By Sabrina C. Spitznagle
Attorneys often think of going “in-house” as the golden ticket; the panacea to all their problems. In many cases, in-house opportunities do offer a better, more predictable lifestyle, without the hassle of having to account for every second of your time. But, as with everything in life, there are definite trade-offs, and not all in-house positions are created equal. To get some perspective on “the good, the bad, and the ugly,” I spoke with a number of attorneys who have made the move from a large law firm to an in-house position.
“The Good”
Most of the attorneys with whom I spoke agreed that the best aspect of making the move in-house is a more predictable schedule. They no longer worry about getting travel insurance in case they have to cancel their vacation last minute, and they are confident they will be home in time for dinner. They also agreed that they are working less in-house than at a law firm (or at least they feel like they are working less – it sounded to me like several of them are still working quite hard, and don’t forget that some in-house positions can be every bit as demanding as working at a large law firm). However, working in-house is absolutely less flexible than working at a law firm -- no more deciding to come in at 11:00 am thinking you will just stay later; running out in the middle of the day to Nordstrom’s to do some quick shopping, to a child’s music class, or to get a mani/pedi; or deciding to work from home on a random Tuesday. Nonetheless, while not everyone would agree, my interviewees were unanimous in valuing a regular, predictable schedule over a more flexible one.
Of course, there are several other very positive things about going in-house. Billing your time is the bane of most attorneys’ existence, and this is not something you are required to do in an in-house environment. (Even in-house, however, most attorneys do have to account for their time in some way – typically through periodic written or verbal reports.) In-house attorneys also don’t have the same pressure of having to develop business, which for many people is a huge weight off their shoulders.
Finally, being in-house offers the chance to work with the same client repeatedly, so that you feel much more invested in your client and are able to be more involved in the business side of things. This, by the way, is the absolute best reason to provide in an interview as to why you want to go in-house (please, please, please do not ever, under any circumstances whatsoever, tell anyone in any interview that you are looking to make a move for a better lifestyle – just keep that to yourself). One of my interviewees described being in-house as feeling more like a career, rather than simply a platform to do something else.
“The Bad”
All of the attorneys with whom I spoke said that they felt more like support staff as in-house counsel. You become part of the company’s overhead, rather than a revenue generator. Likely contributing to this feeling of being support staff is the fact that you typically don’t have the same support staff you did at a large law firm. In most cases, you don’t have a secretary to answer your phones, draft your letters, or make copies for you. At the same time of course, you often don’t have the same secretarial or support staff needs that you did in private practice.
Many in-house attorneys, especially litigators, also miss actually litigating their cases -- even if they thought that they wouldn’t. It can be very hard to move from being in the driver’s seat to the back seat. While in-house attorneys absolutely remain involved in strategy and decision making, their role can be more akin to giving guidance from the back seat than actually driving the car. You may have to restrain yourself from jumping in to ask a question during a deposition or to make a point during an oral argument in court.
In-house positions almost across the board pay less money than law firm positions. Bonuses, equity, and benefits can make up for some of the difference in the lower base salary, but you should be prepared to make less if you move from a firm to an in-house legal department (at least initially – it does appear that over the course of time, in-house lawyers catch up with most of their law firm counterparts, with the exception of the ultra successful business generators).
Finally, there are a limited number of companies with downtown locations, so depending on where you live, moving in-house often involves a lengthy commute (usually in a car) to get to work. Even if you live in the suburbs and don’t have to commute, many people have told me that working in the burbs feels extremely isolated (certainly not as many good lunch spots!), and they would rather commute downtown. If you are used to meeting your downtown friends for lunch or for a quick drink after work, this can be hard to give up.
“The Ugly – Things You Wouldn’t Expect”
I think everyone who has made the move in-house would agree that you should be prepared to experience a fairly serious culture shock. Working in an in-house environment often means the end of your own private office with a window; your own secretary and/or paralegal; after-hours secretaries and paralegals; coffee stations on every floor; and a beautiful lawyers’ lunch room. Most of the people I interviewed said that they did not appreciate or anticipate this cultural difference or how much “secretarial” work they would do themselves as an in-house attorney.
The attorneys with whom I spoke also were surprised by the sheer number of matters for which they became responsible as in-house counsel. While at a large law firm you may be responsible for ten or so matters, and you know every last thing about them; as in-house counsel, you are responsible for overseeing hundreds of matters, and you must get comfortable with hopefully at least remembering the names of the cases. This can be a struggle for many of us Type A, detail oriented attorneys.
A common misperception about going in-house is that your practice will become much broader and that you will handle a wide array of matters. While this absolutely may be true in a very small legal department, joining a large in-house group at a large company often means that your practice becomes much more narrow and focused. At a larger company, in-house attorneys tend to support a specific business. Thus, while you may handle many different types of litigation matters as a litigator at a law firm, as in-house counsel, you may be responsible for only real estate litigation matters for example.
Finally, attorneys often think that by going in-house and becoming the “client,” you are able to respond to matters at your leisure. In reality, however, you still report to internal clients, and you often receive many internal emails that require an immediate response. Several people with whom I spoke said that they did not realize how frustrating it would be (and how bad you look) to not to be able to respond to your internal client because outside counsel has not yet responded to you.
At the end of the day, when you are analyzing where you want to be in the next 5 to 10 years and are managing your career to get yourself there, remember that going in-house is not necessarily the be all end all. It is a terrific option for many people, but it is not necessarily for everyone. Moving to a smaller law firm often can offer some of the same benefits as moving in-house, without a number of the negatives. Think about your strengths and weaknesses and what you value most, and perhaps most importantly, look before you leap -- talk to as many people as you possibly can to ensure that you are making an informed decision that is right for you.
