Attorneys going in-house

[Bookman 4603]

After 15+ years of private practice, it looks like I may have an opportunity to go in-house with one of our current clients. Anyone ever done this? Thoughts? Regrets?

[Sbbruin 21690]

Not an attorney, but my Dad (RIP) was a private practice attorney for about 40 years and when his practice was drying up, he went part-time in house and said it was the best move he ever made.  Of course he was at a different stage in life,, but for what it's worth.

[field 216]

My wife did it and loves it.  She especially loves being the client, not the lawyer.  I don't know many GC's who say they have any regrets unless the company they went to just sucks.  My one hang up has always been the thought of going from being my own boss to being an employee.  But the thought of not billing hours really makes it attractive. 

[TwiceHorn 31085]

24 minutes ago, field said:

My wife did it and loves it.  She especially loves being the client, not the lawyer.  I don't know many GC's who say they have any regrets unless the company they went to just sucks.  My one hang up has always been the thought of going from being my own boss to being an employee.  But the thought of not billing hours really makes it attractive. 

The only other real problem is that to "advance," including possibly obtaining solid raises, someone may need to quit, die, or retire.

[Bevo 13468]

I worked with one who I didn't think was very good and he walked away with about $20 million when the biotech company he worked for got bought out.

[Ghost of LL 15327]

58 minutes ago, Bookman said:

After 15+ years of private practice, it looks like I may have an opportunity to go in-house with one of our current clients. Anyone ever done this? Thoughts? Regrets?

Congratulations on the new gig.

I don't have any personal experience, but some of the discussion among the in-house lawyers on Twitter is really very funny.  

[Dbeasy 14931]

It’s one of the top five country club jobs on the planet. 

[DalTxHornFan 3074]

One of my best friends was a partner at an Am Law 100 firm and was approached by one of his Fortune 100 energy clients to go in-house.  Probably 7 years ago.

Best move he ever made.  He's lost weight, has more free time, plenty of $ and benefits, and isn't busting his hump trying to find new business while trying to get his billables, too.

Good luck.

Edited January 21, 2022 by DalTxHornFan

[StruggleBus 3922]

Can you still bill surfing shaggy for 15 minutes as a full hour of work?

[South Austin 51976]

Got a couple opportunities to kick the tires at Dell about 10-15 years ago, since one of their in-house lawyers and I started at the same firm. It sounded like a miserable gig. A lot of those corporate in-house jobs can be.

I like being a partner at a private firm where I’m my own boss and if I want to fuck off on a Friday, or take several long weekends throughout the year, I can do it as long as I’m getting my work done.  But I suppose if the right in-house gig came along I’d seriously consider it if it meant never again keeping track of my life in six-minute increments.

Edit: And if I was going to be a lawyerly dick, I’d say this thread belongs in the Help! forum instead of one about current events.

 

Edited January 22, 2022 by South Austin

[TwiceHorn 31085]

1 hour ago, Bevo said:

I worked with one who I didn't think was very good and he walked away with about $20 million when the biotech company he worked for got bought out.

Yeah, if it is a company with crazy growth potential, and you get options or a profit-share or some such thing, it can be very good.

Dell 25 or 30 years ago, probably, 10-15 not so much.

[South Austin 51976]

Also, the quality of the job is usually a function of where you’re coming from.

If you start out at a big firm balls-to-the-wall sweat shop, like my first law firm, then going to a corporate in-house gig will likely increase your quality of life.

If you’re coming from a firm that already has a good quality of life with flexible work arrangements, then a lot of in-house gigs might be a change in the opposite direction.

[South Austin 51976]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Dell 25 or 30 years ago, probably, 10-15 not so much.

Yeah, the guy at Dell to whom I was taking was complaining at the time that all of his stock options were under water.

[4doorsMoreWhores 107]

3 hours ago, Bookman said:

After 15+ years of private practice, it looks like I may have an opportunity to go in-house with one of our current clients. Anyone ever done this? Thoughts? Regrets?

I'm not an attorney but I went "in house" over at your mom's for some "private practice" recently 

[South Austin 51976]

9 minutes ago, 4doorsMoreWhores said:

I'm not an attorney but I went "in house" over at your mom's for some "private practice" recently 

Username checks out.

[elfenix 34161]

1 hour ago, South Austin said:

keeping track of my life in six-minute increments.

braggart. 

[Bookman 4603]

It's in Austin too, and God damn. My house in San Antonio would be worth 2 million easy in Austin.

[We’reTexas 1467]

4 hours ago, Bookman said:

After 15+ years of private practice, it looks like I may have an opportunity to go in-house with one of our current clients. Anyone ever done this? Thoughts? Regrets?

