How to know if you aren’t cut out for in-house (and should go back to biglaw)? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Recent biglaw senior that went in-house in bigtech. Been here under 6 months.

I’m not sure if it’s just general issues settling into a new job, or if I fucking hate this. How do I know?

I’m finding myself scrolling biglaw job postings.

[Anonymous User]

I do know that I hate all these stupid meetings (where everyone is expected to chime in with some hot air bullshit) and the stupid byzantine processes, and that the generally low quality of drafting drives me crazy. I literally had a meeting about having a meeting this morning—like a joke. 8:00 AM start to work days also sucks.

I do like being done at ~6:00 everyday with no weekend work, though.

Don’t really know what to do.

[Anonymous User]

Recent biglaw senior that went in-house in bigtech. Been here under 6 months.

I’m not sure if it’s just general issues settling into a new job, or if I fucking hate this. How do I know?

I’m finding myself scrolling biglaw job postings.

Depending on your seniority, just give it like 6 more months or a year, and then go for counsel positions at a firm. I've seen several people get promoted instantly by timing the transition from Biglaw => inhouse => biglaw perfectly. I doubt they did it intentionally, but nontheless, it somehow worked out where they got to chill for a year or two, let their skills deteriorate and somehow come out in a better position than they were previously.

[nealric]

You have to honestly ask yourself whether it's your specific company or things that are fundamental to in-house that are bothering you?

Yes, there's always going to be more meetings than there would be in biglaw. Part of the reason you are there is to communicate things to the business, and not everything can (or should) be communicated in writing.

When drafting does occur in-house, you are correct that it is likely lower quality, but on the flipside in-house drafting really only cares about substance. For some, that's going to be refreshing. For others, refreshing.

Both have BS, it's just different types of BS. Some times of BS may irk some more than others.

If you want to go back to Biglaw, you probably can. I'd give it at least a year though (preferably two if you can stomach it).

[Anonymous User]

Thanks folks. My plan is definitely to give it at least a year, but I’m already having trouble hiding my disdain for some of this shit. Accidentally got a little pointed in my 1:1 with my manager last week asking why we do stuff the way we do and waste so much time when the business hates us for it. Maybe I’ll get PIPed and that’ll answer the question

[Anonymous User]

Why did you go in house in the first place?

[Anonymous User]

Thanks folks. My plan is definitely to give it at least a year, but I’m already having trouble hiding my disdain for some of this shit. Accidentally got a little pointed in my 1:1 with my manager last week asking why we do stuff the way we do and waste so much time when the business hates us for it. Maybe I’ll get PIPed and that’ll answer the question

Exact same situation here - about 8 months in, having a bit of trouble hiding my frustration on some days, first review coming up later this month, hoping to stick it out (at least) a full year.

[institutionalized]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_syndrome

[nealric]

Thanks folks. My plan is definitely to give it at least a year, but I’m already having trouble hiding my disdain for some of this shit. Accidentally got a little pointed in my 1:1 with my manager last week asking why we do stuff the way we do and waste so much time when the business hates us for it. Maybe I’ll get PIPed and that’ll answer the question

I don't think I've ever felt that the business "hates" our law department, so I don't think that's a universal feature of in-house practice. If that's really true, there needs to be some relationship development and fence mending.

One thing you do need to be careful of in-house is that your manager typically has a huge amount of control over your future at the company. It's not like a law firm where there are multiple partners with different levels of influence who can help shape your institutional standing. But at the end of the day, most managers just want reports to do the work that needs to be done, don't cause them headaches, and make them look good. They aren't going to PIP you because you come up with a plan they think will make them look good. They might if they think you are destroying relationships with internal clients and bad-mouthing the department, or are otherwise insubordinate.

At most companies, a PIP is just a formality to paper over a dismissal, so that doesn't get done without a bunch of HR meetings most managers really don't want to deal with unless they have to. If your manager was the hiring manager, they also look bad if their recent hire needs to be PIPed- it means THEY made a bad decision that is going to cost the company time and money, so most won't do it unless they really think the hire is egregiously bad such that they can't live with them until the next economic layoff (during which they can often just pick the people they might have wanted gone anyways).

[Anonymous User]

Recent biglaw senior that went in-house in bigtech. Been here under 6 months.

I’m not sure if it’s just general issues settling into a new job, or if I fucking hate this. How do I know?

I’m finding myself scrolling biglaw job postings.

I've been in-house closer to a year, but I feel very similar (went in as a mid-level). I have settled in, in some ways, and the job has become easier and more tolerable, but the things that annoyed me about it, such as excessive meetings and demanding business teams and unreasonable senior folks, really haven't improved. My sense is it's just a personal matter how much those points of in-house life annoy any given person.

I think about leaving, but never back to biglaw. When I scroll through job postings, my stomach turns and panic response starts ringing when I see biglaw jobs. Just the idea of going back to billable hours, cancelled weekend plans, and being responsive till 10:00 pm every night. The money was great, but I couldn't hack the lifestyle. Sounds like you don't have quite that reaction, but you must have gone in-house for a reason. If you think biglaw was tolerable enough to mull a return to, probably worth considering. To each their own.

