take this with a grain of salt but it looks to me as though retiring with 26 years at 155k gives you a pension annuity that would cost you about $1m in savings to purchase from TSP (private market would likely be worse)

How do you value your pension to be 2M? How old are you and how many years will you have as GS-15 to get there?

I wouldn't assume the hours and flexibility in-house would be worse than the government. It really depends on the company - you need to ask the other attorneys there. Agree though on less stability in-house. Layoffs happen, and this is not the most robust market for in-house employment.

Considering a similar move myself, OP, but it is certainly not for the more interesting work. I have a surfeit of that in government. but I need better cash flow and better hours and less travel. and it looks like at least some companies offer that . . .

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:how did you come up with 2 mil number?

And why do you say you'd lose your pension? It's not vested?

Also, a pay increase of 20% is peanuts from my perspective, given the "soft" benefits of being in the gov't - cheaper health care, flexible work schedule, ability to actually take/use vacation time, etc. Of course, there are more factors that may be at work in this decision, such as the ability to advance in your career and whether the work is likely to be more interesting to you. If you're at $140,000 now, you're looking at @$170,000 -- that's not a wash but unless the "soft" benefits on the in-house position match the gov't's it's close.

I'm sure OP meant she would lose increased accrual of the pension benefit. Agree with your other points regarding flexibility of working for the govt vs. private employer.

Anonymous wrote:how did you come up with 2 mil number?

And why do you say you'd lose your pension? It's not vested?

Also, a pay increase of 20% is peanuts from my perspective, given the "soft" benefits of being in the gov't - cheaper health care, flexible work schedule, ability to actually take/use vacation time, etc. Of course, there are more factors that may be at work in this decision, such as the ability to advance in your career and whether the work is likely to be more interesting to you. If you're at $140,000 now, you're looking at @$170,000 -- that's not a wash but unless the "soft" benefits on the in-house position match the gov't's it's close.

how did you come up with 2 mil number?

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't do it if I was happy with my GS job. How long would you have to work at the other job to save $2 million?

My feelings for my current job are lukewarm, at best. But I imagine I would probably feel the same about the in-house counsel position, given that I'm not crazy about the legal field. I would also lose out on flextime, etc. I really would only be leaving for the possibility of more money in the form of stock options.

I wouldn't do it if I was happy with my GS job. How long would you have to work at the other job to save $2 million?

Anonymous wrote:Is the work interesting? When I was in house honestly the most interesting work was handled by outside counsel and I had very much a face time job with not enough to do, whereas in govt I get tons (per too much) interesting work, but I recognize some people have the opposite experience.

And I'm (OP) with you. I get a good amount of interesting work in my gov't job. The only reason I would move is for career growth, which is definitely limited at my agency, and possible stock options (which I'm not sure would be on the table).

Anonymous wrote:Is the work interesting? When I was in house honestly the most interesting work was handled by outside counsel and I had very much a face time job with not enough to do, whereas in govt I get tons (per too much) interesting work, but I recognize some people have the opposite experience.

From what I understand, they are looking for in-house counsel to do a good amount of legal work, and they limit the amount of work they send to outside counsel, except when there's a huge amount of money on the line. At least, that's what was explained to me.

I left a GS-14 job for an in-house counsel position and love my work. I'm so much happier, work with bright, motivated people and feel I have a lot more room for professional growth. I can't believe I stuck with the government for more than a year.

Is the work interesting? When I was in house honestly the most interesting work was handled by outside counsel and I had very much a face time job with not enough to do, whereas in govt I get tons (per too much) interesting work, but I recognize some people have the opposite experience.

Bonus is never guaranteed but I assume you talked to the various senior counsels at the company and there's some historical practice of paying 20% that goes back a few years? Also how much raises are historically?

I would also see what, if any, match they provide for your 401(k). Consider health insurance costs on the plans they offer as well.

From a non-monetary perspective, I would consider whether the work is more interesting that what you're doing now and whether there's room for advancement. I'd also consider how stable the Company is and how much job security you think you'd have since legal is a cost center and one of the first areas to get cut in a downsizing or merger situation.

How easy would it be for you to return? My place is really weird about not letting people come back when they leave.

Is it worth it? Pay raise would initially be somewhere around 20% more, plus bonuses of 20% of salary. Don't have an offer or anything, but have met with one of their more senior counsel on several occasions. I'd be giving up my pension, which I value at $2M, assuming I stay with gov't until I retire at 65.