Lawyers - the transition from private practice to in house?

[ruzzi]

For those that have taken the leap from private practice to in house counsel, do you have any advice or tips?

Most people I have spoken to so far say that working in a corporation is an enormous change from working in a law firm, and it can take someone who has spent most of their professional life in private practice quite some time to adjust.

Would love to hear stories from anyone that has made the change.

Was it what you were expecting? Has it opened more doors for you in terms of career opportunities (outside of partnership at a law firm)?

 

[penguin vic]

I spent several years in-house (including stints as sole corporate counsel) but am now back in practice. I enjoyed my time in-house tremendously. I do think that it requires a paradigm shift as you will be much more connected to your client. Firms often talk about client focus etc etc but it is quite a different thing to ostensibly be a part of your client. The articles here may be of interest: http://www.lex.com.au/articles.htm - especially the summary of Justin Hansen's blog which, sadly, is no longer up.

 

[yachtie]

Went in-house quite a number of years ago and never looked back. It's nice to have a life. Getting into the right company is the most important consideration since they're your co-workers and your clients.

 

[Ace Rimmer]

I've been in-house now for 6+ years; spent 5+ years at a big law firm.

I'm happy I made the change. IMO the biggest benefit is flexibility. As a "default", my practice has expanded to include multiple areas of expertise. Law firms generally want you to be focused as an expert in a limited number of fields; in-house departments cannot afford to maintain a bevy of experts for everything so they're looking to make you more of a generalist. I like this sort of variety so that I'm not doing the same thing over and over again.

Additionally, I have been able to completely switch departments (or do temporary switches) to provide more variety. Last year I covered another attorney's maternity leave in a different department and was able to gain valuable experience outside of my current department's remit. This year I'm doing something similar but in a totally different area. You can see it ias another resume item or just expanding your horizons to gain another skill.

Of course, not having to bill time is a very big plus. Be forewarned that not all in-house positions are free from timekeeping obligations. Two of my co-workers said that they had to bill time when they were at GE and PECO.

 

[Saltwater Wrangler]

Originally Posted by Ace Rimmer

Be forewarned that not all in-house positions are free from timekeeping obligations. Two of my co-workers said that they had to bill time when they were at GE and PECO.

This is a shocker. I'm on my own at the moment but am considering going in-house. All of the positions I've looked at are strictly against billable hours. I'm guessing though that with such a large volume of work, it might make sense to do it that way? Still surprises me..

 

[samblau]

Billable hours are the most ridiculous aspect of the profession...as a young attorney my bosses know when I have no work and can plainly see when I spend too much time on a matter than doesn't warrant it even if I am acting as instructed. When bonuses at larger firms are tied in to billable hours the system is begging to be abused. It encourages lawyers to spend an inordinate amount of time on matters that might not deserve it or sepnd less time than is necessary on a low-value case. Firms should keep track of time for their own purposes however I cannot imagine a client getting a bill indicating that several hundred hours were devoted to their matter and expressing no concern. "8 hours legal research re: motion to dismiss." Please. Time management is a skill, and one that must be taught to young associates. Sitting around until 4PM and then being told its a rush job does not help matters. Emergencies certainly exist however the system we have in place now is in need of a major overhaul.

 

[Ace Rimmer]

Originally Posted by Saltwater Wrangler

This is a shocker. I'm on my own at the moment but am considering going in-house. All of the positions I've looked at are strictly against billable hours. I'm guessing though that with such a large volume of work, it might make sense to do it that way? Still surprises me..

I think they said it was because they wanted to keep stats/metrics around how much time was being dedicated to each particular client group.

I don't miss billing time. Not one bit.

 

[TheFoo]

If you do investment management law at a firm, what kind of exit options are there? I would think investment management firms would be an option. Should one expect a significant pay cut?

 

[Sid]

I just went in-house in January for one of my long-standing clients. I was a partner at a mid-sized firm, so I had to get (in my mind) an equity stake in the company to "replace" the book of business I was leaving behind. I had almost sold the company for my client last year. If you go in-house, I think you're cutting the everday ties to clients and marketing for new ones that you'd be doing on the outside. I would caution that you make sure the finances work for you. You don't want to be down-sized and then be back trying to rebuild a client base.

 

[ruzzi]

Thanks for the insights so far, much appreciated!

Perhaps I should give you some insight to my move.

I've just resigned from my current position in real estate at a Australian top tier firm after 18 months here. Before this I had 2 years experience at a small property practice and before that, 2 year articles at another small property practice.

I was recently offered and accepted a role as legal counsel working with the general counsel at a medium sized privately owned technology company. It was a tough decision but I believe it will give me a much larger variety of work (pretty much anything). Sick of commercial property law. More responsibility. Flexible hours. Ability to be part of decision making process. Opportunity to travel!

Of course future earning potential seems to have taken a hit (in terms of not becoming a partner at a big firm), but I didn't really envision becoming a partner anyway.

I guess time will tell if I've made the right decision. Having spent my whole career in law firms it's going to be interesting! Pretty exciting actually...

 

[Sid]

Seems like a good time to be getting out of a real estate practice. That's what I left behind. Houston hasn't tanked yet, but I worry about commercial real estate here.

 

[Saltwater Wrangler]

Originally Posted by Sid

Seems like a good time to be getting out of a real estate practice. That's what I left behind. Houston hasn't tanked yet, but I worry about commercial real estate here.

Interesting, I've heard that the next 4-5 years might be the best time to get into RE law due to all the compliance with the new rules and regulations coming out....

 

[Sid]

Just for me...a good chunk of my former client base centered around development....no one building means no lawyer reviewing leases, contracts, etc. Regulation of development (and compliance with same) is not an issue in Houston that it is elsewhere.

 

[jc138]

I've got some friends in this field. It has -- IMHO -- the best exit opportunities of any practice at big-law. Pick up a bit of M&A and debt experience to round yourself out and set your sights on a piece of the carry.

[in re: investment management group]

 

[TheFoo]

Originally Posted by jc138

I've got some friends in this field. It has -- IMHO -- the best exit opportunities of any practice at big-law. Pick up a bit of M&A and debt experience to round yourself out and set your sights on a piece of the carry.

[in re: investment management group]

Interesting. I would have thought that straight M&A types would be best-off. If you don't mind me asking, what kinf of exit opportunities is he talking about?