In House Question: How Important is First Move (can u pigeonholing yourself)? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Kind of like how with law firms you start in v10 because you can always go down but hard to go up, does this same principle apply to corporate in-house gigs?

To be a little more specific, if I were to accept a corporate counsel job with (a) a generic tech company, (b) a large, regional healthcare provider or (c) a company that buys up healthcare practices and sort of franchises them, would either of the above hurt my portability in the future or box me in?

My sense is that (b) (and obviously (a)) is probably fine, but (c) may actually hurt my future career prospects if I want to make another move ((c) pays really well, which is why I'm trying to figure this out).

[Anonymous User]

As someone applying to in house positions broadly across industries, I'd also like to know the answer to this. I believe going in house is more about getting your foot in the door, but I may be wrong.

[Anonymous User]

Related question. Some companies have associate counsel or associate corporate counsel positions. Is it a bad idea to accept a title like this and how can it impact moves later on? I've seen listings with the same title, but one company might ask for 1+ years of experience and another is asking for 5+ years of experience. It seems like titles are a bit all over the places relative to experience, but curious how much it matters.

[nealric]

It simply isn’t true that you can only go down in Vault rankings. I’ve seen quite a few moves from even the bottom of the v100 to v10.

As for in-house, you do tend to gain industry-specific expertise. It’s not impossible to move, but I find once people are in an industry they tend to stay within it or related ones.

Titles are indeed all over the place in-house. All things being equal, a more impressive sounding title is better, but you’d need to look at any position holistically relative to other options.

[trebekismyhero]

It simply isn’t true that you can only go down in Vault rankings. I’ve seen quite a few moves from even the bottom of the v100 to v10.

As for in-house, you do tend to gain industry-specific expertise. It’s not impossible to move, but I find once people are in an industry they tend to stay within it or related ones.

Titles are indeed all over the place in-house. All things being equal, a more impressive sounding title is better, but you’d need to look at any position holistically relative to other options.

Yes, agree with this. Although I was able to change industries after being in-house for 3 years, it seemed like most of the other lawyers I worked with ended up working in that industry forever (a reason I looked to leave). For titles, while it usually is nice to get a better sounding title, it can hurt you if you try to leave. For example if you have only 2 years of experience and get an AGC title, companies hiring for corporate counsel may not consider you if you are applying.

Also, it is very company dependent. One company I know of has former big law partners as corporate counsel while many others promote to AGC very quickly.

[nealric]

It simply isn’t true that you can only go down in Vault rankings. I’ve seen quite a few moves from even the bottom of the v100 to v10.

As for in-house, you do tend to gain industry-specific expertise. It’s not impossible to move, but I find once people are in an industry they tend to stay within it or related ones.

Titles are indeed all over the place in-house. All things being equal, a more impressive sounding title is better, but you’d need to look at any position holistically relative to other options.

Yes, agree with this. Although I was able to change industries after being in-house for 3 years, it seemed like most of the other lawyers I worked with ended up working in that industry forever (a reason I looked to leave). For titles, while it usually is nice to get a better sounding title, it can hurt you if you try to leave. For example if you have only 2 years of experience and get an AGC title, companies hiring for corporate counsel may not consider you if you are applying.

Also, it is very company dependent. One company I know of has former big law partners as corporate counsel while many others promote to AGC very quickly.

Yes. My company title deflates. Out of a law department of ~25 attorneys, there are only 3 AGCs, who report directly to the GC and are pretty senior. We've had biglaw partners come in below the AGC level. Other companies call just about everyone "AGC." The law department titles are attorney ->senior attorney)->counsel ->senior counsel ->lead counsel->AGC ->GC. But to add to confusion there are lawyers outside the law department who have a totally different set of titles.

[Sad248]

It simply isn’t true that you can only go down in Vault rankings. I’ve seen quite a few moves from even the bottom of the v100 to v10.

As for in-house, you do tend to gain industry-specific expertise. It’s not impossible to move, but I find once people are in an industry they tend to stay within it or related ones.

Titles are indeed all over the place in-house. All things being equal, a more impressive sounding title is better, but you’d need to look at any position holistically relative to other options.

Yes, agree with this. Although I was able to change industries after being in-house for 3 years, it seemed like most of the other lawyers I worked with ended up working in that industry forever (a reason I looked to leave). For titles, while it usually is nice to get a better sounding title, it can hurt you if you try to leave. For example if you have only 2 years of experience and get an AGC title, companies hiring for corporate counsel may not consider you if you are applying.

Also, it is very company dependent. One company I know of has former big law partners as corporate counsel while many others promote to AGC very quickly.

Might I ask what industries you switched from and to? I want to know what has been possible in terms of switches when the day comes that I want to switch industries.

