In September, we reported that the average pay of in-house attorneys was on the rise. At the time, we said:

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.

Yesterday, the Incisive Media group released a study showing the other side of the equation. The cost to run an in-house legal department has risen by ten percent over the past year.

The median internal cost of operating an in-house law department at a large company grew to $381,618 per lawyer, a 10 percent increase over the previous survey year, according to the 2008 Law Department Metrics Benchmarking Survey. Lawyer compensation and benefits, the biggest component of internal expenditures, was up 14 percent to a median of $356,205 per lawyer for these same law departments.

Great news, but are they hiring? More after the jump.

Does anybody else think that the new President will enact new corporate regulations? Corporate counsel think that regardless of the winner this November, labor and employment regulation will increase.

The National Law Journal reports:

According to a recent survey of nearly 400 corporate counsel, six out of 10 corporate counsel expect this year's presidential election to affect labor and employment laws at their companies.

You think? A brief perusal of McCain's post meltdown statements reveals that he is now for more regulation. Meanwhile, Obama is a Democrat which means it's entirely possible that his administration will regulate employee access to the executive bathroom:

Among the potential changes cited by the respondents were increased costs for health benefits and mandatory paid sick days; a resurgence of workplace regulation generally; and passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, which would eliminate secret ballots in union organizing drives and strengthen labor's hand in negotiations over union representation.

Great. We all know how much corporate counsel love unions.

Other corporate counsel concerns after the jump.

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?

A few days ago, we asked whether going in-house was still a viable option for Biglaw associates. Today we look at whether those who leave can ever come back.

The National Law Journal did a follow-up piece on Bear Stearns attorneys who weren't able to move over to JP Morgan after the merger. They report (subscription):

Many refugees from Bear Stearns have landed at law firms, including Bingham McCutchen; Venable; Weil, Gotshal & Manges; K&L Gates; and Katten Muchin Rosenman.

"It's like a port in the storm right now," said one former Bear Stearns attorney who has landed at a law firm and asked not to be identified.

But as one commenter points out, moving back into Biglaw isn't easy:

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.

Going back to the firm will likely get even more difficult as additional attorneys from Lehman and Merrill Lynch flood the midlevel market. But we can expect that displaced in-house counsel will try to get back into Biglaw, because in this market, "job security" is the Holy Grail.

Do law firms actually provide a "safer" alternative? After the jump.

It wasn't long ago that both associates and partners regarded moving in-house as a "golden ticket." Better hours, comparable pay, and a sweet "Executive Vice-President" title.

Now? Ask former firm lawyers who went over to Bear Stearns, Lehman, Merrill, or WaMu how their new gigs are working out. For that matter, ask attorneys at JPMorgan Chase, BoA, or Barclays how secure they feel about their jobs.

As financial services firms break up and merge, what happens to the in-house attorneys caught up in the mix?

Much of the value from in-house counsel comes from keeping as much work off the big firm plate as possible. It's a volume business. When trading is tepid and profits non-existent, businesspeople often turn a greedy eye to in-house attorney salaries. Remember, it's not like the businesspeople really like the lawyers hanging around anyway. It's more of a "you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall" type of situation.

But should an in-house attorney get laid off, how easy is it for them to get back into the Biglaw pipeline? Are firms going to be interested in hiring corporate attorneys with years of expertise in business platforms that are no longer viable?

If you can't go in-house, what exit options remain for Biglaw corporate associates? Litigators can always go litigate somewhere. There are lots of frivolous lawsuits just begging to be filed (and defended against). But for corporate attorneys, are you better off just keeping your head down and doing your best to ride out the storm?

Alternative career resolution ideas are welcome in the comments.

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.

Back in February, we found that about 13% of associates would like to go in-house "as soon as possible," and another 38% hoped to do it "eventually."

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.

With transactional work continuing to slow down, today's ATL / Lateral Link survey asks whether things have changed.

Are you more eager to go in-house today, or do you think that the cat picture to the right pretty much sums it up?

--
Justin Bernold is a Director at Lateral Link, the sponsor of this Associate Life Survey.

We tend to emphasize Biglaw over the in-house world here at ATL. When we do talk about in-house lawyers, it's often in the context of their complaining about the legal bills they get from large law firms -- and how much first- and second-year associates earn these days, despite being short on knowledge and experience.

But don't shed tears for chief legal officers, general counsels, and the in-house lawyers who work under them. As shown in our latest batch of survey results, they're very happy with their jobs.

Part of that happiness may stem from their compensation. Check out this Inside Counsel report (PDF) on in-house compensation, or this Legal Blog Watch summary of the report. While they may make less than their counterparts in large law firms, they're still doing very well for themselves.

