Disclaimer: May cause headache

[Arcsoldier]

<p>Also note the Top 100 Firms are Top 100 firms. So like Fordham places 15.3% of its students into the Top 100 Firms while Columbia at 80.2% But doesn't mean those other universities like Fordham (just keep using them as an example cause we are talking about them) don't get into high paying jobs or even other high firms. 100 firms makes it 2 top firms per state on average. And face it there are a lot more then 2 good firms in each state. Especially in the bigger states like, NY/NJ, MA, CA, CT, PA, VA, TX, etc. those have a lot more. </p>

<p>So just something to think about. Think about where you want to work and where you want to go to school. It might come as a shocker the a lower ranked school might be within your reach. Again taking into account other factors.</p>

[sallyawp]

<p>
[quote]
i think the prime target for inhouse jobs is around 2-4 years. abovethelaw.com did an article about this a while back that said after 4 years your markitability decreases to inhouse positions. Either way, a spot at a vault 100 firm should get you an inhouse position at a fortune 250 company without much of a problem.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>These statements are absolutely incorrect. First, the prime market for in house counsel jobs varies immensely, since there are sometimes positions available for someone with less experience (3-5 years) and much more often positions open for someone with more experience (5 years +). Second, one's marketability does not decrease for in house counsel positions after 4 years. Instead, it increases in the vast majority of cases. More important to one's marketability for in house counsel positions; however, is the breadth and type of experience that one has when applying versus the needs of that particular company. Finally, it is just not that easy to get an in house counsel position. The market for these jobs is incredibly competitive, and while it is a huge plus to have significant substantive experience at a top law firm before applying, most likely your result will be one of hundreds that are submitted for each position. </p>

<p>For whatever reason, "going in house" is still seen as the ticket to a better life as a lawyer. I just want to clarify to the OP that even after gaining law firm experience that lends itself to landing an in house position, and even after making it through the thicket of resumes and interviews to land that in house job, things may be better than law firm life but it is certainly no utopia in many cases. First, when moving in house from a law firm job, there is often a significant pay cut involved. Yes, your benefits will generally get better (stock options, pension plan, 401k matching) but your base salary and bonus will most likely decrease, particularly in light of the recent pay raises for associates. Second, companies are running lean these days, meaning that there is little desire to hire lawyers who make more money than middle managers, which leads to few people doing a lot of work. Hmmm . . . what does that often mean? Longer hours perhaps? In addition, as law firms increase their fees to pay for associate pay increases (among other things), many companies are decreasing their use of outside counsel, which leads to those same few in house attorneys doing more work. That often also means longer hours. </p>

<p>In my experience, working in house generally (at least at a senior level) often means that while you may be able to save your weekends, your hours during the week will still be unpredictable (though only occasionally necessitating very late nights of work).</p>

[cartera45]

<p>Agree completely Sally. I'm not sure why anyone would try to say that chances for in house decrease at 4 yrs. out unless it comes from a website that is trying to get young associates to sign up for its services as early in the career as possible. Hmmm... If I could find an in house job for all of the candidates I have that want them, I could retire next month. When I decided to leave my "biglaw" job after only 3 years, the headhunter I contacted practically laughed at the big decision I had made to go in house. The market is extremely competitive and it is often necessary to be flexible geographically in order to get the job. I serve the Baltimore/Washington area and the numbers of locally based companies continues to shrink year and year. It is certainly true that in house jobs are not a panacea. When you are an attorney with a firm, you are part of the profit center for that firm. When you go in house, you are not the money maker, and I have spoken with in house lawyers who can't accept the fact that they are the last people the decision makers want to see walk into their offices. They don't like having to be the ones always telling the business side why they can't do things. That is certainly not always the case, but it is something to consider.</p>

[LaxAttack09]

<p><a href="http://www.abovethelaw.com%5B/url%5D"&gt;www.abovethelaw.com&lt;/a> did an article on this awhile back where they talked to numerous recruiters and headhunters who said they target 2-4 yr associates for in-house positions and that after 4 years their marketability decreases because they are older and more engrained in the biglaw way of law. abovethelaw is run by David Lat, harvard ug, yale ls, wachtell associate (#1 firm in world).....if he decides to write it and cite numerous headhunters I'll take his word for it.</p>

[cartera45]

