All else being equal I'd prefer in-house. There's a reason it's more sought-after than feds (potentially DOJ, SEC excluded). More promotion potential, better titles for resume, bonuses (both can make 150k but one gets a 25-30% bonus and often better retirement/health/hours), etc. Fewer jobs, too, so more exit options when a more unique background, esp if specialized.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Super helpful info. On the govt side, once you’ve hit 15/10, what are the possibilities for advancement, if any? At that level do you just sit tight until retirement or look for exit
opportunities?

SES would be more pay and responsibilities. At some agencies, line attorneys can be 15-10, so there maybe room for advancement in terms of title and responsibilities (but not necessarily more pay) beyond where someone is at a 15-10.

You could also try to go SEC or other financial regulator where the pay is a lot higher.

All of the recent postings for SEC were for internal employees. They haven't been hiring for a while.

And we won't be for a lonnnnnnnng time.

Why?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Super helpful info. On the govt side, once you’ve hit 15/10, what are the possibilities for advancement, if any? At that level do you just sit tight until retirement or look for exit
opportunities?

SES would be more pay and responsibilities. At some agencies, line attorneys can be 15-10, so there maybe room for advancement in terms of title and responsibilities (but not necessarily more pay) beyond where someone is at a 15-10.

You could also try to go SEC or other financial regulator where the pay is a lot higher.

All of the recent postings for SEC were for internal employees. They haven't been hiring for a while.

And we won't be for a lonnnnnnnng time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Super helpful info. On the govt side, once you’ve hit 15/10, what are the possibilities for advancement, if any? At that level do you just sit tight until retirement or look for exit
opportunities?

SES would be more pay and responsibilities. At some agencies, line attorneys can be 15-10, so there maybe room for advancement in terms of title and responsibilities (but not necessarily more pay) beyond where someone is at a 15-10.

You could also try to go SEC or other financial regulator where the pay is a lot higher.

All of the recent postings for SEC were for internal employees. They haven't been hiring for a while.

Anonymous wrote:Super helpful info. On the govt side, once you’ve hit 15/10, what are the possibilities for advancement, if any? At that level do you just sit tight until retirement or look for exit
opportunities?

SES would be more pay and responsibilities. At some agencies, line attorneys can be 15-10, so there maybe room for advancement in terms of title and responsibilities (but not necessarily more pay) beyond where someone is at a 15-10.

You could also try to go SEC or other financial regulator where the pay is a lot higher.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you had to choose between two nearly identical jobs, would you go in house or fed govt at the top of the GS scale.

I’ve done both. In house wins hands-down. I’m surrounded by smart people and innovation vs a culture who clocks in for a paycheck. Hard work is rewarded, as my boss has the discretion to give me a substantial bonus and/or stock grants. I learn so much and my skills have multiplied. I feel like I have many options for my future career, both at my current company and if I want to move to another in house position. I regret wasting any time as a fed, but at least I know the grass is not greener.

Do you think a lot of this is due to the culture of the particular company you went in-house at, though? I've known people who went in-house at companies where hard work isn't rewarded and there isn't a culture of innovation, and it's been a miserable slog.

DP. I would also add it depends on what agency/office you are in for government work. While the ability to give substantial bonuses are limited, there are some places in government that value hard work and legal innovation, not just clock punching.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you had to choose between two nearly identical jobs, would you go in house or fed govt at the top of the GS scale.

I’ve done both. In house wins hands-down. I’m surrounded by smart people and innovation vs a culture who clocks in for a paycheck. Hard work is rewarded, as my boss has the discretion to give me a substantial bonus and/or stock grants. I learn so much and my skills have multiplied. I feel like I have many options for my future career, both at my current company and if I want to move to another in house position. I regret wasting any time as a fed, but at least I know the grass is not greener.

Do you think a lot of this is due to the culture of the particular company you went in-house at, though? I've known people who went in-house at companies where hard work isn't rewarded and there isn't a culture of innovation, and it's been a miserable slog.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you had to choose between two nearly identical jobs, would you go in house or fed govt at the top of the GS scale.

I’ve done both. In house wins hands-down. I’m surrounded by smart people and innovation vs a culture who clocks in for a paycheck. Hard work is rewarded, as my boss has the discretion to give me a substantial bonus and/or stock grants. I learn so much and my skills have multiplied. I feel like I have many options for my future career, both at my current company and if I want to move to another in house position. I regret wasting any time as a fed, but at least I know the grass is not greener.

