I’m Glad I Didn’t Listen to the Warnings Before I Moved In-House

An interesting and unique reaction follows when you announce you’re transitioning from private practice to an in-house role. Almost certainly, someone will pull you aside and urge you to reconsider. They’ll repeat a handful of negative stereotypes about in-house practice, leaving you to question your choice and wonder if you’ve made a terrible mistake.

It happened to me. When I shared news that I planned to take an in-house role and relocate a few states away, more than one fellow attorney warned me not to go. It would mean certain career death, they said. They predicted a future of boredom and financial insecurity, told me I would lose my specialization, and said I could never return to private practice. I went anyway.

Over the years, I’ve shared this experience with many in-house lawyers. They often nod or laugh, remembering when they, too, received similarly grave advice. We swap stories of those whispered warnings and how wrong they turned out to be.

Before you decline that offer, let’s unpack the most common lies they tell you when you move in-house.

Mind-Numbing Work

One pervasive myth is that in-house counsel work is far less sophisticated than the work of lawyers in private practice. The story goes that meaty, complex work is outsourced to firms and only routine, low-stakes work stays in-house. The underlying suggestion is that by moving in-house, lawyers miss out on the most desirable and challenging projects, dulling their skills, and leading to a monotonous career.

Setting aside this not-so-subtle dig at in-house counsel competency and value, the truth is that in-house counsel work is interesting, ripe with challenge, and varied. That’s largely because the corporate world isn’t static. In-house lawyers must constantly respond and adjust to changes in both the business and the law.

In-house counsel work can be anything but boring, often extending well beyond strict legal work to areas such as crisis management, enterprise project work, and corporate strategy. Also, with the rise of alternative legal support services and legal technology, many in-house counsel have mastered automating or outsourcing routine work while retaining the most desirable work themselves.

Finally, in-house legal teams are notoriously lean. The silver lining of lean staffing is that there is almost never an absence of work and there are often opportunities to develop new skills.

Career Dead End

Another common myth is that moving in-house limits career options for the rest of your working days. Once a lawyer moves in-house, they are forever destined to stay there, so they say.

Of course, the reality is that career options continue to exist even after moving in-house. It’s certainly possible for in-house lawyers to not only move between corporations but also to move to law firms or to government work.

Also, in-house counsel potentially have easier access to another career path—the opportunity to move from a legal role within an organization to a role on the business side of the house. One recent high-profile example is Joanna Geraghty, a JetBlue attorney who transitioned to business roles within the company, eventually ascending to CEO.

Just Another Generalist

It’s often suggested that lawyers moving in-house risk losing their practice niche. The thinking is that all in-house lawyers eventually become generalists, eroding specialization over time. It may take some intentionality, but maintaining a niche is certainly possible.

The real problem with this myth is that it assumes breadth is a bad thing. But breadth of practice has real benefits. Breadth keeps work fresh. A broader skillset and scope of work helps lawyers become better issue spotters, bolster their influence within multiple parts of an organization, and increase their marketability as employers seek out “double and triple threat” lawyers capable of advising on and leading through a myriad of legal issues.

Financial Ruin

Inevitably, you’ll be warned of the massive pay cut you’ll take when you move in-house. This one is less of a myth and more of a half-truth. It’s true that salaries are generally lower for in-house counsel. But the difference in total compensation may not be as dramatic as predicted.

This is, in part, because of the unique pay structures that exist in the corporate world. Bonuses are often tied to company performance. Equity grants can also comprise a meaningful portion of compensation. When the company’s performance is stellar, these components of compensation can become quite lucrative for in-house lawyers. Note, however, that the opposite is also true.

Recently, a legal recruiter shared that when considering all components of in-house counsel pay, not just salary, the difference in total compensation can be minimal, or there may be no difference at all. And lawyers moving from small or mid-size firms may even enjoy a pay increase.

Remember, too, that there could be meaningful savings in terms of tax treatment and benefits costs, especially if moving away from a partnership structure. By all means, research and prepare for a financial impact, but understand that end result might not be as severe as foretold.

When you hear these myths, take comfort in knowing that the path from private practice to in-house life is well-worn. Plenty of lawyers value the journey and find immense personal and professional success.

Don’t believe everything you hear—there is career success and satisfaction beyond private practice. Come on over.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law and Bloomberg Tax, or its owners.

Author Information

Brittany Johnson is director, corporate counsel, Starbucks Corp. Her team leads legal support for the company’s domestic and international expansion through brand licensing. Her views in this column do not necessarily reflect those of her employer.

Read More Stated Differently