Think Career Security, Not Job Security
Career security is about access to decision-makers, and your inside counsel counterparts control millions of dollars in outside counsel spend.
November 04, 2019 at 12:29 PM
3 minute read
The key ingredient to law firm success and security is, of course, client development. The "800 pound gorilla" with a major book of business calls the shots.
Success in a law department does not require rainmaking. However, inside counsel don't enjoy the same kind of ownership job security. They are vulnerable to mergers, leadership changes, bankruptcies, etc.
Most of our readers fully appreciate this dynamic, and are probably expecting me to pontificate now on the merits of networking in case you need or want to change corporate employers. Well, sort of.
I challenge you to think about this oft-covered topic differently, from the perspective of owning your future if necessary. You are in position now to build peer-to-peer relationships with other inside counsel in a way that law firm rainmakers can only envy. You can establish rapport with your counterparts at other companies in a context free of sales and expectations.
Consider this hypothetical: You are in your early 50s, you hold an Assistant General Counsel title, your company is acquired and your position is eliminated. You think you will easily land a similar or better position with another law department. You may, that is clearly Plan A. But you may find that you are overqualified for the Senior Counsel level positions at which many companies prefer to hire. And you may find that you are underqualified or not competing effectively for leadership level roles. Job security is about supply, demand, and marketability … it's not fully in your control.
However, if you have built real relationships with other inside counsel (not just your co-workers down the hall!), then you have power in what might otherwise feel like a powerless situation. Career security is about access to decision-makers, and your inside counsel counterparts control millions of dollars in outside counsel spend. Great contacts plus a business plan equal a soft and potentially lucrative landing when needed with a name brand law firm.
Let's first assume you have done the networking part: You have friends and peers at other companies with whom you have broken bread, shared best practices, and stayed in touch. Perhaps you have even spent time attending or speaking at one of the many inside counsel focused legal conferences. You have contacts and credibility.
Choose your law firm prospects based on the likely needs of your contacts, and not simply based on who you know. If those overlap, great, but it's not required. When presented with a promising business plan heavy on contact list names, many high quality law firms will listen. Propose a compensation package heavy on incentives. Bet on yourself. The lower the guaranteed draw or base salary, the more patience the law firm will have in supporting your client development efforts. Because even with great contacts and credibility, it will take time to turn relationships into engagements. Join a law firm that will invest in you the right way; this means a marketing allowance and the support of professionals who can offer coaching on how to turn your past into business for the future.
Mike Evers recruits attorneys for corporate legal departments throughout the United States. Visit www.everslegal.com. His firm also offers experienced in-house counsel to companies on an adjunct basis.
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
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
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