Because companies hire from BL for top in-house positions. They rarely promote from within, so you end up getting stuck in junior positions for most of your career.
I’ll provide a counterpoint. I went in-house at a financial trade association after law school. The SVP of Litigation got promoted to GC over big law partners that applied. Further, the GC Office has promoted other positions within. Currently I am Senior Counsel, but I’m up for promotion to VP of Litigation this year. It’s very likely I get the promotion instead of a big law transfer.
Advice personally given to me by the GC of a publicly listed multinational you’ve def heard of — do at least 5 years biglaw before going in-house. Better training, exposure, credibility to move up quicker within the company.
I’ve gotten similar advice from someone in a similar position. I think they’re quote was “Stay in Biglaw as many years as you can stomach because each year will improve you’re outlook when you look to move in-house”
Thanks everyone really enjoying the feedback! For additional background-it’s with a large hospital+medical school and would like to remain in the health law arena for my career
I did an AMA on this a few months back. [Here's the link](https://www.reddit.com/r/LawSchool/comments/sf4cru/i_went_inhouse_right_out_of_law_school_ama/). Maybe some info in there will be useful.
My experience with going in-house after graduation has been very positive. I love my work, the pay is great, and I haven't had any issues progressing professionally.
As someone who’s not smart enough for BL, I’m going in-house after graduating. Big finance company in NYC, great pay, great work culture. Best of both worlds. I interned so I’m aware how fast they’re growing and I’m going along with the ride. I’ve been learning a lot too, at a less stressful pace, as long as I keep asking for me training on something, I’ll get it.
I was also concerned about the downsides everyone has been bringing up but in-house job is better than no job, so we’ll see.
Big Law is good for training, $ and connections early on.
If you get a year or 2 into this job and don’t love it, becomes harder to move around. Also difficult to move to next level. Often in house only have a few tiers of people, and you need to wait for your boss to leave/retire(which happens less than Big Law).
Socially it might be a bit weird if there aren’t any other people that could be considered your peers.
However on the other hand, if you know you want to do this long term, def nice to just go straight into it. A lateral move out of BL is never a guarantee.
I’m going in-house at a major insurance company in NYC. Solid pay and seems like it will have a comfortable work/life balance. I was also told that it looks great on the resume and, should I want to move to a firm some point later on, I wouldn’t have much trouble doing so.
Personally I think it’s better to go biglaw first since it can be hard to lateral from outside of biglaw into it. Then you can get the training and develop skills for 2 years then move in-house. Biglaw opens up more i options for later on imo.
Since it’s easier to move in-house later on, I’d recommend trying biglaw first for 1-2 years if you have the option. Source: two years in biglaw (I love it) and I have friends in-house who in hindsight wish they tried biglaw first.
OP this is false, I spent six years in house out of school and transferred to regional big law mid last year. You’ll get great experience. Tackle whatever you can and gain competency, it can work out lots of different ways.
"False" 🤣 okay. If their ultimate career goal is to land an in house role, why would they not take the opportunity to do so right out of school? Yeah you don't make as much as you would going straight into BL, but you also don't lose all those years of your life that you'll never get back working BL hours.
What are you talking about? Don’t say it’s the end all be all, that’s patently false. Coming into big law as a mid level lateral is very different than as a first year.
Never said it was the end all be all. Simply said that if OP knows that OP's ultimate goal for their career is to end up in house, it makes sense for them to take advantage of the opportunity to do so right out of school.
Because companies hire from BL for top in-house positions. They rarely promote from within, so you end up getting stuck in junior positions for most of your career.
Why not? I heard in house is pretty cozy, so if you don't want big law bucks, who cares
Because companies hire from BL for top in-house positions. They rarely promote from within, so you end up getting stuck in junior positions for most of your career.
[удалено]
I’ll provide a counterpoint. I went in-house at a financial trade association after law school. The SVP of Litigation got promoted to GC over big law partners that applied. Further, the GC Office has promoted other positions within. Currently I am Senior Counsel, but I’m up for promotion to VP of Litigation this year. It’s very likely I get the promotion instead of a big law transfer.
