• I had to transition from thinking like a legal services provider to thinking like a member of the business team. But turns out I vastly prefer that. Every single thing about the move (except the pay cut, sure) has been better.
• You have to be comfortable making big decisions with imperfect information and accepting that the “right” answer for the business may or may not align with the “right” legal answer on paper.
• We definitely take a risk-based approach sometimes, but we always make at least a good faith effort to be in legal compliance, and generally take the view that the right thing is also the right thing for the business.
• Likely it's the quick turn around. You may not have time to do hours worth of research.
• The business relationships with customers and vendors really matter long term. Sometimes, even if you believe you have a 'slam dunk' legal argument or that you could easily win a dispute, you may settle or decide not to bring a claim if it is more beneficial to the bigger business picture. When I was in private practice what I considered a “win” for my client was often different from my perspective now. - This could just be my own personal experience.
• There is quick turnaround time and very few research resources as compared to private practice. A lot of times you are deciding whether you have enough comfort in the legal landscape to make decisions or whether something is worth the time and expense of escalating to an OC (in some cases, it’s not and you have to tell the business to take a different approach if there’s too much uncertainty).
• I haven’t worked for any companies that operate in a heavily regulated industry like banking/ finance. I imagine for in-house counsel supporting those types of roles, there are probably answers to a lot of compliance-type questions found in the regs.
• For me it has been dealing with business people. I learned you can’t use the same approach with everybody.
• Echoing all the above - but especially the comment that it’s wholly worth it. I just hit one year in-house and I’m paid half of what I would’ve been at my firm, but in that time I had 3.5 unbothered weeks off, almost zero weekend and evening work, and maybe five hours of lost sleep due to working late/waking up early to finish work.
• Every person I’ve ever spoken with or whose comments I’ve read say that they end up happier. The exceptions I think are A) people who really care about the money, and want to fund an expensive lifestyle, etc, and B) people who really love their respective practice area and/or the intensity or complexity they get at their firm, and feel that the in-house opportunity didn’t allow them the ability to keep that rigor. For example, if you’re a data privacy specialist and you go in-house as a generalist to a 200-person company, you’ll probably deal with a wide range of issues and have to outsource the meaty privacy issues to outside counsel, and may be dissatisfied. But, if you go in-house to Apple as a data privacy specialist who serves as an internal expert on the matter, you would probably be satisfied. All in all though, if you value your personal life, sanity, health, etc - take it!

Attorney and Associates:

• I went in-house as a senior associate to a large tech company earlier this year. I went from working about 85 hours per week to around 15 hours. My salary took a nose dive (and I had full meltdowns over it) but I’d do it again.
• I got the partner track call and I bolted. I still work with BigLaw efficiency, though. I could easily drag out projects much longer. My new life was rather foreign at first. It’s the ability to sleep at night, not checking my phone every 20 min to see what new hell erupted, being able to make plans, not considering grocery shopping/eating/working out as super coveted personal time.
• It was the hardest thing to adjust to, but you won’t be successful if you can’t.
• Weighing in from a heavily regulated industry: Business leaders have strategies and they rely on in-house to advise them on how to achieve what they want to do. It's not just logistical - it's having an overview of the risks associated with any particular course of action. Even when attorneys are in the room when a particular idea is discussed, they may not be aware of all the internal politics behind it. The only thing the attorneys can control is our analysis of the risks involved. Often times this has to be done based on imperfect information and lots of moving parts. We're there to advise the business on the best course of action, but understand that the leaders may decide to accept more or less risk in a particular situation. Occasionally you have to have the guts to stand in front of a moving train to stop the business from doing something that will really hurt the organization as a whole. Your client is really the company, not the particular people in the company so they will usually listen (even if you become their least-favorite person right then).
• Good luck!

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