Top In-House Lawyers Make $645K, Survey Says

Lawyer Pay

Top In-House Lawyers Make $645K, Survey Says

Posted Feb 26, 2008, 05:54 am CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss

Chief legal officers and general counsel in legal departments of more than 25 lawyers made a median of $645,000 in total cash compensation in 2007, according to a survey by Altman Weil.

Median cash compensation ranged from $285,000 for companies with $300 million or less in gross annual revenue to $740,000 for those with more than $10 billion in gross annual revenue, Inside Counsel reports (PDF). The percentage of pay based on bonuses increases as lawyers rise in the legal department.

The median cash compensation for new law grads going into an in-house legal department was $70,000.

The pay is separate from stock options also given to many in-house counsel.

Dan DiLucchio, an Altman Weil principal, told the magazine there has been “a shift to more discretionary compensation” in the form of bonuses for in-house lawyers.

Inside Counsel looked at the Altman Weil numbers, as well as the results of a 2006 year-end survey by Hildebrandt of large companies’ legal departments. The Hildebrandt survey found chief legal officers make $800,000 in total cash compensation and general counsel make $564,000.

Hildebrandt’s survey is based on data from companies with a median of $10 billion in revenues, while Altman Weil’s is based on information from companies of which more than half had 5,000 or fewer employees.

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

Comments

Report Abuse

Posted by Mike Hunt - 9 months, 2 days, 21 hours, 43 minutes ago

Sign me up! When I went to law school, only the dummies went in-house, usually after they were passed over for partnership at lawfirms. Now it seems that in-house people get a decent amount of scratch; not to say they dont earn it nowadays…years ago, all they did was carry the brief case for outside counsel. Maybe many still do, but I can’t seem to get an interview at my age. I suppose if I had to do it all over again, I’d go in house.
Posted by Chris the student - 9 months, 2 days, 20 hours, 10 minutes ago

As a non-traditional (read 30+ yrs. old) student who plans on working in-house for the company I am currently employed with, this article is encouraging on two fronts. Not only will I apparently make a decent living in my new profession, there is apparently plenty of room at the top for the big bucks. I’ve been panned by many a starry eyed first year traditional student who thinks I am giving up what lawyering should really pay and I can never reach the hallowed heights of six figure +. Good to see I am not a total fool. My wife will be surprised.
Posted by Bob Young - 9 months, 2 days, 20 hours ago

To Mike and Chris I’d say don’t be fooled by this story. Those are medians, not averages. While I’m in six figures, I’ve been in house a long time, and I’m not close to these medians. Recent job interviews have suggested that I already make too much.
Posted by GC - 9 months, 2 days, 19 hours, 54 minutes ago

After 20 years in private practice - including stints at some of the largest firms in the country - I moved in-house a few years ago and became general counsel for a long-time client. I have worked longer hours, incuding most weekends, than I ever did in private practice - even more than when I was a young associate churning hours in NYC. I’s in by 6, leave around 8 (hopefully) and then work from home. I think the days of “retiring” to an in-house position are long gone. And I can assure you that “dummies” need not apply.
Posted by Trump Tower - 9 months, 2 days, 19 hours, 31 minutes ago

In-house jobs are completely different in scope than working at a firm. Generally, in-house stay busier. All of my colleagues in-house earn their keep. When I was at a large firm it wasn’t always that way—there were a few associates who coasted until forced out. Although my experience does not seem as wide-ranging as Mr. Hunt’s, I’ve never witnessed an inside/outside counsel relationship where in-house carried anyone’s bags. Frankly, if anything, it’s outside counsel carrrying the bags then writing down their ridiculous bils an additional 25%.
Posted by In-House - 9 months, 2 days, 18 hours, 56 minutes ago

I went in-house about a year ago from an insurance defense gig and haven’t looked back. More interesting work with a greater variety of issues, no billable hours, more down to earth co-workers, I actually like and care about my client, etc. Better on every front, though I still have to work quite a bit.

