3L w/ In-House vs. Big Law Opportunity- Help Plz! Forum

[Anonymous User]

You all need to realize that once you go in-house right out the gate your opportunity for advancement is severely limited and so is your earning potential. GC's/ MD's (anyone of a higher position) are rarely bred in-house, they come from big firms. That $140K OP talked about is going to increase to $150K over the next three years, if that.

Having been in-house myself for years now at a large bank, we've had many summer interns. Although it has been limited, I've come across kids that are very talented and should not stop themselves short by starting in-house -- and they indeed went to large firms instead. As far as I'm concerned, if those same "kids" came back to me for a job, I'd give them one because I know their potential and they now have better training than we could have provided them.

[oblig.lawl.ref]

I am a little shocked by the "anyone can get in-house" comment. I'm at a firm that generally has really good in-house placement and I'd say almost half the associates that walk through these doors (in corporate) burn out, can't hack biglaw or suck and end up with pretty mediocre/bad options by the time they would have been a 3rd-6th year. By that I mean working in much lesser firms (from which they will probably be canned in a couple years), mediocre boutiques, leaving law altogether or trying to transition into a different field, or entirely apparently unemployed for years. Some will definitely recover and maybe the biglaw line on their resume will help down the road but many do not really seem to recover, career-wise.

Failing in biglaw, which most do in my experience, is in many ways an obvious and a black mark on a resume. That's the danger. 3 years out of law school my Linkedin connections are an awful lot less prestigious looking than they were when I started at a firm. Most of these people went to V20 type firms. I'd say almost half of them are already no longer there and the majority of them appear to be in much less prestigious, and probably less well-paying, positions.

The comments regarding GC/MD positions is super financial institutions focused. I realize that's often the focus in NYC and is definitely a valid point, but that's really subsection of in-house and not how it works across the board I don't think.

[smokeylarue]

Eh, the above seems overly harsh. Lateraling down to a less demanding firm in years 3 through 6 is incredibly common, I don't view that as failing Biglaw. People that stay more than 5 or 6 years at the same firm they started at are really the outliers.

[ruski]

the above is wayyyy too prestige focused. I moved after 2 years from nyc v5 to a firm not even ranked on vault. work 9-6 and make 90% of my former salary. I would call this winning. prestige is over rated. there are several highly profitable firms out there that fly below the radar. the only losers I think are the ones still in biglaw after 6 years, giving up their souls for many an extra 30k post-tax. that is sad to me

[boredtodeath]

I am a little shocked by the "anyone can get in-house" comment. I'm at a firm that generally has really good in-house placement and I'd say almost half the associates that walk through these doors (in corporate) burn out, can't hack biglaw or suck and end up with pretty mediocre/bad options by the time they would have been a 3rd-6th year. By that I mean working in much lesser firms (from which they will probably be canned in a couple years), mediocre boutiques, leaving law altogether or trying to transition into a different field, or entirely apparently unemployed for years. Some will definitely recover and maybe the biglaw line on their resume will help down the road but many do not really seem to recover, career-wise.

Failing in biglaw, which most do in my experience, is in many ways an obvious and a black mark on a resume. That's the danger. 3 years out of law school my Linkedin connections are an awful lot less prestigious looking than they were when I started at a firm. Most of these people went to V20 type firms. I'd say almost half of them are already no longer there and the majority of them appear to be in much less prestigious, and probably less well-paying, positions.

The comments regarding GC/MD positions is super financial institutions focused. I realize that's often the focus in NYC and is definitely a valid point, but that's really subsection of in-house and not how it works across the board I don't think.

This is hilarious. The people who leave in years 3-6 have realized biglaw is awful. Especially v10 biglaw. There are 100 other firms that pay Cravath scale and a million other jobs with only slightly less total compensation, more interesting work and less hours. Hell, the people who leave law altogether are probably the happiest. Enjoy that prestige though, dude, and good luck making partner (like that is a desirable outcome anyway).

[oblig.lawl.ref]

I am a little shocked by the "anyone can get in-house" comment. I'm at a firm that generally has really good in-house placement and I'd say almost half the associates that walk through these doors (in corporate) burn out, can't hack biglaw or suck and end up with pretty mediocre/bad options by the time they would have been a 3rd-6th year. By that I mean working in much lesser firms (from which they will probably be canned in a couple years), mediocre boutiques, leaving law altogether or trying to transition into a different field, or entirely apparently unemployed for years. Some will definitely recover and maybe the biglaw line on their resume will help down the road but many do not really seem to recover, career-wise.

Failing in biglaw, which most do in my experience, is in many ways an obvious and a black mark on a resume. That's the danger. 3 years out of law school my Linkedin connections are an awful lot less prestigious looking than they were when I started at a firm. Most of these people went to V20 type firms. I'd say almost half of them are already no longer there and the majority of them appear to be in much less prestigious, and probably less well-paying, positions.

The comments regarding GC/MD positions is super financial institutions focused. I realize that's often the focus in NYC and is definitely a valid point, but that's really subsection of in-house and not how it works across the board I don't think.

This is hilarious. The people who leave in years 3-6 have realized biglaw is awful. Especially v10 biglaw. There are 100 other firms that pay Cravath scale and a million other jobs with only slightly less total compensation, more interesting work and less hours. Hell, the people who leave law altogether are probably the happiest. Enjoy that prestige though, dude, and good luck making partner (like that is a desirable outcome anyway).

Just to be clear, I am at an indigenous SV firm. We don't have bad hours. I don't want to make partner. My goal is to go in house. The people I'm referring to clearly did not have good outcomes. I guess you don't trust that these people really did not seem to have good outcomes, and that's fine, but that's really an assumption on your part. The mediocre boutiques I refer to make no partners, fire associates in a few years and pay significantly less than what I make for substantially similar hours. Leaving law is going to coding camp, starting a struggling startup, getting into sales or trying to day trade stock or just not seeming to have a job. That's what I'm talking about. Not lateralling to Paul Hastings.