Associate Life Survey: In-House Aspirations
We received 1,186 responses to last week’s ATL / Lateral Link survey on whether you’d like to go in-house, which is about 100 more than we received in February.
Overall, almost a quarter of respondents who are currently at firms said they would like to go in-house “as soon as possible.” This is a pretty big jump from February, when about a third of respondents weren’t sure whether they would ever want to work in-house, and only about 13% wanted to get there ASAP.
Another 35% of respondents think they would like to go in-house “eventually,” which is actually slightly lower than what we found in February.
The number of respondents who weren’t sure, however, dropped from roughly a third to just under 21%.
More detailed data and discussion, after the jump.
Survey Responses: Would You Like To Go In-House?
Would You Like To Go In-House: February 2008 vs. June 2008
| February 2008 | June 2008 | |
| As soon as possible. | 13.39% | 24.13% |
| Eventually. | 37.22% | 34.71% |
| I’m not sure. | 33.57% | 20.77% |
| Probably not. | 12.70% | 14.04% |
| Never. | 3.13% | 6.35% |
Perhaps because of the increased desire to go in-house right now, associates now a more open mind regarding exactly where to go. Respondents were more likely to consider every category of non-firm employer than they were in February, except for hedge funds and non-profits.
Where Would You Consider Going In-House: February 2008 vs. June 2008
| February 2008 | June 2008 | |
| Media & Entertainment | 45.95% | 51.98% |
| Government | 41.86% | 38.19% |
| Sports | 37.54% | 37.55% |
| Banking | 35.38% | 33.72% |
| Consumer Products | 23.62% | 32.06% |
| Software / Tech | 23.73% | 31.55% |
| Hedge Funds | 32.69% | 29.76% |
| Non-Profits | 27.08% | 26.56% |
| Energy | 17.04% | 24.01% |
| Pharmaceuticals | 19.20% | 23.12% |
Curiously, even though in-house positions at software and technology companies weren’t, in the abstract, as popular as media, entertainment, government, sports, banking, or consumer products opportunities, respondents overwhelmingly picked Google as their ideal employer, by a 22% vote. Other popular tech picks included Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, Harmonix, and even Comcast and AOL, but poor Yahoo! got not a single vote. Outside of the tech sector, Marvel, the NFL, the NHL, Goldman Sachs, and JP Morgan all received a smattering of votes. And while the Red Cross received a vote, so did Fannie Mae and the IRS.
While the urgency for an in-house move has changed for several respondents, the reasons have not:
* Better quality of life was the biggest motivation, cited by roughly 86% of respondents.
* Better hours and the lack of a billable hours structure were close behind, with roughly 80% of respondents citing each as an incentive to go in-house.
* About 30% of associates liked the idea of “being part of the company”, and about 22% thought that the ability to work with just one client was appealing.
* About 13.5% of associates think they’ll get more interesting work in-house.
* Fewer than 9% of respondents expect better pay. (About 26% of respondents, however, would still expect a salary of $200,000 or more.)
But is in-house really that much better? Well, maybe.
* 92% of respondents who are already in-house say they like it, with 88% citing a better quality of life, 82% enjoying the lack of billable hours, and 77% reporting better hours overall.
* About 65% of in-house counsel consider “being part of the company” appealing, which is more than twice the number of associates who cited this as a reason to go in-house.
* Similarly, 43% of in-house counsel think they get more interesting work, which is more than three times the number of associates who would expect this to be the case.
* Roughly 40% of in-house counsel appreciate the ability to work with just one client, which is again much higher than the number of associates who find this appealing.
* Curiously, about 10% of in-house counsel report better pay as a reason to go in-house, with roughly 22% expecting a salary of $200,000 or more. Most in-house counsel participating in the survey, however, are paid less than their law firm peers. Roughly two thirds reported salaries under $180,000.
—
Justin Bernold is a Director at Lateral Link, the sponsor of this Associate Life Survey.
(32) 
Comments
First to want to go inhouse
lolz, who wants to be a poor?
The findings that surprised me:
1. "Similarly, 43% of in-house counsel think they get more interesting work, which is more than three times the number of associates who would expect this to be the case."
I always thought of in-house as cushy but BORING.
2. "Curiously, about 10% of in-house counsel report better pay as a reason to go in-house, with roughly 22% expecting a salary of $200,000 or more. Most in-house counsel participating in the survey, however, are paid less than their law firm peers. Roughly two thirds reported salaries under $180,000."
I didn't know in-house pay was that low.
Dear ATL:
Thank you for posting photos of cats on your blog about bigfirm law. They really make me warm and fuzzy, and they are just so durn adorable. Excuse my language. Please continue to do so everyday, because it makes me love my job as a corporate lawyer by looking at those fuzzy creatures.
