In-House Jobs Not So Cushy or Exciting, Says Veteran Lawyer

In-House Counsel

In-House Jobs Not So Cushy or Exciting, Says Veteran Lawyer

Posted Mar 27, 2008, 11:00 am CDT
By Debra Cassens Weiss

If you think a jump from a law firm to an in-house position is the ticket to a cushy, stress-free job, think again. The life of an in-house lawyer is not exactly a bed of roses.

That’s the assessment of Gloria Noh Cannon, a former in-house lawyer who is now the managing director of BCG Attorney Search. She says that overall her in-house experience was a good one, but some aspects of the job didn’t live up to expectations. She decided to forewarn other lawyers considering a move in an article she wrote for LawCrossing on the five myths of in-house law practice.

She says the myths are:

Better hours and a better lifestyle await. Cannon worked anywhere from 10 to 14 hours a day in-house and never had any downtime. “Part of the reason for the craziness of the days was that there was no longer a buffer between me and my ‘clients’— i.e., the businesspeople within my company—who would often appear in my office if I did not respond immediately to their phone calls or emails,” she wrote.
If the job doesn’t work out, a return to private practice is possible. Cannon says law firms may fear a deterioration of lawyering skills or a lack of commitment to staying on long-term.
The work will be more exciting because in-house lawyers are at the center of the action. In-house counsel often get more mundane compliance and employment matters while the complicated issues are farmed outside, Cannon advises.
In-house pay rivals that of law firms. The days of lawyers leaping to high-tech startups with the promise of a big future payday are over. Most lawyers should expect a pay cut, Cannon says. Compensation structures are different, and often a significant portion of in-house pay comes in the form of a discretionary annual bonus.
In-house jobs are more secure. In-house lawyers aren’t profit centers, and companies may see in-house lawyers as expendable in a downturn, Cannon says.

Cannon’s conclusions aren’t shared by everyone. An article in the Fulton County Daily Report says in-house counsel are more likely nowadays to return to private practice with law firms. Frederick Krebs, president of the Washington-based Association of Corporate Counsel, told the publication that this is because of the increased stature of in-house jobs.

"It used to be a one-way street from law firm to in-house," Krebs said. "Now, you see much more of people going both ways."

A hat tip to Legal Blog Watch, which posted the Cannon article.

Comments

Report Abuse

Posted by Benjamin Devlin - 1 month, 2 weeks, 5 days, 13 hours, 18 minutes ago

I’ve worked on both sides of the fence. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. The best thing about in-house is no hourly billings. The worst is no real support staff; I fax, file, copy, address my envelopes, etc. The clients are generally dumber—since they don’t pay, anyone can call. Working at the firm provided much more support, there was a lot more work, but I got much more money, and had to work downtown (ugh). I was given more respect by outsiders. Now, people tend to think in-house lawyers are second string. From my perspective many are, though there are a few exceptions. For ladies, in-house is a good opportunity to take some flexible time off for raising a child. This doesn’t work that well at the firm. I say go in house if you can take a pay cut, be more self-supportive, and be able to field calls from non-paying clients who aren’t that smart. If your idea is to get more pay, prestige, but have to work harder, stay in the firm. I don’t think I could go back now.
Posted by Tracy Edmundson - 1 month, 2 weeks, 5 days, 13 hours, 2 minutes ago

I’ve experienced the gamut in practice - small boutique firm, large general practice firm in a large city and in-house. I have found in-house to be the most intellectually stimulating and professionally challenging. The primary reason is that I am part of the business team and I am expected to help fashion legal strategies that integrate into the overall business goals - not just complete a particular task or work on a particular matter. However, I would agree that someone expecting to work fewer hours or have less stress than they had at a firm is likely to be disappointed. In addition, like anything else, your in-house experience will depend on the particular company you work for. In my case, it is a medium-sized, privately-held company with a flat management structure - therefore, I am able to participate at a very rewarding level of senior management. It sure beats the billable hour grind.
Posted by trumptower - 1 month, 2 weeks, 5 days, 11 hours, 9 minutes ago

I think it all depends on your employer, both at a firm and in-house. Some are horrible, some are fantastic. If you’re lucky you’ll find one of the more tolerable ones early in your career. I also think it has a lot to do with expectations. Ms. Cannon obviously had many false expectations about going in-house and was bound to be disappointed.
Posted by InDaHouse - 1 month, 2 weeks, 5 days, 8 hours, 21 minutes ago

Well I guess I won’t be calling BCG when I want to switch jobs again.

I’d respond to the 5 myths like this:

1. This is compared to dealing with the geniuses you get as clients at a small firm? Or the total lack of client contact at BigLaw? And I don’t have to deal with the Friday afternoon weekend-killers anymore, I get to call outside counsel for those.

2. I could interview circles around firm lawyers now as a result of working in-house. There is a benefit to being the client yourself and getting that viewpoint.

3. Since I am the farmer (or at least part of the farm), I either manage the good stuff, minus all the tedious legal research, or I give out the mundane stuff so I can focus on priorities. I get to make the decisions based on advice I get. Sure there is mundane work, but not nearly as mundane as spending 12 months doing document review in a conference room in some client office.

4. Duh, anyone who thinks higher pay is coming is clueless. You get a better lifestyle in general. If you get in at a start-up (like me) then you have a chance to make some $$$ on stock options. And I do get bonuses as part of my pay, alot bigger than what I received at the big firms I worked at.

5. Sure, let’s fire the lawyer that we pay a flat salary too and use more billable lawyers instead. I think I’ve seen more articles lately (and in the past) about scores of associates being laid off from firms. A risk but not a sizeable one.

So by all means accept this sage advice, it gives me a better chance of getting another in-house job.
Posted by In-house and happy - 1 month, 2 weeks, 2 days, 8 hours, 4 minutes ago

I agree with #3 that it all depends on your employer, whether you’re at a firm or in-house. While I find that there is more flexibility in-house than I had at the firm, largely because there is no billable hour requirement, I still work plenty hard. In some ways it is more stressful than working at a firm, because I am much more invested in the business side of things and I am the “first line of defense” for my internal clients. At times it seems like if I don’t respond to a client with a pressing need for advice right away, he or she may still need to take action without the advice, with possible adverse consequences for the company. So I feel like I always need to be on call, even though I do not literally need to be in the office so often.

One thing I miss about being at the firm is what I will call the “purity” of legal practice at the firm. When I was acting as outside counsel, I felt that I had the ability to dig deeply to find the “right” answer to a thorny legal issue. Now, I often have to act much more quickly - too quickly to track down every lead and sometimes too quickly to really wrap my arms around an issue - and I have to rely more heavily on my judgment combined with my knowledge of the business. Even when I am able to do a thorough review of the legal issues in advance of providing my advice, I can’t always be sure that the business will follow it - putting aside actions that are illegal and could not be legally approved, there is a varying level of risk tolerance in-house that did not come into play so much when I was at the firm - at the firm, it was more about “what’s the right legal answer” and in-house it’s more about “what’s the right answer for the business”. I suppose that’s how things should be.

All in all I would not switch back at this point, despite the enormous pay cut I took when I switched to in-house (I make just over half what I made at the firm)!

Commenting has expired on this post.

ABA Journal - Law News Now

In-House Counsel