Ask an In House Forum

[Mr. Jones]

Been a few years since I'v posted here. But, ask away.

I am a 5th year going on 6th year attorney. Spent two years at a law firm of $150+ attorneys doing insurance defense-type work. Have been 8 years in the military reserves (enlisted and jag). In house counsel now for 3.5 years. Still spend some time in court for hearings/trials, do a fair amount of transaction work, and do lot more traditional business-type work than a lawyer would normally do.

[t-14orbust]

What’s your comp package? What was your comp package when you first started in-house? What’s your expected career progression? What type of “business” work do you do exactly? How do you like being in-house? What’s the worst thing about your job? What’s the worst thing about being in-house?

[HopefulSplitter0000]

1.What’s your comp package?
2. What was your comp package when you first started in-house?
3. What’s your expected career progression?
4. What type of “business” work do you do exactly?
5. How do you like being in-house?
6.What’s the worst thing about your job?
7.What’s the worst thing about being in-house?

All of these questions +

8. When did you move in-house?
9. Did you get your job through biglaw?
10. Which city are you located in, and what is your schedule like?

[Mr. Jones]

1.What’s your comp package? $180k + bonus of $60-100k per year defending on how the company does. That is our standard bonus structure for senior execs.
2. What was your comp package when you first started in-house? $155k with a bonu of $30-$50k.
3. What’s your expected career progression? Hopefully promote to Vice President/General Counsel instead of just GC. But, basically target a c-leve position.
4. What type of “business” work do you do exactly? Proposal drafting (oddly a lot like writing a brief), identification of new lines of business, pension/health care plan selections (traditionally more of an HR type role), development of an "app" for certain timekeeping functions and optimization of the payroll process, interviews with prospective employees who have nothing to do the legal side of the company, tax savings programs, interface with our companies trade organizations. It's pretty broad.
5. How do you like being in-house? I like it a lot. I have a unique position in that we handle a lot of our ADR in-house. We hire out for non-ADR processes but I still serve second chair on a lot of matters. I handle a lot of discovery, depos, and manage the overall case strategy. The career progression in house is not as defined as it is in the firm which depending on how you look at it is a good or bad thing. Depends on your personality. I think the expectations in-house are different, and often higher, than those of a firm. As an associate in a firm your expectations are: bill, don't piss clients off with bad work, and bill. The overall litigation strategies and client development are left to partners. In house, your expectations are broader: know in intimate detail what the company does so you can manage risk, know the jobs of the other senior employees so you can better advise them, don't piss your client off with bad work, and of course be in charge of litigation.
6.What’s the worst thing about your job? The standard 9-5 nature of it. Those are generally the hours the other people work, so I'm expected to be around in the office. I worked a lot more from home at a firm. I use a fair amount of mid-law and biglaw attorneys and I can say that the trend from speaking with them is more work-location flexibility.
7.What’s the worst thing about being in-house? Lack of a defined career path.
8. When did you move in-house? I moved in house after 3 years at a firm.
9. Did you get your job through biglaw? I wasn't biglaw, but yes a client hired me after they liked some of the work I was doing for them. I represented them at a mediation after one of my partners had an emergency. He trusted me to handle the mediation solo. I still work with him a lot as outside counsel. But, I got lucky.
10. Which city are you located in, and what is your schedule like? I'm in SoCal, Los Angeles. Schedule is 8 or 9 to 5. I work a lot less at home than i did at the firm which sucks.

[totesTheGoat]

Do you feel like there's opportunity for you to learn and grow new skills or are you just applying pre-existing skills?

Does the work that you do on a daily basis feel generally applicable, or is it highly focused on the stuff your specific company does?

[HopefulSplitter0000]

1.What’s your comp package? $180k + bonus of $60-100k per year defending on how the company does. That is our standard bonus structure for senior execs.

6.What’s the worst thing about your job? The standard 9-5 nature of it. Those are generally the hours the other people work, so I'm expected to be around in the office. I worked a lot more from home at a firm. I use a fair amount of mid-law and biglaw attorneys and I can say that the trend from speaking with them is more work-location flexibility.

I have a few followup questions:

1. How many years did you work in-house before reaching that salary? Is your salary given in cash, or is it a combination of cash/stock options?

6. Do you work Monday - Friday? If so, are you ever required to work weekends? Do you get a day back if you work on weekends?

[LSATWiz.com]

That's a great package. Gotta speak to somebody soon lol.

[Mr. Jones]

Do you feel like there's opportunity for you to learn and grow new skills or are you just applying pre-existing skills? Yes, there is a lot of new skills to develop. I think this is true of lots of general counsel, especially those at smaller (<1000 employees) is that GCs get involved with HR a lot more and the functions there. I also get involved a lot more in claim prevention rather than just litigating. As outside counsel, I usually got roped in pretty late. Now, I'm usually around as the problems start so we can try and avoid them becoming bigger issues.

But, the skills you learn as a lawyer namely the apply law to fact skill is universal. I still write in an IRAC format. Always.

Does the work that you do on a daily basis feel generally applicable, or is it highly focused on the stuff your specific company does?

I would say 85% highly focused on what my company does. It would be difficult for me to pick up and lets say move to a pharmaceutical company. I just know nothing about the issues they face or how they solve them. I don't know what I don't know. I could move with relative easy among companies in my same industry which is pretty big.

[Mr. Jones]

1.What’s your comp package? $180k + bonus of $60-100k per year defending on how the company does. That is our standard bonus structure for senior execs.

6.What’s the worst thing about your job? The standard 9-5 nature of it. Those are generally the hours the other people work, so I'm expected to be around in the office. I worked a lot more from home at a firm. I use a fair amount of mid-law and biglaw attorneys and I can say that the trend from speaking with them is more work-location flexibility.