<p>If recruiters said they target that range, then they are doing it as a "bait and switch." That is the range targeted for lateral moves from one big firm to another. That is the bread and butter of the recruiting world and recruiters will very often make up an in house job requesting an associate with a few years experience just to get those attorneys in the hopper for other law firms jobs. I know this because I have been headhunter for over 20 years and, over the years, I have found it is not hard to distinguish myself just by being honest. When Mr. Lat has over 20 years of recruiting experience and is no longer affiliated with a business - Lateral Links - that makes its income by enticing associates to sign up to get job postings, then I'll consider him properly armed for a conversation with me about legal recruitiing. Until then, unless I see it in Mother Teresa's letters, it's just not so.</p>

[Rogue]

<p>Hey everyone,</p>

<p>thank you very much for everybody's input.. I can't believe at the size this thread has grown as well as the quality of the replies my topic has received. </p>

<p>I definitely have a better sense of direction now thanks to your input as well as some outside research I did here and there.</p>

<p>By the way, I couldn't help but notice the comment (..ignorant -_-) about the attendance of a CC prior to transfer to a UC and its affect on admissions. </p>

<p>Pardon, but where are you getting that information from? I spoke to the admissions office at a couple of top law schools -- especially here at Boalt and they said the admissions look at every transcript but just because you went to a CC doesn't mean you're out.. that's just .. ridiculous.</p>

<p>As long as I keep my grades up or get even higher grades, they will see the trend of my work ethic and get some extracurriculum in there -- such as (I mentioned this to Boalt and they were enthused at the idea saying it will make the app stand out) taking a couple of summers to volunteer abroad to do things like teach or build hospitals, etc.</p>

<p>I guess in the end, I should focus on the present and my future be my eyes. </p>

<p>Thanks again to everyone ^_^</p>

[sallyawp]

<p>The following are some exerpts from an article published last week in New York Lawyer:</p>

<p>

The ABCs of GC Wannabes’ CVs

</p>

<p>

For corporations looking for lawyers, it’s a buyer’s market, so they can be picky about who gets in-house legal jobs.</p>

<p>“Everybody wants to go in-house,” said Raj M. Nichani, vice president of Hughes & Sloan Inc., a 19-year-old Atlanta-based legal search firm. “There are not enough jobs.”</p>

<p>Four other legal recruiters confirmed this assessment, noting that while law firm jobs are plentiful, in-house positions make up less than 10 percent of the openings they fill but attract 15 to 20 extremely well-qualified applicants for each one.

</p>

<p>

here are some indicators that lawyers have the right stuff to succeed in-house.

</p>

<p>

1. The right transactional experience. “The first thing we obviously look for in a GC are his or her legal skills,” said Hughes. “I think most of the GC’s that we’ve placed have come from a corporate securities background.”

</p>

<p>

“They never want to pay us a fee to find someone who’s going to grow into the job.”

</p>

<p>

2. The right values. This would depend upon the match between company and attorney, but generally would require a certain level of personal development, particularly for the GC. “When you think about a general counsel, the highest legal officer of a company, it’s a prerequisite to have maturity, judgment, vision and leadership skills,” said Hughes.

</p>

<p>

3. Sarbanes-Oxley Act knowledge.

</p>

<p>

4. The right management skills. In-house lawyers take on responsibilities for a staff if they have one.

</p>

<p>

“It’s difficult to find somebody right out of a law firm that has budget experience,” said Hughes. “Have you ever fired anybody? Have you ever hired anybody? Do you have a track record of developing subordinates?”

</p>

<p>

5. Litigation stars need not apply. In-house lawyers do not try cases, and they naturally want to stay out of court. If they have to be there, they use outside counsel for litigation.

</p>

<p>

6. Willingness to accept a hefty pay cut. “Compensation is not as good in-house,” said Rice. “They have to be willing to take a significant cut in pay.” Nichani said he is seeing salaries for mid-level in-house lawyers in the $120,000 to $140,000 range, but he thinks they should be in the $150,000 to $180,000 range.

</p>

<p>

7. Willingness to accept more responsibility. While the hours of an in-house job might be more predictable – taking kids to school or having dinner with their family is easier to plan – the pressure might be greater. “A lot of the time, associates assume they’re going to have an easier schedule and a quality-of-life change for the better. The fact that they don’t keep a time sheet is appealing, but it’s a different sort of pressure,” said Newton. “If you’re somebody who wants to cut back and not work as hard going in-house, you’re probably not the right candidate.”

