1: No. it is not possible.

NYC=TTT

But I am. Sorry, 2.

wow that was a totally useless post which was devoid of any meaningful content. Way to not do any research/thinking whatsoever.

A colleague at my firm went in-house and came back - but she was only gone a few months.... (Very weird situation.)

Returning to the firm is by far not the only option for in-house lawyers. A seasoned in-house attorney is going to be desirable for other in-house opportunities as long as the person will have some flexibility. There is still a whole world of companies outside of financial services and those companies are still hiring.

"Comparable" pay - depends on the meaning of "comparable" (and where you go).

Sometimes you have to take a big pay cut to go in house.

Lat, I've had enough. This Elie character is HORRIBLE. This is a stupid, pointless post. Not to mention the fact that it is totally wrong -- corp associates always have many more options than litigators, for whom in-house positions are much harder to get. This site is really going down the crapper.

Gallion

In house is no fun, you spend all your time arguing with outside counsel over bills.....

most public companies need an inhouse team that does capital markets work like 10K's and stuff. you can work in industries completely unrelated to finance. pay at the junior levels seems comparable, but starts to lag at senior levels and the discrepensy gets worse.

Re: Elie, remember - we (the readers) picked him.

So, litigators only handle frivolous suits? Or, all suits that are filed are frivolous? Nice work denigrating the livelihood of what must be a significant percentage of your readers, Elie.

I went in house and then I made a sandwich.

most public companies need an inhouse team that does capital markets work like 10K's and stuff. you can work in industries completely unrelated to finance. pay at the junior levels seems comparable, but starts to lag at senior levels and the discrepensy gets worse.

"Alternative career resolution ideas are welcome in the comments." What's with the (at best unnecessary) word "resolution" in that sentence? A verbal echo of "alternative dispute resolution"? Here's an alternative career idea: legal blog proofreader. Anyone know anyone who might be in need of such services?

Leave Elie alone. You are all being douches.

"Litigators can always go litigate somewhere. There are lots of frivolous lawsuits just begging to be filed (and defended against)."

Clearly a joke, Elie, but a poor one. I have always heard that corp associates have many, many more in-house opportunities than litigators. Perhaps the comment quoted above meant only that litigators can always go to another firm, but not in-house? If so, what does that have to do with the purported subject of the post? Do you have any research or numbers to back up the idea that "litigators can always go litigate somewhere," or is that just based on your vast experience working for several years at a firm before (poorly) writing a blog?

"I knew David Lat. Elie, you are no David Lat."

What's the matter with you idiots? Elie is raising a fundamental issue that I haven't seen discussed anywhere else, and a blog is exactly the right forum in which to raise it. Go comment on nytimes.com with the other half wits.

Litigators can always lateral but so can corp lawyers! What's the difference?

Leave Elie ALONE! Just leave her ALONE! PLEASE!

WGWAGWGWAG

Let's have a re-vote on Elie Mystttal

this post is not about lateralling. it is about going in house. i see the law students are on here as usual, don't know the difference.

Is it worth it? Let me work it...I put my thing down, flip it and reverse it....

To get back in to BigLaw from most in-house positions is extremely difficult. If you work in a niche, like government contracts or FDA, it improves your chances significantly. However, if you are just a general corporate attorney at a company and are looking to get back in a firm, there's little shot.

Chicks dig ATL man. I am getting laid right this instant. Thank you Mystal!

Finally! A post about Wall Street carnage relevant to lawyers. When I was a BigLaw corporate associate, I considered in-house at an IB to be the holy grail. Now that I’ve moved in-house, I still do (hours are _much_ better, as is working environment). I saw the compensation disparity coming (esp. when non-lockstep bonuses, greater salary disparities with increased seniority vs. partnership benefits are taken into consideration). What I didn’t anticipate was the removal of the firm “safety blanket” i.e. sense that I was unlikely to be laid off from BigLaw for any reason and even if I was, there were plenty of firms that I could lateral to. In-house is a sweet gig, but I’m much more concerned now that I could be canned because of “market” factors. I guess law firm jobs aren’t “safe as houses” anymore either (well, maybe that’s exactly how safe they are).

