In-House: Still Great Money If You Can Get It
Mock in-house counsel if you want to (and apparently many of you "want to"), but those jobs still pay great money. A new study says that the average pay for in-house attorneys is $236,000.
Maybe that is what CNBC was talking about when they promised aspiring law grads $200K salaries.
The numbers were even better at the top. According to the ABA Journal:
The average cash compensation, including bonuses, amounts to about $700,000 for general counsel and more than $900,000 for chief legal officers, according to a survey by the legal consulting firm Hildebrandt International. Long-term incentives increased the average total compensation to nearly $1.5 million for general counsel and nearly $2 million for chief legal officers, according to a press release summarizing the survey.
It seems that even as companies are shedding in-house counsel jobs, the attorneys that hang on are making good money.
Unfortunately for those working for law firms, corporations might look to save money by decreasing their reliance on outside counsel. The National Law Journal reports:
Most companies -- 67% -- said they expect no change in the number of law firms they plan to use in 2008, but nearly a third -- 29% -- said they anticipate decreasing that number.
The report doesn't contain an analysis of the hours in-house counsel have to work for their salary. But law firm associates usually cannot claim that they work less than their in-house counterparts.
So while the jobs might be harder than ever to get, in-house still seems to be a great exit option. Unless you were in-house at: Bear, Lehman, WaMu, AIG, or whichever company spits the bit next.
Average Pay is Up In-House Lawyers, as their Numbers Dwindle [ABA Journal]
Global corporations slowing their spending on legal fees, study finds [National Law Journal]
Earlier: Open Thread: Is In-House Still Worth It?
(34) Comments
firstalicious, just like beyonce
Interesting, but how does this affect my chances as a summer at WILDHAHAHAGOTYA
Second tier, just like Elie!
We need a thread for IL bar exam results...
Should be coming out "soon" aka "late this afternoon"
Companies that "anticipate decreasing" the number of outside firms they use are not necessarily "decreasing their reliance on outside counsel."
In fact, that's usually not what that's about. It's about consolidating work with a smaller number of firms.
I.e. same amount of work, but not spread across as many firms.
This allows companies to get discounts for volume, and can also result in efficiencies arising from having outside counsel that know your company better.
5: You forgot to add Elie=TTT
i just heard that WILDMAN HARROLD was going to be the vault leader in PPP for 2008. it's such an awesome firm that they initiated the "crunch" part of the credit crunch.
and then GULCed some t14 students along with one TTT dude for the summer position all the while Elie was sucking (but just on a lollipop - hehe hope winters!), just like guys in my high school used to do all of the time when it was no big deal.
The Aristocrats!
4: 1Ls don't take the bar exam.
9: wow, you're stupid
I GULCED YOUR MOM
So how many years do I have to put up with this biglaw shit before I can start applying to go in house? I feel like Andy Dufrense crawling through that tunnel. I'm sure my positive attitude helps, but I really want to know.
Companies are not shedding in house counsel jobs. Idiot investment banks are. The rest of us are doing just fine, thank you.
#12: About 4-5 years for a decent in-house position, the more bad ass the firm the better
#13: You are right: the investment banks are firing their lawyers but the other companiy lawyers are doing swimmingly
I'm a 1L and I want a job!!!
-nervous T-10 1L
of course #12, you better be a corporate lawyer, otherwise you are fucked even if you have 4-5 years experience
I'm in a top NYC firm and the massive first year class is sitting around scratching their bellies all day with nothing to do
Say no to the $700 bilion dollar bailout.
http://www.stopthehousingbailout.com/
17: I'm in a midlevel NYC firm and the medium sized first year class is doing the same thing.
I moved to California (San Diego), from a biglaw firm in DC, for an in-house position 3 years out of law school. 3 years is seemingly not a long time, but my field is energy and there are a dearth of energy attorneys... Hmm, there were before Heller dissolution. I have seen alot of in-house positions advertised on the American Corporate Counsel website. For some reason, there are numerous in-house positions available in California, especially IP.
I got a great in-house position w/out ever working for a firm. And they're NOT shedding positions.
It's the life.
WHERE ARE YOU IL BAR. COME HERE IL BAR. I WANT TO SEE YOUR RESULTS IL BAR.
BASTARDS.
@22
I concur.
I moved to California (San Diego), from a biglaw firm in DC, for an in-house position 3 years out of law school. 3 years is seemingly not a long time, but my field is energy and there are a dearth of energy attorneys... Hmm, there were before Heller dissolution. I have seen alot of in-house positions advertised on the American Corporate Counsel website. For some reason, there are numerous in-house positions available in California, especially IP.
This is now the IL Bar thread.
EVERYONE ELSE GET THE F OUT
GET THE F OUT
GET F OUT OF MY HOUSE B
Thank You.
July 2008 Exam Results
"www.ibaby.org is temporarily unavailable while messages are posted to the individual email addresses of July 2008 bar examinees and exam results are uploaded to individual user homepages."
Ha.
21- that's pretty awesome. unusual though...you are lucky!
I went in-house to a client's corporate department after 5 years of biglaw litigation. The client liked my litigation work for them (I surmise) and was willing to take a chance on my acquiring on-the-job corporate smarts.
The hours are SO much better.
21 - me too! high fives.
What kind of in-house job are you looking at as a 4th year from a lowly v30 NYC firm?
Assume better economy than now, since this won't be for ... 4 years.
Also, by what kind, I mean how much $$?
-30.
In-house at a Fortune 50 company = more stress, same hours, lower salary than prior biglaw firm (top 25 Vault). There are some benefits such as stock options/profit sharing, but at the same time, nothing vests for 5 years and takes even longer to see any real payout. Though, not having to keep track of hours is great, even though the actual hours worked probably balances out.
Just like many firms suck, a lot of in-house jobs are just as annoying. Could probably end up in a sweet position in either type of environment - with some luck and the ability to predict/foresee the unknown ('research' can only do so much).
In-house at a Fortune 50 company = more stress, same hours, lower salary than prior biglaw firm (top 25 Vault). There are some benefits such as stock options/profit sharing, but at the same time, nothing vests for 5 years and takes even longer to see any real payout. Though, not having to keep track of hours is great, even though the actual hours worked probably balances out.
Just like many firms suck, a lot of in-house jobs are just as annoying. Could probably end up in a sweet position in either type of environment - with some luck and the ability to predict/foresee the unknown ('research' can only do so much).
I also work for a Fortune 50. After reading the article, I realize I am getting pwned by my employer. I make nothing close to what I'd be making in a law firm. Hours are better, but for an extra 10 hours a week I'd be making 50% more.