What’s the nature of your practice now, and what would your title/role be? Public or private? How big is the legal department? Feel free to PM. 

[TwiceHorn 31085]

And, I have seen more than a few lawyers go in-house, dole out a lot of work to a firm or two, go to work for that firm for a while, then go in-house again, rinse-repeat.  That way, they never have to do outstanding work or much of it, just enough to ingratiate themselves with a client or law firm.

Also, quite a while back, it was not uncommon for a senior attorney to finish up with an in-house gig.  Their health insurance was typically more comprehensive and cheaper than that available to law firms, and also continued post-retirement into a Medicare Supplement/Advantage policy. I don't think any of that is really true anymore, and probably not something you need to consider for a while.

Edited January 22, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[SquishMitten 10381]

I’m in a pretty niche industry, so my experience with folks who did this is limited. From what I’ve seen, I’d say a lot of it is based on the current structure of their in house department. Are you going to be the only one or is there a team that’s been around for a while? I’ve known a few who left their partnership roles to go in house as the only attorney because the company was going through a lot of changes and it made sense to have an attorney on the payroll. Seems like they loved the move for the first few years, but eventually everything settled down, they’d basically streamlined everything, and it became more affordable to go back to paying outside/hourly fees. None of those attorneys were able to rejoin their old firms, couldn’t get a gig at any of the existing firms, and basically had to start their careers over doing something new. I don’t think a single one of them would do it again if they could go back in time. One big caveat on that is they were all purely attorneys, not business-minded (not that they weren’t great attorneys, but they looked at everything purely from a legal standpoint and weren’t particularly skilled at being able to apply business strategy/risk alongside the law). If you’re going into a situation like I described, I’d say you also need to be busy-minded so that your role isn’t just “the attorney.”

[ShaggyBevo RIP 3867]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

And, I have seen more than a few lawyers go in-house, dole out a lot of work to a firm or two, go to work for that firm for a while, then go in-house again, rinse-repeat.  That way, they never have to do outstanding work or much of it, just enough to ingratiate themselves with a client or law firm.

Also, quite a while back, it was not uncommon for a senior attorney to finish up with an in-house gig.  Their health insurance was typically more comprehensive and cheaper than that available to law firms, and also continued post-retirement into a Medicare Supplement/Advantage policy. I don't think any of that is really true anymore, and probably not something you need to consider for a while.

Kind of the big law business plan to shed around half the associates to lead role in-house law jobs to keep outsourcing to big law.

Signed spouse of former a V&E associate who went in-house about 20 years ago. She can still tell you the last day she logged billable hours.

Edited January 22, 2022 by ShaggyBevo RIP

[Gil Bang 25843]

Not a lawyer here. 

Back when I was with an S&L, we had 3 in house attorneys.  The department head was a very nice woman that, I believe, had been a victim of downsizing at her firm.  Another, "Dave", was a BK guy, fairly competent.  He hated his life.  I wanted to be lawyer, and he wanted to run my construction loan department, and after my bank went under, he left the law and became a loan workout guy.  The 3rd was a smokeshow hot little MILF.  I think she left big law because she wanted to have kids.  Her husband stayed at big law (if anything in San Diego is "big law).  Many years later, she's back at the same firm as her husband. 

[shadetree 66]

Went in house at a nonprofit in healthcare 8 months ago. Legal team is about 20 attorneys with varied expertise. Pay, benefits, and lack of billing make it all worth it. Better work-life balance as well. Nice to be the client.

[JerrysJheriCurl 977]

30 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

Not a lawyer here. 

Back when I was with an S&L, we had 3 in house attorneys.  The department head was a very nice woman that, I believe, had been a victim of downsizing at her firm.  Another, "Dave", was a BK guy, fairly competent.  He hated his life.  I wanted to be lawyer, and he wanted to run my construction loan department, and after my bank went under, he left the law and became a loan workout guy.  The 3rd was a smokeshow hot little MILF.  I think she left big law because she wanted to have kids.  Her husband stayed at big law (if anything in San Diego is "big law).  Many years later, she's back at the same firm as her husband. 

 

[deadshank 24648]

I know 5 in house attorneys. 3 work for big oil, one for big oil services and one for a construction material hauler.  
 

Each one seems well adjusted, well compensated and significantly happier than your garden variety attorney at a private firm.  

