In-house attorneys are expected to translate the legal expertise, either their own or that of the private practice attorney, and make recommendations for solutions that make sense for the company. According to Bozek, this is one of the most rewarding parts of an in-house position.
One important difference between in-house and private practice attorneys is who they work for. Private practice attorneys work for a variety of clients. This exposes them to multiple variations on particular legal issues based on client industries and goals and gives private practice attorneys a richness of experience and expertise in specific areas of law. They are contacted by the client when the client has a concern in the particular area of expertise. The client and attorney talk only sporadically, and only when the client believes it has a crisis that is deserving of a consultation with an attorney. Because the company wants to manage its outside expenses, there are specific protocols for who the private attorney deals with at the company. You are likely to work with an in-house attorney, manager, or other person designated by the company to deal with the matter. Questions about the matter will be directed through your contact. He or she will facilitate any further information gathering for you. As a result, when contacted, private practice attorneys must be responsive to the questions asked, empathetic, and efficient in handling the matter to ensure return business.
In addition to practice variations, there are general differences in the way the skills of in-house and private attorneys are used. Private practice attorneys are relied on for their expertise in particular areas of law. This can play out in two ways. First, there are certain practice areas where a private practice firm takes the lead on a matter. This pattern is played out most frequently with complex litigation, including patent litigation. In that case, the in-house department works in partnership with the firm on strategy, coordination of internal discovery, and other issues related to the litigation. However, the private practice firm takes the lead and actually tries the case.
Only 18 percent of survey respondents indicated that they would hire a person with zero to three years of experience (below). The most popular level of experience for in-house hires was three to six years. Survey respondents advised that in-house teams are simply not set up to train new lawyers. One respondent pointed out that you can always learn subject matter and suggested that law graduates and young attorneys focus on learning to practice law.
According to a 2016 review of United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) records by Patexia.com, only 24 percent of practicing patent attorneys work in-house, and approximately 35 percent of those in-house attorneys had 15 to 16 years of experience while only about 10 percent have two years of experience or less.
The client and attorney talk only sporadically, and only when the client believes it has a crisis that is deserving of a consultation with an attorney. Because the company wants to manage its outside expenses, there are specific protocols for who the private attorney deals with at the company.
Another important difference between in-house and private practice is in the nature of the engagement. In private practice, attorneys are called in on an as-needed basis. They address the issue requested and then leave. The in-house lawyer, on the other hand, is involved for the long term.
Known also as a Legal Counsel or In-House Lawyer, an In-House Counsel provides their employer with quality, accurate and relevant advice on the whole spectrum of legal matters that apply to the business and their services or products . In-House Counsel are often just one member of a larger legal team and report to the General Counsel or Head of Legal.
This In-House Counsel job description covers the fundamentals of an In-House Counsel career, including responsibilities, requirements and average salaries. If you are a Private Practice Lawyer thinking about making the move in-house – or are soon to qualify and wondering about the difference between in-house and private practice – read on to find out more.
To become an In-House Counsel, you will likely first need to qualify as a Solicitor and specialise in a practice area such as commercial contracts, intellectual property, data protection or corporate law . Once you have a couple of years of PQE, you will be able to make your first move into an In-House Counsel role.
According to our 2021 Audience Insight Report, In-House Counsel earn an average salary of £82,687 per year. In the past year, 49% of In-House Counsel in our audience have topped up their basic earnings with a bonus.
One of the main reasons attorneys go in-house is that they believe it will provide them with a better lifestyle and they will not have to work as many hours. This is not necessarily the case.
One of the best benefits of going in-house is no longer having to worry about keeping track of your billable hours. In addition, there is no pressure to develop clients or to build a book of business since the companies typically do not have "up-or-out" policies. Being the "client" was also a very nice benefit; after all, who doesn't love being the beneficiary of extravagant lunches, dinners, concerts, tickets to Lakers games, box seats at the Hollywood Bowl or the Sweet 16, and invitations to numerous amazing events?
Another potential disadvantage of going in-house is the inability to return to private practice. Unless you are the general counsel of a reputable, prestigious company with significant contacts that can generate business, law firms generally will not be open to your candidacy for a variety of reasons.
In addition, while public companies may provide appealing stock options, the likelihood of reaping significant benefits depends on many factors out of your control, such as market fluctuations. The compensation structure also varies greatly between companies and industries. There is no single standard similar to that of law firms. Thus, you may be faced with a situation where you are comparing apples to oranges.
