Would you take this in-house offer Forum

[Anonymous User]

Junior corporate associate in a major non-NY/SF market. I have gone through several rounds of interviews with a fortune 100 company. I really like it and like the idea of having weekends and holidays off. But the salary is underwhelming.

Base: $125k
Bonus: 10-15%
Stock Options: $25,000 per year

There are also other benefits that are basically like cash. But still would be at least a $60k pay cut and only going up. I am at a market paying firm and definitely don't hate it, but have no desire for partner.

I really like the company and the people I interviewed with, but I am not sure I can take the big pay cut and might not have to if I wait another year or so. Thoughts?

[totesTheGoat]

How much do you hate working in a law firm?

A lot? Take it... you'll thank yourself for getting your life back.
Some? Take it only if you value your time significantly more than money (which it doesn't really sound like you do)
Nah, I like it? Pass

[nealric]

You may be able to negotiate that up somewhat, but I agree that the salary is a bit low. Only exception is if it's in a smaller town with very low cost of living. Get it up to the 140 range and it looks a lot better.

If you don't hate law firm life and are willing to be patient, I think you can get a better offer. At the same time, I think advancement opportunities and company trajectory are more important than starting salaries.

[jhett]

It's not bad for junior level. Not great, but not bad.

Keep in mind that raises for in-house positions are usually pretty low - in the 2-5% range. So once you hop in-house, your raises will be rather underwhelming.

If you want to keep raking in the dough for a while, perhaps stay a little longer. When you hit 4+ years in biglaw, more senior in-house positions open up to you.

[nealric]

I

Keep in mind that raises for in-house positions are usually pretty low - in the 2-5% range. So once you hop in-house, your raises will be rather underwhelming.

Yes- it's quite difficult to get substantial raises in most in-house gigs without changing companies. That first salary will have a substantial anchoring effect.

[worklifewhat]

Junior corporate associate in a major non-NY/SF market. I have gone through several rounds of interviews with a fortune 100 company. I really like it and like the idea of having weekends and holidays off. But the salary is underwhelming.

Base: $125k
Bonus: 10-15%
Stock Options: $25,000 per year

There are also other benefits that are basically like cash. But still would be at least a $60k pay cut and only going up. I am at a market paying firm and definitely don't hate it, but have no desire for partner.

I really like the company and the people I interviewed with, but I am not sure I can take the big pay cut and might not have to if I wait another year or so. Thoughts?

There are too many factors to consider to answer this question thoughtfully: do you have a family/spouse? Do you want one? If so, do they/will they rely on your income to survive? How much money do you NEED to live a content life? What's your long term goal if you don't want to make partner? Are you looking to go in-house at some point and just don't know if you want to do it right now? Are there certain variables that have made it such that you don't hate your firm right now but you might in the not-so-distant future? Do you like the location of the new position? Are there any intangibles that make the in-house position better for you mentally/physically than your firm job? What are you currently sacrificing by working at a firm that you won't have to sacrifice if you accept the new position? And what would you be giving up by leaving the firm (aside from money)? Everyone has different priorities, demands, goals, etc., so it's easy to say "take it" but, until we understand more about YOU, that would really just be based on our own values.

[waytoplant]

Does anyone know a biglaw lawyer who went in-house but regretted it? I don't just mean that they missed the salary but really thought they made the wrong decision. Also wondering if people are able to go back to a law firm after going in-house (either the same law firm they came from or another one) and whether that time in-house was helpful/harmful/neutral. I'm sure it depends where you go in-house, but any info (from personal experience or anecdotally) would be great. I'm currently a mid-level in biglaw in a major market looking to go in-house but worried about such a big change.

[totesTheGoat]

I know a few that went back to law firms, but that was mostly because they had gotten used to the biglaw salary and had a hard time adjusting their lifestyle. To be fair, many of them were up to their ears in student loans.

I've never met anybody who regretted going in-house for any reason except the pay cut.

[Margot516]

I have moved from BigLaw in house, and have moved back to BigLaw to a V10 firm. I have several friends who have also moved back for various reasons. It isn't always because of money. You'll find that there are lots of factors that go into job satisfaction and happiness. If you want to send me a PM I'm happy to share my experience.

[Anonymous User]

I moved from biglaw to inhouse with an open offer to return to the firm if inhouse wasn't for me. I think this happens with many associates who make the move. The firm has an incentive to put good associates at companies to keep the work flowing their way, but they also have an incentive to bring you back if it doesn't work out (good associates make them lots of money). Also, while you might not do the same exact work, if you are a corporate associate who went over in a general role, you will still have the needed skills of a corporate associate. I think the connections you make inhouse will help you and you will see what does and doesn't matter to Companies for when you go back. Now, after you have been inhouse for multiple years, I imagine it is more difficult to go back. But after a year, even 2, I doubt it is difficult to get back if you were doing well at the firm.