It depends on where you are in your career, what your home life is like (i.e. supportive spouse), etc... Unlike the PP, some in-house folks would be willing to switch to working for the federal government. They've done their time in private practice and in-house, and are looking to engage in public service for a few years - perhaps at an SES or political appointee level. If aggressively putting away a nest egg isn't needed anymore, then a federal government job - particularly one that's interesting and challenging - might be just what some lawyers want.

Anonymous wrote:If you had to choose between two nearly identical jobs, would you go in house or fed govt at the top of the GS scale.

I’ve done both. In house wins hands-down. I’m surrounded by smart people and innovation vs a culture who clocks in for a paycheck. Hard work is rewarded, as my boss has the discretion to give me a substantial bonus and/or stock grants. I learn so much and my skills have multiplied. I feel like I have many options for my future career, both at my current company and if I want to move to another in house position. I regret wasting any time as a fed, but at least I know the grass is not greener.

Super helpful info. On the govt side, once you’ve hit 15/10, what are the possibilities for advancement, if any? At that level do you just sit tight until retirement or look for exit
opportunities?

One more thing about in-house life. If you're serious about moving up (and increasing your income) in the in-house world, you will need to consider relocating for new positions within your company or to accept a high-level position with another company. I know that it's hard when you own a house, your spouse has a job, and your kids are in school, but you will likely only need to relocate once (possibly twice), and the money can be substantial. The alternative (if you can call it that) is to leverage government and private practice as revolving doors. To do this, you'll need to network like crazy to build up a roster of contacts in-house (for future business) and among the political elite (to land a political appointment).

The foregoing ladder climbing requires that your spouse be 100% on board, possibly putting his/her career on the back burner to support yours (it's the only way this will work). In families where both spouses earn $200k+ annually, I'd think long and hard about trying to climb the ladder in-house. That's a great HHI (even for DC) that if you can leverage for 10+ years, you'll be in a position to do whatever you want by your early-to-mid-40s. One or both of you can then scale back your careers, open your own business (law firm) or relocate to a lower cost of living area and take less stressful jobs. Once you have the money, there is no reason to stay in the DC area unless you love traffic and mediocre-to-crappy weather for 1/2 - 3/4 of the year.

DC offers decent in-house compensation, but its real payoff goes to law firm partners, lobbyists and owners/executives of government contractors. If you're not inclined to go into private practice or lobbying, I'd suggest finding a way to gain valuable business experience while in-house counsel. It will open up many more options to you to go "business-side." I know several in-house counsel who became COOs, CAOs, CCOs, CHROs, CPOs, etc... That C-level title is worth its weight in gold.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the long run, a lot of in house attorneys do better as they can get stock options, etc.

Beyond the stability and life balance, they tend to get a great deal of autonomy and are respected in their organizations, because no one else can do their job.

Sometimes. Other times they are not respected by the business folks and viewed as an unnecessary cost center that slows things down and even kills revenue generating ideas.

And I wouldn't necessarily call in-house stable because, as a cost center, you are certainly at risk if there are layoffs. But it can also be a very good gig.

+1

Every time a company gets a new GC, you should update your resume. Likewise, you should ensure that you're staying on the "good side" of business people (especially Sales). If the business people don't like you - even if you're doing your job (i.e. protecting the company) - your name will be on the layoff list when it's compiled.

Also, I'd suggest jumping around every 3-5 years between in-house gigs if you want to move up, especially if your HQ is not in the DC area. You can only climb so high if you're not at HQ.

Anonymous wrote:In the long run, a lot of in house attorneys do better as they can get stock options, etc.

Beyond the stability and life balance, they tend to get a great deal of autonomy and are respected in their organizations, because no one else can do their job.

Sometimes. Other times they are not respected by the business folks and viewed as an unnecessary cost center that slows things down and even kills revenue generating ideas.

And I wouldn't necessarily call in-house stable because, as a cost center, you are certainly at risk if there are layoffs. But it can also be a very good gig.

In the long run, a lot of in house attorneys do better as they can get stock options, etc.

Beyond the stability and life balance, they tend to get a great deal of autonomy and are respected in their organizations, because no one else can do their job.

Anonymous wrote:If you had to choose between two nearly identical jobs, would you go in house or fed govt at the top of the GS scale.

Depends on what you value more. Fed job has much more stability and a pension. In-house job probably has a higher salary and greater chance for further career and salary growth, although there are obviously some fed jobs that position you well to cash out.

There is no clear cut answer, especially with so little info.