In-House Funds Lawyer - Offer to Go to Big Law Forum

[Anonymous User]

Wanted to get some takes on this. I am an in-house counsel at a mid-size hedge fund and PE manager (c/o 2014-2015). I was not in big law before my current position. I have interviewed and had offers in the past few years to go to big law, but turned them down.

With all the hiring and money being thrown around, wanted to get people's take on finally making the move to big law. I am currently one of two lawyers at the firm, we handle everything and anything legal, and it is very interesting. The GC isn't going anywhere soon, although not my immediate need to become GC. I am paid similar or more than an associate in the class year range I provided above, work hours are typically 8:30-7ish and then work Asia hours a decent amount depending on deal flow. Weekend work is usually 1-2 hours per week.

Would the move to big law open up more options, for example going back in-house or sticking it our for partner if I did not mind the lifestyle, which could be annoying, but I experience it a good amount of the fire drills at my current job. Also, the compensation in big law seems to be on the up swing, I would need to keep pushing my current employer to keep pace, which who knows if that would happen.

Any advise/thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks

[Anonymous User]

It sounds like you have a pretty sweet deal, but I do think a stint in biglaw will help you if you want to advance. I know someone who come back to biglaw as counsel after a stint in house, then leveraged it to a GC gig. Obviously different career trajectory (he'd done biglaw prior and had 20+ years experience). Still, it would put you in touch with a broader network and be fill that "must have amlaw experience" box.

[Anonymous User]

Im a class of 2014 and was in a similar position to you and opted to do biglaw to get the pay raise. Once you leave biglaw everyone pretty much knows your salary and you can expect to use it as a starting point in negotiations. BUT, there aren’t actually that many funds paying biglaw market, at least not places you want to work. Ive been pretty actively looking and I’ve only found a handful of shops paying over 250k base for mid-senior associates. Funds are places where lifestyle and comp tend to be aligned.

So, is it worth it to get the raise and do biglaw for a few years to get better options down the road? I’d argue no unless you are looking for one of two things (1) a big boost to savings or paying down debt from your time in biglaw or (2) training from biglaw either because you feel you aren’t competent or because you’ve been looking for a new role and are getting feedback that you need biglaw training. It doesn’t sound like these are the case.

Biglaw sucks. I was very much “on” in house from 8:00-6:30 every day, which sounds like it could prepare you pretty well for the biglaw schedule since you’re already working 10 hours a day. But it just doesn’t compare. For me, the constant deluge of client demands, the relentless perfectionism and the service provider mentality of keeping clients happy is unbearable. In house you have one client. The days that I work a steady 9-7 are rare. I’m always checking email from 7 until I go to bed and I frequently work from 9-11. I recently took a few hours to do personal things to have fallen by the wayside and realized I had not submitted 7 months of insurance reimbursements, was delinquent on sending a jury questionnaire and had a $15 medical bill sent to collections because I had neglected to pay it. If I sleep 8 hours, bill 9-10 hours and do personal things for 2 hours (gym, one hour of TV while eating takeout), that’s a manageable day for me. Not worth it. You need to be ok with mostly not having hobbies during the week, not cooking, outsourcing everything you possibly can, and working super late (usually drunk) if you got out with friends.

Edited to add: this isn’t meant to be a “you have no idea how bad it is” post. I’m just trying to provide perspective as someone who has been on both sides. I don’t regret my decision because it has opened more doors for me but I definitely want to leave.

[Anonymous User]

Is your only goal to become a GC?

I don't think you inherently "need" to go to biglaw at all to gun for a GC spot. Could it help? Definitely. Does every GC I know have biglaw experience, as far as I can remember yes. I have known a lot of guys though who were non-GC in-house, stayed for a while and developed good relationships with business folks, and when some of the more ambitious business guys left to start their own shops they went with them as the new GC they already were familiar working with. My prior GC did exactly this (big shop, worked their for 8 years, some guys started new shop and brought him on as GC).

All of this being said, I do think it is a little crazy you've landed the role you have without any biglaw experience. I would be a little wary of going to biglaw at this point without any prior biglaw training. You are going to be thrown to the wolves, particularly as a more senior associate. There is just some basic shit about dealing with law firm life that most people pick up in their first 2 years. Billing, law firm politics, etc. that is way different than working in-house. Seniors are expected to do basically all of the heavy lifting at the firm so it would be a real trial by fire.

I would also not actively assume that biglaw salaries will continue jumping at the pace they are now (remember when they were flat for like 10 years), or that becoming a partner (feat in itself) or counsel at a biglaw firm will guarantee you a GC position later on.

[Anonymous User]

Is your only goal to become a GC?