[Samson's Wig 3167]

As a general rule, you don't go in house to make more money.  But the serious reduction in stress and improved work/life balance can be well worth it depending on your situation.  Landing somewhere that you'll cash out with a bunch of money is almost a fairy tale any more.  VC will squeeze any value out of equity compensation, even though folks in all roles still fall for it.   If you're already on track for savings/retirement and enjoy long lunches, going in house from private practice can be glorious.

['stache 21729]

I'm currently pursuing the transition. I'm certain that bonus potential drops significantly, but business development and billable hours are about 90% of my daily stress and misery. I'm okay with a good steady paycheck, at least for a few years. If I play it right, I should be able to slip back into a law firm after a few years, but I doubt I'll want to go back. 

[RDCanecutter 26198]

1 hour ago, Samson's Wig said:

As a general rule, you don't go in house to make more money. 

But if you did want to make more money, it seems like in-house would be lots easier to embezzle.

[Not a cat 5601]

I went in house almost 19 years ago after a few mind numbing years as a big law associate.  Best move I ever made.

I'm sure there are some good law firm environments that are better than a shitty in house gig, but as a general rule, in house is way better for work life balance and just general sanity.  The really shitty in house gigs tend to be the ones where you have a former hard charging big law partner hired as GC who tries to run it like a law firm.

 

[DFWTexEx 271]

I agree with much of the above.  I have been in-house for about 20 years and like Not A Cat, it was the best move I ever made.   I make a good living and with the equity part of my comp, I could end up nicely set when my company has a liquidity event (we are past the VC stage, but Samson's point is right...don't bank on equity if you are jumping into a startup).   The biggest downside, as someone else has said, is that you really don't control your destiny entirely.  If that liquidity event happens, I'll get a nice check, but if it is a strategic acquisition and our team is out, then I am looking for a job.

[South Austin 51976]

13 minutes ago, Not a cat said:

I went in house almost 19 years ago after a few mind numbing years as a big law associate.  Best move I ever made.

I'm sure there are some good law firm environments that are better than a shitty in house gig, but as a general rule, in house is way better for work life balance and just general sanity.  The really shitty in house gigs tend to be the ones where you have a former hard charging big law partner hired as GC who tries to run it like a law firm.

One of my in-house contacts at a client worked at a big firm for a few years before going in-house.  He was hired by the head GC who came from the same big firm and ran the company much like you said.  My contact is a great guy who's sent me a ton of work for the past decade or so, but his boss (who thankfully retired recently) is a certified micro-managing asshole, and a lot of the people in the company (the non-lawyer business folks) hated him.  My contact works his ass off and would occasionally unload on me how stressful his job was.  But he was incredibly well-compensated and has gotten some crazy annual bonuses. 

[alincoln 2364]

It's entirely dependent on the specific opportunity and your personal goals.  You won't make as much as a law firm partner unless you are the GC or a direct report to the GC in a very large (generally public) company (outside of liquidity events that you won't control).  The job security also isn't as strong, particularly if you are the GC or a direct report to the GC.  Senior leadership changes (new CEO or GC) often trickle down to the management team which generally includes the GC and the GC's direct reports.  You may also have to be willing to relocate if you decide to leave your in-house position and there isn't a comparable opportunity with your experience and industry expertise in your market.  That consideration is extremely market dependent. Another current reality is that legal is an area corporate America utilizes to improve its management diversity (more of a public company consideration).  This trend is rapidly accelerating to the point where white males are not even considered in some candidate pools. 

In any event, it's a better gig than AMLAW50 associate, who are now routinely billing 2500 - 3000 hours a year.

[South Austin 51976]

3 minutes ago, alincoln said:

In any event, it's a better gig than AMLAW50 associate, who are now routinely billing 2500 - 3000 hours a year.

Yeah, this goes back to my point on perspective.  A lot of colleagues from my old firm, Vinson & Elkins, happily took in-house gigs where they were working the equivalent of 2200 hours a year, which was a significant improvement in quality of life.  But you take an associate at my current mid-size firm and put them into that same in-house gig, and it would be a shock to their system.  

[alincoln 2364]

3 minutes ago, South Austin said:

Yeah, this goes back to my point on perspective.  A lot of colleagues from my old firm, Vinson & Elkins, happily took in-house gigs where they were working the equivalent of 2200 hours a year, which was a significant improvement in quality of life.  But you take an associate at my current mid-size firm and put them into that same in-house gig, and it would be a shock to their system.  

Yup.  The difference between 1800 and 2200 is massive and I can't even imagine the 2500+ that Wall Street associates are putting in these days.  