First, law firms will question your commitment to staying at the firm for the long term. After all, you have already indicated that your commitment level to private practice is questionable by leaving in the first place. Firms will seriously question whether you are simply returning to earn some quick money before leaving again for the next available in-house opportunity.
If you are unfortunately laid off as an in-house attorney, the ability to transition to a new in-house position is somewhat difficult. This is primarily due to the fact that there are so few in-house opportunities to begin with since most companies have relatively small legal teams that are nowhere near the size of a law firm. In addition, each company generally looks for industry-specific experience.
With the recent salary increases, law firm associates are making more money than ever and are enjoying the highest base salaries in history. During the Internet boom associates were leaving law firms in droves in order to join a new, high-flying startup company in hopes of reaping the benefits of a quick IPO and becoming yet another Internet millionaire.
Sometimes the role of the in-house lawyer comprises managing the work being performed by other attorneys. Such a managerial function can present important benefits to the organization. For example, in-house counsel can enhance the quality and value of outside counsel’s work product. The in-house counsel is in a unique position to appreciate both the organization’s legal issues and its overarching mission. Therefore, the goals of a particular legal assignment can be more concisely and accurately translated to the outside legal counsel. Likewise, the outside counsel’s work product can be reviewed by another legal mind, to ensure that legal issues are appropriately addressed.
Why hire an attorney? The answer is quite simple: attorneys are hired to help resolve legal issues. Why hire an in-house attorney? The answer to this question is often not quite so simple. Many factors can influence an organization’s decision of whether to hire an in-house legal counsel or create an in-house legal group.
Organizations can greatly benefit from having at least one attorney onboard within its walls. In addition to performing a consultant-type role as a full-time attorney, the in-house counsel may also be a valuable asset in managing the legal work being performed by attorneys outside the organization. The in-house counsel must therefore become well-versed in the organization and its goals in order to effectively facilitate the organization’s legal and business objectives, and thus add value to justify being brought onboard. When utilized appropriately, all parties involved can stand to benefit from the efforts of the in-house counsel, the attorneys on the inside.
The in-house counsel is in a unique position to appreciate both the organization’s legal issues and its overarching mission. Therefore, the goals of a particular legal ...
The in-house counsel must therefore become well-versed in the organization and its goals in order to effectively facilitate the organization’s legal and business objectives, and thus add value to justify being brought onboard.
Simply put, the value added by having the in-house counsel must at the very least outweigh his/her costs to the organization. Those costs can come in the form of salary and benefits paid to the in-house counsel, any additional costs that may accompany legal work (e.g., costs of legal research), and value of the legal work performed.
Therefore, among the most common reasons to bring an in-house counsel onboard is to help control the organization’s expenses, and in particular, its legal expenses.
Opportunity: Going into a company can change a lawyer’s career path because it can expose one to potentially significant management responsibilities, organizational charts of opportunity, compliance and regulations, exposure to the inner-workings of a specific business or industry, and the chance to work with folks outside of legal. Rarely in a law firm is an attorney able to enhance their professional skills and business knowledge outside of their specific practice area in such developmental ways. This can lead to promotions in or out of a legal department, as well as opportunities at other organizations in the future, since many companies want their lawyers to have ‘in-house experience’ when hiring for their senior-level positions.
Control: Within a law firm, the revenue drivers are the lawyers. At a company, the legal department is usually perceived as a service provider, responding to the needs of the business (and mostly considered ‘overhead’). Sometimes this can be a very difficult adjustment for a lawyer, especially given a history of often being in charge, and driving a book of business/clientele without a lot of outside weigh-in. Within a company and legal department, specifically if it is publicly traded, the compliance and regulatory aspects can dictate every decision, which can be vastly different from working as a lawyer within a firm. Additionally, how a legal department is perceived by the C-Suite and business units can be critical to an in-house attorney’s job satisfaction. Are you a business partner who sits at the table when making strategic business decisions, or seen as merely a reactionary hurdle after decisions have been made and/or legal issues have percolated? Of course, this varies widely from one company to the next.
Compensation: With no cap at law firms, generally, it can be hard to justify moving in-house, perceiving a significant pay-cut awaits. However, when you start to add in health benefits and deferred compensation (e.g., bonuses; 401k/match; stock; equity), the annual out of pocket cost comparison and long-term benefits can weigh more positively on ...