As far as regrets, I left toward the end of my third year. Not a single regret other than lower cash comp. But usually that is made up for in benefits, 401K match, equity, etc. You won't make partner $, but still typically more than 1st years (or at least $160,000 like it was when I started) which most people can live off of.

As to the offer, that salary seems excessively low. Are you a first year? If you can get them up to $150 base, I think I would consider it. Also, is that stock options or grants? If options, those are worth MUCH less obviously because you only see gain on the upside, which may not come or could be nominal.

[smokeylarue]

169k all in does not strike me as that low, especially for a junior. Try to ask for 140k base, I think that'd be a pretty decent offer.

[shock259]

Have you been searching for an in house position for a while? Is this your first "bite"? How few and far between are opportunities? How hard have you been searching? Just some additional things to consider.

The first couple of in house positions I was offered were at about that range, or even lower. I was really tempted to get the F out of biglaw, but I held out for a better offer. I eventually found one that pays significantly more, with people I like more.

[Anonymous User]

Have you been searching for an in house position for a while? Is this your first "bite"? How few and far between are opportunities? How hard have you been searching? Just some additional things to consider.

The first couple of in house positions I was offered were at about that range, or even lower. I was really tempted to get the F out of biglaw, but I held out for a better offer. I eventually found one that pays significantly more, with people I like more.

Thanks, this was my first time applying at all. Wasn't really planning on leaving, but I do like the people I have met with (including the person who would be my supervisor). Sent back last week a request for more base or at least more RSUs. We'll see. Thanks

[LawAndBehold]

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.

[whyhello]

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.

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

Does anyone know a biglaw lawyer who went in-house but regretted it? I don't just mean that they missed the salary but really thought they made the wrong decision. Also wondering if people are able to go back to a law firm after going in-house (either the same law firm they came from or another one) and whether that time in-house was helpful/harmful/neutral. I'm sure it depends where you go in-house, but any info (from personal experience or anecdotally) would be great. I'm currently a mid-level in biglaw in a major market looking to go in-house but worried about such a big change.

I previously posted that I know two attorneys who left my firm to go in house and came back. I now know three. My understanding from them is that in house was boring but obviously take this with a grain of salt given that it’s an extremely small sample size.

[Anonymous User]

Also, it depends on your practice group. If you are a business or commercial lit associate, then getting an in-house offer is more difficult. But if you do employment or IP you will still be competitive for future positions.

[LawAndBehold]

Does anyone know a biglaw lawyer who went in-house but regretted it? I don't just mean that they missed the salary but really thought they made the wrong decision. Also wondering if people are able to go back to a law firm after going in-house (either the same law firm they came from or another one) and whether that time in-house was helpful/harmful/neutral. I'm sure it depends where you go in-house, but any info (from personal experience or anecdotally) would be great. I'm currently a mid-level in biglaw in a major market looking to go in-house but worried about such a big change.

I previously posted that I know two attorneys who left my firm to go in house and came back. I now know three. My understanding from them is that in house was boring but obviously take this with a grain of salt given that it’s an extremely small sample size.

I would agree though. I think it gets old really quickly. For me, it’s mostly reviewing contracts... I think a more senior role, that has a wider geographical reach, perhaps, could be good but I second those that say junior-midlevel lawyers should wait it out. I went in-house after 5 years of BigLaw.

[LawAndBehold]

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...

[shock259]

Great, informative in house post. I'm relatively new to my position, but I can relate to all of the criticisms. I think sometimes people on TLS view it as a sort of Mecca. Some places can be, but most of the time, it presents new challenges. Overall, so far I think it's a better fit for me than biglaw was. But there's a chance I am singing a different tune in a few years..

[dabigchina]

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?

[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).

[LawAndBehold]

Great, informative in house post. I'm relatively new to my position, but I can relate to all of the criticisms. I think sometimes people on TLS view it as a sort of Mecca. Some places can be, but most of the time, it presents new challenges. Overall, so far I think it's a better fit for me than biglaw was. But there's a chance I am singing a different tune in a few years..

Agreed. I think people - myself included - need to be very careful in thinking in-house is all rainbows, butterflies and unicorns. At the end of the day it is still a legal job within a corporate context... that said, I have heard plenty of people being happy in their in-house job. It all depends on (a) the company / environment (people), (b) job-content, (c) pay, (d) working hours, (e) possibilities for advancement, (f) flexibility, etc. Not a one-size-fits-all. Same for BigLaw.

[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).

[LawAndBehold]

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).

Agreed... and actually 10 hours is the bare minimum. My colleagues put in more than that. Constantly. And they are visably stressed out. I just flat out refuse to put in the same hours because that is not what I signed up for and I am not intending on staying. I think the problem, at least for this company is that they are clearly understaffed but unlike law firms, bringing in more laywers won’t make you more money. Quite the contrary. Hence why they don’t. But again, not all in-house jobs are the same. But you really need to inform yourself well when applying and don’t just grab whatever opportunity lands in your lap because it’s your ticket out of BigLaw....