[Gale Snoats 242]

For the lawyers who have made the switch or know folks who have made the switch (from partner at a firm to in-house), is there a practice area that dominates?  I'm not talking industry specific stuff, more commercial litigators vs. transactional lawyers.  Transactional might seem like the most obvious candidates at first glance but I'd think a seasoned commercial litigator can add value from the risk assessment perspective (most have seen a ton of deals go sideways for a variety of reasons) and also have enough experience to issue spot and hire and coordinate with transactional lawyers to get deal docs drafted.  

[UTPhil2006 3785]

1 hour ago, Not a cat said:

I went in house almost 19 years ago after a few mind numbing years as a big law associate.  Best move I ever made.

I'm sure there are some good law firm environments that are better than a shitty in house gig, but as a general rule, in house is way better for work life balance and just general sanity.  The really shitty in house gigs tend to be the ones where you have a former hard charging big law partner hired as GC who tries to run it like a law firm.

 

Sounds exactly like something a cat would say

[South Austin 51976]

18 minutes ago, alincoln said:

Yup.  The difference between 1800 and 2200 is massive and I can't even imagine the 2500+ that Wall Street associates are putting in these days.  

It is indeed.  My last year at V&E I broke 2200 hours.  It was actually a really fun year in terms of trial experience and overall enjoyable case load.  But I was also a single guy in Dallas who had no family at the time, though I still knew long term that I didn't want to work that much (and more if and when I made partner) for the rest of my life. 

[Not a cat 5601]

2500 billable hours is what wall street firms expect now?  Yeah, fuck that.  

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Anything over 2050 is pretty hard to do longterm.

I hit just over 2,300 one year when I was single (but engaged) at a BigLaw.  I actually hit that number in 11 months.  I was taking a ton of depos that were easy billables and I had a large commercial arbitration (post-merger working capital adjustments) that I basically handled by myself.  2,300 got a pretty fat bonus but there was no incentive to bill more than 2,300.  My arbitration finished about a month before our billing cycle ended and got me right over 2,300.  I took all of October off.  Got married that month and took a two-week honeymoon to St Barts.

Had I not been in St Barts, I probably would be retired right now.  Had a case a family friend wanted to refer to my wife.  They could not reach me as I did not have cell service there and was not checking emails (this was 15 years ago).  It turned out to be a $25 million dollar settlement in a workplace quadriplegia matter.  

I've made more money referring cases out than I have practicing.  That one plus other referrals would have got me to my number.  

Most in-house jobs I come across are for transactional attorneys.

Edited January 25, 2022 by Johnny Sack

[Liquor and Poker 3659]

On 1/21/2022 at 4:02 PM, Bookman said:

After 15+ years of private practice, it looks like I may have an opportunity to go in-house with one of our current clients. Anyone ever done this? Thoughts? Regrets?

Do it.  It's not like it doesn't help on your resume if you change your mind and want to come back out.

[We’reTexas 1467]

23 minutes ago, Not a cat said:

2500 billable hours is what wall street firms expect now?  Yeah, fuck that.  

Expect? No, but broadly speaking the purging of associates in the recession, the decline in law school attendance, and the nonstop dealmaking over the past decade have led to high demand for legal advice (especially the past two years). I was generally 2400-2600 over seven years, but it wasn’t the hours that were the true difference about going in house. It was getting agency over my life again. I’ve pulled more than a few all nighters in house, but I don’t get that existential dread when my phone buzzes on a Friday night and it’s probably a new deal coming in. 
 

@Gale Snoats, I’ve certainly seen litigators as GCs, but in my experience they are generally out of their element at acquisitive companies, especially public ones, and effective ones understand how to delegate and trust others with the experience. 

[Js1 84995]

1 hour ago, UTPhil2006 said:

Sounds exactly like something a cat would say

[South Austin 51976]

17 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Most in-house jobs I come across are for transactional attorneys.

It's gotta be a large company with a big enough legal department where they have in-house litigation counsel separate from their in-house transactional attorneys.  

But for smaller companies and start ups, they're looking for transactional attorneys to handle the corporate, employment, real estate, etc. work, and if litigation arises they farm that out.  A litigator usually won't have the competency to handle the largely transactional work that a company needs on a day-to-day basis.

[Skipper 6012]

1 hour ago, Not a cat said:

2500 billable hours is what wall street firms expect now?  Yeah, fuck that.  

There may be a few NY firms that get something close to that but it's largely bullshit fluff.  I'm a partner at an Amlaw 50 firm.  My biggest fee on a single deal was $340K which is VERY large for us.  Given the structure of the deal it was always going to be larger but a big part of what drove it was incompetence of the 'larger' firm on other side that were out of their element on this particular transaction and staffed it with 4 attorneys + numerous "experts" throughout.  I had 1 associate help me and a tax attorney billed like 4 hours.  We drafted 80% of the documentation.  At closing my client got word of their fees and forwarded along to me.  $975K.  My jaw hit the floor.  That is how associates bill 2400+.  In many instances joining 2 hour calls just to listen, billing every second, and largely providing zero value, then tacking another couple of hours on for good measure.  

