have is time pressure and billing hours.

Completely agree, but I'm also pulling down like $500k and it just keeps going up. Honestly, even a self-employed person who is doing really well would have a hard time matching that and they're going to feel pressured to work all the time too (and I have the potential for equity partner later on at much greater comp). I also really like my job for the most part and care about the outcomes, just given my pick I'd rather do nothing. So I'm going to keep trying to do this and then hopefully get out of "work" entirely and do something more fulfilling.

[Elston Gunn]

I'm a senior associate who has only ever worked at a firm, but I cannot imagine moving to an in-house job for basically exactly this reason. My only motivators are (i) crushing time pressure and (ii) billable hours. I have a really difficult time trying to do anything until it's urgent and feel like if I were in-house I would just not do anything ever.

To each their own, but it is disturbing how big law crushes us all down into cogs who can only get our dried-out adrenal glands pumping in response to insane and often arbitrary deadlines. Imagine a world where a motivator included enjoying the work and being actually invested in outcomes? I've reached the point as well where the only thing keeping me engaged is a fear of screwing up (missing a deadline, missing something crucial, missing my hours). But I'm looking to move for exactly that reason. It makes zero sense to me that someone would voluntarily do something for life where the only motivation they have is time pressure and billing hours.

Completely agree, but I'm also pulling down like $500k and it just keeps going up. Honestly, even a self-employed person who is doing really well would have a hard time matching that and they're going to feel pressured to work all the time too (and I have the potential for equity partner later on at much greater comp). I also really like my job for the most part and care about the outcomes, just given my pick I'd rather do nothing. So I'm going to keep trying to do this and then hopefully get out of "work" entirely and do something more fulfilling.

Well then the reason you don’t want to move in house is because you like your job well enough, and you don’t want to take a pay cut. I’m sure you’d do just fine in house, even if the only pressure was self-created through procrastination or whatever.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a senior associate who has only ever worked at a firm, but I cannot imagine moving to an in-house job for basically exactly this reason. My only motivators are (i) crushing time pressure and (ii) billable hours. I have a really difficult time trying to do anything until it's urgent and feel like if I were in-house I would just not do anything ever.

To each their own, but it is disturbing how big law crushes us all down into cogs who can only get our dried-out adrenal glands pumping in response to insane and often arbitrary deadlines. Imagine a world where a motivator included enjoying the work and being actually invested in outcomes? I've reached the point as well where the only thing keeping me engaged is a fear of screwing up (missing a deadline, missing something crucial, missing my hours). But I'm looking to move for exactly that reason. It makes zero sense to me that someone would voluntarily do something for life where the only motivation they have is time pressure and billing hours.

To 11:25 am, I used to agree with that before I moved in-house. Like mentioned above, though, in-house is really all about politics so (like BigLaw) it boils down to who you're working for. When I've had fantastic managers in-house, yes, I truly enjoy the work and am actually invested in the outcome. When I've had horrible managers in-house, I revert to my BigLaw mentality where it becomes a tennis match of how quickly I can get the ball back to the other side of the net.

Do you have kids? I ask, because, at least for me, the issues weren't the people (who seemed nice enough), but the time requirements. Talking to worse people, but having time for my family, has been worth it for me (so far).

[Anonymous User]

I'm a senior associate who has only ever worked at a firm, but I cannot imagine moving to an in-house job for basically exactly this reason. My only motivators are (i) crushing time pressure and (ii) billable hours. I have a really difficult time trying to do anything until it's urgent and feel like if I were in-house I would just not do anything ever.

To each their own, but it is disturbing how big law crushes us all down into cogs who can only get our dried-out adrenal glands pumping in response to insane and often arbitrary deadlines. Imagine a world where a motivator included enjoying the work and being actually invested in outcomes? I've reached the point as well where the only thing keeping me engaged is a fear of screwing up (missing a deadline, missing something crucial, missing my hours). But I'm looking to move for exactly that reason. It makes zero sense to me that someone would voluntarily do something for life where the only motivation they have is time pressure and billing hours.

