The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Are busy inhouse jobs worth?
Poast new message in this thread
Date: June 5th, 2013 6:23 PM Author: Canary House Are busy inhouse jobs worth it?
Currently weighing two inhouse options,
option 1: small cap company, tiny legal dept, they seem to handle some intense stuff inhouse, for example, on M&As, they farm out the DD but handle some drafting internally. Company is a wholesale distributor of industrial communication equipment. I heard work involves lots of commercial/supply contract work.
option 2: small-mid cap company, legal dept is small, they don't seem to do anything serious inhouse, just manage outside firms. this job pays more than job# 1. The company is a mortgage REIT.
I am relatively junior, worth it to get job 1 to learn some stuff/keep skills current? |
 |
Date: June 5th, 2013 6:33 PM Author: shaky flushed brethren how the hell did you land 2 in-house positions?
the answer is yes, it's still worth it. are both companies in the same industry? which company has better financials, management, quality of employees, etc? that's the one i'd choose here. |
|
Date: June 5th, 2013 6:55 PM Author: Canary House I will look into the companies' financials, hard to tell about their management or quality of employees. I don't care about quality or employees (as in prestige) anyway, I just don't want to work with annoying assholes. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2274300&forum_id=2#23335905) |
|
Date: June 6th, 2013 9:27 AM Author: shaky flushed brethren you can judge quality of management/talent by the quality of the company's products and services and competitive position in its industry. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2274300&forum_id=2#23339521) |
|
Date: June 6th, 2013 8:44 PM Author: ungodly headpube not really (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2274300&forum_id=2#23342877) |
|
Date: June 5th, 2013 6:36 PM Author: Startled stubborn idea he suggested locale w/o any other info, i'd take job #2.
keeping skills "current" or whatever is overrated. |
|
Date: June 5th, 2013 6:43 PM Author: bistre hilarious senate i softly disagree - getting to do some substantive legal work that is portable across all sectors (M&A) is better for your career long term than being legal supply chain management also a smaller company with strong financials will give you lots of authority (and thus will make you a stronger candidate for laterals in a couple yrs) and as much stability as you can hope for as a young atty (larger corps you're just another atty they can lay off while keeping the senior doods) also learning shit is highly underrated by nearly everyone - it makes you WAY more valuable to be able to speak authoritatively on something in an interview, and being able to say "ran with this shit" is better than "worked closely with outside counsel" which everyone knows what it really means |
|
Date: June 5th, 2013 6:49 PM Author: pink becky toilet seat no one is going to believe some junior inhouse bro was doing much leg work either way. so he may as well take the more secure position. i also disagree that managing outside counsel isn't valuable. that's sort of the entire point of being an inhouse bro. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2274300&forum_id=2#23335860) |
|
Date: June 6th, 2013 1:52 AM Author: Startled stubborn idea he suggested locale this guy's coming from biglaw corporate with much more sophisticated legal work than anything that is done in-house. whatever m&a he is doing in-house pales in comparison to the type of work that's outsourced to law firms and if future employers want to see m&a experience on his resume, his background in biglaw corporate will suffice. you should have a very real reduction in intensity and hours by going in-house as opposed to a law firm. to get paid less but work hard in-house would really defeat the entire purpose of leaving biglaw to go in-house in the first place. it's a very different situation than yours where you're building your experience from being in-house as opposed to making primarily a lifestyle decision to go in-house from biglaw. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2274300&forum_id=2#23338908) |
|
Date: June 6th, 2013 8:36 AM Author: Canary House I am relatively junior, about 3 full years in biglaw, do you think that would suffice? No need for more high intensity work to build up resume?
Funny that all recruitors told me not to mention lifestyle change as a reason for going inhouse, but every GC knows that must be one of the main reasons folks are interviewing. |
|
Date: June 6th, 2013 4:59 PM Author: Startled stubborn idea he suggested locale for building up your resume, i would say it's a secondary concern to lifestyle given that having biglaw (and the the school credentials that generally come w/ it) gives you a certain amount of credibility already and you can always play up your responsibilities in-house should you lateral. i never mentioned lifestyle in interviews of course but the people were all ex-biglaw themselves from GCs down to junior counsel and they'd always bring it up voluntarily. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2274300&forum_id=2#23341727) |
Date: June 5th, 2013 6:45 PM Author: Aromatic patrolman I'd take job number 1 unless you don't like being a lawyer and really just want to manage other lawyers for the rest of your career. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2274300&forum_id=2#23335836) |
|
Date: June 5th, 2013 6:46 PM Author: pink becky toilet seat "counsels"
"handles"
wtf is goin on round here |
|
Date: June 5th, 2013 9:53 PM Author: Canary House oops, my partner would rape me in the ass if this were an email going outside the firm (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2274300&forum_id=2#23337152) |
|
Date: June 5th, 2013 6:46 PM Author: embarrassed to the bone comical gaming laptop #2. Managing lawyers sounds a lot better than being one. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2274300&forum_id=2#23335844) |
|
Date: June 5th, 2013 6:53 PM Author: Canary House Well, I agree, but I am afraid I won't have marketable skills when need to jump ship down the line (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2274300&forum_id=2#23335896) |
|
Date: June 5th, 2013 7:57 PM Author: charismatic low-t national security agency lay An in-house job is primarily a function of two things (in order of precedence): a) your boss, since in-house politics are a much more complicated game than "what partner who brought in the most business says goes" and b) your value to important people in the business. Job 2 might have a problem with b) if the outside counsel isn't collaborating with you to work on serious issues that require you to interface with execs. OTOH Job 1 would be awful if you had a bad manager. I also think industry should be a huge factor, since you'll become an expert in that specific field and it can shape the course of your career, so you want the industry to be interesting and poised to grow for a while. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2274300&forum_id=2#23336376) |
|
Date: June 5th, 2013 8:15 PM Author: Canary House Good points, thanks. I prefer the industry of job 1. Selling industrial communication equipment sounds a lot more interesting (to me) than originating mortgage loans, but the real estate industry may be more lucrative (which explains the higher salary) and have better growth prospect in the next few years (RE price is starting to rebound).
