Is going in-house the wrong decision? Forum

[tridog]

I'm a 5th year at a V20 doing primarily m&a and starting to look at in-house options. Interviewed at a few different places a came away with a few offers and leaning towards taking one at a non-FANG tech company to do transactions for all in comp about equal to 5th year level.

With that said, I am honestly pretty content at the firm at the moment, so I am having a hard time pulling the trigger. I don't necessarily think I want to stick around and make partner (they seem to all just grind their life away), but I also don't want to dead end my career by jumping from the firm too early.

I was poking around the web and found this article by our good friend Harrison. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-goin ... -barnes-1c

It's a bit sensationalist no doubt, but there are some good points in it. I'm not really sure its applicable to my situation in particular (I don't think this in-house job is necessarily a dead end), but I figured I'd poll the collective group. Have any folks who made the jump in-house thought it had a detrimental impact on their career longterm? Is it better to stick it out at the firm?

[Anonymous User]

I went in-house early in my career and spent years clawing my way back to biglaw. H Barnes is kind of a tool but he knows what he's talking about and his article is on point.

[Anonymous User]

I went in-house early in my career and spent years clawing my way back to biglaw. H Barnes is kind of a tool but he knows what he's talking about and his article is on point.

Thanks for the reply! When did you go in-house? I generally agree that the article is definitely credited, but I guess I’m trying to figure out what the turning point is.

On the one hand, I could just stay at the firm, on the other hand it’s hard to pass up a $400k+ in-house offer…

[Anonymous User]

I went in-house early in my career and spent years clawing my way back to biglaw. H Barnes is kind of a tool but he knows what he's talking about and his article is on point.

Thanks for the reply! When did you go in-house? I generally agree that the article is definitely credited, but I guess I’m trying to figure out what the turning point is.

On the one hand, I could just stay at the firm, on the other hand it’s hard to pass up a $400k+ in-house offer…

Sorry accidental anon reply.

[Anonymous User]

I went in-house 1.5-2 years ago now and it's been a dream. Class of 2016 from law school.

I didn't read all of the article you linked, but I definitely don't think my skills have deteriorated and my marketability to other in-house roles seems to have gone up (I get direct reach-outs from other companies probably once or twice a month, sometimes from specific lawyers at other companies, sometimes from an in-house Recruiting person at that company). I do work quite a bit less and I've gotten two significant pay increases since I started.

I fully agree that not all in-house jobs are inherently desirable, though. It can be a bit of a gamble in terms of the the quality of the team you work with and perhaps industry. I work in media/entertainment/games and it seems like there's an insane demand right now for people with an in-house background in those fields (since it may be harder to find someone with law firm experience in those categories). The whole point of all this is just to say it's not inherently a career-killer.

Will I ever make a fortune, the same way a big law partner would? Obviously not. Do I think I've sold away all my marketability, skills and job stability? As of now, no, and it seems like the rest of my company's legal team has plenty of job mobility if they want it (a couple have left, and those still there have had interesting options presented).

[Anonymous User]

I went in-house and it’s awesome. All my friends and law school classmates who I keep up with and have gone in-house love it compared to biglaw. The work life balance is such an improvement to qualify of life, being able to make and keep plans to see friends and family (at least pre-pandemic) makes you feel like a normal person again. It’s probably added years to my life, I used to do biglaw corporate, mix of VC, cap markets and M&A, going from one deal to the next was exhausting and stressful. I’m at the stage where my law school classmates are starting to make partner, and I’m sure it’s been great for them to stay at their firms, but I can’t imagine that kind of life.

All that said, yes, be somewhat judicious about which opportunity to take. Don’t jump on something that looks like just rote, low level churning contracts kind of work, at least if you have thoughts about moving up and keeping your skills sharp (hey, maybe doing that work for the foreseeable future is fine for some people). Either find a role that’s at least somewhat generalist so you’ll be exposed to different legal issues, or, if it’s a more specialized role, make sure it’s a specialty you’re comfortable committing to and that is also fairly sophisticated in that field. Find a place with a good mentor who can help you continue to hone your skills. Find a company that has a good culture, both generally and in the legal group.