It would be nice if there was some actual new information in this post, instead of an attempt to start a discussion about something "current" even though the post's author appears to know nothing more about the topic than the average law school student.

Maybe it is easier to move in house as a corporate lawyer but so far as I can tell there are many more GCs that are litigators than there are GCs who are corporate guys.

If I GULCer is no offered in the city but no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

This may come as a surprise to some, but when law firms are slow, they don't want you around either.

Moving in-house seems risky and hard. Where do you go if you get laid off from an in-house position?

Elie quoted "A Few Good Men" flawlessly. That flew right over your head while you were obsessing with half-baked grammar checks.

If you are a TTT, just save your comments for your next temp agency doc review.

In other news, Lester outduels Halladay.

32 -- My summer firm told me I was a valuable part of the team. What the hell?

36 -- sad news for you -- 32 checked out a long time ago and hasn't read your post.

Lehman pulled a Tom Brady.

Lehman pulled a Tom Brady.

Lehman pulled a Tom Brady.

Lehman pulled a Tom Brady.

God damn my mangina is itchy. I think I have a terrible case of venable.

Does anyone have any actual experience moving from an in-house position to biglaw?

Everyone should face facts.....job security in the legal industry no longer exists. Once a law firm begins being run like a business, the tolerance for dead weight diminishes substantially. All no personality d-bags watch out. If you are going to go in house, then you have to be willing to take the risk that you will get canned in a down market.

I wouldn't mind being able to work in house, as in at home in my house.

45 -- you also wouldn't mind having a house

these pretzels are making me forty-seventhsty!

OK, so the post didn't offer any new information, and from this in house attorney's perspective out of wack with reality, but I do think the conversation topic is valid, especially for those of us done with our 1st year of law school.

The fact is that job security has always been something you gave up by going in house, especially in the financial sector. In good times, banks and brokerages buy each other all the time, and one of the first thing that gets cut are legal groups.

That being said, if you're hanging around your law firm just because you think it's a secure job, I think you're making a mistake. GC's are pretty good at knowing who's really interested in making in house a career and who was just told they'd never make partner (yes, there is a difference).

OK, so the post didn't offer any new information, and from this in house attorney's perspective out of wack with reality, but I do think the conversation topic is valid, especially for those of us done with our 1st year of law school.

The fact is that job security has always been something you gave up by going in house, especially in the financial sector. In good times, banks and brokerages buy each other all the time, and one of the first thing that gets cut are legal groups.

That being said, if you're hanging around your law firm just because you think it's a secure job, I think you're making a mistake. GC's are pretty good at knowing who's really interested in making in house a career and who was just told they'd never make partner (yes, there is a difference).

Powerball is up to $136 million. You gotta be in it to win it. It's our only way out!!!

This is an ugly reality of in-house positions that has been true for many, many years - not just now.

An in-house lawyer's company doesn't have to go under for him to lose his job -- the more likely scenario for years has been a merger where the in-house lawyer is redundant or the HQ office is moved. In thoses cases, an in-house lawyer has much less security. And it isn't like Biglaw, because recruiters aren't constantly trolling the website to offer you other opportunities.

For most Biglaw attorneys moving in house, it IS a paycut - and a large one at that. Certain companies may offer a sweet enough bonus to put it within reason, but for everything I've ever seen, it would be almost a $75-100,000 (pre bonus) drop in salary. That's fine, if the hours are better, and you can make a living. What's more, the salary increases year to year in in-house work are not nearly as great as they are for associates. That's why you must negotiate the best deal when you first join, because that's the basis for your salary increases from there on in.

The top in house positions are rare - so salaries comparable to Biglaw are rare, too. Some companies will promote from within at the top levels of their GC organization, but very frequently, those people are partners and counsel who come in from Biglaw because they come with prestige and a pedigree, and the Board or management feels better having that resume in that position. At many shops, there is not much training -- either you're more of a generalist , but you don't have the resources of a large firm to teach you new things, or you fall into a smaller niche, and your options later are not as broad. Therefore, associates who leave for in house positions have to balance job satisfaction now vs. job mobility and marketable skills later.

