Would you take this in-house offer Forum

[Anonymous User]

Not sure whether this thread is still being read bur yes, I regret going in-house. I was at my firm for nearly 5 years when I decided to go in-house. Been in-house now for several months and hated it from the get-go. Will be looking to move back to BigLaw asap. In a nutshell: I find BigLaw to be much more intellectually challenging (ok, fine, not always... but generally you’re required to really know your stuff and really do thorough deep-dive searches about legal issues and drafting skills really matter) whereas in in-house, it’s all about pragmatics. You don’t always have time to really delve into the legal issues thoroughly. Business just expects a yes/no answer. And no one cares about how nice a memo you write because you just write quick short emails. I just miss the more academic side to BigLaw. Also, yes, BigLaw is more demanding in terms of hours but I never even needed a to-do list when I was in BigLaw because you were usually working big projects so you knew how your work week was going to look like. In-house is a very long endless to-do list. As soon as you dealt with one item on that list, 3 others come up. It just feels like work is never done. Work is also continuously busy. I work a minimum of 10 hours a day and it is full-on all the damn time. Whereas yes in BigLaw you can have 14 hour days, but, at least in my experience, you also had very quiet days/weeks in between. But, to be fair, this also made the BigLaw job completely unpredictable too, resulting in many cancelled plans (that does not happen in-house, to be fair). I took a 35% pay-cut. Hate it. Especially since I thought I could handle it as the job would make me much happier, which clearly is not the case. Also, in BigLaw, you have secretarial support. In-house not so much: all the annoying time-consuming tasks I previously could give to a PA, I know have to do myself on top of everything else. Final point: as a (midlevel) associate in BigLaw, you are surrounded by people your age, and it is a very dynamic environment, big teams, a lot of bonding. Maybe specific to my situation but in-house I am part of a very small team with everyone being +10 years older than I am. And it also feels like a very “corporate” environment, where you are a cost center. Far removed from the BigLaw bubble where the main assets of the business are the lawyers. This is of course logical but the culture shock really threw mw though... This is obviously only MY experience and I have actually heard a lot of happy in-house lawyer stories. Unfortunately it is just not mine.

I'm curious about your in house comp and industry/practice if you're willing to share. As well as the reasons you thought to initially move in house. Sounds like maybe the lifestyle benefits weigh less in the calculus for you or that maybe you'd prefer a different kind of in house environment to make it worth it (e.g your in house hours could be industry/company influenced). Going back really isn't as unusual as people make it seem but the people that usually do I think often re-commit to the idea of going after partnership and note some of the personality/work preferences you've mentioned.

I wanted a change in lifestyle. I basically snapped (internally) after the umpteenth time I had to cancel plans so started looking around and got the offer. It’s a big, global, company. But the minimum hours a day there is 10, and that is just because I refuse to do more. My colleagues put in more (including frequent weekends). For a more or less 35% pay-cut, that is not what I was and am willing to put in. Perhaps had I loved the job, I would have, but I don’t. So, much prefer going back to BigLaw, where sometimes it’s even less hours a day, sometimes more but it ballences out (for more interesting work and more pay). Happy I have this experience though, it has made me want to recommit fully to BigLaw again. Perhaps had I received an offer from a different company or waited a couple of years to go in-house, I would have not wanted to to back. But you roll the dice...

I think if people are still working more than 40-45 hours a week in-house, that's usually a culture problem more than a work volume problem. At my company, working late or weekends is on an unusual emergency basis only (handful of times a year tops). The best thing about being in-house is that working more does not equate to more profit for the company, so as long as you can get your work done, there's no need to work for the sake of working (absent a culture problem).

The hours seemed off but there are some known sectors/industries that some companies will usually pay slightly more in house to midlevels but have more of a general reputation for lawyers working more or more when deals get busy. Usually not the case when most people go in house but definitely depends because places are different in expectations and it depends on corporate culture. This might have worked out at another opportunity--I've also seen people move in house jobs and dig deeper into lifestyle instead of going back to a firm. If move was for lifestyle one thing maybe to also think about is whether the partners in your firm can have the work lifestyle you want/described because ultimately that's what you'll be working toward. Biglaw can have more flexible hours but generally flexibility and predictable 50-60 hrs is not sustainable particularly if you want to continue to rise.

[MaxMcMann]

To be perfectly honest, 10 hours a day (assuming minimal weekend work) seems pretty damn good for 35% of what a midlevel would earn. Were you really working fewer than 10 hours a day on average in biglaw?

jep, A typical day in BigLaw for me, I’d say would be 10-11 hours. There were weeks you would have to put in more than that. But the amount of times I worked more than 70 hours/week can be counted on let’s say two hands (in a 5 year period). Usually did around 50 hours a week. Sometimes 35, sometimes 65... on average, 50ish. Hence why i don’t think the 35% cut is worth it (as I am putting in more or less same hours, albeit with much more predictability but flip-side also much less flexibility). I had a great deal of autonomy in my BigLaw role. Plus, for me it’s not all about the salary. I’d happily have taken the 35% cut had I loved the job, but I don’t. I don’t even like it. Much prefer BigLaw (or at least my experience of it).

What corporate area did you work in? I figure M&A, CapM and Credit are big enough and exist at enough firms that you wouldn't be outing yourself.

[LawAndBehold]

To be perfectly honest, 10 hours a day (assuming minimal weekend work) seems pretty damn good for 35% of what a midlevel would earn. Were you really working fewer than 10 hours a day on average in biglaw?

jep, A typical day in BigLaw for me, I’d say would be 10-11 hours. There were weeks you would have to put in more than that. But the amount of times I worked more than 70 hours/week can be counted on let’s say two hands (in a 5 year period). Usually did around 50 hours a week. Sometimes 35, sometimes 65... on average, 50ish. Hence why i don’t think the 35% cut is worth it (as I am putting in more or less same hours, albeit with much more predictability but flip-side also much less flexibility). I had a great deal of autonomy in my BigLaw role. Plus, for me it’s not all about the salary. I’d happily have taken the 35% cut had I loved the job, but I don’t. I don’t even like it. Much prefer BigLaw (or at least my experience of it).

What corporate area did you work in? I figure M&A, CapM and Credit are big enough and exist at enough firms that you wouldn't be outing yourself.

Actually, None of the above. Wasn’t in corporate. Happy to share but would prefer PM for the time-being as I don’t have my exit sorted just yet