The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
biglaw vs. in-house?
Poast new message in this thread
Date: September 5th, 2010 6:45 AM Author: Motley nofapping goyim address Hypothetically, if you had the choice to start your career with a run-of-the-mill vault firm (not meant to be a slight) or in-house at a solid company (told it would start at ~$100k all in)?
|
 |
Date: September 5th, 2010 9:04 AM Author: aphrodisiac gay parlour Firm, where they will teach how to do things the right way. Move in-house once you know WTH you are doing. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1414879&forum_id=2#15968827) |
|
Date: September 5th, 2010 9:07 AM Author: histrionic bawdyhouse pistol You're not thinking long term. The solid company is better across the board.
Had the option been top notch Vault firm v. in-house at solid company, my answer would be different. However, he said run-of-the-mill (Kaye Scholer, Kilpatrick Stocton, Dickstein Shapiro, etc) |
|
Date: September 5th, 2010 3:40 PM Author: Motley nofapping goyim address Why would long term be better with the company? Even if it's just a run of the mill firm, would not having that firm experience open more doors? |
Date: September 5th, 2010 7:56 AM Author: histrionic bawdyhouse pistol In-house at solid company. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1414879&forum_id=2#15968806) |
|
Date: September 5th, 2010 9:09 AM Author: Soggy Space in-house. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1414879&forum_id=2#15968829) |
|
Date: September 5th, 2010 2:08 PM Author: Motley nofapping goyim address Wow, didn't think that the response would be this one-sided.
So, other than the strict 9-to-5 and other associated quality of life issues, what would be the benefits of in-house?
Or is the QOL really worth the 60k/year difference?
And is the "learning how to do things right at a firm" really not worth doing? What about the value of just having it on a resume for future options? |
|
Date: September 5th, 2010 2:39 PM Author: gold dilemma telephone my goal is in-house. but having a firm on your resume just does so much for you that i'd have to do a year or two there first. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1414879&forum_id=2#15970379) |
|
Date: September 5th, 2010 2:40 PM Author: histrionic bawdyhouse pistol I heard in-house doesn't pay all that much. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1414879&forum_id=2#15970387) |
|
Date: September 6th, 2010 9:20 AM Author: gold dilemma telephone enough (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1414879&forum_id=2#15976858) |
|
Date: September 14th, 2010 2:44 AM Author: Motley nofapping goyim address I would start at ~$100k all-in. I don't know how that compares with other "entry level in-house" or how the raises will kick in, though. But given a strict 9-to-5 schedule, it might be ok--only if it weren't in such an expensive city. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1414879&forum_id=2#16041744) |
|
Date: September 5th, 2010 2:48 PM Author: godawful hateful sanctuary lettuce In-house can mean a lot of things. Some of it looks really boring--just doing the firm's rote contracts. No possibility of advancement there. Some of it is really different. So you'd really have to give more specifics. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1414879&forum_id=2#15970435) |
|
Date: September 5th, 2010 3:35 PM Author: Motley nofapping goyim address Some of it's rote contracts, but there's some interesting stuff. The company's industry is a heavily regulated one, so there's a lot of that going on, too.
What would the career path of someone who starts off in-house look like, though? What does this "advancement" entail? |
|
Date: September 6th, 2010 9:08 AM Author: godawful hateful sanctuary lettuce I don't work in house, so I'm just kind of guessing here based on the people I've met and the resumes I've seen. But it looks like some in-house people do gradually advance, becoming the GC of a subsidiary, then the GC of a division, then the GC of a company. On the other hand, there probably are a large number of in-house people who basically just stay in the same kind of rote contracts job their whole life. Wish I could tell you more, but this is basically all I can figure out from where I stand.
Edit: Should add that another way to move up would be to move into the business side of things. Not sure how possible this is--I tend to not meet or see these people, since they're not on the legal side anymore. But you do read about businessmen who used to be lawyers, so I guess they either move up through the in-house side or they go directly from being a lawyer to being a business guy. |
|
Date: September 6th, 2010 9:22 AM Author: gold dilemma telephone wish i knew more about the concrete details of moving from the in-house dept to the business side
obviously you have the huge advantage of getting to know people and hearing about new openings before anyone else does. |
|
Date: September 14th, 2010 2:43 AM Author: Motley nofapping goyim address The dood said that this is actually what they want me to do. Whether I come back to the legal side of things or stay in the business side, they want me to spend some time in other departments. Not sure if this is a boon or a curse. I am more interested in the other side, but do value some semblance of security and stability. |
|
Date: September 6th, 2010 9:16 AM Author: Onyx fat ankles ape So many firm folks end up/want to end up in-house that I think if that is your ultimate goal, you might as well just start in-house.
I think doing 3-4 years at a big firm and then getting to go inhouse as a more senior person than the guy who did 3-4 years in-house right out of law school is pretty rare. Heard it used to be the case in the olden days. |
|
Date: September 6th, 2010 9:23 AM Author: gold dilemma telephone i thought the problem was that the in-house jobs you could get right out of ls aren't the in-house jobs you want (but will they become the in-house jobs you want?) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1414879&forum_id=2#15976861) |
|
Date: September 6th, 2010 9:31 AM Author: Onyx fat ankles ape I am inclined to say they will become the in-house job you want as you get more senior or you will be end up being more competitive for the in-house job you want somewhere else either in the same organization or a different one.
|
|
Date: September 6th, 2010 9:30 AM Author: wonderful pungent temple mediation In house departments are a dying breed. You are a jack of all trades, master of none shithead. With 2nd tier $80K BIGLAW associates and Wheeling, WV Midlaw there is no reason to have your bloated ass on payroll. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1414879&forum_id=2#15976870) |
|
Date: September 14th, 2010 3:09 AM Author: tripping copper boiling water "In house departments are a dying breed."
That is exactly wrong. |
|
Date: September 14th, 2010 3:10 AM Author: Drunken Mint Wagecucks tcr. If anything, they are thriving and law firms are not. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1414879&forum_id=2#16041851) |
|
Date: September 14th, 2010 2:50 AM Author: Drunken Mint Wagecucks in house hours are sweet, the pay and exit options are not. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1414879&forum_id=2#16041767) |
|
Date: September 14th, 2010 10:03 AM Author: Motley nofapping goyim address what would exit options or career advancement look like? Or will I be stuck making 150k doing the same shit every day for the rest of my life?
And what happens if I do go over to the business side? |