I have a few followup questions:

1. How many years did you work in-house before reaching that salary? Is your salary given in cash, or is it a combination of cash/stock options?

I was here for two years. I think my salary and combo went up after a few successful mediation and some successful proposals I wrote to procure additional work. My salary is all traditional cash. Bonuses are similarly cash. No equity or stock given. I am not an owner of this company. In a few years I may approach the existing ownership to see if they'll let me "buy-in" but I don't think I am ready personally or professionally yet for that.

6. Do you work Monday - Friday? If so, are you ever required to work weekends? Do you get a day back if you work on weekends?

Yes, I work a very standard schedule. If I have to write a brief or something I'll do that at home so I don't get distracted, but otherwise I'm here. It was definitely a loss of flexibility. I don't know if anyone would care if I worked a more flex-type schedule, a few other senior people do, but it would look odd if I worked one or two days a week from home. That being said, most days I work from 8-4 or 4:30. Nobody says anything if I work different hours though or take a super long lunch, I just wouldn't want to abuse it.

For sure weekend work does exist if I am behind on something. I regularly converse my CEO on weekend days--at least once. As the GC, there's some pressure I feel to always answer the phone and emails. I get hints that they expect this as well because they have made offhand comments that other senior people's phones are off by Friday night.

I also have a 5+ week paid vacation package, so that helps. Our leadership is very clear that if you worked on a weekend or extra long to make sure you cut out early or take a day off on the company. It's a give and take.

[Mr. Jones]

That's a great package. Gotta speak to somebody soon lol.

It's certainly nice. I get a company car and phone too which was another selling point. I don't 100% know how it would compare if I stayed at the firm though. After being a 5th year associate or so compensation was a bit of a black box. Perhaps that was by design. My old partners have hinted that i would eventually make more at the firm as an equity partner. But, they have no idea what I'd make in-house if I were part owner either--because neither do I. It's a question I may never know the answer to, but I still ask myself all the time. I thought I would ask myself less and less as time went on, but I still find myself wondering what life as a partner at a midlaw firm would have been like, assuming I would make it in the first place.

[LSATWiz.com]

That's a great package. Gotta speak to somebody soon lol.

It's certainly nice. I get a company car and phone too which was another selling point. I don't 100% know how it would compare if I stayed at the firm though. After being a 5th year associate or so compensation was a bit of a black box. Perhaps that was by design. My old partners have hinted that i would eventually make more at the firm as an equity partner. But, they have no idea what I'd make in-house if I were part owner either--because neither do I. It's a question I may never know the answer to, but I still ask myself all the time. I thought I would ask myself less and less as time went on, but I still find myself wondering what life as a partner at a midlaw firm would have been like, assuming I would make it in the first place.

I don't know. I feel like in-house is more stable. Depending on the business model, business people tend to be better able to forecast needs years out whereas I've found law firms are more reactionary to sudden changes in the market. It also sounds like your skill-set is specially designed for where you are so there'd be a pretty big cost to replacing you, and there's always the chance you can apply those specialty skills for a competitor. I think this all kind of puts the ball in your court. When you combine stability with less hours, I think you made the right call 10 out of 10 times.

[totesTheGoat]

The problem at a company is that legal tends to be a pretty dang juicy target when it's time to cut costs. They can either cut an entire team of junior engineers or one M&A attorney for the same cost, and nobody needs an M&A attorney when the company isn't even making a profit!!

[nealric]

The problem at a company is that legal tends to be a pretty dang juicy target when it's time to cut costs. They can either cut an entire team of junior engineers or one M&A attorney for the same cost, and nobody needs an M&A attorney when the company isn't even making a profit!!

I don't know about that. Engineers make a lot at my company and M&A attorneys are needed to firesale assets when times are bad. It's been a while since we did layoffs, but engineers and lawyers were hit pretty equally.

[totesTheGoat]

Hyperbole and joking aside, people are always chewing their nails about legal being a "cost center." I haven't been through a layoff at the current company, but we're running pretty lean as it is. Company lore has it that we don't get hit too hard when the cuts come, but they use it as an opportunity to cull unproductive lawyers.

[LSATWiz.com]

Hyperbole and joking aside, people are always chewing their nails about legal being a "cost center." I haven't been through a layoff at the current company, but we're running pretty lean as it is. Company lore has it that we don't get hit too hard when the cuts come, but they use it as an opportunity to cull unproductive lawyers.

I've only seen it be performance/skill based at my company. If you're not incompetent, you're pretty gucci, but we haven't had a recession yet. I also don't have OP's comp package.

[Mr. Jones]

The problem at a company is that legal tends to be a pretty dang juicy target when it's time to cut costs. They can either cut an entire team of junior engineers or one M&A attorney for the same cost, and nobody needs an M&A attorney when the company isn't even making a profit!!

True. I think one way legal departments and the lawyers in there can help with this is by getting involved in the money-making side. For me, that's proposal writing which is very similar to legal work.

In a proposal you have:

1. Evidence you can't control (reviews from prior clients, bonding limits, etc.) which are a lot like the other side's information in a case. A lawyer has very limited ability to control what deposition questions your opponent asks of your client or third parties. It's all about how you present this info in both the legal world and proposal world.

2. Evidence you can control (what projects you use for a proposal, the resumes you attach, etc). That's a lot like deposition questions that you get to ask. You have a lot more control of the evidence than normal, not 100% control but certainly a lot more.

3. Answering the question. Lawyers are good at this. Others are generally not. A good lawyer looks at the law and all of its factors and tailors their writing to meet those factors. Proposals are no different. What is the client asking? How can I answer it the most complete and concise way. That's what lawyers do in briefs, do it in proposals.