[Wild Card]

I'm transitioning from biglaw to bigfed and I'm dreading endless meetings about meetings, inefficiencies, and crazies.

[Anonymous User]

I'm transitioning from biglaw to bigfed and I'm dreading endless meetings about meetings, inefficiencies, and crazies.

I mean there are doubtless inefficiencies about the feds but there definitely aren’t meetings about meetings.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks folks. My plan is definitely to give it at least a year, but I’m already having trouble hiding my disdain for some of this shit. Accidentally got a little pointed in my 1:1 with my manager last week asking why we do stuff the way we do and waste so much time when the business hates us for it. Maybe I’ll get PIPed and that’ll answer the question

I don't think I've ever felt that the business "hates" our law department, so I don't think that's a universal feature of in-house practice. If that's really true, there needs to be some relationship development and fence mending.

One thing you do need to be careful of in-house is that your manager typically has a huge amount of control over your future at the company. It's not like a law firm where there are multiple partners with different levels of influence who can help shape your institutional standing. But at the end of the day, most managers just want reports to do the work that needs to be done, don't cause them headaches, and make them look good. They aren't going to PIP you because you come up with a plan they think will make them look good. They might if they think you are destroying relationships with internal clients and bad-mouthing the department, or are otherwise insubordinate.

At most companies, a PIP is just a formality to paper over a dismissal, so that doesn't get done without a bunch of HR meetings most managers really don't want to deal with unless they have to. If your manager was the hiring manager, they also look bad if their recent hire needs to be PIPed- it means THEY made a bad decision that is going to cost the company time and money, so most won't do it unless they really think the hire is egregiously bad such that they can't live with them until the next economic layoff (during which they can often just pick the people they might have wanted gone anyways).

Out of curiosity after reading this, I asked a friend who is an HR professional whether they have ever known anyone to receive a PIP that actually led to a resolution of whatever the issue was and the employee went on to be successful. The answer was an immediate "no" and what's more they're such a pain to discuss, create, monitor and act on, my friend advises against going through the motions of it unless there's a perceived risk of being accused of some kind of maltreatment, typically discrimination (age, medical condition, race). The psychological burden on a manager having to build the most damning file possible is pretty bad too, in addition to making the original hiring decision look like a misjudgment.

[Anonymous User]

So long as you don't have billable requirements what's the big deal with meetings? Can't imagine it's worse than biglaw.

[nealric]

Thanks folks. My plan is definitely to give it at least a year, but I’m already having trouble hiding my disdain for some of this shit. Accidentally got a little pointed in my 1:1 with my manager last week asking why we do stuff the way we do and waste so much time when the business hates us for it. Maybe I’ll get PIPed and that’ll answer the question

I don't think I've ever felt that the business "hates" our law department, so I don't think that's a universal feature of in-house practice. If that's really true, there needs to be some relationship development and fence mending.

One thing you do need to be careful of in-house is that your manager typically has a huge amount of control over your future at the company. It's not like a law firm where there are multiple partners with different levels of influence who can help shape your institutional standing. But at the end of the day, most managers just want reports to do the work that needs to be done, don't cause them headaches, and make them look good. They aren't going to PIP you because you come up with a plan they think will make them look good. They might if they think you are destroying relationships with internal clients and bad-mouthing the department, or are otherwise insubordinate.

At most companies, a PIP is just a formality to paper over a dismissal, so that doesn't get done without a bunch of HR meetings most managers really don't want to deal with unless they have to. If your manager was the hiring manager, they also look bad if their recent hire needs to be PIPed- it means THEY made a bad decision that is going to cost the company time and money, so most won't do it unless they really think the hire is egregiously bad such that they can't live with them until the next economic layoff (during which they can often just pick the people they might have wanted gone anyways).

Out of curiosity after reading this, I asked a friend who is an HR professional whether they have ever known anyone to receive a PIP that actually led to a resolution of whatever the issue was and the employee went on to be successful. The answer was an immediate "no" and what's more they're such a pain to discuss, create, monitor and act on, my friend advises against going through the motions of it unless there's a perceived risk of being accused of some kind of maltreatment, typically discrimination (age, medical condition, race). The psychological burden on a manager having to build the most damning file possible is pretty bad too, in addition to making the original hiring decision look like a misjudgment.

There are some companies where PIPs are used more than others (Amazon got a lot of press about them recently). I'm sure there are examples where PIPs have actually been part of a good faith attempt to improve performance and have succeeded, but I've never heard of a specific example of an employee who has been placed on a PIP sticking around long-term at a company.

[nealric]

So long as you don't have billable requirements what's the big deal with meetings? Can't imagine it's worse than biglaw.

I actually enjoy meetings (to a point). I suppose more introverted people may find them taxing, but if you like the people you work with it's a nice break from staring at a screen. There are certainly some that are just wastes of time, but a lot of how you communicate with internal clients in-house is through verbally interacting with them. Not everything is best conveyed in a memo, and you need to be able to have back and forth with the business side if you want to really understand their questions/concerns.