At what point do you get out? Forum

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
jotarokujo

Bronze
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 5:23 pm

Re: At what point do you get out?

Post by jotarokujo » Sun May 21, 2023 7:53 am

whats an updog wrote:
Sat May 20, 2023 7:14 pm
Wanderingdrock wrote:
Thu May 04, 2023 9:48 pm
Casper123 wrote:
Thu May 04, 2023 4:07 pm
thehistorian wrote:
Thu May 04, 2023 3:03 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu May 04, 2023 12:53 pm
Moneytrees wrote:
Thu May 04, 2023 9:52 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu May 04, 2023 8:57 am

I'm mostly in Biglaw for early retirement and have no intention of making partner, however, doesn't making partner not basically means you're kind of set? Not like that you can buy any car you want, but I feel like a year or two of partner, you can freely quit and never have to worry about money, assuming you've spent the last ten years investing properly. But curious to your thoughts.
No. Most partners are non-equity, so they aren't making more than senior associates.
Agree. I'm a non-equity partner at a V100 firm and have been for a few years. I can pay my mortgage, save around 10% of my income for retirement, enjoy a nice-but-not extravagant standard of living without actively budgeting or thinking about money, and save a couple thousand a month. But I am not anywhere close to being able to retire now, or even being able to retire in 15 years. (I'm also married to another lawyer and don't have kids, so I think the financial situation may be tighter for a lot of non-equity partners.)
I'm gonna be honest, a DINK household of two lawyers when one of y'all is biglaw only saving 10% of your income feels insane to me. Acting like you could not retire in 15 years just means you must be spending a ton of cash.
Well I guess if they live in a nice apartment in an expensive neighborhood in NYC and by "a few thousand" they mean 8k then it maybe.
Yeah, they're doing it wrong. It's the "without actively budgeting or thinking about money" that gives it away. They're probably gonna come back in here all angry that we're judging them, we don't know their situation, yada yada, but they're objectively just doing it wrong. I'm a single income, one kid household in a HCOL market, and I'm not a partner, just an associate, and we "enjoy a nice-but-not extravagant standard of living" while carrying a mortgage, but we also think about money and budget, so I know we're saving a lot more than this person. More than 10% of my income goes into retirement accounts (401(k), mega backdoor Roth, and Roth IRA for each of us) and we're also saving more than "a couple thousand" per month.

Lifestyle creep is real, y'all, but you'll never realize it if you don't think about money and budget. Budgeting isn't a bad thing! Budgeting doesn't mean you're scrimping! Budgeting just means you know what's coming in and what's going out, and where it goes.
DINK double big law and only saving a couple thousand a month means you're a fucking idiot
paying a mortgage also increases your net worth in a sense. That could be a big expenditure

Anonymous User
Posts: 428106
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: At what point do you get out?

Post by Anonymous User » Sun May 21, 2023 8:56 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Sat May 20, 2023 10:28 pm
Hypothetically, if you're just starting out, how do you pivot to something more interesting? I fucked up and ended up heading in the biglaw direction when I came to law school to do public interest work (but our public interest infrastructure is terrible). Currently summering at a V10 in lit, would rather like to not go back but don't have a clerkship lined up or any obvious way to get out. Ideally would like to be a PD in one of NY/Chicago/SF, but open to consider anything more public-service oriented. Edit: should note, $$$ doesn't matter here.
I’d blanket district court clerkships. Lots of DJs move later than the Plan allows

Anonymous User
Posts: 428106
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: At what point do you get out?

Post by Anonymous User » Sun May 21, 2023 10:56 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Sun May 21, 2023 8:56 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Sat May 20, 2023 10:28 pm
Hypothetically, if you're just starting out, how do you pivot to something more interesting? I fucked up and ended up heading in the biglaw direction when I came to law school to do public interest work (but our public interest infrastructure is terrible). Currently summering at a V10 in lit, would rather like to not go back but don't have a clerkship lined up or any obvious way to get out. Ideally would like to be a PD in one of NY/Chicago/SF, but open to consider anything more public-service oriented. Edit: should note, $$$ doesn't matter here.
I’d blanket district court clerkships. Lots of DJs move later than the Plan allows
Most of the ones I'm interested in (major coastal city judges with either USAO or FPD experience) seem to be on-plan and I didn't get my shit together in time. Agreed that a clerkship likely makes sense but I don't really want to come back to my firm for the interim year if I'm looking for 2025-2026. I've seen some chatter about unpaid FPD fellowships that seem interesting, but I don't know how competitive those are.

TUwave

New
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:30 pm

Re: At what point do you get out?

Post by TUwave » Mon May 22, 2023 9:53 am

liebs378 wrote:
Wed Apr 19, 2023 7:24 pm
Title says it all but at what point do you start really looking to jump ship from the big law train?

6th year in NYC big law in corporate. Do you keep collecting the paycheck until they push you out or make partner or do you preemptively start looking at other options? Not necessary miserable or burnt out but more so just accustomed to the grind and no longer phased by it. However, who wants to keep that up forever? 10 or 20 more years of that sounds exhausting. Most of my class year is gone by now and I'm not "gunning" for partner. More so of the mindset that if it happens it happens with the realization that the winner of the pie eating contest just gets more pie. Pay is NYC biglaw so realistically no other options would touch what we're at now. Do we just keep riding things out collecting the paycheck until they force your hand or do you preemptively start looking to go in-house? At what point though do you become so senior that you're then limited? Who wants to hire a 8th or 9th year associate as a corporate counsel?

Welcome all thoughts.
oh dear god I feel seen. 6th year corporate associate still coasting off of the hard earned rep of years 1-4. After I had my first kid as a 4th year its been really hard to give it the same effort that I did before (and that's okay!) I know I want to get out at some point but collecting the paycheck is so nice. Up for NEP next year, not gunning for it but if it happens it happens I guess?

No clue what's next for me, feels like I'm here out of sheer laziness more than anything else...

Anonymous User
Posts: 428106
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: At what point do you get out?

Post by Anonymous User » Mon May 22, 2023 12:40 pm

TUwave wrote:
Mon May 22, 2023 9:53 am
liebs378 wrote:
Wed Apr 19, 2023 7:24 pm
Title says it all but at what point do you start really looking to jump ship from the big law train?

6th year in NYC big law in corporate. Do you keep collecting the paycheck until they push you out or make partner or do you preemptively start looking at other options? Not necessary miserable or burnt out but more so just accustomed to the grind and no longer phased by it. However, who wants to keep that up forever? 10 or 20 more years of that sounds exhausting. Most of my class year is gone by now and I'm not "gunning" for partner. More so of the mindset that if it happens it happens with the realization that the winner of the pie eating contest just gets more pie. Pay is NYC biglaw so realistically no other options would touch what we're at now. Do we just keep riding things out collecting the paycheck until they force your hand or do you preemptively start looking to go in-house? At what point though do you become so senior that you're then limited? Who wants to hire a 8th or 9th year associate as a corporate counsel?

