Featured Job Survey: Does the In-House Always Win?
We received 1,062 responses to our ATL / Lateral Link survey on in-house aspirations.
As shown in the charts below, over half of associates are satisfied or even “very satisfied” with their current positions, but about half would still like to go in-house.
Associate Responses: Are You Satisfied With Your Current Job?
Associate Responses: Would You Like To Go In-House?
Find out why and where associates want to move, and what in-house counsel are thinking themselves, after the jump.
Hours were, by far, the most cited reason for associates to go in-house:
• Over 82% percent of associates viewed the lack of billable hours as a tempting aspect of in-house life.
• Better hours and better quality of life were also each cited by almost 80% of associates.
• Almost a third of associates liked the idea of “being part of the company”, and about a quarter thought that the ability to work with just one client was appealing.
• Only twelve percent of associates thought that in-house work would be more interesting, and less than nine percent expected better pay.
Where do all the associates want to go?
• Almost half of associates considered media and entertainment companies interesting destinations.
• Sports, hedge fund, banking, and government opportunities each appealed to about a third of associates.
• Consumer products companies, software or technology ventures, and non-profits each attracted about a quarter of associates, and pharmaceutical companies appealed to about 22%.
• Energy opportunies appealed to roughly 15% and real estate positions appealed to only a handful of readers. (I still think that this real estate position at an energy company is pretty amazing, though.)
On the in-house front, attorneys were definitely more satisfied:
• More than 82% of in-house counsel described themselves as satisfied or very satisfied, and only five percent reported dissatisfaction with their current jobs.
• In line with associate expectations, roughly 80% of in-house counsel cited each of quality of life, lack of billable hours, and better hours as appealing aspects of their jobs.
• In contrast to associates, however, half of in-house counsel viewed being part of their companies as a benefit of being in-house, and 43% cited more interesting work.
• Roughly 82% of in-house counsel would not return to the law firm fold. About 13% aren’t sure, and only five percent would like to go back to law firms.
• Three quarters of in-house counsel cite better pay as a reason to work in law firms.
• More interesting work and the ability to work with multiple clients are also both cited by about one quarter of in-house counsel as appealing features of law firm jobs.
(23) 
Comments
WHERE IS LAT?
Latty has well and truly sold his soul to Lateral Link (which btw is the shittiest site EVER) to make a quick buck....i'm sure our man Lat misses the days of Wachtell where the bonus equaled the yearly salaries..
Are there many (any) in-house positions for litigators, or is it mostly limited to corp. and other specialties? Because I can see going in-house, but I really don't think I'd enjoy transactional work at a firm (currently clerking).
I would advise any associate looking to make the leap In-House to be aware of the company culture and In-House environment before you do. Even In-House interesting cases may be out of reach, as the GC may promote a management style that shuttles all significant matters to a law firm. Working with internal clients can also be dicey as some of them only view you as an obstacle preventing them from doing what they want, and will try to neutralize your advice through political tactics, seniority, etc. Also be prepared for fellow lawyers more interested in dropping their kids off at soccer practice and shooting that breeze than doing any real work outside of the occasional check-in with Outside Counsel. Then again, if the paycheck is green, then any pasture is green enough; right?
12:51 is on the money. What has become of this site?
are inhouse jobs mostly dead-end in terms of further advancement?
can you go back to biglaw?
Is there an easily accessible and thorough listing of available in-house positions?
There are some good websites for in-house listings - but it most certainly isn't lateralstink.com.
I puke on this website. Puke!
Hey guys, I want to do either bet-the-company litigation or complex cross-border transactional work. Would it be better to go in-house with a big bank like goldman or a mega-corporation like Bechtel????
1:07 is DEAD on. I am a senior associate in BIGLAW, looking at further delays in partnership due to recession, but in-house remains unappealing. Unless you go to a major investment bank or really good fortune 500 (harder now, even if you have the golden resume), you are in grave danger of being gimped (they may not even let the gimp sleep in the box. . .) -- and the investment house route is not a locked in joy scenario anyway. I have several clients who are 45 years plus old and are still AGCs playing second (or third) banana to a GC who is better connected with management and uses them as a piss boy/girl. Recall this is also for a riskier (generally lower) comp package, which may have an equity kicker (may. . . and even if it does, you are playing some long odds). You can put in ten years at a company and your reward is a partner leaving BIGLAW or business person with a law degree is slotted in above you as GC and you have to step and fetch it for the new boss. I would love to see specific numbers from laterallink or other "sources" disclosing how many GCs from any major companies rise from the legal department ranks (I could be wrong, but I suspect numbers are LOW, based on what I see) And a return trip back to cash-land from in-house to the warm bosom of BIGLAW is also often a non-starter unless you were considered real partner material. If you were considered real partner material, you probably would not leave in the first place. So keep your eyes OPEN. Agree that Lat is selling out to lateral-link -- his headhunter peeps are probably scraping bottom for good positions in a down market right now. . .
How much time will in-house counsel devote to dickering over bills with outside counsel and negotiating to have first years assigned to other matters?
In case this wasn't clear from my post, to answer the 1:10s:
1-yes, in my experience, many inhouse jobs are tedious and dead-end (or at least big danger of that happening if you are not really careful AND a star);
2-for openings, try ACC.org, where smart companies post opening directly. My buddy got a job at a fortune 500 direct by using that website. Lateralspank probably hates it.
http://www.acc.com
Grass is always greener, eh?
I have worked several years for law firms and have been in-house for about a year. I hope that my observations will be helpful to those looking at moving to an in-house position.