I’m sure these jobs vary a great deal depending on the industry and particular corporate culture, so your experience may be much different.
Posted by outside associate - 9 months, 2 days, 18 hours, 43 minutes ago

I guess they can quit complaining about associates who make 100k and partners who make 300-400k now.
Posted by IP Manager - 9 months, 2 days, 18 hours, 21 minutes ago

GC is right on point. The notion of an in-house attorney being a “dummy” who works from 9 to 5 with time on the weekends for the spouse and kids is without basis in today’s reality. I make 6 figures, but nowhere near these numbers after 12 years of in-house. These surveys always make me wonder who they are surveying… the GC of Microsoft et al.
Posted by Horace - 9 months, 2 days, 18 hours, 9 minutes ago

In the financial services sector in and around New York (particularly the hedge funds and a few investment banks), a number of in-house counsel (i) are making low seven figures, (ii) went in-house after years as partners in major law firms, (iii) work very hard and are exceedingly competent.
Posted by MommyEsq - 9 months, 2 days, 18 hours, 6 minutes ago

I agree with Trump. I have worked in-house for two private companies. Outside counsel treat you like their client, not like their assistant. They know that you are the one that makes the decision whether to send work their way or not, and that you are the one that reviews and approves their bills for payment.

And on compensation - again, the ABA has chosen to highlight fantastically high numbers and not the realistic figures for most people working in-house. These figures seem rather high and it should be noted that public companies are likely to have higher levels of compensation than private companies.
Posted by Young Partner - 9 months, 2 days, 17 hours, 45 minutes ago

I agree with Bob Young. This article seems a bit misleading in that there are thousands of in-house positions nationwide and abroad and yet this wonderful median salary arises in law departments with 25 lawyers or more. That is a bunch of lawyers.
Posted by Outside Associate - 9 months, 2 days, 16 hours ago

By the way, now you inside counsels know how it feels when the Journal “reports” on “associate salaries” and “partner income” for firms.

Their reports are typically around double what we actually make, and the “services” they claim are available to us are hogwash.

I think it’s safe to assume that the situation here is pretty similar.
Posted by outside counsel - 9 months, 2 days, 15 hours, 33 minutes ago

any view on range of compensation for lawyers at large hedge funds ($5 billion +) in NYC?
Posted by Rex Harris - 9 months, 2 days, 15 hours, 12 minutes ago

Having been a sole practitioner in a somewhat small town along the front range in Colorado I have been shocked at the salary figures reported. The comments seems to confirm that the figures reported are way higher than the norm
Posted by In-House - 9 months, 2 days, 9 hours, 35 minutes ago

The problem with these surveys, and all prestige surveys in the legal profession, which are the only ones conducted, is that they concentrate on a small group of attorneys who are “at the top.“ It’s like law schools that concentrate on the top 10%, forgetting that that leaves out 90% of the profession. I am in-house for the second time in my 10-year career and loving it. In particular, I am so very happy to not be around pretentious attorneys and their sycophant cadres of staff and junior attorneys. It’s refreshing having normal conversations with normal people, rather than competing to see who has the most interesting life. And, I have more opportunity here for advancement and interesting work than a law firm could ever offer. Law firms are where you go to gain some of the fundamentals of transactional or litigation skills, then leave. Why do you think they have to offer $180K for an attorney who just graduated from law school.
Posted by bruinjack - 9 months, 2 days, 1 hour, 22 minutes ago

I just started in-house right out of law school and I absolutely love it. Though I have not actually worked as an associate in a firm, I clerked one summer with a firm and there really is no comparison. I’m not making as much money as my classmates, but I’m definitely making a comfortable living.

Plus the pitch my boss gave me when offering me the in-house position has come true: he promised I would learn more in-house because I would be able to focus on my chosen field and I would actually have the time to think deeply about the finer points of the law. No question, best career decision I ever made!
Posted by In Da House - 8 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 21 hours, 40 minutes ago

Comment #1 about carrying the briefcase . . . huh? I spent 7+ years at two national firms (one Top 20, one Top 100) before going in-house 3 years ago. If anyone carries the briefcase it’s the associate. In-house guy is the customer that pays the bills and decides if you get more work. If you want me to carry the briefcase you better be doing some write-downs on your time.

I agree the salary level is low. I make more than a 1st year but not a ton more, and I have 10 years experience. But I get to do interesting work (far far more interesting than what I did before) and people respect my desire to balance my life. In-house work is very company-specific opposed to a law firm. I was lucky.

Commenting has expired on this post.

ABA Journal - Law News Now

Lawyer Pay