There are a surprising number of non-corporate jobs for in-house counsel. Many companies need regulatory counsel, L&E counsel, environmental counsel, litigation supervisors, etc. True, general corporate, M&A and securities are in more abundance, but in a slow market, there are fewer of those positions open.

As with Biglaw, go into an in house position with your eyes wide open, and maintain your savings in case you have an unexpected change in employment status.

last i heard, JP Morgan Chase was actually faring pretty well, as opposed to some of those other institutions you listed

I hate when I get canned. It hurts and then I walk funny and can't sit for a week.

Is Elie trying to get fired?

Two of the worst stories imaginable...

So what are the exit options? If you don't make partner at BigLaw or get canned from an in-house position, what happens to you?

Texas sucks.

I've not seen many 'in house' positions for litigators, I'm sure there's a few, but not as many as other types of law. Afaik, corporate attorneys have better shots there.

I know someone who moved from an in-house position to BigLaw. She had tons of prior experience at BigLaw though; she wasn't one of those "I did BigLaw for five years then went in house." She was at great firms for over 15 years, went in house for like a year, and then went back to a big firm. She does real estate finance work.

From what I see, in house is not much better. There is a pay cut. If the company is smart, they make up some of the difference with equity comp. But that's no sure thing. Ask Enron and Lehman in-housers how that worked out for them. Second, alot of in house people work long hours as well. I routinely meet and correspond with junior and senior in-house counterparts well after 5 pm. You are on the cost side of things too. Businesspeople, rightly or wrongly, always think lawyers add no value so they are easily cut.

Bottom line, really do your homework on the company you are looking at. Do they value lawyers? Look at who the GC reports to? Are you going to still be getting substantive work or simply managing outside counsel?

these pretzels are making me forty-seventhsty!

these pretzels are making me forty-seventhsty!

ELIE SUCKS. I'M NOT GIVING ANY MORE TIME OR ATTENTION TO ATL UNTIL MY SKIMMING OF ATL HEADLINES IN ITS RSS FEED SHOWS MEANINGFUL IMPROVEMENT (UNLESS THE LOSER IS FIRED).

2 comments:

First, as others noted, there are far more in-house opportunities for corporate types than for litigators. Large companies generally outsource litigation. OTOH, drafting and reviewing contracts, etc., can be done more cheaply by in-house counsel, in addition to other legal tasks.

Second, since when do law firms provide any degree of security? As an associate, the clock is always ticking for starters. You have to either qualify for partnership after several years, maybe be appointed as counsel, or otherwise you are out on the street looking for legal employment as a senior associate. Heck, many partners these days are even concerned about security, worrying about their book and billables. No real job security at all there.

With good in-house experience, it is much easier to lateral to other such positions.

I'm too sixty-fourth this post.

Ms. Mystal - With all due respect, your missive was pointless, and perhaps of more concern, without basis in fact. Had you even bothered to talk to an actual in-house lawyer, you would have been obligated to remove about two-thirds of your article, including the ridiculous statement re: litigators having an easier time than corporate lawyers in finding another in-house position (a statement akin to taking the position that the world is flat).

Please try harder in your next post - if not for us then for yourself.

I agree with #34 the "A Few Good Men" reference was right on. Elie's post is relevant and appropriate to solicit information from people who have actual experience on the subject - as opposed to those who take pleasure at hurling anonymous insults. As a hiring partner at a small boutique firm, in-house is not the greatest for our litigation based practice. We wonder when was the last time the person took a deposition or handled a court argument. So an in-house litigator - who often manages outside counsel rather than directly participates - would have a challenge. In-house specialities like employment or IP tend to do better because their subject matter expertise is useful regardless of the context in which it is executed. However, I do know one IP in-house attorney who was laid off by two big corporations in a row and had trouble recovering. I've always felt in-house had less security in some ways as you can end up just one of thousands in a downturn layoff.

