In-house at small/midsize companies Forum

[powerfail]

I understand that there's a pipeline from big law firms to in-house positions at large corporations. But what about smaller, regional companies? How large does a company need to get before it hires an in-house attorney? For instance, is a 200-employee software company in Austin or Seattle likely to have one? When a company grows large enough to justify in-house counsel, do they usually just hire one, or do they hire a few? And what kind of credentials/experience would they be looking for? (I've heard employment law is a useful area to have experience in; are there others?)

[canterlol]

I'm in-house at a 400-person company. I believe employee-count is not the main factor for hiring legal counsel for certain industries. In highly regulated industries, a 50-person company may have a more than one legal counsel. It also depends on the company's attitude toward counsel - not all CEOs at these small companies have been socialized to see the utility and cost-saving potential of having one. On the other end of the spectrum, a small start-up may be very forward-looking and decide to hire a legal counsel in the beginning to grow with the company.

From what I've seen in my industry (construction, civil engineering, architecture), the companies that bring in their first counsel have surpassed 300 employees. That seems to be the point where the work volume and organizational complexity benefit from a full-time lawyer. I came from a large regional firm and my company was very open to hiring outside of big law. They were very interested in any HR/employment law related experience. I didn't have this and it still worked out (currently learning employment law on the job), but that experience is definitely viewed positively.

I don't think many small companies would hire more than one counsel at a time. They are testing the waters.