Job 2 doesn't seem to add a lot of value to the organization and I am concerned if I get shitcanned I won't be able to find another job. Is managing outside law firms really a marketable skill? Is it even a skill at all? But job 1 seems stressful (doing M&A, drafting docs, etc), hopefully it's not like a law firm job only with lower pay. |
|
Date: June 6th, 2013 1:43 AM Author: Startled stubborn idea he suggested locale is job #2 residential or commercial real estate? i would not do any in-house job (or law firm job) involving residential RE as you'll be stuck in a rinky dinky legal area for the rest of your career, which is anything involving average joe consumers. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2274300&forum_id=2#23338887) |
|
Date: June 6th, 2013 8:20 AM Author: Canary House commercial, and their focus leans heavily to the finance side of things. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2274300&forum_id=2#23339410) |
|
Date: June 6th, 2013 5:20 PM Author: Startled stubborn idea he suggested locale this is a tough one as far as whether #1 or #2 is a better choice in the long run. #1 sounds more like a start-up type environment where they want to do a lot of stuff in-house rather than spend $ on outside counsel, and your overall treatment and experience there will be impacted by that.
frankly, i think real estate finance is going to be more lucrative for you in than being in the tech sector (even if the tech sector has more jobs overall). i think as long as you're ok with the idea of staying in real estate finance (or moving into another area of finance later on), you will be better compensated in the long-run over the course of your career. |
|
Date: June 6th, 2013 8:34 PM Author: Canary House I agree with this analysis. It is obvious that real estate finance is more lucrative because job 2 involves less heavy lifting and yet pays more. What they do sounds boring though. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2274300&forum_id=2#23342800) |
|
Date: June 7th, 2013 12:49 PM Author: Startled stubborn idea he suggested locale yes, originating mortgage loans sounds more boring than doing legal work revolving around specific products, but having a "boring" in-house job myself in investment management, i can say that, from my own experience, 95% of my job satisfaction comes from my hours, the compensation, and the work culture/people you work with.
frankly, in-house legal work is rarely sexy or interesting in any company or industry. sure, everyone thinks, oh working at tesla would be cool or certain products at google, but those are a pipe dream. working on data sharing agreements with 3rd party vendors at youtube isn't more interesting than securing a mezzanine loan. |
|
Date: June 6th, 2013 9:25 AM Author: shaky flushed brethren lol. do not take job 2. follow my original advice. tech/manufacturing is a way better industry than real estate. your experience there will be applicable to a broader set of companies and you'll have way more options down the road. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2274300&forum_id=2#23339515) |
|
Date: June 7th, 2013 12:26 PM Author: Startled stubborn idea he suggested locale it's hard to make broad generalizations like this when you become more senior in your career. people specialize and become more niche and the entire tech industry isn't open to you in 5 years by virtue of having a job in wholesale industrial communications equipment. this guy might be a strong candidate for cisco later on but he won't be for a job at hulu even if they're all loosely "tech" companies, just like working at a mortgage REIT isn't going to set him up to get a legal job in every area of the finance industry.
do you want to be working at cisco or capital trust when you're 40? if you look at the specific sub-industry, real estate finance is more lucrative compensation-wise over the long-run and certainly viewed as more prestigious and sophisticated than industrial communications equipment and once you break in, you're not going to have a ton of competition from other lawyers. |
|
Date: June 6th, 2013 8:41 PM Author: white racy stage Being challenged by your work and being forced to learn new things is slightly underrated when you have to sit in an office 260 days a year. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2274300&forum_id=2#23342857) |
|
Date: June 7th, 2013 12:33 PM Author: Rusted mad-dog skullcap stage what is approx pay?
and what caliber of market? |
|
Date: June 7th, 2013 9:13 PM Author: Canary House job 1 - approx 170 job 2 - approx 200 both in nyc |
|
Date: June 7th, 2013 2:25 PM Author: fragrant soggy volcanic crater juggernaut I'd take #2, assuming this is a reputable place. Tons of NYC corporate lawyers dying to get into real estate finance. #1 sounds like some small-time company. Not like working there will get you a job at Google later on in life. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2274300&forum_id=2#23346943) |