Welcome all thoughts.
oh dear god I feel seen. 6th year corporate associate still coasting off of the hard earned rep of years 1-4. After I had my first kid as a 4th year its been really hard to give it the same effort that I did before (and that's okay!) I know I want to get out at some point but collecting the paycheck is so nice. Up for NEP next year, not gunning for it but if it happens it happens I guess?

No clue what's next for me, feels like I'm here out of sheer laziness more than anything else...
The friction between wanting to be lazy but wanting to do just enough to not get people upset at you.

The straw that ended up breaking me (6th year as well) was when two partners took up 7-8 hours of my weekend to just put together a fee estimate for a client. No billable time for me at all (I had already maxed out my "non-billables that count as billables" time), multiple calls, including calls at 11pm on both Saturday and Sunday, etc, all so they could talk through completely bs reasons to add another $300k on to our estimate. The reason? They didn't actually want the project...they just didn't want to tell the client no to their face. The client also had asked for it on Monday and they waited until Friday afternoon to even attempt putting it together (they had the request for two weeks).

Surprising no one, client immediately said no thanks we are going somewhere else.

I just kind of sat back and said, is this really what I want to be doing? Cancelling dinner plans with my wife and locked in my office on a Saturday night writing up a literally meaningless estimate and assumptions? All to protect a partners ego because they didn't want to tell a client no?

I was lucky and got an in house gig with somewhat comparable comp. Do I have busy days that I feel like it's not worth it? Yeah absolutely. Do I have to feel like my entire life schedule is completely subject to the whims of egotistical and self centered partners? No.

Want to continue reading?

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Absolutely FREE!


User avatar
Gatriel

Gold
Posts: 2037
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 11:30 pm

Re: At what point do you get out?

Post by Gatriel » Tue May 23, 2023 6:03 am

liebs378 wrote:
Wed Apr 19, 2023 7:24 pm
Title says it all but at what point do you start really looking to jump ship from the big law train?
When my wife was in her second trimester with our first kid - I was at the printer and she had her OBGYN appointment, OBGYN stayed late so I could be there. I couldn't leave because the client wanted to do something stupid and I missed it.

Decided that was it - I will not be the absentee father just so my wife can have a leased Porsche in the driveway. I resigned the next day.

Moneytrees

Silver
Posts: 932
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 11:41 pm

Re: At what point do you get out?

Post by Moneytrees » Wed May 24, 2023 2:34 pm

I think my issue with getting out as a 6th year at a V50 is that I don't want to be a random cog in a corporation that will view me as a cost center. I think when you leave Biglaw in years 2/3 that isn't so much of a concern, but once you've actually built up substantive skills you start to have leverage and you need to be really careful about making a jump in-house, since you might get stuck behind a GC or even a AGC for years with little room to maneuver upwards in the corporate hierarchy. This is assuming you are still on the "grind" and are trying to maximize your financial earnings, of course.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428106
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: At what point do you get out?

Post by Anonymous User » Wed May 24, 2023 8:04 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed May 03, 2023 2:45 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Tue May 02, 2023 12:57 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Apr 20, 2023 8:27 pm
Senior on track for partner and in a similar spot. Don't really want to be partner but want to take the $$ for as long as possible. A related question is, at what point does it make sense to tell the firm that you are not looking for partnership in the hopes that they will help you land somewhere? Will this make the remaining time in the firm more miserable as they no longer care about burning you out?
This was my plan too as a senior associate--ride the gravy train as long as possible before getting pushed out. But then I was put up for partner and either had to say no and leave or go for it. So I went through the process, made partner last year, and now there's no clear exit for me. I figure eventually I'll get pushed out if I don't develop meaningful business, but that might be 3-4 years.

What happens if you left within a year or two of making partner? Do you lose your "buy in"?
I'm the poster who reluctantly made partner. No, my capital contribution would be returned if I left.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428106
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: At what point do you get out?

Post by Anonymous User » Wed May 24, 2023 8:10 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Thu May 04, 2023 8:57 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Tue May 02, 2023 12:57 am

This was my plan too as a senior associate--ride the gravy train as long as possible before getting pushed out. But then I was put up for partner and either had to say no and leave or go for it. So I went through the process, made partner last year, and now there's no clear exit for me. I figure eventually I'll get pushed out if I don't develop meaningful business, but that might be 3-4 years.
I'm mostly in Biglaw for early retirement and have no intention of making partner, however, doesn't making partner not basically means you're kind of set? Not like that you can buy any car you want, but I feel like a year or two of partner, you can freely quit and never have to worry about money, assuming you've spent the last ten years investing properly. But curious to your thoughts.
I'm the OP above. I'm doing very well financially, but not nearly well enough to retire after 1-2 years. I make ~$700k, which is about $400k after mandatory and voluntary retirement contributions, taxes, capital contributions, health insurance, etc. My spouse and I have a pretty reasonable COL, but at best we're banking $300k per year. Net worth is about $1 million, but lots of that is in our house, so yeah--we're five or so years from having enough liquid investments to retire early, even with a very low COL.

Want to continue reading?

Register for access!

Did I mention it was FREE ?


User avatar
Dcc617

Gold
Posts: 2734
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 3:01 pm

Re: At what point do you get out?

Post by Dcc617 » Fri May 26, 2023 10:38 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Sat May 20, 2023 10:28 pm
Hypothetically, if you're just starting out, how do you pivot to something more interesting? I fucked up and ended up heading in the biglaw direction when I came to law school to do public interest work (but our public interest infrastructure is terrible). Currently summering at a V10 in lit, would rather like to not go back but don't have a clerkship lined up or any obvious way to get out. Ideally would like to be a PD in one of NY/Chicago/SF, but open to consider anything more public-service oriented. Edit: should note, $$$ doesn't matter here.
PM me if you're interested, I went corporate biglaw to PD.

attorney589753

Bronze
Posts: 132
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2020 12:42 pm

Re: At what point do you get out?

Post by attorney589753 » Mon May 29, 2023 8:57 pm

I think the advice on the first page of the thread to keep your head down, but start softly exploring other things, is good advice. People who have made it to 6th year+ in biglaw are probably pretty good attorneys. So eventually you'll have options. It also takes time to figure out even what options are good ones, which differ person-to-person. Some in-house opportunities are big legal teams and bureaucratic, but plenty are not like that all. While you figure that out, you can save as much as possible — that's what I did with the theory being that the more BigLaw money I saved, the more of a salary cut I could take when a dream job came my way. This will sound super cliche but don't forget about networking — if you're not sure what job you'd want next, then you should be doing informational interviews with other lawyers who are 3-6 years more senior than you, so if there is any senior associate that you did good work for but left, make sure you're catching up with them for coffee or drinks a couple times a year.

milkandcheerios

Bronze
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 7:58 pm

Re: At what point do you get out?

