Top Law Schools

Do any grads know the % of students who end up taking direct in-house positions (i.e. associate general counsel-like positions).

I'm sure the consensus is bl first, then in-house but is there a group of grads who go on to in-house skipping bl?

this is still not very common, but is becoming more of a thing than it used to be. some legal departments would rather hire somebody good out of law school than have to pay some 1st or 2nd year shit head law firm associate to basically do the same stuff. HP is one example of this. as for percentage, I have no idea.

i think this would be ideal, my impression of it is a 100k salary w/o the biglaw hours esp. from a T14. it's like somewhere between pi and bl

I had an opportunity to talk to some GCs about 2-3 years ago. A few of them hire graduates right out of law school, but all preferred that graduates get trained elsewhere first. These GCs generally preferred to fill higher level positions with people who had the "right amount" of BL experience. But whether this group was representative is anyone's guess.

Grade sensitive? Care about WE?

joon wrote:i think this would be ideal, my impression of it is a 100k salary w/o the biglaw hours esp. from a T14. it's like somewhere between pi and bl

salary and other compensation obviously vary depending on the industry and whether the company is private/public/etc. but that's about right.

people that come from bl--> in house usually go straight to a VP or GC type position doing something pretty specialized and compensation is usually slightly lower than bl salary but well worth it imo due to quality of life.

people that come straight out of law school from top schools usually go into a "corporate counsel" or "associate counsel" type of position and are usually less specialized but typically focus more on various types of transactional work. pay isn't as good as bl (but still pretty decent). can be a pretty sweet gig depending on the specific opportunity.

Ron Howard wrote:Grade sensitive? Care about WE?

in house is such a general category that it would be impossible to answer this. it would be up to the individual GC or whoever is doing the hiring.

at least some relevant experience and decent grades are pretty much necessary though I would assume.

It's good to know that this is a growing option because talk about BIGLAW on tls has made me waver a few times

joon wrote:It's good to know that this is a growing option because talk about BIGLAW on tls has made me waver a few times

it's becoming more common but still doesn't seem to be very common overall. I wouldn't go to law school with the expectation of landing an in-house gig right after graduation.

Worked at probably one of the better in-house legal departments in the country. The senior counsel I worked under told me that the biggest mistake people make when moving in house is coming in too early. She said that it's not terribly uncommon at all to see two people with the same experience who lateraled from the same firm mAke wildly, wildly different salaries doing the same work there. Person X lateraled after three years in big law. Person Y lateraled after 6. Person Y is making a significant amount more than person X from day 1.

I'm assuming going in-house straight from law school probably hurts your earning capacity big time

runinthefront wrote:Worked at probably one of the better in-house legal departments in the country. The senior counsel I worked under told me that the biggest mistake people make when moving in house is coming in too early. She said that it's not terribly uncommon at all to see two people with the same experience who lateraled from the same firm mAke wildly, wildly different salaries doing the same work there. Person X lateraled after three years in big law. Person Y lateraled after 6. Person Y is making a significant amount more than person X from day 1.

I'm assuming going in-house straight from law school probably hurts your earning capacity big time

yea it does when comparing to biglaw compensation raw numbers (although HP compensation looks pretty solid). but hours (and salary to hours worked ratio), no billables and generally way better quality of life could make it worth it depending on debt load and career goals.

eta: also, I feel like the longer someone stays in biglaw the higher the demand for them will be in house and the higher salary they can demand. for example, I know someone who is a second year at a firm and went from making like 180k --> 150k in house. probably could've negotiated for better compensation had they held off for another couple years before going in house, but they hated the big law work environment so much that losing that 30k+ was more than worth it to them.

How is a recent graduate to make >=100k without working biglaw hours?

Shouldn't it be possible for recent graduates to make around 100k-160k (from T14) and work normal hours like other people?