To 11:25 am, I used to agree with that before I moved in-house. Like mentioned above, though, in-house is really all about politics so (like BigLaw) it boils down to who you're working for. When I've had fantastic managers in-house, yes, I truly enjoy the work and am actually invested in the outcome. When I've had horrible managers in-house, I revert to my BigLaw mentality where it becomes a tennis match of how quickly I can get the ball back to the other side of the net.

Do you have kids? I ask, because, at least for me, the issues weren't the people (who seemed nice enough), but the time requirements. Talking to worse people, but having time for my family, has been worth it for me (so far).

Completely agree. In-house life is so much better than being at a firm.

[trusk13]

I'm a senior associate who has only ever worked at a firm, but I cannot imagine moving to an in-house job for basically exactly this reason. My only motivators are (i) crushing time pressure and (ii) billable hours. I have a really difficult time trying to do anything until it's urgent and feel like if I were in-house I would just not do anything ever.

To each their own, but it is disturbing how big law crushes us all down into cogs who can only get our dried-out adrenal glands pumping in response to insane and often arbitrary deadlines. Imagine a world where a motivator included enjoying the work and being actually invested in outcomes? I've reached the point as well where the only thing keeping me engaged is a fear of screwing up (missing a deadline, missing something crucial, missing my hours). But I'm looking to move for exactly that reason. It makes zero sense to me that someone would voluntarily do something for life where the only motivation they have is time pressure and billing hours.

To 11:25 am, I used to agree with that before I moved in-house. Like mentioned above, though, in-house is really all about politics so (like BigLaw) it boils down to who you're working for. When I've had fantastic managers in-house, yes, I truly enjoy the work and am actually invested in the outcome. When I've had horrible managers in-house, I revert to my BigLaw mentality where it becomes a tennis match of how quickly I can get the ball back to the other side of the net.

Do you have kids? I ask, because, at least for me, the issues weren't the people (who seemed nice enough), but the time requirements. Talking to worse people, but having time for my family, has been worth it for me (so far).

Do significantly more work from home days help at all with seeing the family, busy as you are?

[Anonymous User]

I'm a senior associate who has only ever worked at a firm, but I cannot imagine moving to an in-house job for basically exactly this reason. My only motivators are (i) crushing time pressure and (ii) billable hours. I have a really difficult time trying to do anything until it's urgent and feel like if I were in-house I would just not do anything ever.

To each their own, but it is disturbing how big law crushes us all down into cogs who can only get our dried-out adrenal glands pumping in response to insane and often arbitrary deadlines. Imagine a world where a motivator included enjoying the work and being actually invested in outcomes? I've reached the point as well where the only thing keeping me engaged is a fear of screwing up (missing a deadline, missing something crucial, missing my hours). But I'm looking to move for exactly that reason. It makes zero sense to me that someone would voluntarily do something for life where the only motivation they have is time pressure and billing hours.

To 11:25 am, I used to agree with that before I moved in-house. Like mentioned above, though, in-house is really all about politics so (like BigLaw) it boils down to who you're working for. When I've had fantastic managers in-house, yes, I truly enjoy the work and am actually invested in the outcome. When I've had horrible managers in-house, I revert to my BigLaw mentality where it becomes a tennis match of how quickly I can get the ball back to the other side of the net.

Do you have kids? I ask, because, at least for me, the issues weren't the people (who seemed nice enough), but the time requirements. Talking to worse people, but having time for my family, has been worth it for me (so far).

Do significantly more work from home days help at all with seeing the family, busy as you are?

I'm in the office 3 days a week and home 2 days a week. Working from home at a firm is not that helpful, because if I'm working 60-70 hours a week and doing parenting with all my free time, I'm simply too tired to do a good job at either. Again, it's not the flexibility, it's the sheer amount of time and energy that big law demands that I found to be unsustainable for me.

[Anonymous User]

Don't mean to derail the thread, but how large exactly is the pay cut to move in-house? Is $180-230K in-house roles realistic for most people after 3-5 years at a large firm?