Post by milkandcheerios » Wed May 31, 2023 3:06 pm

LittleRedCorvette wrote:
Wed Apr 19, 2023 9:24 pm
liebs378 wrote:
Wed Apr 19, 2023 7:24 pm
Title says it all but at what point do you start really looking to jump ship from the big law train?

6th year in NYC big law in corporate. Do you keep collecting the paycheck until they push you out or make partner or do you preemptively start looking at other options? Not necessary miserable or burnt out but more so just accustomed to the grind and no longer phased by it. However, who wants to keep that up forever? 10 or 20 more years of that sounds exhausting. Most of my class year is gone by now and I'm not "gunning" for partner. More so of the mindset that if it happens it happens with the realization that the winner of the pie eating contest just gets more pie. Pay is NYC biglaw so realistically no other options would touch what we're at now. Do we just keep riding things out collecting the paycheck until they force your hand or do you preemptively start looking to go in-house? At what point though do you become so senior that you're then limited? Who wants to hire a 8th or 9th year associate as a corporate counsel?

Welcome all thoughts.
If you look at in-house job listings, lots have ranges of 6-10 years of experience, or 10+ years of experience. I don't think there's much danger in being "too senior" other than trying to make partner somewhere else and looking like damaged goods.

Just keep cashing checks until you rage quit one day. That's more-or-less my plan.
This is not entirely true. In-house jobs that are looking for 7-10 years of experience are looking for people who already have in-house experience. The more YOE you have, the more your competition for these jobs will have in house experience already, which will make them better candidates than you. In fact, I think someone with less YOE but with in-house experience will be hired over someone who has only been at a firm (4 years in biglaw, 2 years in house vs. 8 years in biglaw). I have had several interviewers at different companies straight up tell me that they prefer not to hire someone who is exiting biglaw for the first time.

NoLongerALurker

Bronze
Posts: 408
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2014 2:08 am

Re: At what point do you get out?

Post by NoLongerALurker » Wed May 31, 2023 4:37 pm

milkandcheerios wrote:
Wed May 31, 2023 3:06 pm
LittleRedCorvette wrote:
Wed Apr 19, 2023 9:24 pm
liebs378 wrote:
Wed Apr 19, 2023 7:24 pm
Title says it all but at what point do you start really looking to jump ship from the big law train?

6th year in NYC big law in corporate. Do you keep collecting the paycheck until they push you out or make partner or do you preemptively start looking at other options? Not necessary miserable or burnt out but more so just accustomed to the grind and no longer phased by it. However, who wants to keep that up forever? 10 or 20 more years of that sounds exhausting. Most of my class year is gone by now and I'm not "gunning" for partner. More so of the mindset that if it happens it happens with the realization that the winner of the pie eating contest just gets more pie. Pay is NYC biglaw so realistically no other options would touch what we're at now. Do we just keep riding things out collecting the paycheck until they force your hand or do you preemptively start looking to go in-house? At what point though do you become so senior that you're then limited? Who wants to hire a 8th or 9th year associate as a corporate counsel?

Welcome all thoughts.
If you look at in-house job listings, lots have ranges of 6-10 years of experience, or 10+ years of experience. I don't think there's much danger in being "too senior" other than trying to make partner somewhere else and looking like damaged goods.

Just keep cashing checks until you rage quit one day. That's more-or-less my plan.
This is not entirely true. In-house jobs that are looking for 7-10 years of experience are looking for people who already have in-house experience. The more YOE you have, the more your competition for these jobs will have in house experience already, which will make them better candidates than you. In fact, I think someone with less YOE but with in-house experience will be hired over someone who has only been at a firm (4 years in biglaw, 2 years in house vs. 8 years in biglaw). I have had several interviewers at different companies straight up tell me that they prefer not to hire someone who is exiting biglaw for the first time.
Agree. Great reason that 4-6 years is the optimum exit point. I got off the ladder at the beginning of my 7th year and I feel like I'd be disadvantaged if I'd stayed any longer. You also have the benefit of building in-house networks as well.

Register now!

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.

It's still FREE!


Moneytrees

Silver
Posts: 932
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 11:41 pm

Re: At what point do you get out?

Post by Moneytrees » Wed May 31, 2023 5:25 pm

NoLongerALurker wrote:
Wed May 31, 2023 4:37 pm
milkandcheerios wrote:
Wed May 31, 2023 3:06 pm
LittleRedCorvette wrote:
Wed Apr 19, 2023 9:24 pm
liebs378 wrote:
Wed Apr 19, 2023 7:24 pm
Title says it all but at what point do you start really looking to jump ship from the big law train?

6th year in NYC big law in corporate. Do you keep collecting the paycheck until they push you out or make partner or do you preemptively start looking at other options? Not necessary miserable or burnt out but more so just accustomed to the grind and no longer phased by it. However, who wants to keep that up forever? 10 or 20 more years of that sounds exhausting. Most of my class year is gone by now and I'm not "gunning" for partner. More so of the mindset that if it happens it happens with the realization that the winner of the pie eating contest just gets more pie. Pay is NYC biglaw so realistically no other options would touch what we're at now. Do we just keep riding things out collecting the paycheck until they force your hand or do you preemptively start looking to go in-house? At what point though do you become so senior that you're then limited? Who wants to hire a 8th or 9th year associate as a corporate counsel?

Welcome all thoughts.
If you look at in-house job listings, lots have ranges of 6-10 years of experience, or 10+ years of experience. I don't think there's much danger in being "too senior" other than trying to make partner somewhere else and looking like damaged goods.

Just keep cashing checks until you rage quit one day. That's more-or-less my plan.
This is not entirely true. In-house jobs that are looking for 7-10 years of experience are looking for people who already have in-house experience. The more YOE you have, the more your competition for these jobs will have in house experience already, which will make them better candidates than you. In fact, I think someone with less YOE but with in-house experience will be hired over someone who has only been at a firm (4 years in biglaw, 2 years in house vs. 8 years in biglaw). I have had several interviewers at different companies straight up tell me that they prefer not to hire someone who is exiting biglaw for the first time.
Agree. Great reason that 4-6 years is the optimum exit point. I got off the ladder at the beginning of my 7th year and I feel like I'd be disadvantaged if I'd stayed any longer. You also have the benefit of building in-house networks as well.
IDK if I agree with the above posts. If you are an 8th year associate running deals and operating at a partner level, for example, I doubt you would get passed up for a AGC or GC role for a candidate that say, did 4 years of Biglaw and 2 years of random corporate work in-house. Maybe if you are applying for more junior/ministerial roles. Sophisticated companies need sophisticated levels of experience for the top legal roles.