[Anonymous User]

It simply isn’t true that you can only go down in Vault rankings. I’ve seen quite a few moves from even the bottom of the v100 to v10.

As for in-house, you do tend to gain industry-specific expertise. It’s not impossible to move, but I find once people are in an industry they tend to stay within it or related ones.

Titles are indeed all over the place in-house. All things being equal, a more impressive sounding title is better, but you’d need to look at any position holistically relative to other options.

Yes, agree with this. Although I was able to change industries after being in-house for 3 years, it seemed like most of the other lawyers I worked with ended up working in that industry forever (a reason I looked to leave). For titles, while it usually is nice to get a better sounding title, it can hurt you if you try to leave. For example if you have only 2 years of experience and get an AGC title, companies hiring for corporate counsel may not consider you if you are applying.

Also, it is very company dependent. One company I know of has former big law partners as corporate counsel while many others promote to AGC very quickly.

Yes. My company title deflates. Out of a law department of ~25 attorneys, there are only 3 AGCs, who report directly to the GC and are pretty senior. We've had biglaw partners come in below the AGC level. Other companies call just about everyone "AGC." The law department titles are attorney ->senior attorney)->counsel ->senior counsel ->lead counsel->AGC ->GC. But to add to confusion there are lawyers outside the law department who have a totally different set of titles.

I'm in a big but non-hierarchical OGC with 25 attorneys who on the chart are all directly below and report directly to the GC, who has an EVP title. Of those 25, most are just called "corporate counsel," but if you're senior enough there might be a title bump to "senior counsel" or AGC.

[Anonymous User]

Why do partners go in house? Are they getting really good comp and/or WL balance? Or are we talking about "partners".

[nealric]

Why do partners go in house? Are they getting really good comp and/or WL balance? Or are we talking about "partners".

Various reasons. Better w/l balance, loss of clients or other work-source, or just wanting something different. Comp typically won't be as high (except for the GC level), but may not be as different as it first appears. Cash salary is going to be less, but better benefits and equity can make up a lot of the difference.

It also depends on what firm you are talking about. An equity partner at a highly profitable firm (i.e. Kirkland, et. al) probably isn't going to find an in-house job that makes sense financially short of a big company GC role. But a partner at a lower v100 may be making only a bit more than a senior associate, so the pay cut may be something like $600k to $400k with better w/l balance and significant upside potential.

[Anonymous User]

Related question. Some companies have associate counsel or associate corporate counsel positions. Is it a bad idea to accept a title like this and how can it impact moves later on? I've seen listings with the same title, but one company might ask for 1+ years of experience and another is asking for 5+ years of experience. It seems like titles are a bit all over the places relative to experience, but curious how much it matters.

I went in house in the last few months. I interviewed relatively widely and had a few options, including at a pretty big company (think FAANG), and ended up at a small but growing tech company. I made a point during the interview process of saying that I expected my title to change after one year and to be AGC by two years, and was told that was a reasonable expectation. There's always some amount of disconnect between what the applicant and the hirers think a role will be, but I've found that all those upfront conversations about the kind of work, kind of job growth, and kind of work relationship have really paid off in terms of mutual expectations.

[Anonymous User]

Why do partners go in house? Are they getting really good comp and/or WL balance? Or are we talking about "partners".

Various reasons. Better w/l balance, loss of clients or other work-source, or just wanting something different. Comp typically won't be as high (except for the GC level), but may not be as different as it first appears. Cash salary is going to be less, but better benefits and equity can make up a lot of the difference.

It also depends on what firm you are talking about. An equity partner at a highly profitable firm (i.e. Kirkland, et. al) probably isn't going to find an in-house job that makes sense financially short of a big company GC role. But a partner at a lower v100 may be making only a bit more than a senior associate, so the pay cut may be something like $600k to $400k with better w/l balance and significant upside potential.

Yeah, the former partners I work with were probably not rainmakers and my company pays pretty well so it probably wasn't more than a $200k paycut for the opportunity to work mostly 9-5.

[Anonymous User]

OP here - thanks for responses! So just being perfectly candid, as someone who is at a v10 and has options, it sounds like I should decline the CC position for the company that buys up medical practices, as that is a pretty niche industry to be stuck in and may be hard to get out.

[trebekismyhero]

OP here - thanks for responses! So just being perfectly candid, as someone who is at a v10 and has options, it sounds like I should decline the CC position for the company that buys up medical practices, as that is a pretty niche industry to be stuck in and may be hard to get out.

