- I'm trying to go from In-house privacy to a law firm. I'll let you know how it turns out!
Counsel Responses
- In my opinion, it's almost always easier. I certainly prefer a candidate to have some firm experience, but definitely place a premium on any In-house experience they have. There’s a lot of differences In-house than in a firm, and I’d prefer those to be learned In-house on someone else’s dime and time if at all possible.
- Getting my first In-house job took two years of interviewing from my BigLaw job. Lateraling to my second In-house job took literally two weeks. BigLaw associates have a wide range of experience in terms of how much they have directly advised clients on the kinds of issue likely to come up In-house, if they are capable of giving actionable advice instead of just sending preventative memos. That said, don’t take a dead end In-house job. If you are signing up for some volume-based contracting role, it will leave you with less broadly marketable skills, and will make it harder to laterally move to a more generalist or higher-value role. It's better to stay in BigLaw and move around via firms, than a not-so-great In-house job.
- Privacy is a big money maker right now and top counsel get paid well. You can be a hot commodity if you know the rules and laws. Who cares about firm experience?The law is the law. If you know it and are even slightly ethical, you can practice and survive in a law firm despite not having worked in one. Just know the law, be an expert, be persuasive and know how to communicate, present, talk, breathe, type, etc.
- This is totally my opinion based on personal experience: USA-based companies prefer the In-house experience over law firms unless you’re a major litigator or lobbyist within the government (with serious connections), or a famous BigLaw firm partner with major experience trying cases or conducting blockbuster M&A deals.
In-house? Join the conversation on Fishbowl (anonymous).