User avatar
nealric

Moderator
Posts: 4271
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:53 am

Re: At what point do you get out?

Post by nealric » Wed May 31, 2023 5:49 pm

Moneytrees wrote:
Wed May 31, 2023 5:25 pm
NoLongerALurker wrote:
Wed May 31, 2023 4:37 pm
milkandcheerios wrote:
Wed May 31, 2023 3:06 pm
LittleRedCorvette wrote:
Wed Apr 19, 2023 9:24 pm
liebs378 wrote:
Wed Apr 19, 2023 7:24 pm
Title says it all but at what point do you start really looking to jump ship from the big law train?

6th year in NYC big law in corporate. Do you keep collecting the paycheck until they push you out or make partner or do you preemptively start looking at other options? Not necessary miserable or burnt out but more so just accustomed to the grind and no longer phased by it. However, who wants to keep that up forever? 10 or 20 more years of that sounds exhausting. Most of my class year is gone by now and I'm not "gunning" for partner. More so of the mindset that if it happens it happens with the realization that the winner of the pie eating contest just gets more pie. Pay is NYC biglaw so realistically no other options would touch what we're at now. Do we just keep riding things out collecting the paycheck until they force your hand or do you preemptively start looking to go in-house? At what point though do you become so senior that you're then limited? Who wants to hire a 8th or 9th year associate as a corporate counsel?

Welcome all thoughts.
If you look at in-house job listings, lots have ranges of 6-10 years of experience, or 10+ years of experience. I don't think there's much danger in being "too senior" other than trying to make partner somewhere else and looking like damaged goods.

Just keep cashing checks until you rage quit one day. That's more-or-less my plan.
This is not entirely true. In-house jobs that are looking for 7-10 years of experience are looking for people who already have in-house experience. The more YOE you have, the more your competition for these jobs will have in house experience already, which will make them better candidates than you. In fact, I think someone with less YOE but with in-house experience will be hired over someone who has only been at a firm (4 years in biglaw, 2 years in house vs. 8 years in biglaw). I have had several interviewers at different companies straight up tell me that they prefer not to hire someone who is exiting biglaw for the first time.
Agree. Great reason that 4-6 years is the optimum exit point. I got off the ladder at the beginning of my 7th year and I feel like I'd be disadvantaged if I'd stayed any longer. You also have the benefit of building in-house networks as well.
IDK if I agree with the above posts. If you are an 8th year associate running deals and operating at a partner level, for example, I doubt you would get passed up for a AGC or GC role for a candidate that say, did 4 years of Biglaw and 2 years of random corporate work in-house. Maybe if you are applying for more junior/ministerial roles. Sophisticated companies need sophisticated levels of experience for the top legal roles.
I don't think either would be a viable GC candidate at anything other than a startup or subsidiary. Even AGC might be a stretch (although the title can mean different things at different companies). I've seen biglaw partners go to AGC roles. Only a pretty senior/prominent biglaw partner would be a viable GC candidate at most large public companies if coming from private practice.

That level of experience would likely be candidates for a "Counsel" or maybe "Senior Counsel" type role at my company. I don't think we'd have an automatic preference for either of those candidates- it would depend on the specifics of each candidate and what we are looking for.

Moneytrees

Silver
Posts: 932
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 11:41 pm

Re: At what point do you get out?

Post by Moneytrees » Wed May 31, 2023 6:13 pm

nealric wrote:
Wed May 31, 2023 5:49 pm
Moneytrees wrote:
Wed May 31, 2023 5:25 pm
NoLongerALurker wrote:
Wed May 31, 2023 4:37 pm
milkandcheerios wrote:
Wed May 31, 2023 3:06 pm
LittleRedCorvette wrote:
Wed Apr 19, 2023 9:24 pm
liebs378 wrote:
Wed Apr 19, 2023 7:24 pm
Title says it all but at what point do you start really looking to jump ship from the big law train?

6th year in NYC big law in corporate. Do you keep collecting the paycheck until they push you out or make partner or do you preemptively start looking at other options? Not necessary miserable or burnt out but more so just accustomed to the grind and no longer phased by it. However, who wants to keep that up forever? 10 or 20 more years of that sounds exhausting. Most of my class year is gone by now and I'm not "gunning" for partner. More so of the mindset that if it happens it happens with the realization that the winner of the pie eating contest just gets more pie. Pay is NYC biglaw so realistically no other options would touch what we're at now. Do we just keep riding things out collecting the paycheck until they force your hand or do you preemptively start looking to go in-house? At what point though do you become so senior that you're then limited? Who wants to hire a 8th or 9th year associate as a corporate counsel?

Welcome all thoughts.
If you look at in-house job listings, lots have ranges of 6-10 years of experience, or 10+ years of experience. I don't think there's much danger in being "too senior" other than trying to make partner somewhere else and looking like damaged goods.

Just keep cashing checks until you rage quit one day. That's more-or-less my plan.
This is not entirely true. In-house jobs that are looking for 7-10 years of experience are looking for people who already have in-house experience. The more YOE you have, the more your competition for these jobs will have in house experience already, which will make them better candidates than you. In fact, I think someone with less YOE but with in-house experience will be hired over someone who has only been at a firm (4 years in biglaw, 2 years in house vs. 8 years in biglaw). I have had several interviewers at different companies straight up tell me that they prefer not to hire someone who is exiting biglaw for the first time.
Agree. Great reason that 4-6 years is the optimum exit point. I got off the ladder at the beginning of my 7th year and I feel like I'd be disadvantaged if I'd stayed any longer. You also have the benefit of building in-house networks as well.
IDK if I agree with the above posts. If you are an 8th year associate running deals and operating at a partner level, for example, I doubt you would get passed up for a AGC or GC role for a candidate that say, did 4 years of Biglaw and 2 years of random corporate work in-house. Maybe if you are applying for more junior/ministerial roles. Sophisticated companies need sophisticated levels of experience for the top legal roles.
I don't think either would be a viable GC candidate at anything other than a startup or subsidiary. Even AGC might be a stretch (although the title can mean different things at different companies). I've seen biglaw partners go to AGC roles. Only a pretty senior/prominent biglaw partner would be a viable GC candidate at most large public companies if coming from private practice.

That level of experience would likely be candidates for a "Counsel" or maybe "Senior Counsel" type role at my company. I don't think we'd have an automatic preference for either of those candidates- it would depend on the specifics of each candidate and what we are looking for.
The above is not true in my experience. There are many AGC roles between requiring 5-8 years of experience, just check LinkedIn. I think that if you have at least 6+ years of experience, you are doing yourself a disservice by not at least negotiating a AGC role. Hell, wasn't Twitter's new general counsel a 4th year at Skadden before being hired? Don't sell yourself short kids.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428106
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: At what point do you get out?