</p>

<p>

8. Interest in the business. Learning the business – and taking a genuine interest in it – is a key to success for a GC.

</p>

<p>

9. Willingness to take risks. Corporations sometimes go out of business, downsize or have trouble paying their bills. Rice said one reason some of the people he has placed in-house have called him back is that they’ve been laid off.

</p>

<p>

10. Ability to get along with all sorts of people. “A law firm is not going to hire an outright jerk,” said Graff, adding that if an attorney can bring in a lot of revenue, “the definition of jerk might not be as strict.” It’s different in-house, where the GC must work with every department, other managers and their staffs as well as CEOs and board members.

</p>

[alwaysamom]

<p>Sally, that was an interesting list. As the spouse of a general counsel who left ‘biglaw’ as a senior partner to take the position, I’d have to disagree with two points, though. The hefty paycut is not always the case, in fact, in my H’s case, his compensation package exceeds what he was earning and, ten years after making the move, he’s still in a favorable position to what his previous partners are earning. The second point is the more predictable hours. This has not been the case. As a General Counsel and a member of the senior executive team of a large corporation, your time and availability are very much tied to what is going on at work. These differences may not be issues in every G.C. position but this has been my H’s experience with a large corporation.</p>

[sallyawp]

<p>alwaysamom,
Thank you for the input!</p>

<p>I agree that the points on the list are generalizations, and that there are certainly many exceptions to those statements. However, I think that particularly in markets, such as NYC, where profits per partner at top firms may exceed $2 million per year, it would be exceptional for a GC to top that partner income. In addition, in many cases where associates at law firms are making over $200,000 per year by the time they are fourth year associates, when moving in house, those salaries often take a haircut. In fact, just yesterday a friend of mine accepted an offer to join the law department of a Fortune 500 company at a salary of $130,000/year plus a potential 20% bonus. My friend had been making over $300,000/year as a senior associate at a NYC law firm. That is just one example, but seems typical of the experience here in the NYC area. </p>

<p>In addition, when compared to the 2200+ hours a year associate positions in NYC, where those dreaded Friday afternoon at 4pm phone calls with weekend assignments are all too common, I think that in house hours are generally more predictable. Now, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t some late nights involved in in house work, because they do happen, but in house attorneys often know when to expect those kinds of hours to crop up. </p>

<p>Just my two cents . . .</p>

[alwaysamom]

<p>In general, those points may, indeed, be true but, as I said, in our case, they weren’t. NYC was where my H was a senior partner in a ‘biglaw’ (I’m not fond of that term! ;)) firm. It obviously is going to depend on the size and type of corporation involved, but I can tell you that he is not in a unique position to be garnering the compensation that he is. Taking into account many aspects of a compensation package that would include not only salary, bonus, guaranteed pension, stock options, various and assorted other types of shares, benefits, company car, vacation, club memberships, etc, the GC position wins. Obviously, some of these would be part of the perqs of a senior partner as well, but definitely not all. Many of his previous partners would be amazed at what lawyers are making in house for large corporations. He was of the same opinion, more than ten years ago!</p>

<p>As for the hours, we (meaning I!) thought that the time commitment might be lessened by the change of job, but that hasn’t been the case. He routinely still arrives home from work about 14 hours after he leaves in the morning. There is often work done from home on the weekends. Phone calls at home are common. Travel, often with little notice, is a regular occurrence. I cannot remember a vacation where work was not a part of each day, some days just a little but others involving several hours. Blackberry and laptop are always a part of every vacation, which over the years has meant that internet access was a must for wherever we were staying. Not so much a problem today but several years ago, it definitely influenced where we went! There have been two occasions where we have had to cancel planned vacations entirely a couple of days prior to leaving. Incurred cancellation costs, of course, were paid by the employer. I’m not saying that all in house positions are like that of my H, and obviously the benefits of his position are also not universal, but for a large corporation, I would imagine there are more which are similar than not. Also, keeping in mind that he is the G.C. and the large staff of in house lawyers who work for him, around the world, are not working the hours he is. And Board week? The busiest.</p>

<p>The good with the bad, as they say. We are very blessed with his success and with what it has enabled us to do for our immediate and extended family, and for our community and charitable causes.</p>

[allena]

<p>CC makes absolutely no difference. They care much more about your second two years. I was told that the only thing that would be a problem would be if I had a 3.9 at my CC, and then suddenly my GPA fell to a 3.0, since that is a serious decline in grades.</p>