I went in-house right after law school, but I have been working in the industry for close to 6 years by the time I graduated (went to law school at night). There has certainly been a shift from requiring law firm experience from junior lawyers at big institutions as the economics work much better with a law school grad than 2nd or 3rd year associate. Heard from friends that some investment banks start new lawyers at 110 in NYC which is a far cry from 160 in bl. In my world (investment advisers), it is still very common to get lawyers from bl firms - year 4-5. That's when bl lawyers weigh in their partner chances, work-life balance and decide one way or the other. With IAs, yes, you will take a cut in base pay (usually will go down to around 150), but the bonuses make up for the difference big time if you are at a good IA. Overall, IAs and big investment banks are way more interested in in-house legal personnel than even 3 years ago due to regulatory scrutiny and crazy bl bills, so there is a chance of getting in house right out of law school with or without prior industry experience. But even elevated by recent developments, it is still very small.

A couple of the oil companies in Houston will hire 2 or 3 people straight out of law school each year. They come to OCI at UT.

People go from BigLaw to in-house instead of directly from law school to in-house for two good reasons. First, BigLaw provides the best practical training you can get as a transactional lawyer out of law school. Without the training, you wouldn't even know what to do when you're in-house. Second, top in-house positions at top employers are only available after a 2-4 years Cravath, SullCrom, Wachtell, etc. People who go in-house directly tend to get leap-frogged by these BigLaw associates.

joon wrote:Shouldn't it be possible for recent graduates to make around 100k-160k (from T14) and work normal hours like other people?

Why should it be?

My aunt did this. She's now (I think) the 3rd highest ranking lawyer at one of the largest companies in the world. She went to a lower tier school too and didn't do well academically, either.

It's not common but it does happen. I interned at a F500 corporation during law school and met two guys there who did it too.

Don't expect to make 100k though. I would say 50-75 is more likely.

Also, instead of going in-house, compliance is a great option. Compliance people can make a lot of money while keeping hours down. Plus it's actually a growth area.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:Why should it be?

Because most ppl here will have professional degrees from renowned law schools. Even a graduate from a TTT UG can make 100k after 3 years of work. Shouldn't a prestigious graduate of law be able to compare to that?

minnbills wrote:My aunt did this. She's now (I think) the 3rd highest ranking lawyer at one of the largest companies in the world. She went to a lower tier school too and didn't do well academically, either.

It's not common but it does happen. I interned at a F500 corporation during law school and met two guys there who did it too.

Don't expect to make 100k though. I would say 50-75 is more likely.

Also, instead of going in-house, compliance is a great option. Compliance people can make a lot of money while keeping hours down. Plus it's actually a growth area.

Completely agree, that's my second area of focus and the field is growing very rapidly

joon wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:Why should it be?

Because most ppl here will have professional degrees from renowned law schools. Even a graduate from a TTT UG can make 100k after 3 years of work. Shouldn't a prestigious graduate of law be able to compare to that?

Um, what?

Also, lol prestige.

(Have you seen the bimodal distribution of legal salaries as displayed in the chart that NALP puts out each year?)

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

joon wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:Why should it be?

Because most ppl here will have professional degrees from renowned law schools. Even a graduate from a TTT UG can make 100k after 3 years of work. Shouldn't a prestigious graduate of law be able to compare to that?

Um, what?

Also, lol prestige.

(Have you seen the bimodal distribution of legal salaries as displayed in the chart that NALP puts out each year?)

prestige! ...yeah, I know. To back up my point, it's def. possible though. If I don't go into law, 100k by 25 is def. possible.
It's just that 160k might be not possible until 20 years later.

What are you doing that $100k by 25 is possible, and why would you give it up to go to law school?

runinthefront wrote:Person X lateraled after three years in big law. Person Y lateraled after 6. Person Y is making a significant amount more than person X from day 1.

You mean Y makes significantly more than X at the end of 6 years for both with X having 3/3 and Y having 6/0 years of cumulative legal experience, right? Because it stands, it reads to me that Y makes more after 6 years of experience than X does with 3 years of experience - which doesn't really mesh with your thesis.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:What are you doing that $100k by 25 is possible, and why would you give it up to go to law school?

IT consulting/architect. <--- I think there's a glass ceiling in the industry though. A graduate degree is needed to progress in the industry esp. in gov. and there isn't really a graduate program in what I do.

I would suggest that many, if not most, folks three years out of college aren't making $100k.

And you can think prestige/going to law school for three years should merit you a job of $100k with normal hours, but the general pattern is ~$160 with biglaw hours, or <$100k with normal hours. There are an awful lot of lawyer jobs that are still in the $40-70k range.