In-House Counsel

Being In-House Is Not Necessarily What You Think It Is

It’s no surprise that a recent survey of in-house counsel revealed that they are not necessarily a bunch of happy campers.

By  
on

decisions Concept of various pathsIn dinosaur times, there used to be several points of view about in-house counsel jobs. One was that it was a gravy train with regular hours, a steady paycheck, minimal annual increases, but a sense of security that the employment rug was not going to be pulled out from under you. Accompanying that was the “holier than thou” attitude of outside counsel, who thought that in-house attorneys weren’t that smart and were relegated to doing the drudge legal work, while the outside counsel got to work on the Big Important Cases.

Another view was the reverse: outside counsel drooling at the thought of regular hours, steady income, unlikely “off with their heads,” and willing to trade, in a heartbeat, the arduous effort of “dialing for dollars” (e.g., collecting receivables), in exchange for that paycheck but at a usually significant reduction in pay. Of course, outside counsel still had the snobbish attitude toward in-housers, but when the rare in-house job opportunity presented itself, outside counsel resumes would flood the GC’s inbox.

Over the years, the tune has changed and being in-house is no longer the bed of roses that outside counsel considered it to be. Longer hours with demands from various clients flowing in concurrently — and they all want everything done rightthisminute. There’s corporate infighting; you need to protect your back and even your front, especially at acquisition time and especially if you are on the acquiree side. Bye-bye to any sense of job security.

Consider that opportunities for advancement within the legal department may be slim to none, especially if the senior staff is of comparable age to you. Even if the GC and her deputies are “aging out” — to use the politest term I can think of — there’s no guarantee whatsoever that any legal department succession plan will be used. It’s more than likely that the search will be for candidates outside the organization, even if internal candidates are considered. It’s looking in your closet full of perfectly fine clothes and then wailing that you don’t have anything to wear.  Internal candidates are often overlooked and often to the detriment of organizations.

Another consideration: you may well become known as a “subject matter expert.” That is a double-edged sword. You will be respected for the expertise that you bring to that area, and that is a good thing. Clients will come to you directly because they know that you either know the answer or will get it for them. However, being a subject matter expert can also limit your opportunities to expand your knowledge in areas that you might not be familiar with but want to learn. There’s no on-the-job training in in-house departments. They are just too busy and need the new hires to be able to transition into their jobs flawlessly. No time for a learning curve.

So, it’s no surprise that a recent survey of in-house counsel revealed that they are not necessarily a bunch of happy campers. As Joe Patrice points out, to have more than half of in-house lawyers report either actively searching for a new gig or open to consider a new gig is a startling number. One of the knocks on in-house work is an accurate one: in-housers do more of the routine drudge work (you can’t afford for outside counsel to do that work) and, often, the most compelling and interesting work, the “you bet your company” work defaults to outside counsel.

But, as the recent Axiom survey points out, leaving in-house is easier said than done. Axiom lists four factors for the reluctance to switch jobs, even if the burnout level is approaching 50%. The likelihood of a recession is one factor motivating peeps to stay put. For all of us who endured the Great Recession of 2008-10, remember that it was not a good time to move, even if you still had a job to move from and move to.

Sponsored

Another factor: “golden handcuffs.” Income and benefits such as stock options, bonuses, and deferred compensation are other reasons that in-house peeps are reluctant to move. It’s often hard to find an in-house position with comparable compensation and the cachet of a corporate title. (Sorry to tell you this, but some companies scatter corporate titles like grass seed.)

Then there’s good old inertia. First, you must decide to leave, or at least look, then you must revise your resume so that it doesn’t get kicked out by the automated resume screener, and then you must interview, at least several times, if not more. Even if you get the new gig, you are then the new person in the department, getting used to new peeps, new ways of handling matters, a new corporate culture, and a new boss or bosses plus new clients. And if you weren’t already stressed to the max in your current job, a new gig can truly put you over the top of the anxiety scale.

Axiom says the final factor is “normalization,” or the rationalization that this kind of burnout/anxiety is a routine part of law practice, and the grass is not going to be greener anywhere else, despite what you may think or observe. The tendency is to just suck it up.

I’m not saying that that’s what you must do. Weigh the pros and cons of making a move. A move to in-house may be great or a disaster. Just make sure to not only look before you leap but think long and hard about what you are willing to trade. You want the juice to be worth the squeeze.

Sponsored

old lady lawyer elderly woman grandmother grandma laptop computerJill Switzer has been an active member of the State Bar of California for over 40 years. She remembers practicing law in a kinder, gentler time. She’s had a diverse legal career, including stints as a deputy district attorney, a solo practice, and several senior in-house gigs. She now mediates full-time, which gives her the opportunity to see dinosaurs, millennials, and those in-between interact — it’s not always civil. You can reach her by email at oldladylawyer@gmail.com.

Topics

, ,