Community Perspectives: How do I actually need to stay in BigLaw before I can get an in-house job?

In-house legal professionals share their thoughts on when an attorney is ready to go in-house.

Counsel Responses:

I moved to FAANG from BigLaw as a 6th year and got a pay increase. After almost four years in-house, my pay is now substantially higher than it would have been had I stayed at the firm (due to stock appreciation). I entered my in-house job as an associate counsel and am currently counsel.
Probably three years, but five or more is pretty common. I think there are some other non-FAANG tech companies that might have similar compensation (Airbnb? Stripe?), and of course if your company goes on a crazy stock run like Tesla you could make much more than you would at a firm.
5-7 years is the sweet spot in my opinion. Banking/Finance seems to take people earlier and still pay them well. 0-4 years experience is a junior role, so you will usually trade at a discount.
I don’t think there is anything out there without a pay cut, and the discrepancy only gets larger the more senior you get (save for the big tech companies). Unless you’re a partner moving into a very, very well-paid GC role, but even then most of those roles want some in-house experience.
There are plenty of in-house jobs with a minimum $200K compensation. You’d likely have a shot at those with 4-5 years of experience.
No experience. I went in-house out of law school (mid-size tech firm) and make $190k in year three.
There are a ton of in-house tech jobs on LinkedIn, and many are remote now. I think companies are having a hard time hiring associates away from law firms due to salary/bonus increases. Obviously you will likely take a pay cut from BigLaw, but it’s still good money.
One thing to keep in mind, and this is a generalization with exceptions for sure, is the less you do deal work when in-house, the more you may be functioning as a cost center rather than driving any value. I am in-house at a debt fund and it’s very transactional. I had to take only a very modest maybe 15 percent total compensation pay cut from being at a law firm, and now I can rely on law firm associates to do all kinds of crap I used to be burdened with like sig pages, checklists, etc. and focus more on the deal. If you want a true 9-5 and not doing transactions, you may be paid lower and treated like a cost center.

Associate and Attorney Responses:

From my experience, you will simply never make as much in-house. At a firm, you're a revenue generator. At a company, you're a cost center. Every force in the in-house budget is trying to minimize your impact. Unless you're landing an executive or board member position, there is little chance you won't take a pay cut. And if you're trying for those kinds of positions, legal experience won't serve you that well, and you'll probably need 20 years to really be competitive.
It just kind of depends. I actually started in-house at IBM as a patent prosecutor. The pay was abysmal at first, but after about five years, it became somewhat competitive, if you factored in WLB. I make much more at an IP boutique now. But I realize IBM is an awkward duck when talking about BigTech. My advice for those kinds of companies: make sure there aren't a lot people doing your same job. IBM has about 200 patent prosecutors in-house, and it became pretty clear that there was no room for advancement or transition into other areas. You want to be able to stand out and be noticed for something without doing the work of five people.
Au contraire. I was a millionaire by my fourth year out of law school due to stock options and a SPAC. Unusual. But, to be honest, my salary is less than BigLaw for my class year.
My bigger concern would be job security for the no-name tech companies. The valuation bubble may pop one day.

In-house? Join the conversation on Fishbowl (anonymous).