In-house compensation vs BigLaw compensation Forum

[iamgeorgebush]

Everything I've heard both on TLS and from attorneys IRL points toward in-house compensation being substantially lower than BigLaw compensation (save for F500 GCs and the like). But I was just looking at this report (LinkRemoved), which it seems to suggest they're not that different. For example:

0-3 years experience, in-house at company w/ $250m+ revenue: $118,000 - $151,750

vs.

1-3 years experience, at firm with 75+ attorneys: $116,500 - $152,000

Obviously that firm number does not reflect market for BigLaw, which is more like $160,000-$205,000. But I'd imagine that since the BigLaw numbers are off, so are the in-house numbers.

So my question is: What is actual compensation like for someone going in-house from BigLaw (say somewhere in the v30 range) after a few years of experience?

[AntipodeanPhil]

I think the numbers represent what they claim to represent.

If you leave NY biglaw as a 4th year associate, you're probably making ~$210k + bonus. If you then started at the average large company salary, that's $118k - about a $100k pay cut.

When it says "1-3 years experience," that is presumably experience in house. If it's 1-3 experience as a lawyer, that would be a small subset of very unusual positions, since almost no one starts in house out of law school.

[gchatbrah]

I think the numbers represent what they claim to represent.

If you leave NY biglaw as a 4th year associate, you're probably making ~$210k + bonus. If you then started at the average large company salary, that's $118k - about a $100k pay cut.

When it says "1-3 years experience," that is presumably experience in house. If it's 1-3 experience as a lawyer, that would be a small subset of very unusual positions, since almost no one starts in house out of law school.

Pretty confident that the experience numbers mean experience as a lawyer, not experience in-house.

[iamgeorgebush]

I think the numbers represent what they claim to represent.

If you leave NY biglaw as a 4th year associate, you're probably making ~$210k + bonus. If you then started at the average large company salary, that's $118k - about a $100k pay cut.

When it says "1-3 years experience," that is presumably experience in house. If it's 1-3 experience as a lawyer, that would be a small subset of very unusual positions, since almost no one starts in house out of law school.

Pretty confident that the experience numbers mean experience as a lawyer, not experience in-house.

yeah, that was my thinking. nowhere in the guide does it indicate that experience means experience in-house. that would be a silly, since a biglaw partner can lateral into a GC role w/ 0 yrs of in-house exp and make way more than the 0-3 yr range.

also just found on p. 14 there are locality multipliers. so the numbers for in-house counsel actually become quite a bit bigger. using NYC's 1.41 multiplier, the in-house range for 0-3 yrs experience becomes $166,380 - $213,967. not too much worse than BigLaw, which (using the Cravath scale) has a range of $160,000 - $247,000. that's only a $33k paycut at the upper range. seems well worth the better work-life balance.

but this can't be right. any in-house folk want to chime in?

[gchatbrah]

I think the numbers represent what they claim to represent.

If you leave NY biglaw as a 4th year associate, you're probably making ~$210k + bonus. If you then started at the average large company salary, that's $118k - about a $100k pay cut.

When it says "1-3 years experience," that is presumably experience in house. If it's 1-3 experience as a lawyer, that would be a small subset of very unusual positions, since almost no one starts in house out of law school.

Pretty confident that the experience numbers mean experience as a lawyer, not experience in-house.

yeah, that was my thinking. nowhere in the guide does it indicate that experience means experience in-house. that would be a silly, since a biglaw partner can lateral into a GC role w/ 0 yrs of in-house exp and make way more than the 0-3 yr range.

also just found on p. 14 there are locality multipliers. so the numbers for in-house counsel actually become quite a bit bigger. using NYC's 1.41 multiplier, the in-house range for 0-3 yrs experience becomes $166,380 - $213,967. not too much worse than BigLaw, which (using the Cravath scale) has a range of $160,000 - $247,000. that's only a $33k paycut at the upper range. seems well worth the better work-life balance.

but this can't be right. any in-house folk want to chime in?

part of the differences comes from the non-lockstep nature of in-house compensation. yeah, 0-3 years experience may net you somewhere in that range, but you could very well be making the low end of that range (160kish) for the entirety of those 3 years. it's best to read those ranges as the money you'd make for each of those 3 years, not as "166 in year 1 --> 213 in year 3."

[iamgeorgebush]

I think the numbers represent what they claim to represent.

If you leave NY biglaw as a 4th year associate, you're probably making ~$210k + bonus. If you then started at the average large company salary, that's $118k - about a $100k pay cut.

When it says "1-3 years experience," that is presumably experience in house. If it's 1-3 experience as a lawyer, that would be a small subset of very unusual positions, since almost no one starts in house out of law school.

Pretty confident that the experience numbers mean experience as a lawyer, not experience in-house.

yeah, that was my thinking. nowhere in the guide does it indicate that experience means experience in-house. that would be a silly, since a biglaw partner can lateral into a GC role w/ 0 yrs of in-house exp and make way more than the 0-3 yr range.

also just found on p. 14 there are locality multipliers. so the numbers for in-house counsel actually become quite a bit bigger. using NYC's 1.41 multiplier, the in-house range for 0-3 yrs experience becomes $166,380 - $213,967. not too much worse than BigLaw, which (using the Cravath scale) has a range of $160,000 - $247,000. that's only a $33k paycut at the upper range. seems well worth the better work-life balance.

but this can't be right. any in-house folk want to chime in?

part of the differences comes from the non-lockstep nature of in-house compensation. yeah, 0-3 years experience may net you somewhere in that range, but you could very well be making the low end of that range (160kish) for the entirety of those 3 years. it's best to read those ranges as the money you'd make for each of those 3 years, not as "166 in year 1 --> 213 in year 3."

ok, thanks!

[treeey86]

Depends on the industry. In-house big pharm or PE or a bank yeah you probably bring in $120-180 in years 1-3. Take the same law school grad but throw them in-house elsewhere, say something more digital media related and you are probably looking more at a $80-120 for those first 1-3 years.