I don't think you inherently "need" to go to biglaw at all to gun for a GC spot. Could it help? Definitely. Does every GC I know have biglaw experience, as far as I can remember yes. I have known a lot of guys though who were non-GC in-house, stayed for a while and developed good relationships with business folks, and when some of the more ambitious business guys left to start their own shops they went with them as the new GC they already were familiar working with. My prior GC did exactly this (big shop, worked their for 8 years, some guys started new shop and brought him on as GC).

All of this being said, I do think it is a little crazy you've landed the role you have without any biglaw experience. I would be a little wary of going to biglaw at this point without any prior biglaw training. You are going to be thrown to the wolves, particularly as a more senior associate. There is just some basic shit about dealing with law firm life that most people pick up in their first 2 years. Billing, law firm politics, etc. that is way different than working in-house. Seniors are expected to do basically all of the heavy lifting at the firm so it would be a real trial by fire.

I would also not actively assume that biglaw salaries will continue jumping at the pace they are now (remember when they were flat for like 10 years), or that becoming a partner (feat in itself) or counsel at a biglaw firm will guarantee you a GC position later on.

I would agree with this. Went to biglaw as a mid level and it was really fucking difficult to learn the ropes. I can’t imagine how hard it would be as a senior.

[synergy]

I was in a pretty similar boat as you - 2014 grad and started at a hedge/pe fund in a small legal dept and made comparable to biglaw pay. I enjoyed in house life but I thought I feared not being a strong candidate for the "next level up" jobs - AGC/DGC type jobs - and being stuck at the same fund behind the GC who would never leave. I made the leap and went to biglaw as a midlevel (in an elite funds practice) to open doors for me down the road and am still in biglaw (as a now-senior).

I'm reiterating some of what was already said but I think it's a gamble and just a matter of your career goals and how ambitious you are. Some thoughts for your consideration:

- The vast majority of the in-house jobs I get emails for are worse than the in-house job I left. And the in-house job I left sounds generally worse than the one you have. So you might leave your job for the "better experience" of biglaw and leave biglaw going to a job worse than what you started with. I would say it's highly possible to be honest.

- I probably have a higher pain tolerance than most but funds biglaw is somewhat okay to me. It's not great, and in a vacuum I'd much prefer in-house by a good margin, but it's not terrible. But I also don't want to stay much longer and at some point would probably take an in-house job worse than what I had previously if need be.

- Chances of making partner at biglaw is obviously already slim. The chances of doing so while lateralling with no biglaw experience and presumably at a decently high level? I'd venture to guess that it's next to impossible since you won't have a very long runway. Unless you mean income partner but really I just view that as being a counsel or senior associate. If you do make the move, I'd just make the move assuming you're doing it for a boost in resume when going back in-house.

- For what it's worth, I didn't think the transition to biglaw was that hard personally. If you lasted that long at a fund and make the money you make, I presume people like you and you are good at your job. I'm sure you'll be able to transition fine if you wanted to do so.

- Becoming GC of a fund is more random than about credentials. Some of my clients and other GCs I know have the most random backgrounds and somehow ended up as GC of a fund. Can you make GC somewhere with your background? I think theoretically yes if the stars align. Likely? Definitely not, but it's not likely for the candidate with 6 years of Kirkland experience and 5 years of quality in-house experience either, unless if they leave a good shop for a startup fund (which still requires luck and still requires the stars to align to some degree).

TL; DR - if you're okay with "just" making good money working not horrible hours for the rest of your life, I would probably stay. If you really want to become GC one day, it's going to be a gamble either way but you increase your odds by going to biglaw. But your life will become worse in the short term for sure, with no promise of that coveted GC job. Personally, I made that choice and have no regrets so far, but if I can't find a decent in-house job in the next few years, I'd probably regret the move.

Feel free to DM me if you have more questions.

[Anonymous User]

So you are making $450k+ working those hours, with no biglaw background? That seems like a great gig.

I would just keep in mind that there is a chance you end up in a worse position by leaving for biglaw and then trying to go back in-house. I'm a similar class year, and interviewed (or got comp info) for a lot of in-house fund roles last year -- I would say maybe 10% of those were offering the same or better comp than what I was making in biglaw.

Also, you would start in biglaw as a senior associate, so the salary scale increases will only really last you a year or two before you are up for partner/counsel -- at which point there is less transparency/guarantee regarding pay bumps.

If you plan to leave your current job soon in any event, then I could see a benefit in going to biglaw for a year or two just as a cash grab and resume booster. Firms are struggling for competent mid/senior funds associates right now, so you would have the leverage to negotiate a nice signing bonus.