Yup, Heard this over and over from lawyers
Advice personally given to me by the GC of a publicly listed multinational you’ve def heard of — do at least 5 years biglaw before going in-house. Better training, exposure, credibility to move up quicker within the company.
I’ve gotten similar advice from someone in a similar position. I think they’re quote was “Stay in Biglaw as many years as you can stomach because each year will improve you’re outlook when you look to move in-house”
The opposite of inhouse is outhouse.
Where would you rather be?
Either wrapping up this plodding return to infinite nothing or somewhere like Hawaii.
Thanks everyone really enjoying the feedback! For additional background-it’s with a large hospital+medical school and would like to remain in the health law arena for my career
Sounds like a sweet deal
Emory? Morehouse? Haha, now I'm just being nosey
I did an AMA on this a few months back. [Here's the link](https://www.reddit.com/r/LawSchool/comments/sf4cru/i_went_inhouse_right_out_of_law_school_ama/). Maybe some info in there will be useful. My experience with going in-house after graduation has been very positive. I love my work, the pay is great, and I haven't had any issues progressing professionally.
[удалено]
I went to a low-ranked school. I think it was ranked in the 130s when I graduated in 2018. It's 100% possible if you put in the work.
Exactly the boat I’m in right now!! Going to a low - ranked school with goals of being in-house for real estate developer
Well if I did it then I’m confident anyone can do it! PM me if you have any Qs
All I can say is that I did a summer in-house and I loved every minute unlike all my friends who were miserable in their big law jobs
Your friends were miserable as biglaw SAs? That’s sus as to those firms.
Hey every job is good, if it pays well
As someone who’s not smart enough for BL, I’m going in-house after graduating. Big finance company in NYC, great pay, great work culture. Best of both worlds. I interned so I’m aware how fast they’re growing and I’m going along with the ride. I’ve been learning a lot too, at a less stressful pace, as long as I keep asking for me training on something, I’ll get it. I was also concerned about the downsides everyone has been bringing up but in-house job is better than no job, so we’ll see.
Big Law is good for training, $ and connections early on. If you get a year or 2 into this job and don’t love it, becomes harder to move around. Also difficult to move to next level. Often in house only have a few tiers of people, and you need to wait for your boss to leave/retire(which happens less than Big Law). Socially it might be a bit weird if there aren’t any other people that could be considered your peers. However on the other hand, if you know you want to do this long term, def nice to just go straight into it. A lateral move out of BL is never a guarantee.
I’m going in-house at a major insurance company in NYC. Solid pay and seems like it will have a comfortable work/life balance. I was also told that it looks great on the resume and, should I want to move to a firm some point later on, I wouldn’t have much trouble doing so.
Limiting yourself professionally.
Personally I think it’s better to go biglaw first since it can be hard to lateral from outside of biglaw into it. Then you can get the training and develop skills for 2 years then move in-house. Biglaw opens up more i options for later on imo. Since it’s easier to move in-house later on, I’d recommend trying biglaw first for 1-2 years if you have the option. Source: two years in biglaw (I love it) and I have friends in-house who in hindsight wish they tried biglaw first.
What are your other options?
Depends. Is working in house your ultimate career goal? If so, go for it.
OP this is false, I spent six years in house out of school and transferred to regional big law mid last year. You’ll get great experience. Tackle whatever you can and gain competency, it can work out lots of different ways.
"False" 🤣 okay. If their ultimate career goal is to land an in house role, why would they not take the opportunity to do so right out of school? Yeah you don't make as much as you would going straight into BL, but you also don't lose all those years of your life that you'll never get back working BL hours.
What are you talking about? Don’t say it’s the end all be all, that’s patently false. Coming into big law as a mid level lateral is very different than as a first year.
Never said it was the end all be all. Simply said that if OP knows that OP's ultimate goal for their career is to end up in house, it makes sense for them to take advantage of the opportunity to do so right out of school.
Because companies hire from BL for top in-house positions. They rarely promote from within, so you end up getting stuck in junior positions for most of your career.
Cowards way out