Biglaw -> InHouse

[Anonymous]

I’ll be transitioning from biglaw to an in-house position soon and would appreciate some advice from those who made the same leap. Anything you wish you knew ahead of time/things you wish someone told you before you started? Surprises about in-house practice that you didn’t anticipate? Thanks in advance!

[Anonymous]

I made this transition, although many years ago. One piece of advice I believe is still relevant -- remember that when you're in house counsel you wear "two hats", attorney and employee of your client. It can be so easy to blur the lines between roles when you work in house. There were times I forgot this when interacting with managers or other non-lawyers at my company, and once or twice it created awkward conflicts of interest or at least the appearance of such.

I really enjoyed my time working in house, though. Congrats and good luck!

[Anonymous]

Be prepared for it to not be the cushy position that people make it out to be. You won't have billable hours, but you'll still be expected to work long hours. You'll still be doing just as much traveling, etc. My spouse went in-house, and after we saw the other side of it, I decided not to. He took a decent paycut, and we haven't seen the improved quality of life to make up for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I made this transition, although many years ago. One piece of advice I believe is still relevant -- remember that when you're in house counsel you wear "two hats", attorney and employee of your client. It can be so easy to blur the lines between roles when you work in house. There were times I forgot this when interacting with managers or other non-lawyers at my company, and once or twice it created awkward conflicts of interest or at least the appearance of such.

I really enjoyed my time working in house, though. Congrats and good luck!

NP here. I'm interviewing for an in-house position. In theory, I understand what you're saying, but in practice, I can't imagine exactly what this would look like. Could you give an example?

[Anonymous]

The client (program or business divisions) have super cool ideas and are not concerned about their legality.
Your job is to protect the institution while not being a wet blanket on innovation. If you don't have good relationships, you will just be seen as "legal" and not part of the team.
You have to be seen as having drunk the kool-aid, but not so much that you loose your integrity as an attorney.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The client (program or business divisions) have super cool ideas and are not concerned about their legality.
Your job is to protect the institution while not being a wet blanket on innovation. If you don't have good relationships, you will just be seen as "legal" and not part of the team.
You have to be seen as having drunk the kool-aid, but not so much that you loose your integrity as an attorney.

Bingo. This is it exactly. When I was the employment lawyer for my company I was often asked to okay firings, layoffs or employment practices that my lawyer-sense knew we problemmatic. It was often tough to hold the line while not getting the reputation that I, as the lawyer, was just a "speed bump" in road to company progress. Eventually you figure out creative ways to walk the line, but it takes a lot of tact and finesse.

[Anonymous]

not an attorney myself but in my organization many times legal is seen as always telling us what we can't do and never letting us do things we want to drive the business forward. what would make them easier to work with is if they gave us advice like outside counsel does, as in, if you do it here are the possible impacts and likelihood of various risks. i realize it's not always easy to quantify and it doesn't have to be precise, but to just say no you can't do that without explaining what specifically is the reason we can't do it really stops the innovation process. a "guess what i'm guessing" game that gets old.

[Anonymous]

Former in house attorney here, and I agree with PP. The best in house counsel recognize that it is their job to advise about risk and provide alternatives that might be better, not just to naysay.

[Anonymous]

More face time and probably more politics in house, but still better hours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Former in house attorney here, and I agree with PP. The best in house counsel recognize that it is their job to advise about risk and provide alternatives that might be better, not just to naysay.

Current in-house attorney. I generally agree with this by there are a few caveats. My primary job is to help my clients meet their objectives and, at the same time, keep them from playing in traffic. However, as the company's lawyer, I tend to bring a big picture perspective to things. Many of my clients are younger business people who are ambitious and trying to make their mark. I understand that and I facilitate when I can. But sometimes I am saying "no" because I have inside information or institutional knowledge that their idea won't get past the GC, or the CEO or the Board. Most of the time I am saying "that way is too risky, try this alternative." Driven business people don't always hear that though. They want to do it their way.

Hoestly, I think that the lawyer's role also depends on the company's culture. Some companies want lawyers who just advise on risk and provide alternatives. Other companies (like mine) want their lawyers to be gatekeepers on business matters also. Our CEO has said that he does not want to see any idea hit his desk that Legal has not bought into or had input in. He does not want his lawyers to be able to say "Boss, I advised him of the risk and he went ahead anyways." He wants us involved at the formulation level and accountable as such.

So...the short answer is that your role my depend on the culture and what your company expects from it lawyers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Former in house attorney here, and I agree with PP. The best in house counsel recognize that it is their job to advise about risk and provide alternatives that might be better, not just to naysay.

Current in-house attorney. I generally agree with this by there are a few caveats. My primary job is to help my clients meet their objectives and, at the same time, keep them from playing in traffic. However, as the company's lawyer, I tend to bring a big picture perspective to things. Many of my clients are younger business people who are ambitious and trying to make their mark. I understand that and I facilitate when I can. But sometimes I am saying "no" because I have inside information or institutional knowledge that their idea won't get past the GC, or the CEO or the Board. Most of the time I am saying "that way is too risky, try this alternative." Driven business people don't always hear that though. They want to do it their way.

Hoestly, I think that the lawyer's role also depends on the company's culture. Some companies want lawyers who just advise on risk and provide alternatives. Other companies (like mine) want their lawyers to be gatekeepers on business matters also. Our CEO has said that he does not want to see any idea hit his desk that Legal has not bought into or had input in. He does not want his lawyers to be able to say "Boss, I advised him of the risk and he went ahead anyways." He wants us involved at the formulation level and accountable as such.

So...the short answer is that your role my depend on the culture and what your company expects from it lawyers.

this is it for me, exactly. Down to the CEO who routinely turns down things I have not bought into. My CEO and board expect me to be the gatekeeper. I definitely don't just blindly say no, but when it comes to weighing the risks and setting the direction, they do not want to leave it in the hands of the business person whose bonus this year depends on nothing but raw projects numbers, and who frankly doesn't care what happens down the line, because he won't be involved in dealing with the fallout.

[Anonymous]

You still need to cultivate your client base, and you need to spend non billable time learning what they do all day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You still need to cultivate your client base, and you need to spend non billable time learning what they do all day.

Lots more dumb people in-house than there are in the law firm. Be prepared.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You still need to cultivate your client base, and you need to spend non billable time learning what they do all day.

Lots more dumb people in-house than there are in the law firm. Be prepared.

PP here. That is why lawyers have such a bad name. LOL Relatively speaking, everyone at my project driven company is "smart" and good at what they do. And the PP is right - you have to learn the business and what motivates your business people. I have survived in my position because I am viewed as a team member and there is mutual exchange of information and ideas. I am not the big bad lawyer who thinks she knows everything and is smarter than everyone in the room. That attitude may work in a big firm (it did at my prior firm), but it will be poorly received in-house. It is delicate balance - you have to exude enough confidence that the executives trust your judgment, but you also have to be relatable enough to be considered part of the team.