Ms. Mystal - With all due respect, your missive was pointless, and perhaps of more concern, without basis in fact. Had you even bothered to talk to an actual in-house lawyer, you would have been obligated to remove about two-thirds of your article, including the ridiculous statement re: litigators having an easier time than corporate lawyers in finding another in-house position (a statement akin to taking the position that the world is flat).

Please try harder in your next post - if not for us then for yourself.

Ms. Mystal - With all due respect, your missive was pointless, and perhaps of more concern, without basis in fact. Had you even bothered to talk to an actual in-house lawyer, you would have been obligated to remove about two-thirds of your article, including the ridiculous statement re: litigators having an easier time than corporate lawyers in finding another in-house position (a statement akin to taking the position that the world is flat).

Please try harder in your next post - if not for us then for yourself.

i've known 3 ip litigators to return to a firm after serving in-house.

I think it's a legitmate topic, and I have some thoughts on the matter generally.

I'm in house at a largish public company (near the Fortune 500), less than 6 years out of law school, in a top 5 market. I have been approached several times about coming back to private practice, ostensibly because I could bring business with me, and because specialize in a tiny niche that's about to undergo exponential growth (and I probably know more about it than most BigLaw partners given my complete immersion in it at my company).

That said, my salary is shit. Utter and complete crap. My hours and quality of life suck too. I had more free time and freedom of choice when I billed 2200 hours in 2006. And don't get me started on corporate bureauacracy and meaningless meetings evidently scripted loyal fans of The Office. Bursting with mindnumbing and largely inconsequential poop, topics range from whether a particular contractual phrase should read "which" or "that" to the new updates on the intranet. Intellectual stimulation is nil.

I'm fatter, more depresed, and less able to control my drinking and recreational drug habits than ever before. I miss beligerent partners, oversexed senior associates, midnight memos, exorbitant salary, and happy hours on the firm tab, because at least the perks suggested that my employer took responsiblity for my misery and, above all, paid me well enough to numb it with the best shit available and afford a shrink on the Harvard faculty roster. There was, to some extent, quid pro quo. In house thinks you're lucky they hired you, and call the free no-name coffee a "perk." The dream of in house is just that: a dream.

Now pardon me while I go back to updating my resume.

66=mystal

Who is this "guest" person that keeps posting?

51: I went in-house a year ago (after 7 years as a BigLaw Litigator) and your observations are absolutely spot-on.

72: It is me.

- Guest

SERIOUSLY!!!

I actually thought this was a pretty good post by Elie. As a current biglaw associate, I would hope that more of these open-ended discussions would pop up again on this blog. It's so regrettable that the greedyassociates boards went under for that reason, as those were places where practitioners could still share info with each other.

Now blogs like this are overrun by pesky law students who have very little if anything to contribute the discussion but nevertheless get in infantile shouting matches with each other in their posts. Always this infantile race to be the "first" poster blended with Elie/Lat bashing followed up with BS about what other firm/school is a TTT and/or some crude sexual humor.

Law students: shut up once in a while and just let those who already are practitioners with some valuable info have a discussion once in a while - most of you twits know jack-s_____!!!! Leave your infantile manners back at autoadmit. Otherwise more and more of those who actually have some info will be too disgusted to come back to this blog.

God I miss the days when the gang at greedyassociates was still around......

These comments are so weird. This was a good post. Keep it up Elie.

- A long time ATL reader who continues to be pleasantly surprised at the site's quality during transition

76 - kiss ass bitch

I'm in-house at a Fortune 500 financial services company which is doing okay for the market. I work 8-10 hours a day, one weekend day a month (maybe). I have to go away this weekend and I have NO concern that someone is going to call me and tell me I *have* to stay. I took a vacation last month for two weeks and NO ONE called me. When I did check my email and respond to people while out (mostly to tell them I had gotten their message and to let them know that I was available in an emergency), those people were genuinely surprised to hear from me.

I make about half what I did at a firm (I'd be the = of a 7th year now) and I can't tell you how much happier I am. I'm a woman and the company I work for is family friendly. Didn’t have that at a firm.

