Go inhouse or stay at firm?

[Anonymous]

I'm counsel at a biglaw firm on reduced hours schedule. Pay is pretty good and my hours are generally fine (ie rarely work weekends or late nights). There's always the concern about a downturn or my practice group getting slow at some point, leading perhaps to layoffs. That's just the nature of firms these days I guess. An inhouse job came up which pays a lot less - about 66% of my current pay, though if you add bonus, probably more like 80-85%. It's a big, stable company and one I could stay at til I retire, barring any major issues. They seem very busy so I might actually work more than I do right now but I'm guessing this is cyclical and there would at least not be the billing pressure. Most of me feels like I should just stay at my firm and keep making money while I can and if it looks like I should move on down the road, pick up the job search then. Especially since the salary at this opportunity is frankly on the lower end of what I've seen on the inhouse market so far. I figure I should be able to find something at least as good as this money-wise and likely better. Or perhaps even try to move into government at some point. I'm pretty risk averse which is the only reason I'm even considering this position - firms not being all that stable these days. But then again, it's not like inhouse jobs are totally secure either. But with a lot less pay. Curious to know if anyone has gone through a similar decision or have other thoughts in favor of an inhouse job that I'm not considering. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

I'm interested to hear what others say. Am considering trying to transition from gov to in-house, but I do love my security and workload!

[Anonymous]

One minor consideration is that the company might offer a 401k match which I don't think any biglaw firm does.

Also, health insurance is probably a lot cheaper if that's important to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One minor consideration is that the company might offer a 401k match which I don't think any biglaw firm does.

Also, health insurance is probably a lot cheaper if that's important to you.

Yes, I think there's a match which is helpful. DH works in government so we're on his insurance - that won't change.

[Anonymous]

It sounds like you would be taking a pay cut for more hours? If so, stay where you are, no brainer!

[Anonymous]

In-house. That is kind of the holy grail for biglaw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In-house. That is kind of the holy grail for biglaw.

Well, I think it depends, right? Maybe an inhouse gig with good pay, stability and good prospects for advancement. But not all inhouse gigs are like that. Most aren't, I'd hazard to guess. Whereas if you're counsel at biglaw, there is no longer the up or out pressure tho the billables pressure is still a drag.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm counsel at a biglaw firm on reduced hours schedule. Pay is pretty good and my hours are generally fine (ie rarely work weekends or late nights). There's always the concern about a downturn or my practice group getting slow at some point, leading perhaps to layoffs. That's just the nature of firms these days I guess. An inhouse job came up which pays a lot less - about 66% of my current pay, though if you add bonus, probably more like 80-85%. It's a big, stable company and one I could stay at til I retire, barring any major issues. They seem very busy so I might actually work more than I do right now but I'm guessing this is cyclical and there would at least not be the billing pressure. Most of me feels like I should just stay at my firm and keep making money while I can and if it looks like I should move on down the road, pick up the job search then. Especially since the salary at this opportunity is frankly on the lower end of what I've seen on the inhouse market so far. I figure I should be able to find something at least as good as this money-wise and likely better. Or perhaps even try to move into government at some point. I'm pretty risk averse which is the only reason I'm even considering this position - firms not being all that stable these days. But then again, it's not like inhouse jobs are totally secure either. But with a lot less pay. Curious to know if anyone has gone through a similar decision or have other thoughts in favor of an inhouse job that I'm not considering. Thanks.

Do not assume that in-house is more stable than is a law firm. I work at a "big, stable" company with a lot of work and periodically they clean house.

[Anonymous]

yep. the person who brought you in gets fired, and you go go right along with him/her. think of it as going from having a bunch of clients (firm) to having one client. it isn't necessarily stable to be in-house.

[Anonymous]

I was in house briefly and I do not say that I am representative of all experiences, but fwiw I liked it less than I thought I would. For the most part the really interesting work was given to outside counsel, and there was actually more "face time" and internal politics than at the firm. OTOH, even with face time I was less busy. Ended up at the govt and it is a better balance of interesting work with not too many hours.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the responses. These seem to largely confirm my thoughts and concerns. I think I'll stick with my firm - devil you know, right? I just can't wrap my head around taking a job that pays significantly less, for equal or more work, not much more stability and a car commute (I walk and take metro now). I always figured I'd leave biglaw eventually but in reality, I seem to have a pretty good deal, especially in comparison to other options I've seen.

[Anonymous]

I'll throw this out there -- if your practice area should become slow at the firm, it is likely to coincide with there being little demand for your practice area in house. So, when you decide to or need to leave the firm, it may not be possible. Not saying you should take this job, but something to consider. Frankly, I'd be disinclined to stay at a firm in a non-equity position given what is going on with law firm economics. Maybe keep looking but most escape routes from big law do involve at least a temporary drop in pay.

[Anonymous]

I'm interviewing for an in house gig and stumbled upon this thread. It's creepily similar to my situation of choosing between reduced hours big law and in house, including the change from walking and metro to driving. However, the salary difference is not quite so bad, more like 80% of what I'm making now. If OP is still around, are you happy you stayed with biglaw? My concern about staying is that I don't think I'll make equity partner and I think non equity partner and counsel positions are very vulnerable. I'm leaning toward taking the in house gig.

[Anonymous]

inhouse stable jong pays 80-85% all-in of your current biglaw allin comp? go for it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm interviewing for an in house gig and stumbled upon this thread. It's creepily similar to my situation of choosing between reduced hours big law and in house, including the change from walking and metro to driving. However, the salary difference is not quite so bad, more like 80% of what I'm making now. If OP is still around, are you happy you stayed with biglaw? My concern about staying is that I don't think I'll make equity partner and I think non equity partner and counsel positions are very vulnerable. I'm leaning toward taking the in house gig.

This is an excellent article on this subject.

http://www.bcgsearch.com/article/60637/The-dark-Side-Of-Going-In-House/