[nixy]

Pretty sure the wide range of people I know who love their in-house jobs would find that article hysterical.

I can't say nothing in it is ever accurate, and the overall point that generating your own business gives you a certain kind of job security makes sense, but it reflects a really specific (and narrow) vision of what being a lawyer means and what success is. As the two posts above me point out, it depends a lot on where you go and what expertise you get in the process. Some in-house jobs are dead-end. Plenty aren't. Same is true of firms.

(Also lol at the idea that it's a big revelation that law firms give fancy send-offs to people who go in-house because they want to get business from that company. Duh. Pretty sure no one decides to go in-house because they see their firm praise people who do; pretty sure it's so they can stop working late and on weekend and checking their emails every 5 minutes when out of the office.)

[Mullens]

That sounds like a great offer. I would probably take it if you’re thinking you’d rather be in-house than at a company.

[institutionalized]

Harrison Barnes makes money from placing attorneys with other law firms. Every attorney that goes in-house is one less paycheck to him.

[pcounsel]

Wow that's a depressingly off-point article. I was at a firm for 5 years and have been in house for 4, at two different companies. Let me address each of the main points:

a. Your skills will deteriorate rapidly and significantly. The most important work will be sent to law firms and not done by you.

LOL. What skills? You mean the skills in areas that I find incredibly boring or largely irrelevant to my job so I send to outside counsel on Friday afternoon to have an answer for me by Monday? In house I'm able to focus on and nurture skills that I find more relevant to career development, not least of which is business skills, which firm lawyers are significantly lacking in.

b. You will become a "cost center" and not a profit-generator (in most instances) and will be one of the first to go when the company experiences problems – and all companies do.

Legal teams are indeed cost centers, but the art of good in house counsel is to learn how to provide value and not be a 'check the box' group. Also the idea that legal teams are 'the first to go' when companies experience problems is nonsense. You know what is the first to go? Budgets for outside counsel.

c. You will no longer be employable by almost any law firm whatsoever when you lose your job – and you most likely will lose your job inside of a company.

This may have been true up until a decade ago or so but is no longer the case. I routinely see in house lawyers with specialized skills getting poached by firms. For generalists it's more difficult. But overall few in house lawyers are desirous to return to that lifestyle.

d. Most companies want to hire younger attorneys (often from law firms) with "fresher" skills than an in-house attorney coming from another company.

Literally 100% false. Look at any in house job posting and it will say "previous in house experience desired." And they mean it.

e. Without clients of your own, you will have zero control over your career.

What? So every non-lawyer working in a company has zero control over their career also?

f. When the company experiences some significant legal problems – and most companies do – you and others in the legal department who "touched" the matter will all likely lose your jobs.

This makes little sense. This assumes that any "significant legal problem" arises from a matter that had its genesis in the legal group (e.g. a contract/deal gone wrong, or bad legal advise). 99% of serious legal matters that come in, in my experience, are totally independent of actions previously taken in the legal group (e.g. lawsuits related to actions by business teams gone rogue, patent troll suits, etc). Why would you then fire the team that can help defend those matters?

g. Most attorneys inside of companies are the "resident buzz kills" who spend their days covering their asses by telling management (i.e., people actually doing things) what is not possible. They become impediments to getting things done and are often not liked too much by people inside of the companies either (i.e., they become more isolated and lonely inside of companies than they were inside of law firms).

This is true. But don't be that lawyer and you will rise quickly.

[1styearlateral]

e. Without clients of your own, you will have zero control over your career.

What? So every non-lawyer working in a company has zero control over their career also?

While Harrison's point is not true, he ignores something that certainly is: With clients of your own, you will have zero control over your life.

Since clients pay the bills that keep the lights on (and keep you valuable to the firm), you are beholden to them 24/7/365. The more clients you have, the more there is to do.