Law firms have a traditional set of expectations for attorneys. Lawyers inside large law firms are expected to go to a law firm and specialize quickly. Associates are expected to work hard and impress partners for 7 to 11 years, develop skills in relating with clients and then make partner, take a counsel position or move to a smaller firm. Throughout your time in a law firm, it is expected that: 1 you will become increasingly competent in your work; 2 you will be given increased responsibility; 3 because of your developing skills and efficiency, your billing rate will increase each year; 4 the firm's clients will rely upon and trust you to an increasing degree; 5 you will develop more and more contacts that you will be able to leverage into portable business. 6 you will develop management skills and be able to supervise younger attorneys and paralegals.
It is your life and being in house can release you from much of the pressure of the billable hour requirement and other stresses of being in a law firm. In addition, being in house typically has more predictable hours.
Many attorneys who went in house during the "tech boom" were under the impression that they were invincible. Some were. It was not uncommon for third or fourth year associates in the Bay Area who went in 1997-1999 to have cashed out stock options worth $1,000,000 or several times more after less than two years in an in house environment. In fact, this happened enough times that many attorneys were under the impression that if they went in house this result was all but inevitable. The results these attorneys were able to achieve with their careers in such a short period of time are nothing less than remarkable. These results were also unparalleled at any other time in the history of the legal profession.
Very few attorneys realize just how much their skills are likely to deteriorate once they go in house. A large portion of the responsibility of many in house attorneys is to farm out challenging work to the appropriate law firms. Therefore, once you go in house you will often cease doing sophisticated legal work and, instead, merely hand off work to law firms. For some attorneys this is the ideal job. For other attorneys, this is not an ideal job because they no longer work directly on challenging legal work.
Corporate attorneys, in particular, were in massive demand and these attorneys were receiving calls-often several times per day-from recruiters seeking to place them in both corporations or law firms. Wanting fewer hours, stock options and having a certain vision of what going in house meant, attorneys flocked to start up companies (often companies with no revenue model) in the belief that they would quickly be rich. The fact is, however, that these success stories were (and continue to be) less common than believed.
In short, law firms want attorneys to be committed to their methods of practicing law. Going in house is not an action that law firms consider something that demonstrates your commitment to "their method" of practicing law.
The overwhelming majority of attorneys do not reap an economic windfall when they go in house; It is very difficult to move to another in-house job once you have gone in house; Your legal skills are likely to deteriorate once you go in house; and, You may have to work as hard in house as you did in a law firm. A.
Working in-house can be significantly different than working at a law firm. First of all, in-house lawyers have only one client-the company they work for. That means there isn't any pressure to be a rainmaker or recruit new clients. And since your sole client pays your salary, you don't have to worry about billable hours.
First, be sure that you really want to move from a law firm to an in-house position. "While the hours are generally better working in-house, a different kind of stress is attached to accepting more personal responsibility for any given deal," says a lawyer at Mattel. Also, because you may not be doing as much "hands-on" practicing, it may be difficult to return to firm life later on. If you're sure that an in-house job is right for you, the best time to start looking is after you've gotten three to five years of experience in private practice. This is because "you've got some experience under your belt, but you're still-to be perfectly crass-cheap," writes Walton. "The longer you stay in private practice after that, the more likely you are to price yourself out of the market."
Your research and writing skills will get an excellent workout. You can develop a specialty and build a client list.
But because in-house counsel is responsible for such a wide range of matters, efficiency is highly valued. According to an in-house practitioner at a Fortune 500 company, "The in-house practice is more about setting priorities and doing the best you can with the time allotted.
Many large firms have training programs, either formal or informal, that will guide a young attorney's professional development. For example, an associate may be rotated through several different departments before he or she chooses to focus on a specific practice area. That way, the associate gets a broad overview of the firm and of the legal system as a whole. This day-to-day variety will keep you from getting bored. However, working at a large firm may mean you'll spend more time paying your dues by writing boring briefs and memos.
Why? Well, because a law firm is viewed as a type of "finishing school" for a young lawyer. Of course, a lawyer's "finishing" will depend on the type of firm he or she works at.
At a mid-size firm, new associates are likely to make more money than at a small firm. Also, the practice may be less generalized-a mid-sized firm is likely to have at least a few different departments that will specialize in a variety of legal issues. Medium firms will, of course, have more resources than very small firms, but they still won't be able to match the vast law libraries and administrative support that big firms offer. Still, if you are afraid you might get lost in the crowd or weeded out of a highly competitive large firm, a mid-size firm may be the way to go. A mid-size firm can offer a good combination of solid training in a variety of legal specialties, a good salary, and hands-on experience.
