Money Isn't Everything for In-House Counsel, Report Says
Only 26 percent of attorneys surveyed by Evers Legal believed that compensation was the most rewarding aspect of their work.
May 23, 2018 at 05:29 PM
3 minute read
Credit: Faberr Ink/Shutterstock.com
Looking to hold onto a valuable member of your company's legal team? Giving that lawyer more responsibilities and opportunities for growth will help retain them—perhaps even more than a pay raise would.
According to the 2018 Evers Legal Career Satisfaction Report, a survey released this week that reflected responses from 180 in-house lawyers at various career levels, money mattered, but other factors mattered more.
Some 67 percent of respondents said the most rewarding aspect of their job was working with a great team. This factor was followed by intellectual stimulation at 59 percent and responsibility at 53 percent. Only 26 percent believed that compensation was the most rewarding aspect of their work.
Mike Evers, the president of Evers Legal, an in-house legal recruitment agency, said that when lawyers go in-house, they typically make a tradeoff—less pay for what they view as more rewarding work. With the exception of a company's general counsel, there is an understanding that in-house attorneys generally make less money than those in law firms, Evers said.
“The general wisdom within the legal community is that for the most part, in-house pays somewhat less,” Evers said.
Evers said because of the work, those who go in-house do not typically go back to working for outside law firms.
“When people who are already in-house move, it's rarely because they want to go back to a law firm,” Evers said.
Evers said that typically, in-house attorneys will move to another in-house position at a company instead. He said that the reason may be because they have hit a promotional ceiling or that when a company is bought, the in-house attorneys may feel they have less job security.
Despite companies touting flexible work options as a hiring perk, a flexible work schedule—including the ability to telecommute—was not among the top factors the survey found in-house attorneys consider in their evaluation of job satisfaction. Only 28 percent of respondents indicated that a flexible work schedule would make their jobs more satisfying.
Evers said this may have to do with an in-house attorney's desire to network at the office and make connections.
“The more you work from home, the more you hurt yourself,” Evers said.
He explained that when there is a significant amount of telecommuting, an in-house attorney may be perceived differently. He said it would be disadvantageous for an attorney who is looking to move up the ladder to want to work from home a majority of the time.
The report states that the findings of this year's survey back up Evers Legal's first career satisfaction survey in 2016, which also indicated that in-house practitioners seek additional responsibilities in their roles and intellectual stimulation over compensation.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllA Blueprint for Targeted Enhancements to Corporate Compliance Programs
7 minute readThree Legal Technology Trends That Can Maximize Legal Team Efficiency and Productivity
Corporate Confidentiality Unlocked: Leveraging Common Interest Privilege for Effective Collaboration
11 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Founder of Failed Crypto Lender Confesses to Fraud
- 2How a Tetraplegic Linklaters Lawyer Defied All Odds
- 3Trump Seeks to Have Georgia Election Case Dismissed, Cites Presidential Immunity
- 4Elon Musk Has a Lot More Than a 'Tornetta' Appeal to Resolve in Delaware
- 5Case Will Test If Wrongful-Death Suit Can Be Brought for Fetus
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250