As for job security, I don't know what planet you people live on, but I don't recall firm life being all that secure. I remember the threat of lay-offs being imminent a number of times. I remember being told by partners when I was a Jr. Assoc. that I would be fired because I didn't know anything and when I was a Mid-level that I would be fired because the Jr. Assoc. were cheaper. Basically it was used as a threat all the time to keep the Associates busy and quiet. A more dysfunctional and unpleasant group of people you will not find. And I worked at two different Am Law 100 firms.

Even had I stayed it would have been 10 year and then out...they weren't going to spend time trying to make me a partner...hell, I'm a married woman with kids. There was no chance.

I've been in-house for two years now and I have never regretted the decision. The work is more interesting (if I don't want to do something because it will be dull I'll send it to outside counsel). The hours are better. The people are nicer. And headhunters call me all the time (even in this market) for other in-house jobs.

The downsides? The money. That's it. And the benefits where I am are much, much better.

I'm in-house at a Fortune 500 financial services company which is doing okay for the market. I work 8-10 hours a day, one weekend day a month (maybe). I have to go away this weekend and I have NO concern that someone is going to call me and tell me I *have* to stay. I took a vacation last month for two weeks and NO ONE called me. When I did check my email and respond to people while out (mostly to tell them I had gotten their message and to let them know that I was available in an emergency), those people were genuinely surprised to hear from me.

I make about half what I did at a firm (I'd be the = of a 7th year now) and I can't tell you how much happier I am. I'm a woman and the company I work for is family friendly. Didn’t have that at a firm.

As for job security, I don't know what planet you people live on, but I don't recall firm life being all that secure. I remember the threat of lay-offs being imminent a number of times. I remember being told by partners when I was a Jr. Assoc. that I would be fired because I didn't know anything and when I was a Mid-level that I would be fired because the Jr. Assoc. were cheaper. Basically it was used as a threat all the time to keep the Associates busy and quiet. A more dysfunctional and unpleasant group of people you will not find. And I worked at two different Am Law 100 firms.

Even had I stayed it would have been 10 year and then out...they weren't going to spend time trying to make me a partner...hell, I'm a married woman with kids. There was no chance.

I've been in-house for two years now and I have never regretted the decision. The work is more interesting (if I don't want to do something because it will be dull I'll send it to outside counsel). The hours are better. The people are nicer. And headhunters call me all the time (even in this market) for other in-house jobs.

The downsides? The money. That's it. And the benefits where I am are much, much better.

79 - thanks for your post. What area of the law do you practice? Are you a litigator by chance? Do you know if litigators find the in-house work to be interesting? Is there more to it than just managing outside counsel and making introductions between outside counsel and employees with knowledge relevant to the case?

One note about compensation at in-house vs. law firms: you have to look at total compensation. I'm at a top law firm right now and my benefits are crap. Health insurance premiums for a family are in excess of $1000 per month and my deductible and coverage are crap. I don't get a 401(k) match or any type of equity compensation, and my paid vacation is essentially unusable.

Law firms know they are dealing primarily with naive, first-real-job applicants when hiring new associates. It's easy to impress those people by waving money in their face and hiding cutbacks in other areas like benefits. So, while you might take a huge cut in terms of cold hard cash going from a law firm who only compensates you in cash to a in-house gig with substantial non-cash comp., you may not take nearly as big of a cut in total comp. Oh, and when you calculate comp. on a per hour basis, it might look even better. I can't reach most of my clients after 5pm and many take off every other Friday or every Friday afternoon. When you have a family, this sort of schedule is invaluable.

"I remember being told by partners when I was a Jr. Assoc. that I would be fired because I didn't know anything and when I was a Mid-level that I would be fired because the Jr. Assoc. were cheaper." - so true....

80 -- Not a litigator, but we do have a large number of litigators. My understanding is that they do those things you say, plus the work on over-all strategy. It seems that they work in collaborative effort with outside counsel. You won't get to actually argue cases for the most part but you do get to work on the motions themselves, etc.

At places like Dupont, everybody is taking voluntary vacation, there's no merit increase, no salary increases for 2010, and retirement packages are being offered. I hear this also applies to the attorneys in the legal department.
http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090415/BUSINESS/904150324&s=d&page=1