Post by Anonymous User » Wed May 31, 2023 7:44 pm

Moneytrees wrote:
Wed May 31, 2023 6:13 pm
The above is not true in my experience. There are many AGC roles between requiring 5-8 years of experience, just check LinkedIn. I think that if you have at least 6+ years of experience, you are doing yourself a disservice by not at least negotiating a AGC role. Hell, wasn't Twitter's new general counsel a 4th year at Skadden before being hired? Don't sell yourself short kids.
Do those positions specify what kind of experience? The 6th-year with 2 years previous in-house experience might actually be a better candidate that the 8th year whose only experience was in biglaw.

Get unlimited access to all forums and topics

Register now!

I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...


Moneytrees

Silver
Posts: 932
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 11:41 pm

Re: At what point do you get out?

Post by Moneytrees » Wed May 31, 2023 9:08 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed May 31, 2023 7:44 pm
Moneytrees wrote:
Wed May 31, 2023 6:13 pm
The above is not true in my experience. There are many AGC roles between requiring 5-8 years of experience, just check LinkedIn. I think that if you have at least 6+ years of experience, you are doing yourself a disservice by not at least negotiating a AGC role. Hell, wasn't Twitter's new general counsel a 4th year at Skadden before being hired? Don't sell yourself short kids.
Do those positions specify what kind of experience? The 6th-year with 2 years previous in-house experience might actually be a better candidate that the 8th year whose only experience was in biglaw.
It's certainly possible to age out of certain in-house positions. And obviously some roles are going to value prior in-house experience. But as a general rule I don't think that staying in Biglaw and gaining as much of a mastery of your craft as you can is going to actively hurt your chances at landing a lucrative in-house gig down the line.

Btw, I'm not saying that you should stay in Biglaw if you don't want to. Biglaw sucks for the most part.

User avatar
nealric

Moderator
Posts: 4271
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:53 am

Re: At what point do you get out?

Post by nealric » Thu Jun 01, 2023 11:18 am

Moneytrees wrote:
Wed May 31, 2023 6:13 pm
nealric wrote:
Wed May 31, 2023 5:49 pm
Moneytrees wrote:
Wed May 31, 2023 5:25 pm
NoLongerALurker wrote:
Wed May 31, 2023 4:37 pm
milkandcheerios wrote:
Wed May 31, 2023 3:06 pm
LittleRedCorvette wrote:
Wed Apr 19, 2023 9:24 pm
liebs378 wrote:
Wed Apr 19, 2023 7:24 pm
Title says it all but at what point do you start really looking to jump ship from the big law train?

6th year in NYC big law in corporate. Do you keep collecting the paycheck until they push you out or make partner or do you preemptively start looking at other options? Not necessary miserable or burnt out but more so just accustomed to the grind and no longer phased by it. However, who wants to keep that up forever? 10 or 20 more years of that sounds exhausting. Most of my class year is gone by now and I'm not "gunning" for partner. More so of the mindset that if it happens it happens with the realization that the winner of the pie eating contest just gets more pie. Pay is NYC biglaw so realistically no other options would touch what we're at now. Do we just keep riding things out collecting the paycheck until they force your hand or do you preemptively start looking to go in-house? At what point though do you become so senior that you're then limited? Who wants to hire a 8th or 9th year associate as a corporate counsel?

Welcome all thoughts.
If you look at in-house job listings, lots have ranges of 6-10 years of experience, or 10+ years of experience. I don't think there's much danger in being "too senior" other than trying to make partner somewhere else and looking like damaged goods.

Just keep cashing checks until you rage quit one day. That's more-or-less my plan.
This is not entirely true. In-house jobs that are looking for 7-10 years of experience are looking for people who already have in-house experience. The more YOE you have, the more your competition for these jobs will have in house experience already, which will make them better candidates than you. In fact, I think someone with less YOE but with in-house experience will be hired over someone who has only been at a firm (4 years in biglaw, 2 years in house vs. 8 years in biglaw). I have had several interviewers at different companies straight up tell me that they prefer not to hire someone who is exiting biglaw for the first time.
Agree. Great reason that 4-6 years is the optimum exit point. I got off the ladder at the beginning of my 7th year and I feel like I'd be disadvantaged if I'd stayed any longer. You also have the benefit of building in-house networks as well.
IDK if I agree with the above posts. If you are an 8th year associate running deals and operating at a partner level, for example, I doubt you would get passed up for a AGC or GC role for a candidate that say, did 4 years of Biglaw and 2 years of random corporate work in-house. Maybe if you are applying for more junior/ministerial roles. Sophisticated companies need sophisticated levels of experience for the top legal roles.
I don't think either would be a viable GC candidate at anything other than a startup or subsidiary. Even AGC might be a stretch (although the title can mean different things at different companies). I've seen biglaw partners go to AGC roles. Only a pretty senior/prominent biglaw partner would be a viable GC candidate at most large public companies if coming from private practice.

That level of experience would likely be candidates for a "Counsel" or maybe "Senior Counsel" type role at my company. I don't think we'd have an automatic preference for either of those candidates- it would depend on the specifics of each candidate and what we are looking for.
The above is not true in my experience. There are many AGC roles between requiring 5-8 years of experience, just check LinkedIn. I think that if you have at least 6+ years of experience, you are doing yourself a disservice by not at least negotiating a AGC role. Hell, wasn't Twitter's new general counsel a 4th year at Skadden before being hired? Don't sell yourself short kids.
Again, "AGC" means something different in different companies. At my company, it's the 3 attorneys who report to the GC. It's a very senior position that will pay $500k+ all-in. Other companies use "AGC" for rank and file jobs that would carry "Counsel" or "Senior Counsel" titles at my company. The size of the organization is also a key difference. There's a massive difference between being AGC at an organization with 3-4 attorneys total and a large public company with several dozen attorneys.

Twitter should not be a basis for anything. That is not a normal situation by any stretch of the imagination. You aren't getting anything like that by responding to a Linked in ad.

milkandcheerios

Bronze
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 7:58 pm

Re: At what point do you get out?

Post by milkandcheerios » Thu Jun 01, 2023 11:38 am

Moneytrees wrote:
Wed May 31, 2023 5:25 pm
NoLongerALurker wrote:
Wed May 31, 2023 4:37 pm
milkandcheerios wrote:
Wed May 31, 2023 3:06 pm
LittleRedCorvette wrote:
Wed Apr 19, 2023 9:24 pm
liebs378 wrote:
Wed Apr 19, 2023 7:24 pm
Title says it all but at what point do you start really looking to jump ship from the big law train?

