For my friends contemplating post-law school careers, this "article" by a prominent attorney search firm was recently linked on the in-house board in the Greedy Associates boards. I'm posting it not necessarily because the rationale for choosing a Biglaw firm over an in-house gig is valid--in fact, there are a significant number of assertions that are wrong based on my experience this past year. However, at the very least it gives you pause to consider whether going in-house is right for you. After working in-house for over a year, I can say that the choice has been a really good one.
The point of the article is to take all of the widely-touted benefits of going in-house and refuting them one by one based on anecdotal information. Frankly, I am very surprised that the article's writers did not assume that when speaking to an audience composed of lawyers, something stated as a "fact" should be supported as one in the form of solid evidence. The article contains certain "estimations" that are not explained or attributed in any manner to any data set, and so I personally find them very difficult to explain.
There are some interesting points in the article that made me think about what recommendations I would make to folks considering switching from private practice to in-house. They would be the following:
1. Don't go in-house until you are confident that you have either the level of knowledge about your practice area to make an accurate rapid risk or legal assessment. May times, clients will call you with urgent requests and you will be expected to advise on the spot or within a few hours' time. It's true that you can give an initial assessment and then follow up after speaking to colleagues or confirming your advice, but you need to have things wrapped up in a very short period of time.
2. In the alternative, if you are planning on using your existing skills to leverage to a different practice area (or to a position that will require you to become more of a generalist), firm up the resources that you need to get things done comprehensively and quickly. Gather up your sources and having them immediately accessible or rely heavily on new and old colleagues.
3. Accept that you will make a lot of mistakes initially as you learn how to advise clients in the in-house context. Learn from them. Try not to dwell on them. Move on.
4. Learn to say "no." Not in the sense of "no, you can't do this," but rather "no, I can't get to this tonight. I want to think it over and provide a better assessment tomorrow morning when my brain isn't so fried from the constant flow of requests from you and the other 40 clients that called or emailed me today."
5. Think about what it means to "counsel" in the corporate context. You are part of a service organization, and your role is to help the business meet its objectives in a legal, ethical, and responsible manner. Your advice might consist of legal advice one minute, and a combination of business and legal advice another. You balance legal and business interests and you should be cognizant of what your client is trying to accomplish, and why.
6. Be realistic about what your experiences will be as an in-house attorney. I can tell you that it's not the panacea for all that might ail mid-level Biglaw associates. You are not going to leave at 5 p.m. every day. Your day may be just as stressful, but in a different way. You will have clients that constantly push back on your advice. And lastly, you may not be the final word when it comes to the eventual decision. True, you're a pretty important piece of the puzzle, but again, your role is to counsel, to advise, and to help.
There's a lot more that I can say, but it's not particularly formulated. I've been at this job for just a little while, and maybe my perspective will change as I go through this experience, but in taking all of the above in mind, I'd say I'm pretty happy.
Posted by equilibrium-girl at April 8, 2006 11:10 AM