Our best associates (those that will make partner) are billing a legit 2200 as we staff deals light.  But the market for associates is insane right now.  Many don't work near as hard and there really isn't shit you can do about it because they can leave for $50K bonuses at competitors at any time.  Very different world than for those of us that grew up as associates during the financial crisis and lived in fear for our job daily (i.e., NEVER turned down work no matter how busy you were).  These associates that constantly turn down work as "too busy" but probably logged off by 7PM are living the dream.  This market will flip eventually and we'll see how they fare then. 

[field 216]

8 minutes ago, Skipper said:

I'm a partner at an Amlaw 50 firm.

Condolences 

[52-80 19047]

On 1/22/2022 at 1:48 AM, South Austin said:

Also, the quality of the job is usually a function of where you’re coming from.

If you start out at a big firm balls-to-the-wall sweat shop, like my first law firm, then going to a corporate in-house gig will likely increase your quality of life.

If you’re coming from a firm that already has a good quality of life with flexible work arrangements, then a lot of in-house gigs might be a change in the opposite direction.

are you saying this move could be better, or it could be worse?

[South Austin 51976]

13 minutes ago, Skipper said:

There may be a few NY firms that get something close to that but it's largely bullshit fluff.  I'm a partner at an Amlaw 50 firm.  My biggest fee on a single deal was $340K which is VERY large for us.  Given the structure of the deal it was always going to be larger but a big part of what drove it was incompetence of the 'larger' firm on other side that were out of their element on this particular transaction and staffed it with 4 attorneys + numerous "experts" throughout.  I had 1 associate help me and a tax attorney billed like 4 hours.  We drafted 80% of the documentation.  At closing my client got word of their fees and forwarded along to me.  $975K.  My jaw hit the floor.  That is how associates bill 2400+.  In many instances joining 2 hour calls just to listen, billing every second, and largely providing zero value, then tacking another couple of hours on for good measure.  

Our best associates (those that will make partner) are billing a legit 2200 as we staff deals light.  But the market for associates is insane right now.  Many don't work near as hard and there really isn't shit you can do about it because they can leave for $50K bonuses at competitors at any time.  Very different world than for those of us that grew up as associates during the financial crisis and lived in fear for our job daily (i.e., NEVER turned down work no matter how busy you were).  These associates that constantly turn down work as "too busy" but probably logged off by 7PM are living the dream.  This market will flip eventually and we'll see how they fare then. 

Funny story regarding big firm fees and staffing:

A few years ago I had a case against my old firm in a state court lawsuit in Travis County.  I used to work with two of the partners on the case when I was just a baby attorney at the firm.  They're great guys and they helped make my first few years of practice out of law school a lot of fun.  We got along great in the case, and they still refer me work from time to time.  In that case, their client prevailed on most of the issues after a bench trial, so we head to a post-trial proceeding for the attorney's fees claim.

They submit their motion for fees with attached billing statements and my jaw drops.  It had been well over 10 years since I'd been with that firm, so I really didn't have a sense of what they were charging at the time (this was in 2012).  The senior partner was billing at almost $800, and a third or fourth-year associate on the case was charging almost double my rate as a 12-year attorney.  I've never before taken opposing counsel to task on a fee claim, but we had no choice with the rates and amount we were seeing, and we had an full evidentiary hearing on fees.  It made for fun cross-examination -- there was even a billing entry in the fee claim for charging an associate's time just to attend a CLE at which our trial judge was the speaker!  I felt a little bad going after my former colleagues on fees, so we went pretty easy on opposing counsel all things considered. 

Still, our trial judge was so offended by the hourly rates, the over-staffing, and the amount of work billed that he awarded zero fees.  Nada.

 

[South Austin 51976]

27 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

are you saying this move could be better, or it could be worse?

I might be saying that, but I might not.

[Skipper 6012]

17 minutes ago, South Austin said:

Still, our trial judge was so offended by the hourly rates, the over-staffing, and the amount of work billed that he awarded zero fees.  Nada.

 

Ouch! 

[alincoln 2364]

58 minutes ago, Skipper said:

There may be a few NY firms that get something close to that but it's largely bullshit fluff.   

Tell that to the corporate bond associates representing lead underwriters on 30 offerings in 2021.