For GCs' Salaries, Survey Says: Ka-ching! [Legal Blog Watch]
Payday: How does your compensation compare? [InsideCounsel]
Payday: Full Report (PDF) [Inside Counsel]

Earlier: Featured Job Survey: Does the In-House Always Win?

Earlier this week, we told you about client contact, and asked you about your firm's leave policies (that survey's still live, by the way). In today's ATL / Lateral Link survey, we explore whether you'd like to leave your firm to become a client:

We apologize if we seem a little fixated on Atlanta these days. They seem to have a lot going on down there (even though it's not all good).

From the Fulton County Daily Report (which we've been reading a lot lately, despite that obscure-sounding name):

Horace "Hod" Nalle has been general counsel for Merial, a Duluth-based worldwide animal health pharmaceutical producer and marketer, since the company's inception in 1997. But Nalle hasn't had an active legal license since 2000, when he asked the State Bar of Pennsylvania to move him to inactive status. This year, he drew attention to his situation when he applied to return to active status -- a request that is pending in Pennsylvania.

Speaking to the Fulton County Daily Report, Nalle said he has done nothing wrong and that the problem -- one agreed upon by legal ethics professors and the general counsel of Georgia's bar -- is how to distinguish between legal and business advice.

Excuse us for thinking that a general counsel provides legal advice -- i.e., counsel.

[Nalle] said the only legal advice he may have given would have been for his own company. "There is no injury. There is no injured party," Nalle said.

Well, okay, assuming Nalle hasn't given bad legal advice. But under that reasoning, does that mean that practicing lawyers don't have to be admitted in the jurisdiction(s) in which they practice, as long as they don't commit malpractice?

We have a solution. If he's maintaining that he's not giving legal advice (except beyond some de minimis level), why doesn't Nalle just change his title to "General Counselor"? Like Dan Bartlett, former Counselor to the President, who is not a lawyer (unlike Fred Fielding, White House Counsel).

Or maybe the best comparison is to being a high school guidance counselor. They don't give legal advice, right?

GC Without a Bar License Defends His Status [Fulton County Daily Report]

A list of Fortune 250 general counsels who are practicing law without a license appears here. An article explaining it appears here.

This shouldn't come as a big surprise. If a successful nominee to the exalted D.C. Circuit couldn't keep track of the licensing requirements of his jurisdiction, why should we expect any better from general counsels?

Best comment, from Vernon Baker II of ArvinMeritor Inc.: "You got me."

Almost all of these are just paperwork problems. But one situation is more mysterious:

Todd DuChene at Solectron, an electronic systems manufacturer based in Milpitas, Calif., was alone among the GCs in our survey in declining to confirm or deny his status. DuChene is not listed in the State Bar of California's database as a licensed attorney, according to bar official Diane Curtis.

Might DuChene be another Brian Valery?

Which Leading GCs Are Operating Without a License? [Corporate Counsel via Law.com]
Something's Missing [Corporate Counsel via Law.com]

Not done with your holiday shopping yet? Stumped about what to get for all those special lawyers in your life?

Howard Bashman has some ideas. So does Paul Caron (scroll down).

And, of course, don't forget to check out Illegal Briefs. Their motto? "Be a lawyer. Don't dress like one." (Thanks to commenter Peter for the tip.)

From an in-house lawyer, here's one Christmas present that was not particularly appreciated:

While my office has been flooded with good and bad holiday gifts from law firms, the award for most pretentious goes to Pilsbury Winthrop. A block of chocolate with the firm's name etched in it, with bad ad copy describing it as the finest Belgian chocolate...

An In-House Tipster

When we were at a law firm, we got all sorts of random gifts: a Tiffany money clip from an outside photocopying service, a coffee table book from a court reporting company, a case of wine from a client (that was our favorite).

Feel free to share your best and worst holiday gifts in the comments.

Gift Ideas for the Appellate Lawyer on Your Holiday Shopping List [Law.com via How Appealing]
Christmas Gifts for that Special Tax Person [TaxProf Blog]

At the White House:

* On the heels of Christopher Oprison and Cheryl Stanton, former Wilmer Hale partner Paul Eckert joins the White House Counsel's Office.

Lateral Moves:

* Nicholas H. Politan, to Gibson Dunn & Crutcher (NY), from Bingham McCutchen, where he served as co-head of the project and structured finance group.

(Wild guess: He's the son of former federal judge Nicholas H. Politan (D.N.J.).)

* IP litigator Duane David-Hough, to Fish & Richardson, from Ropes & Gray (NY).

A few more moves, plus links, after the jump.

Lateral Moves:

* Bankruptcy and restructuring lawyer Adrian Harris, to Chadbourne & Parke (London), from Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe (where he headed their European insolvency and restructuring practice).

Could his departure be related to the law firm merger that will give rise to Dewy Orifice?