That is a little more niche, but depends on what you're doing. If you're handling the M&A piece, it is useful enough that you can lateral to a fair number of places (including some PE shops that handle that type of work). A and B in your initial scenario give you the most room to move, particularly A, but I don't think C is necessarily as restrictive as being counsel at a small insurance company or something like that

[Anonymous User]

OP here - thanks for responses! So just being perfectly candid, as someone who is at a v10 and has options, it sounds like I should decline the CC position for the company that buys up medical practices, as that is a pretty niche industry to be stuck in and may be hard to get out.

That is a little more niche, but depends on what you're doing. If you're handling the M&A piece, it is useful enough that you can lateral to a fair number of places (including some PE shops that handle that type of work). A and B in your initial scenario give you the most room to move, particularly A, but I don't think C is necessarily as restrictive as being counsel at a small insurance company or something like that

Exactly right on C. The role is about 75% M&A, 25% commercial contracts / miscellaneous. I considered it because of the large M&A component, and it pays very well. But as I think about it, the M&A is likely to be extremely repetitive and it just seems like I could be stuck in that job via not having very transferable experience.

[Anonymous User]

To add in my two cents here. It depends on the company and what it does.

If you are hired on as an "associate counsel" at a growing company with 2-3 lawyers, you are going to be involved in a lot and have a lot of opportunities for moving up.

If you are an associate counsel at a firm with 40+ lawyers and 1000+ employees, you are going to be placed in a specific subgroup with a manager who has a manager who has a manager (GC is somewhere in that train). You will work in your silo and not get to touch much that goes outside of that. Moving up will require someone leaving, someone transferring groups, or being so busy that new roles need to be created.

I would highly, highly recommend not taking any associate counsel roles at large companies unless they have very clear career progressions or the pay is somehow so good you can't pass it up. Those places can be fine if you are lateraling in at a more senior level since you have a good comp and work product balance. I'm speaking from personal experience of someone who got burned going in-house too early and looking at 4-5 years doing the same low-level work because everyone above me was pretty comfy in their positions.

[Anonymous User]

To add in my two cents here. It depends on the company and what it does.

If you are hired on as an "associate counsel" at a growing company with 2-3 lawyers, you are going to be involved in a lot and have a lot of opportunities for moving up.

If you are an associate counsel at a firm with 40+ lawyers and 1000+ employees, you are going to be placed in a specific subgroup with a manager who has a manager who has a manager (GC is somewhere in that train). You will work in your silo and not get to touch much that goes outside of that. Moving up will require someone leaving, someone transferring groups, or being so busy that new roles need to be created.

I would highly, highly recommend not taking any associate counsel roles at large companies unless they have very clear career progressions or the pay is somehow so good you can't pass it up. Those places can be fine if you are lateraling in at a more senior level since you have a good comp and work product balance. I'm speaking from personal experience of someone who got burned going in-house too early and looking at 4-5 years doing the same low-level work because everyone above me was pretty comfy in their positions.

Another risk (I've personally experienced) from going in-house early is getting the experience, but not getting the pay/title commensurate with your role. When senior people leave, it's very tempting for companies to backfill their positions with existing employees without actually promoting (especially in law, where managing people isn't necessarily part of the gig). The company saves a lot of money when people are willing and able to operate above their paygrade. You can possibly parlay the experience to another company, but you will have to explain a ho-hum title to any new employer.

[Anonymous User]

To add in my two cents here. It depends on the company and what it does.

If you are hired on as an "associate counsel" at a growing company with 2-3 lawyers, you are going to be involved in a lot and have a lot of opportunities for moving up.

If you are an associate counsel at a firm with 40+ lawyers and 1000+ employees, you are going to be placed in a specific subgroup with a manager who has a manager who has a manager (GC is somewhere in that train). You will work in your silo and not get to touch much that goes outside of that. Moving up will require someone leaving, someone transferring groups, or being so busy that new roles need to be created.

I would highly, highly recommend not taking any associate counsel roles at large companies unless they have very clear career progressions or the pay is somehow so good you can't pass it up. Those places can be fine if you are lateraling in at a more senior level since you have a good comp and work product balance. I'm speaking from personal experience of someone who got burned going in-house too early and looking at 4-5 years doing the same low-level work because everyone above me was pretty comfy in their positions.

Another risk (I've personally experienced) from going in-house early is getting the experience, but not getting the pay/title commensurate with your role. When senior people leave, it's very tempting for companies to backfill their positions with existing employees without actually promoting (especially in law, where managing people isn't necessarily part of the gig). The company saves a lot of money when people are willing and able to operate above their paygrade. You can possibly parlay the experience to another company, but you will have to explain a ho-hum title to any new employer.

This happened at a company I worked at. The Asst Corporate Counsel filled in for a year when the Sr. Real Estate Counsel then filled in for another 6 months when the corporate counsel left and didn't get promoted by the GC after almost 2 years of basically doing two jobs.

