Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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/

Actually, that article sucks. That guy is crazy - look at some of his other columns. He clearly is biased in favor of firms, and on some points, he's just wrong. Once you've gone in-house, it's easier to get other in-house jobs. Your skills don't deteriorate, you just build different skills.

The article is brutally honest but true on many points if you are at the highest levels of big law. When you are in-house, the most interesting and challenging cases will be farmed out to outside counsel. It might be a "different" skill set but not necessarily one that you even want to build if you are used to being in the thick of things. It's like being a baseball player as opposed to working as a scout for a baseball team.

You know this because you have done both? I guess that could be true of some in-house jobs, but that's not the experience of most in-house I know, myself included.

OP - just about eveything you described matches me exactly too. I decided to stick with my firm as well - make hay while the sun shines, right? I do worry about a downturn affecting my practice. But then companies let go of lawyers for all sorts of reasons as well - downturns, restructurings, etc. who knows, maybe my next step after the firm will be to just hang my own shingle. DH and I get insurance through his job. I make much more money as he is a Fed but I suspect that if I were to ever leave my firm, I could make more money working on my own than I could in-house. After start-up costs of course. Anyway, it's something that gives me some comfort when I worry about job security at the firm.

Anonymous wrote:Going in house was the best move I made. I was a mid level associate and took a 15% paycut. No billables and I actually get to take 4 weeks vacation a year plus sick and personal time. Generally work 9-5 but downside is that there is more of a faceyime requirement (I'll gladly take the trade!). I like it because comp is good, we dont farm out a lot of work so we keep a lot of the juicy legal work, and its much easier to stand out as a superstar in the company than at the firm. But inhouse jobs depend so much on the culture of the company and the legal dept - find out as much as you can!!

Forgot to mention, its easier to jump from one inhouse job to another. If the first company is not a great fit, you can move to a diff company.

Going in house was the best move I made. I was a mid level associate and took a 15% paycut. No billables and I actually get to take 4 weeks vacation a year plus sick and personal time. Generally work 9-5 but downside is that there is more of a faceyime requirement (I'll gladly take the trade!). I like it because comp is good, we dont farm out a lot of work so we keep a lot of the juicy legal work, and its much easier to stand out as a superstar in the company than at the firm. But inhouse jobs depend so much on the culture of the company and the legal dept - find out as much as you can!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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/

Actually, that article sucks. That guy is crazy - look at some of his other columns. He clearly is biased in favor of firms, and on some points, he's just wrong. Once you've gone in-house, it's easier to get other in-house jobs. Your skills don't deteriorate, you just build different skills.

The article is brutally honest but true on many points if you are at the highest levels of big law. When you are in-house, the most interesting and challenging cases will be farmed out to outside counsel. It might be a "different" skill set but not necessarily one that you even want to build if you are used to being in the thick of things. It's like being a baseball player as opposed to working as a scout for a baseball team.

Anonymous wrote:

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/

Actually, that article sucks. That guy is crazy - look at some of his other columns. He clearly is biased in favor of firms, and on some points, he's just wrong. Once you've gone in-house, it's easier to get other in-house jobs. Your skills don't deteriorate, you just build different skills.