In-House vs. Govt legal work: which is more family-friendly?

[Anonymous]

I am a senior associate working at a law firm and am expecting my first child. I am wondering about career options post-baby. Which post-law firm career path is better: are in-house legal jobs OR government legal jobs more family-friendly in terms of flexibility, predictibility of scheduling, and possibly working part-time/flex-time? On which path do women attorneys with kids find greater job satisfication, ability to balance both career and life at home, while also making enough money to feel fulfilled? (I don't need a lot but don't want to be busting my butt for peanuts...). Also, I want to continue to be challenged, but honestly it would not be the end of the world to have an "easy job."

I have not ruled out staying at a firm but would love to hear thoughts out there re: in-house vs. government work. I realize that this is a broad query, and that there a wide variety of experiences within each category... but would welcome any thoughts.

[Anonymous]

There was a thread on this recently, but I can't find it to direct you to it. But, anyway, here is my experience. I was in house prior to my first child. Once he came along, I was able to work a flexible schedule. Still, I had intense pressure to bill hours and was working just about every spare minute. Between that and the inevitable sleep deprivation that kids bring, I found my job to be really difficult. I was lucky to find a government job. What I found in government is that I don't get the day to day flexibility because I am expected to keep a regular schedule. But I get predictability in my schedule and I am concerned only with getting the job done, not with getting in a quota of hours. I also have found that with my job, I do not get assigned as much work as I would have in private practice, primarily because my employer believes the job should be family friendly since it does not pay the same as private practice. I was a partner in private practice and am now the equivalent of a senior associate in my government job. When I made the job change, my salary as a government attorney was only 60% of my law firm salary. I have never regretted making the change and I don't miss the money.

[Anonymous]

I am one of 8 female law school friends, who ALL went the big firm route, and ALL left for in-house or government jobs in the last 4 years.

My answer is it totally depends.

Some in-house jobs are great, have more flexibility, and have employers/supervisors who are committed to the 40 hour work week. One benefit is that I think the professionals are treated a bit more like professionals, and have more freedom to work late, or take an afternoon off, at their discretion. (In the government... you need to account for your time in all but the highest level positions)

Some in-house jobs are as bad as the firms, and everyone is STILL pulling 60 hour weeks.

Some government jobs (like mine) are great, have 40-hour work weeks, flexible commuting options, etc. (Initially, however, some government jobs have a little less flexibility, because you don't get much vacation time to work with, and you can't just take off for appointments like you do when you are at a big firm -- but, the flip side is, when was the last time you actually got to USE your vacation time at a big firm? I was worried about having to account for 40 hours at first, but the reality is, even with my limited leave, (I've only been here for 2 years), I have more leave than I know what to do with).

Some government jobs (like my friend who is an Assistant US Attorney), are (almost) just as demanding as her previous big firm job... but at a fraction of the pay.

You won't know which are which until you interview and ask questions...

[Anonymous]

I don't think you can broadly compare the two categories, but you can compare particular job offers from each. I have a great in-house job that allows me to balance family responsibilities. I frequently telecommute, and I rarely work nights or weekends. My company has been written up as one of the most family friendly. I've also worked for the federal government and enjoyed the flexibility I had there, but I like the corporate environment better and the pay is better. Some managers in the government are stricter than others about hours -- I had one who would have liked to have had a punch-in time clock at the door. I've also worked in law firms pre-kids, and I know I couldn't do that now and maintain a work-life balance. I take home far less pay than my colleagues in private practice, but I still feel fairly compensated, and I look forward to short term and long term bonuses when my company does well. Why don't you interview and see what's out there, and then compare specific jobs?

[Anonymous]

What do in-house jobs typically pay?

[Anonymous]

I'm not a PP, but have been networking this year extensively trying to figure out what I want to do.

In house pay can range from 100-200; it is often not much above where you'd be in government (at least in my field, it is not difficult to end up at the top of the federal pay scale, about 150K, if you have at least 6 years of experience and are making more in the private sector). Some smaller companies would pay less, like 130K, although they are more like to require fewer hours. The big difference is in benefits - the government only matches up to 5% of retirement contributions, while private sector often does 10-15%. And the government's bonuses are usually much smaller, like 2-6K vs. 15-30K in house. But the government's health plans can be better than many companies, and if you plan to stay until retirement the retirement benefits (small pension and staying in their health care plan) are good.

[Anonymous]

Agree with pps that it totally depends on the specific jobs you are looking at. I work at a federal agency in the Washington area and have observed that throughout the federal government the hours and lifestyle totally vary on the kind of work you are going and how busy your office is. I work in a litigation office and it can be pretty demanding at times -- if you have a court deadline, the work has to get done no matter if it makes you stay past 5:30. And certainly many jobs at DOJ in which you're litigating cases, including AUSAs and main Justice, are just as demanding as big law firms. On the other hand, there are plenty of federal govt jobs that offer more reasonable hours -- these are typically less deadline-driven jobs or offices that have a very even pace of work and good management. At my own agency there are non-litigating lawyers who have very regular hours and seem to balance family and work fairly well.