6th year in NYC big law in corporate. Do you keep collecting the paycheck until they push you out or make partner or do you preemptively start looking at other options? Not necessary miserable or burnt out but more so just accustomed to the grind and no longer phased by it. However, who wants to keep that up forever? 10 or 20 more years of that sounds exhausting. Most of my class year is gone by now and I'm not "gunning" for partner. More so of the mindset that if it happens it happens with the realization that the winner of the pie eating contest just gets more pie. Pay is NYC biglaw so realistically no other options would touch what we're at now. Do we just keep riding things out collecting the paycheck until they force your hand or do you preemptively start looking to go in-house? At what point though do you become so senior that you're then limited? Who wants to hire a 8th or 9th year associate as a corporate counsel?

Welcome all thoughts.
If you look at in-house job listings, lots have ranges of 6-10 years of experience, or 10+ years of experience. I don't think there's much danger in being "too senior" other than trying to make partner somewhere else and looking like damaged goods.

Just keep cashing checks until you rage quit one day. That's more-or-less my plan.
This is not entirely true. In-house jobs that are looking for 7-10 years of experience are looking for people who already have in-house experience. The more YOE you have, the more your competition for these jobs will have in house experience already, which will make them better candidates than you. In fact, I think someone with less YOE but with in-house experience will be hired over someone who has only been at a firm (4 years in biglaw, 2 years in house vs. 8 years in biglaw). I have had several interviewers at different companies straight up tell me that they prefer not to hire someone who is exiting biglaw for the first time.
Agree. Great reason that 4-6 years is the optimum exit point. I got off the ladder at the beginning of my 7th year and I feel like I'd be disadvantaged if I'd stayed any longer. You also have the benefit of building in-house networks as well.
IDK if I agree with the above posts. If you are an 8th year associate running deals and operating at a partner level, for example, I doubt you would get passed up for a AGC or GC role for a candidate that say, did 4 years of Biglaw and 2 years of random corporate work in-house. Maybe if you are applying for more junior/ministerial roles. Sophisticated companies need sophisticated levels of experience for the top legal roles.
The assumption here is that being able to run deals or "operate as a partner" are skills that are directly transferable to in-house. They are not. A company is going to outsource a complex deals to outside counsel, they don't need an in-house expert on M&A or finance or whatever transactions people do at law firm (i'm talking about generalist in-house roles here, not specific practice area based roles). They need someone who is a generalist, who understands how a business is run from the inside, how to navigate between all the stakeholders, who knows when to be commercial, etc.

For top level GC jobs, the person needs to understand how to build out and run legal operations functions at a company. I doubt most law firms partners could step into that kind of GC role since it's not about substantive knowledge of the law. Law firm training offers depth and substantive knowledge, but in house is looking for breadth, so best to get out of a firm before you get in too deep if the goal is to end up in-house. Until you leave biglaw, you don't realize how niche corporate practices are, even the widely touted generalist practices like M&A or CapM. What you see in biglaw is just a tip of the iceberg of what in-house counsel is dealing with.

Moneytrees

Silver
Posts: 932
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 11:41 pm

Re: At what point do you get out?

Post by Moneytrees » Thu Jun 01, 2023 11:41 am

nealric wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 11:18 am
Moneytrees wrote:
Wed May 31, 2023 6:13 pm
nealric wrote:
Wed May 31, 2023 5:49 pm
Moneytrees wrote:
Wed May 31, 2023 5:25 pm
NoLongerALurker wrote:
Wed May 31, 2023 4:37 pm
milkandcheerios wrote:
Wed May 31, 2023 3:06 pm
LittleRedCorvette wrote:
Wed Apr 19, 2023 9:24 pm


If you look at in-house job listings, lots have ranges of 6-10 years of experience, or 10+ years of experience. I don't think there's much danger in being "too senior" other than trying to make partner somewhere else and looking like damaged goods.

Just keep cashing checks until you rage quit one day. That's more-or-less my plan.
This is not entirely true. In-house jobs that are looking for 7-10 years of experience are looking for people who already have in-house experience. The more YOE you have, the more your competition for these jobs will have in house experience already, which will make them better candidates than you. In fact, I think someone with less YOE but with in-house experience will be hired over someone who has only been at a firm (4 years in biglaw, 2 years in house vs. 8 years in biglaw). I have had several interviewers at different companies straight up tell me that they prefer not to hire someone who is exiting biglaw for the first time.
Agree. Great reason that 4-6 years is the optimum exit point. I got off the ladder at the beginning of my 7th year and I feel like I'd be disadvantaged if I'd stayed any longer. You also have the benefit of building in-house networks as well.
IDK if I agree with the above posts. If you are an 8th year associate running deals and operating at a partner level, for example, I doubt you would get passed up for a AGC or GC role for a candidate that say, did 4 years of Biglaw and 2 years of random corporate work in-house. Maybe if you are applying for more junior/ministerial roles. Sophisticated companies need sophisticated levels of experience for the top legal roles.
I don't think either would be a viable GC candidate at anything other than a startup or subsidiary. Even AGC might be a stretch (although the title can mean different things at different companies). I've seen biglaw partners go to AGC roles. Only a pretty senior/prominent biglaw partner would be a viable GC candidate at most large public companies if coming from private practice.

That level of experience would likely be candidates for a "Counsel" or maybe "Senior Counsel" type role at my company. I don't think we'd have an automatic preference for either of those candidates- it would depend on the specifics of each candidate and what we are looking for.
The above is not true in my experience. There are many AGC roles between requiring 5-8 years of experience, just check LinkedIn. I think that if you have at least 6+ years of experience, you are doing yourself a disservice by not at least negotiating a AGC role. Hell, wasn't Twitter's new general counsel a 4th year at Skadden before being hired? Don't sell yourself short kids.
Again, "AGC" means something different in different companies. At my company, it's the 3 attorneys who report to the GC. It's a very senior position that will pay $500k+ all-in. Other companies use "AGC" for rank and file jobs that would carry "Counsel" or "Senior Counsel" titles at my company. The size of the organization is also a key difference. There's a massive difference between being AGC at an organization with 3-4 attorneys total and a large public company with several dozen attorneys.

Twitter should not be a basis for anything. That is not a normal situation by any stretch of the imagination. You aren't getting anything like that by responding to a Linked in ad.
Yep, I think we are actually on the same page for the most part. The midlevels in my practice area (secured lending) who lateraled in years 4-8 and landed AGC positions are one of a number of AGCs within large legal teams, with comp in the 250k/350k range all-in.

Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.

Register now, it's still FREE!


Anonymous User
Posts: 428106
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: At what point do you get out?