New Partners:

* Paul Hastings (New York): corporate lawyer Richard Denhup, litigator Jodi Kleinick, and corporate lawyer Domenick Pugliese.

In House Counsel:

* Apple Computer's search for a replacement for Nancy Heinen as general counsel has concluded. The new hire: Donald Rosenberg, former GC of IBM.

Not content to mercilessly mock them in slick TV ads, Apple has to go after IBM's lawyers, too.

Apple Picks IBM's Top Lawyer for General Counsel Slot [The Recorder via Law.com]
NY Partners Switching Firms [NYLawyer.com]
NY Lawyers On the Move [NYLawyer.com]

We previously requested information from you about in-house counsel compensation. We've received a few Skaddenfreude submissions, but not enough to publish. So if you'd be willing to give us the dish, please click here, to review the submission guidelines.

In the meantime, an article in the National Law Journal offers some information about in-house lawyer salaries. Here's an excerpt:

In-house attorney salaries and bonuses continued their upward trajectory, with base salaries climbing 2.2 percent to 9.5 percent, and bonuses climbing as much as 71 percent, according to a new survey from legal consultant Altman Weil Inc....

Although recent graduates enjoyed only a 2.2 percent salary bump, and staff attorneys collected only 3.5 percent more in their paychecks -- compared with 8.5 percent for senior attorneys, 9.5 percent for high-level specialists, and 8 percent for chief legal officers -- lower-level corporate lawyers reaped massive bonuses.

Bonuses for senior attorneys jumped by 14.4 percent for senior attorneys, 62.5 percent for junior attorneys, and 71 percent for staff attorneys. Division general counsel collected 20.3 percent more in bonus money, while managing attorneys pulled down an additional 25.3 percent.

Bonuses for chief legal officers dipped to a median bonus of $132,000, compared with $104,000 for division general counsel and $29,200 for senior attorneys.

Sadly, the NLJ article doesn't provide more basic information about average salaries or total compensation. If you have access to the full Altman Weil study, we'd love to see it. If you could send it to us by email, we'd be most grateful.

In-House Pay Continues to Climb [National Law Journal via NYLawyer.com]

Earlier: Skaddenfreude: In-House Salaries, Please

This item, from yesterday's WSJ Law Blog, caught our eye:

As the 11th Vioxx trial got underway yesterday in federal court in New Orleans, Merck disclosed in an SEC filing that it’s giving its general counsel Kenneth Frazier a raise and a promotion, effective Nov. 1. The GC who will forever be associated with the Vioxx litigation and the company’s decision to try and battle one case at a time will now have a base salary of $780,000, a plummy 13% jump up from his former base pay of $689,000.

Last year, with cash, bonus and stock, Frazier reportedly took home $1.64 million. In other big pharma GC salaries, Pfizer general counsel Jeff Kindler, promoted to CEO earlier this year, was ranked 18th and earned $1.9 million last year. Robert Armitage, in-house counsel at Eli Lilly ranked 51st and earned $1.17 million.

Serving as a general counsel to Big Pharma: Nice work if you can get it.

This brings us to our next theme for Skaddenfreude, ATL's ongoing survey of salaries within the legal profession. We'd like to turn our attention to the incomes of in-house lawyers.

If you're employed as in-house counsel for some corporation, we'd like to learn how much you earn. We will then share it with our readers, as a public service to them -- but keeping you and your employer anonymous, as always. We're especially interested in lawyers below the general counsel level -- e.g., associate, assistant, or deputy general counsels -- whose salaries are not already matters of public record.

So please, in-house lawyers, help us out. Send us your salary information, by email (subject line: "Skaddenfreude"). Examples of "anonymized" entries, and guidelines for submitting your salary info to ATL, appear here. Thanks!

Drinks on Mr. Frazier? [WSJ Law Blog]

Earlier: Skaddenfreude: Totally Gauche Ogling of Other Lawyers' Incomes
Prior editions of Skaddenfreude (scroll down)

And no, it's not instant messenger. It's this thing called blogging...

Sun Microsystems General Counsel Mike Dillon has started a blog (the blandly named "Legal Thing"). According to the WSJ Law Blog, it's the first blog launched by a Fortune 500 GC. Dillon explains why he's blogging in these terms:

My primary motivation is a question that I am frequently asked. It comes in two forms. From others in my profession, it is articulated as: "What is it like being the General Counsel of a Fortune 500 company like Sun Microsystems?" From my children it is posed as: "Daddy, what do you DO at work all day?"

We don't know anything specific about Dillon. But if he's like general counsels at most big corporations, the answer is pretty simple: "I hire outside counsel to do everything for me, including wiping my ass. Then I bitch to them about the bill. And then I collect my grossly inflated paycheck, before leaving the office to get in a round of golf in before dinner."

This Should Be Interesting [The Legal Thing]