In house vs firm Forum

[powerfail]

Does anyone have high-level insights about what type of person tends to be happier/more suited for in house work and what type of person tends to be more suited to staying at a firm long-term?

I know work-life balance is generally better in-house, but assume for the sake of argument that the firm job is not BigLaw and mostly 9-5. I’m asking about the difference in personality/skills/knowledge/type of work expected in house vs at a firm, not the difference in hours.

[nealric]

Does anyone have high-level insights about what type of person tends to be happier/more suited for in house work and what type of person tends to be more suited to staying at a firm long-term?

I know work-life balance is generally better in-house, but assume for the sake of argument that the firm job is not BigLaw and mostly 9-5. I’m asking about the difference in personality/skills/knowledge/type of work expected in house vs at a firm, not the difference in hours.

Plenty of people do both, but I'd say firm jobs work better for people who really want to be the main force behind a business. In-house lawyers serve a supporting role. You are helping the business units do their thing- you are not the business unit. In a firm, it's the lawyers themselves who are the business. People who like to sell and are entrepreneurial may find a firm a better fit.

As far as skills/knowledge, firm life can lead to more specialization. Even in large organizations, an in-house lawyer may be pulled into matters that are way outside their normal practice. In a firm (especially biglaw), it's much more common for lawyers to be highly specialized. For example, a biglaw tax department might have someone who just specializes in partnership tax matters. An in-house tax lawyer might be tasked to advise on anything from sales tax in North Dakota to VAT in Hungary. Normally, the in-house tax lawyer has the advantage of being able to retain outside counsel for a left field question like Hungarian VAT, but they will make the ultimate call.

While both lawyers need to function within an organization, in-house lawyers need to be particularly adept at internal politics. The in-house lawyer can't point to objective metrics like originations and billable hours to show value. They need people in the organization to subjectively believe they are adding value if they want to stick around/move up within the organization.

[powerfail]

I see, that makes sense. How do you think the in-house experience is different between (1) being the only in house lawyer at a company, (2) being part of a small legal dept with a few attorneys, and (3) being at a larger legal department? Are there lots of midsize companies where (1) and (2) are common?

[Anon2468]

Does anyone have high-level insights about what type of person tends to be happier/more suited for in house work and what type of person tends to be more suited to staying at a firm long-term?

I know work-life balance is generally better in-house, but assume for the sake of argument that the firm job is not BigLaw and mostly 9-5. I’m asking about the difference in personality/skills/knowledge/type of work expected in house vs at a firm, not the difference in hours.

I'm in house as a tax lawyer at a large company.
- The projects are generally a bit less interesting in house.
- The quality of lawyers around you can really vary. There are some real duds that can stick around for a long time.
- Type of legal work is much broader - less likely to be pigeonholed than at big4/biglaw
- Can work on more non-legal type stuff if you're interested and more room to explore.
- Raises are horrible and mobility depends on whether people leave/retire more than merit.
- Can work on more non-legal type stuff.
- See the big picture and generally learn the nuances of a specific industry.

[thisguy456]

I’m an in-house regulatory attorney. I agree with most already said and I’ll add the following:

My friendships/relationships in-house are not as deep as they were at a firm. It’s much easier to commiserate and banter with people in your same position doing similar kind of work in the trenches together (i.e., fellow attorneys). I interact with a much more diverse and interesting group of people in house, but they’re all my clients, and non-lawyers don’t really want to listen to their own lawyers complain about their jobs (I find).

My work in-house is more instinctual and based on company culture and the way the company views risk. My work at a firm was more nitty-gritty legal and a little more research-based or academic.

Whether right or wrong, I’ve found the standard that in-house folks base their work on is “good enough.” At a firm, perfection was the goal to strive toward (but never achieved).

Even if the in-house and firm job are both 9-5, I’ve found it’s much easier in-house to tune out when you’re off the clock.