Post by Anonymous User » Thu Jun 01, 2023 12:26 pm

Moneytrees wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 11:41 am
nealric wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 11:18 am
Moneytrees wrote:
Wed May 31, 2023 6:13 pm
nealric wrote:
Wed May 31, 2023 5:49 pm
Moneytrees wrote:
Wed May 31, 2023 5:25 pm
NoLongerALurker wrote:
Wed May 31, 2023 4:37 pm
milkandcheerios wrote:
Wed May 31, 2023 3:06 pm


This is not entirely true. In-house jobs that are looking for 7-10 years of experience are looking for people who already have in-house experience. The more YOE you have, the more your competition for these jobs will have in house experience already, which will make them better candidates than you. In fact, I think someone with less YOE but with in-house experience will be hired over someone who has only been at a firm (4 years in biglaw, 2 years in house vs. 8 years in biglaw). I have had several interviewers at different companies straight up tell me that they prefer not to hire someone who is exiting biglaw for the first time.
Agree. Great reason that 4-6 years is the optimum exit point. I got off the ladder at the beginning of my 7th year and I feel like I'd be disadvantaged if I'd stayed any longer. You also have the benefit of building in-house networks as well.
IDK if I agree with the above posts. If you are an 8th year associate running deals and operating at a partner level, for example, I doubt you would get passed up for a AGC or GC role for a candidate that say, did 4 years of Biglaw and 2 years of random corporate work in-house. Maybe if you are applying for more junior/ministerial roles. Sophisticated companies need sophisticated levels of experience for the top legal roles.
I don't think either would be a viable GC candidate at anything other than a startup or subsidiary. Even AGC might be a stretch (although the title can mean different things at different companies). I've seen biglaw partners go to AGC roles. Only a pretty senior/prominent biglaw partner would be a viable GC candidate at most large public companies if coming from private practice.

That level of experience would likely be candidates for a "Counsel" or maybe "Senior Counsel" type role at my company. I don't think we'd have an automatic preference for either of those candidates- it would depend on the specifics of each candidate and what we are looking for.
The above is not true in my experience. There are many AGC roles between requiring 5-8 years of experience, just check LinkedIn. I think that if you have at least 6+ years of experience, you are doing yourself a disservice by not at least negotiating a AGC role. Hell, wasn't Twitter's new general counsel a 4th year at Skadden before being hired? Don't sell yourself short kids.
Again, "AGC" means something different in different companies. At my company, it's the 3 attorneys who report to the GC. It's a very senior position that will pay $500k+ all-in. Other companies use "AGC" for rank and file jobs that would carry "Counsel" or "Senior Counsel" titles at my company. The size of the organization is also a key difference. There's a massive difference between being AGC at an organization with 3-4 attorneys total and a large public company with several dozen attorneys.

Twitter should not be a basis for anything. That is not a normal situation by any stretch of the imagination. You aren't getting anything like that by responding to a Linked in ad.
Yep, I think we are actually on the same page for the most part. The midlevels in my practice area (secured lending) who lateraled in years 4-8 and landed AGC positions are one of a number of AGCs within large legal teams, with comp in the 250k/350k range all-in.
Where are people finding these 250/350k AGC positions? I work at a V5 in M&A and am scouring job boards (linkedin, goinhouse.com, indeed.com) and can only find positions paying 150-200k.

User avatar
nealric

Moderator
Posts: 4271
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:53 am

Re: At what point do you get out?

Post by nealric » Thu Jun 01, 2023 1:06 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 12:26 pm
Moneytrees wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 11:41 am
nealric wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 11:18 am
Moneytrees wrote:
Wed May 31, 2023 6:13 pm
nealric wrote:
Wed May 31, 2023 5:49 pm
Moneytrees wrote:
Wed May 31, 2023 5:25 pm
NoLongerALurker wrote:
Wed May 31, 2023 4:37 pm


Agree. Great reason that 4-6 years is the optimum exit point. I got off the ladder at the beginning of my 7th year and I feel like I'd be disadvantaged if I'd stayed any longer. You also have the benefit of building in-house networks as well.
IDK if I agree with the above posts. If you are an 8th year associate running deals and operating at a partner level, for example, I doubt you would get passed up for a AGC or GC role for a candidate that say, did 4 years of Biglaw and 2 years of random corporate work in-house. Maybe if you are applying for more junior/ministerial roles. Sophisticated companies need sophisticated levels of experience for the top legal roles.
I don't think either would be a viable GC candidate at anything other than a startup or subsidiary. Even AGC might be a stretch (although the title can mean different things at different companies). I've seen biglaw partners go to AGC roles. Only a pretty senior/prominent biglaw partner would be a viable GC candidate at most large public companies if coming from private practice.

That level of experience would likely be candidates for a "Counsel" or maybe "Senior Counsel" type role at my company. I don't think we'd have an automatic preference for either of those candidates- it would depend on the specifics of each candidate and what we are looking for.
The above is not true in my experience. There are many AGC roles between requiring 5-8 years of experience, just check LinkedIn. I think that if you have at least 6+ years of experience, you are doing yourself a disservice by not at least negotiating a AGC role. Hell, wasn't Twitter's new general counsel a 4th year at Skadden before being hired? Don't sell yourself short kids.
Again, "AGC" means something different in different companies. At my company, it's the 3 attorneys who report to the GC. It's a very senior position that will pay $500k+ all-in. Other companies use "AGC" for rank and file jobs that would carry "Counsel" or "Senior Counsel" titles at my company. The size of the organization is also a key difference. There's a massive difference between being AGC at an organization with 3-4 attorneys total and a large public company with several dozen attorneys.

Twitter should not be a basis for anything. That is not a normal situation by any stretch of the imagination. You aren't getting anything like that by responding to a Linked in ad.
Yep, I think we are actually on the same page for the most part. The midlevels in my practice area (secured lending) who lateraled in years 4-8 and landed AGC positions are one of a number of AGCs within large legal teams, with comp in the 250k/350k range all-in.
Where are people finding these 250/350k AGC positions? I work at a V5 in M&A and am scouring job boards (linkedin, goinhouse.com, indeed.com) and can only find positions paying 150-200k.
The amounts posted on job boards are mostly going to be base salary only, while the amounts quoted here are all-in. Good in house gigs typically have a base/bonus/stock component. So a job with a $200k base may pay low $300s all-in. Keep in mind that even the general counsel at my company (who makes mid 7 figures all-in) has a base salary of under $500k.

In general, law firm jobs are "all cash" while in-house jobs have a lot more non-cash and other side benefits. For example, companies may have 401k matches and pension plans and other perks that can add $50k or more to the true value of the package.

Finally, worth noting that the best gigs typically won't be found on any job board.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428106
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: At what point do you get out?