In-House Positives
- More managed, balance lifestyle (I leave between 6 and 7 each day)
- More collegial atmosphere (for the most part, I like the folks I work with and there isn't an concerted effort to turn them against each other)
- Pay may be less, but the overall benefits tend to be better (stock options, 401k match, cheaper healthcare insurance are better).
- You manage outside counsel on lots of matters which means you are not in the weeds as much (for instance, closing binders for transactions are prepared outside, I don't touch the stuff)
- Opporuntity I've found to be greater than a law firm. Law firms are interested in weeding out associates who are not likely to make partner. In-house life tolerates those who are comfortable with just doing their jobs, but most companies will open up promotions in legal and business capacities to the truly talented and ambituous.
In-house Detriments
- It's tough to focus on one real speciality - you have to know a little bit about everything (issue spotting is very important)
- Direct salary tends to be less - much less given the recent salary escalations that have gone on with BIGLAW. It may take several years for companies to catch up - my guess is that this will reduce the competition right now for qualified candidates (so it is a good time to join - if you can afford it)
- Administrative staff support is much more thinner.
- You can be seen as an obstacle to getting things done (even though you are trying to protect the company from unnecessary risk)
- BUREAUCRACY! Little things - like unlimited email storage capacity - will tend to bother you greatly.
- Travel accomodations are much harder to get approved and your hotels, well, let's just say they are no longer of 5 star ilk (but you will look like a genius).
- In-house life can be even more political than a law firm (although in a different way). It's not so much about kissing a partner's butt, but rather trying to make connections to your fellow counsel.
I hope this helps. I have been very glad to make the
"If you were considered real partner material, you probably would not leave in the first place. "
I think that just isn't true. Perhaps you are on of those schumcks that is willing to sell your soul, has convinved yourself that you are partner material and you keep taking lap after lap, only to hope to make partner so you can continue to not have a life.
No thanks.
1:42 was very helpful.
What do In-house departments look to for hiring? Big law firm experience? General experience? Law school?
Are companies willing to hire outside of the law firms they have experience with?
Why do so many people dislike Lateral Link
Because they only consider people from top schools and are generally only interested in placing them in BigLaw jobs.
1:46: Always a possibility that I am a deluded schmuck - and I am definitely a self-identified snark (my admission of possible error probably means I am not partner material, anyway). But what I said is true. If you are on track (how you come to that conclusion is up to you) and looking, yes, you probably can get a good in house job and may well hit the Google options lottery - more power to you if that is the case - please remember the little people in your will. However, in my experience, many people going inhouse are fed-up mid-levels in the 4,5,6 range who have no idea if they are on track (any top 20 firm will not have those conversations with people until around 7 or 8th year - or later - typically) and do not always know what awaits and get stuck and fed a line of BS by recruiters. Sure, more time with family, sure, less calls on weekends, hopefully, which I am all for. BUT I counsel caution to inhouse job seekers to make sure they get the results they want, especially now, when market has more applicants than good jobs. The only things worse than selling your soul is selling it cheap and without advance warning of the terms of sale. Plus, you will notice I did not attack anyone except Lat, for peddling this pablum. Good luck with your endeavors.
One last key thing. When you go in-house, all of what 1:42 says is true, and in addition, you go from being a revenue generator as a biller of fees to a component of SG&A as a cost. SG&A gets CUT before revenue generation activities and often gets less respect from bidniz folks that heavily influence your future. That can inform how people treat you - IE since you are a cost, you can get shat on if you are not really savvy. If you can, make sure you are very practical minded and focused on the business side - know what your business guys are doing and why- make firends with them, advance their goals and they will take care of you - they are your clients, and results count, not so much process (unless you are in compliance or a specialized area, which I would say is bad choice for inhouse in the long-term except for mega corporations where a compliance officer is a player). The inhouse folks I have known who seem to write their own ticket are the ones who create a mixed legal/business advisor role for themselves. A rigid, process bound law-firm mentality will not work very well in the inhouse positions that are desirable. (even many partners I know would not make good GCs because their knowledge base is too narrow and they are timid and organization men (and women)) C-ya, back to running laps. . .
Snarklawyer -
You certainly raise good points about the pitfalls of going in-house. Anyone looking to move should certainly think about such issues.
However, I could raise a similar list of issues for staying at a law firm. Not the least of which is the multitude of friends of mine that have been assured (as 7th & 8th years) that they were on track, only to have the rug ripped out from under them. They find themselves, sell-by date having passed, with far fewer options than they would have had several years before.
Even more important is the new reality that junior and midlevel partners continue to work the same terriblehours as associates.
If someone wants to go for the gold/partnership lottery, more power to them. I've put in my time, have done a damn good job but am ready to return to my regularly scheduled life.
Cheers.
I know that going in-house is supposed to be some kind of Holy Grail for associates, but I got to realize as an associate in litigation that I had no interest in learning more about our clients' business. I learned it because I had to, but I didn't really have a genuine interest in the ins-and-outs of it. I figured early on that an AGC spot wasn't for me. Interesting to hear other perspectives on it.
I posted the earlier 1:07 post, and after giving it some thought, I wanted to comment on some of the upsides to being an In-House lawyer. While the hours are great and the pay can be worth it (negotiate, negotiate, negotiate!), the main upside to being In-House is the ability to move up into an executive position on the Business side. The In-House Legal Dept is a breeding ground for company execs b/c you get a really good overview of Business-side issues, have critical contact with Business-side execs and corporate VPs, and already have skills as a lawyer that translate into effective actions/decisions in a Business environment. So yeah, if you want to progress to that level of COO, Senior VP, then a move to the In-House envionment can be a good one.