Love,
Aunt Mildred
Depends on where you go in-house. I hear the general counsel for JP Morgan Chase makes around 10 million a year, and that doesn't include bonuses and stock options. I'd take that gig.
...except that "general counsel for JP Morgan" is not a job into which firm associates can reasonably expect to move.
i'd like to see a breakdown of in-house salaries by experience level, and perhaps by region. for a 2006 grad making 150-170, a salary of "under $180,000" isn't much of a hit.
Posted by guest
Wednesday, July 2, 2008 1:04 PM
"lolz, who wants to be a poor?"
lolz, who wants to be a burnout?
I love those LOLcats. I have no idea why, but they invariably brighten my day.
seriously, the cats are excellent. keep it up.
Cats with every post!
2006 grads in-house, if there are that many, aren't making 150K.
Haha. That is one well-dressed kitty.
So people spent the three second to take your survey so they could vote "I'm not sure?"
That kitty is dressed for success...
in-house in entertainment is awesome.
at the associate level at least, quality of work is immensely better, despite the pay cut. it's just a matter of whether you care about having a life outside of work or not. i see no point in earning a biglaw salary if i'm chained to my desk.
I worked at a BIG law firm for seven years and now in-house for two years. Definitely took a signficant pay cut. Can only speak for my experience but BORING is never a word I would use to describe my job. It is fast pace and interesting.
honest question, can someone briefly list the differences (qualitative and quantitative) between BigLaw and in-house jobs?
i love the lolcats. seriously.
hence the question, 1:55. are they making $110k? $70k? $120k? what about 2003 grads?
(assuming, of course, that none of these associates are sliding into the JP Morgan GC spot...that salary info is apparently readily available).
I can has better arts with postings?
FYI - general counsel at JPM and BofA (I think) were Cahill associates before moving to in-house. They weren't partners beforehand.
3:04,
for the average in-house position - figure about a 1/3 of your salaried income taking a hit. in-house bonus are usually much smaller than law firm bonus. Some jobs pay better, some worse. Hours are typically better but that isn't a guarantee.
Also, in slow times and if the company you work for is acquired in-house attorneys are usually the first on the chopping block to go.
did either move from being associate right into the GC spot?
Love the cats! Hysterical.
3:23-
thanks for the info.
-3:04
Couldn't feel luckier about my in-house job at this point. Ended up at a ~$15 billion multi-strat hedge fund where dress code is lax, hours are noticeably better than a firm (but probably worse than alot of in-house positions), and comp is actually better (although it flattens out lower than partner comp if I stick around). Trade-off is that I spend alot of time up close and personal with demanding business-people and with no where to hide, and that even as a lawyer you pretty much have to have 2nd-year Analyst finance and excel skills. Would seriously consider leaving for a VP or SVP I-banking job once banking comes back strong (Q3 2009?). I don't think I want to end up GC of a hedge fund, as that seems to be as stressful as being a law firm partner.
I've had a similar experience to 2:39.
@1:04 - you realize inhouse counsel gets to decide what to send to outside counsel, right? what to dump is usually based on a- whether he has time to do it, and b- whether he wants to do it. even on the big, "bet the company" deals/lawsuits, you avoid the gruntwork and deal with the partners on strategy issues, not due diligence or document production or whatever.
@3:04 - I took the 30% base paycut, but my bonus is actually bigger now, and that doesn't include the 20% of base I get in long-term comp (vests over 5 years, subject to market fluctuation) or the defined contribution pension plan or the 401(k) match (my firm didn't match, I know some do).
Agreeing with some posts above, Lat should do a survey of in-house salaries and breakdown the info by the following measures:
1) Experience (right out of school, 4 years out, and 8 years out)
2) Region
3) Specialty (corporate, litigation, IP, tax, etc.)
4) Title
5) Size of employer
4th year in-house. Took about 25% cut. Still well under $220k base, but now get equity/stock options (publicly traded Fortune 200 company). 30 plus lawyers in department. Despite cut in base salary, department can hire top 10 law grads (GULC, Chicago, Duke) 3-6 years out with BigLaw background. GC pulls in $300+ base (you can check SEC filings) but makes it up in equity. Good hours, no time sheets, dress casual. Drawback is you now only have one client, so make sure its solid.
Similar experience to 5:07.
Would not classify in-house as cushy. Biggest misconception. Lots of work, little time and resources thin. Don't expect a lot of admin assistance. With that, the variety of work is unparallel to my experience in law firm.
People keep saying one client and while that's true in the sense that the company is your client, in my experience, you work with tons of different people in different departments and in practice, it feels like different clients with the same over-all goal. You still have some individuals that like you and some that don't --- so it's not like one individual client at risk of getting bent.
12:11 is correct. In my case, my client has operations all over the world. Quickly learn how to effecively deal with varying cultures. Such experience is hard to come by in a law firm especially as an associate.