In my opinion though, the less demanding jobs often (but not always) offer somewhat less interesting and less high-profile work. The trick is to find a job that is stimulating and challenges you but gives you the hours and lifestyle you want. I am still looking for that balance myself!

[Anonymous]

My husband had an in-house job that he loved, it was not in DC but in a smaller city where housing prices had shot up, so not as affordable as we had hoped. It was pretty family friendly, and the commute was 5 minutes. His salary was a little lower than in DC, and there definitely wasn't the annual bump that most firm attorneys he knows from law school got. But if we'd stayed the retirement and other benefits were better--it was a privately owned company, and one with a reputation for being one of the top 20 to work for, but not that office. He's a patent guy, and really enjoyed working with the engineers, etc., but ultimately he left because the other attorneys and the support staff there were such a train wreck (affairs, preferential treatment, refusal to accept that the new guy with 10 years experience might have a good idea or know what he's doing, etc) that it wasn't worth it to stay. We left 9 months ago and they still haven't filled the position.

So he's back to a big firm, where the people are great and his support staff are the best he's ever worked with, and we'll see what our options are in another 3-5 years. So there are definitely trade offs, wherever you go, unfortunately you can't always predict what will happen.

[Anonymous]

Rather than leaving have you thought about trying to create a part-time position at your law firm (80%; 60% etc.)? I know some women who have done that. Although it takes them off the partnership track, they are still make more money than they would if they left for a govt. job.

[Anonymous]

I left a big law firm and went in-house. I love it. I agree with prior posters though that how "family friendly" your in-house position is will depend a lot on your boss and the company. I am lucky in that everyone in the legal department at my company (including my boss) all left big DC law firms for life-style reasons. So, everyone is very sensitive to the work-life balance since that is the primary reason that we all left our firms. My boss (a male) is VERY involved with his kids, leaving early to attend soccer practice sometimes, etc. So that sets the tone for the whole department. There is no expectation that we will work nights and weekends and put in "face time". I would say that if you interview for in-house positions, pay attention to the attitude of the attorney who runs the department because that really drives the culture. As for salary, I took a pay cut but it worked out to a raise on a per-hour basis when I figured that I was no longer working nights and weekends. My bonus was comparable to my law firm bonus, although it might not be this year because our company (like many companies) is not doing as well with the bad economy. I also get 401K stock match, which I did not get with my law firm.

I can't speak to govt jobs because I've never even interviewed for one... Good luck!

[Anonymous]

I left Biglaw for a DOJ position and have never regretted the move. As with any of the places discussed, it really depends on the people with whom you work on how it will work out for you. Although my firm did offer 60--80% time, it was very hard to get and even the few people on the so-called part-time track really did not work part time hours. Instead, they seemed to work full-time but only get paid on the part-time basis. Unless you were tethered to your blackberry and willing to work late nights after the little ones went to bed, it wasn't a place to try to find some balance. I'm a litigator, so I understand the uncertainties of litigation but thought there had to be a better way. I intereviewed at firms, in-house, and government for a year before I found the perfect fit with my particular DOJ section. I took a pay cut, but at least make as much as a first year associate at big law without having to put up with the hours. Even though we are a litigation section, I find that my hours are good- sometimes if there is a filing it will be a later day, but it seems we plan better for things than we did at the firm because I think we're more aware of time and less concerned with billing hours. It's a different mindset that's hard to describe. It's also nice that when I take time off, I can take it off and not have to check in as everyone around here really pitches in and helps out. You have to ask and dig for the information, but for me this particular government position was more family-friendly. I have a friend at a firm who is able to make it work, but my firm just wasn't receptive to anything less than devoting your entire time. It may take some time and some searching, but there are ways of making it work. You might have to sacrifice on some things (for me- money), but it's all part of that cost benefit analysis we run in our head.

[Anonymous]

I left a law firm for a position with the federal government. I tried the "part time" thing at the firm but it just didn't work out. I looked at a lot of postings on USA jobs before applying for the position I'm in now. I couldn't ask for more flexibility in my schedule and I can't fathom why I would ever HAVE to work a minute past "closing" time or on a weekend. If I stay to finish up a case, obviously that's my choice. But I saw many, many gov't legal jobs that involved litigation or other responsibilites that didn't look like they would provide the kind of environment I was looking for. It's all about what you want; I'm kind of shocked I managed to find a job this great, although obviously with a substantially lower salary.

[Anonymous]

PP here--I forgot the best part: NO Blackberry!