[Inhousefuture]

Why do partners go in house? Are they getting really good comp and/or WL balance? Or are we talking about "partners".

Various reasons. Better w/l balance, loss of clients or other work-source, or just wanting something different. Comp typically won't be as high (except for the GC level), but may not be as different as it first appears. Cash salary is going to be less, but better benefits and equity can make up a lot of the difference.

It also depends on what firm you are talking about. An equity partner at a highly profitable firm (i.e. Kirkland, et. al) probably isn't going to find an in-house job that makes sense financially short of a big company GC role. But a partner at a lower v100 may be making only a bit more than a senior associate, so the pay cut may be something like $600k to $400k with better w/l balance and significant upside potential.

1. How better is the w/l balance in that type of in-house job?

2. To what extent do benefits improve the overall compensation rate?

3. How lucrative can the potential upside or upside be? To what extent does benefits equity make up for the difference?


Thanks

[Anonymous User]

Why do partners go in house? Are they getting really good comp and/or WL balance? Or are we talking about "partners".

Various reasons. Better w/l balance, loss of clients or other work-source, or just wanting something different. Comp typically won't be as high (except for the GC level), but may not be as different as it first appears. Cash salary is going to be less, but better benefits and equity can make up a lot of the difference.

It also depends on what firm you are talking about. An equity partner at a highly profitable firm (i.e. Kirkland, et. al) probably isn't going to find an in-house job that makes sense financially short of a big company GC role. But a partner at a lower v100 may be making only a bit more than a senior associate, so the pay cut may be something like $600k to $400k with better w/l balance and significant upside potential.

1. How better is the w/l balance in that type of in-house job?

2. To what extent do benefits improve the overall compensation rate?

3. How lucrative can the potential upside or upside be? To what extent does benefits equity make up for the difference?


Thanks

1. How better is the w/l balance in that type of in-house job? Way better. At both my in-house positions, I'd say 9-5 was the norm almost all the time unless a massive deal was happening.

2. To what extent do benefits improve the overall compensation rate? Totally depends on the company. At my current company, bonuses not equity can get comp closer to the junior partner level

3. How lucrative can the potential upside or upside be? To what extent does benefits equity make up for the difference? Again totally depends on the company. Obviously startups could be the biggest payouts at equity (I know a couple attys that went in-house to companies pre-IPO and they made 7 figures), but that is far from a guarantee and usually get less base salary. Other threads have talked about FAANG stock options. I am in finance so comp is comparable but as I said more bonus than equity

[nealric]

Why do partners go in house? Are they getting really good comp and/or WL balance? Or are we talking about "partners".

Various reasons. Better w/l balance, loss of clients or other work-source, or just wanting something different. Comp typically won't be as high (except for the GC level), but may not be as different as it first appears. Cash salary is going to be less, but better benefits and equity can make up a lot of the difference.

It also depends on what firm you are talking about. An equity partner at a highly profitable firm (i.e. Kirkland, et. al) probably isn't going to find an in-house job that makes sense financially short of a big company GC role. But a partner at a lower v100 may be making only a bit more than a senior associate, so the pay cut may be something like $600k to $400k with better w/l balance and significant upside potential.

1. How better is the w/l balance in that type of in-house job?

2. To what extent do benefits improve the overall compensation rate?

3. How lucrative can the potential upside or upside be? To what extent does benefits equity make up for the difference?


Thanks

1. Totally dependent on company, but there are very much 9-5 in-house jobs out there. I'm generally on a "9-80" schedule, with every other Friday off unless I'm travelling on on a major deal (deals big enough to disrupt schedules happen fairly rarely). The average in-house job is going to be way better than the average biglaw job. But I'm sure there are outliers that push you to work biglaw hours.

2. Can be substantial. My company has a cash balance pension (7-10% of your salary cash contributed), 401k match at 7%, better health insurance (with HSA employer contribution). Then there's bonus and restricted stock, which can be a much bigger portion of salary than is typical in a law firm. RSU + Bonus will be about equal to my base salary this year. Also little things like automatic mega backdoor Roth (firm plan didn't even allow post-tax 401k contributions) But you have to look at every package individually.

3. GC at a F500 company can make well into the millions. I'd say pretty equivalent to a moderate rainmaker biglaw partner. Chances are you will never make GC, but chances are you will never be a biglaw rainmaker. One downside is that to make GC you often have to strategically job hop and be geographically flexible (at least from what I've observed from GC resumes). More typical outcome in-house is that your comp won't increase substantially from what you come in at. RSU/Bonus fluctuation can be bigger than annual raises.