Post by Anonymous User » Thu Jun 01, 2023 1:36 pm

nealric wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 1:06 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 12:26 pm
Moneytrees wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 11:41 am
nealric wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 11:18 am
Moneytrees wrote:
Wed May 31, 2023 6:13 pm
nealric wrote:
Wed May 31, 2023 5:49 pm
Moneytrees wrote:
Wed May 31, 2023 5:25 pm


IDK if I agree with the above posts. If you are an 8th year associate running deals and operating at a partner level, for example, I doubt you would get passed up for a AGC or GC role for a candidate that say, did 4 years of Biglaw and 2 years of random corporate work in-house. Maybe if you are applying for more junior/ministerial roles. Sophisticated companies need sophisticated levels of experience for the top legal roles.
I don't think either would be a viable GC candidate at anything other than a startup or subsidiary. Even AGC might be a stretch (although the title can mean different things at different companies). I've seen biglaw partners go to AGC roles. Only a pretty senior/prominent biglaw partner would be a viable GC candidate at most large public companies if coming from private practice.

That level of experience would likely be candidates for a "Counsel" or maybe "Senior Counsel" type role at my company. I don't think we'd have an automatic preference for either of those candidates- it would depend on the specifics of each candidate and what we are looking for.
The above is not true in my experience. There are many AGC roles between requiring 5-8 years of experience, just check LinkedIn. I think that if you have at least 6+ years of experience, you are doing yourself a disservice by not at least negotiating a AGC role. Hell, wasn't Twitter's new general counsel a 4th year at Skadden before being hired? Don't sell yourself short kids.
Again, "AGC" means something different in different companies. At my company, it's the 3 attorneys who report to the GC. It's a very senior position that will pay $500k+ all-in. Other companies use "AGC" for rank and file jobs that would carry "Counsel" or "Senior Counsel" titles at my company. The size of the organization is also a key difference. There's a massive difference between being AGC at an organization with 3-4 attorneys total and a large public company with several dozen attorneys.

Twitter should not be a basis for anything. That is not a normal situation by any stretch of the imagination. You aren't getting anything like that by responding to a Linked in ad.
Yep, I think we are actually on the same page for the most part. The midlevels in my practice area (secured lending) who lateraled in years 4-8 and landed AGC positions are one of a number of AGCs within large legal teams, with comp in the 250k/350k range all-in.
Where are people finding these 250/350k AGC positions? I work at a V5 in M&A and am scouring job boards (linkedin, goinhouse.com, indeed.com) and can only find positions paying 150-200k.
The amounts posted on job boards are mostly going to be base salary only, while the amounts quoted here are all-in. Good in house gigs typically have a base/bonus/stock component. So a job with a $200k base may pay low $300s all-in. Keep in mind that even the general counsel at my company (who makes mid 7 figures all-in) has a base salary of under $500k.

In general, law firm jobs are "all cash" while in-house jobs have a lot more non-cash and other side benefits. For example, companies may have 401k matches and pension plans and other perks that can add $50k or more to the true value of the package.

Finally, worth noting that the best gigs typically won't be found on any job board.
Thanks for that information. Much appreciated. If the best gigs are not on a job board, where are they exactly? I don't have much of a personal network (first generation attorney who did nothing but study throughout law school and grind hours at my law firm).

User avatar
nealric

Moderator
Posts: 4271
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:53 am

Re: At what point do you get out?

Post by nealric » Thu Jun 01, 2023 1:47 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 1:36 pm
nealric wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 1:06 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 12:26 pm
Moneytrees wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 11:41 am
nealric wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 11:18 am
Moneytrees wrote:
Wed May 31, 2023 6:13 pm
nealric wrote:
Wed May 31, 2023 5:49 pm


I don't think either would be a viable GC candidate at anything other than a startup or subsidiary. Even AGC might be a stretch (although the title can mean different things at different companies). I've seen biglaw partners go to AGC roles. Only a pretty senior/prominent biglaw partner would be a viable GC candidate at most large public companies if coming from private practice.

That level of experience would likely be candidates for a "Counsel" or maybe "Senior Counsel" type role at my company. I don't think we'd have an automatic preference for either of those candidates- it would depend on the specifics of each candidate and what we are looking for.
The above is not true in my experience. There are many AGC roles between requiring 5-8 years of experience, just check LinkedIn. I think that if you have at least 6+ years of experience, you are doing yourself a disservice by not at least negotiating a AGC role. Hell, wasn't Twitter's new general counsel a 4th year at Skadden before being hired? Don't sell yourself short kids.
Again, "AGC" means something different in different companies. At my company, it's the 3 attorneys who report to the GC. It's a very senior position that will pay $500k+ all-in. Other companies use "AGC" for rank and file jobs that would carry "Counsel" or "Senior Counsel" titles at my company. The size of the organization is also a key difference. There's a massive difference between being AGC at an organization with 3-4 attorneys total and a large public company with several dozen attorneys.

Twitter should not be a basis for anything. That is not a normal situation by any stretch of the imagination. You aren't getting anything like that by responding to a Linked in ad.
Yep, I think we are actually on the same page for the most part. The midlevels in my practice area (secured lending) who lateraled in years 4-8 and landed AGC positions are one of a number of AGCs within large legal teams, with comp in the 250k/350k range all-in.
Where are people finding these 250/350k AGC positions? I work at a V5 in M&A and am scouring job boards (linkedin, goinhouse.com, indeed.com) and can only find positions paying 150-200k.
The amounts posted on job boards are mostly going to be base salary only, while the amounts quoted here are all-in. Good in house gigs typically have a base/bonus/stock component. So a job with a $200k base may pay low $300s all-in. Keep in mind that even the general counsel at my company (who makes mid 7 figures all-in) has a base salary of under $500k.

In general, law firm jobs are "all cash" while in-house jobs have a lot more non-cash and other side benefits. For example, companies may have 401k matches and pension plans and other perks that can add $50k or more to the true value of the package.

Finally, worth noting that the best gigs typically won't be found on any job board.
Thanks for that information. Much appreciated. If the best gigs are not on a job board, where are they exactly? I don't have much of a personal network (first generation attorney who did nothing but study throughout law school and grind hours at my law firm).
They are the sorts of jobs your friends refer you to. Someone is at a company realizes they desperately need an attorney to do "X." Your friend thinks of you and calls to ask if you are interested.

If you don't have much of a network, no time like the present to start building one. Just get out there. Attend bar events, talk to clients as much as you can, keep in touch with law school classmates and associates who left your firm. Seeds you plant today may bear fruit years or even decades from now.

It's even more important in-house because you will never be able to build a book of business. Your network will be what you fall back on if you are laid off or need to change gigs.

Seriously? What are you waiting for?

Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!


Post Reply Post Anonymous Reply  

Return to “Legal Employment”