Simply stated, an in-house lawyer is an employee who works as an attorney for the corporation. The in-house lawyer, like any other employee, serves primarily to advance the needs of the business. The in-house counsel acts in a professional capacity as an attorney and, as such, is subject to the rules and regulations governing the practice of law.2 Within a typical corporate law department, attorneys fall within one of two groups: senior counsel (including general counsel and other senior-level attorneys with oversight responsibilities) and staff attorneys. The law department is headed by the General Counsel (GC), who typically also serves as the Chief Legal Officer of the company. The GC typically advises the Board of Directors and the corporation’s officers in all legal proceedings. The GC often reports directly to the Chief Executive Officer and is considered an essential component of the management team.3 Senior attorneys are charged with supervising lower-level staff attorneys, advising the company in one particular field of law, or supporting the GC in coordination with outside counsel on litigation matters. Staff attorneys, similar to junior associates at law firms, are typically assigned research-oriented tasks or are asked to provide support for the senior staff attorneys. A few law departments have removed this hierarchy by eliminating these titles. Thus, with the exception of the General Counsel, attorneys are referred to as corporate counsel.
Unlike lawyers at a typical law firm, in-house counsels have one and only one client—the corporation.4 They do not represent the board of directors, principal officers, or other individuals, even though those individuals act on behalf of the corporation.5 As Model Rule 1.13(a) provides, “A lawyer employed or retained by an organization represents the organization acting through its duly authorized constituents.”6 This means that in-house lawyers are affirmatively obligated to advance the needs of the corporation over that of an individual officer or director if the latter is in conflict with the corporations’ best interests. 7 The lack of divergent and/or conflicting alliances benefits both counsel and the corporation. Individual attorneys never need to assume the role of rainmaker, or concern themselves with bringing new business into the firm. Eliminating this responsibility allows attorneys to focus their energy and efforts completely on the corporate client.8 Not only does this create a less stressful working environment for counsel, it benefits the corporation because it receives the full attention of its attorneys. This focus also allows counsel to understand the dynamics of the company and fosters an intimate familiarity with full range of issues faced by the corporation. This insight is integral to counsel’s ability to proactively protect the company’s legal interest and craft the most aggressive and effective defense in the event of litigation.
It is imperative that in-house counsel fully understands the complexities of a company’s business as well as the respective industry to best serve their client. 24 In-house counsel have the luxury of being able to approach business problems without having ultimate responsibility for resolving the matters. This objectivity enables counsel to contribute meaningful suggestions to be used in resolving complicated business questions. In-house counsel can utilize their unique position within the organization’s structure to play an integral role in the strategic planning of the company’s business.25 Counsel can provide legal insight that might otherwise never be addressed from more business-oriented directors.26 In-house lawyers are not constrained in their opportunities for advancement within a corporation. The significance of a legal degree in today’s corporate environment is invaluable, enabling counsel to “act as both senior-level manager and as legal adviser” 27 and to move from a strictly legal position to one in the upper levels of corporate management such as Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Chief Financial Officer (CFO) or a member of the Board of Directors. In a 2001 ACCA poll, 11 percent of in-house counsel respondents served as CEO, six percent served as CFO, and another seven percent served as Chief Operating Officer.28 In addition, 5 percent served as head of a business unit and almost 25 percent served as head of a Human Resources Department. By combining knowledge and understanding of the legal side of the business with a strong grasp for the business operations of a company, in-house lawyers can maximize their own value to the corporate entity.29 It is this value that eventually leads to advancement outside of the legal department.
As more attorneys pursue in-house counsel careers, a growing number of law schools such as Syracuse University, University of Houston, and Pace Law School, are offering law classes focusing on training future in-house counsel.79 Many of these programs seek to prepare these future attorneys to tackle the issues that are most common in corporate practice–contract negotiations and internal investigations–as well as the unexpected issues that may arise in the natural course of business (mergers, SEC investigations, etc.). Additionally, in-house practitioners are often invited to speak as guest lecturers, providing an occasion for students to obtain career advice, learn more about the profession, employment or internship opportunities.
About two decades ago, corporate counsel functioned essentially as conduits between their employer, the corporation, and outside law firms, which meant that the position was a bastion of neither power nor influence.9 With work confined primarily to corporate housekeeping and other routine matters, the corporate attorney was little more than a glorified middle management with a law degree.10 However, the rising cost of legal services has seen an expansion of corporate counsel’s responsibilities.11 Now, as many organizations have legal departments that rival law firms in both size and qualification,12 more and more corporate matters are being handled in-house.