How Important Is In-House Experience When Applying for an In-House Job?
All things being equal, candidates possessing in-house experience still hold a healthy competitive advantage in today's legal market. With this said, the requirement has been relaxed and the consideration is a bit more balanced due to the factors noted above, specifically at the junior levels.
December 18, 2017 at 11:30 AM
4 minute read
The requirement of prior in-house experience for in-house opportunities has ridden a swinging pendulum since the late '90s. It started with the Dot-Com Boom as new companies hit the corporate scene and hired lawyers at a frenetic pace. During that time, in-house lawyers were scarce. So the law firms were the primary hunting ground for legal talent. As the market evolved, in-house legal departments grew and the general sentiment toward law firm lawyers shifted. Employers saw this group as having too difficult a time acclimating to the corporate environment. To them, the contrast between practicing in a company and a law firm was stark … and the disconnect was palatable. By 2005, the pendulum had swung with momentum and the overwhelming majority of employers required prior in-house experience as a prerequisite for a viable candidacy. At this point, the market was chocked full of in-house lawyers so the hard requirement received few exceptions.
In 2010, as the world began its recovery from the prior year's economic Armageddon, the legal profession hit another evolutionary milestone. The in-house legal department began a new expansion—adding diverse practice capabilities to its ranks. In addition, the private company and emerging growth markets were resuscitated and the Dot-Com Boom … Part 2 was well on its way. Finally, the number of jobs requiring top in-house talent is outpacing the number of viable … and receptive in-house lawyers. As we head into the back nine of 2017, it is these three factors that continue to influence the legal employment market. This includes how employers view the necessity of in-house experience for their opportunities in legal.
So what's the trajectory of the pendulum today?
All things being equal, candidates possessing in-house experience still hold a healthy competitive advantage in today's legal market. With this said, the requirement has been relaxed and the consideration is a bit more balanced due to the factors noted above, specifically at the junior levels. So employers are more amenable to hiring law firm attorneys … depending on two primary factors: Practice area, and seniority. Below are a few such examples of where employer flexibility resides:
Employers willing to consider law firm lawyers in the following practice areas/seniority:
- Litigation (all levels)
- Labor & Employment (all levels)
- Tech transactions (junior lawyers/corporate counsel level)
- Product (junior lawyers/corporate counsel level) **Note: employers will retool junior law firm associates in other practice areas
- Privacy **Note: some employers will consider junior level and only if experience is specialized within the law firm.
- Corporate securities (junior lawyers/corporate counsel level) **Note: Private companies are retooling these lawyers as commercial and product lawyers.
- IP (junior patent prosecution lawyers with an EE, CS or hard life sciences degree)
- M&A
- Executive compensation
Prior in-house experience is required for the following roles:
- General counsel
- Director of Legal Affairs/VP Legal Affairs/Head of Legal (first lawyer added in a private company)
- Privacy
- Product—Senior corporate counsel level and higher
- IP—Senior corporate counsel level and higher
- Tech Transactions (mid-level and senior lawyers)
- Corporate securities—director level and higher
- Compliance
- Legal operations
Of course, there are exceptions to these examples and outlier situations do exist. But generally speaking, this is the current state of affairs regarding this issue in the market today. It is also important to note that as the number of in-house lawyers increases at the junior levels and in the expanding practice areas, it is almost certain that the pendulum will swing yet again in the direction of a hard requirement for existing in-house experience. But until then, the window of opportunity for a select group of law firm lawyers will remain open for the near future.
Julie Brush is the founder and author of The Lawyer Whisperer (www.thelawyerwhisperer.com), a career advice column for legal professionals, also found on LinkedIn. She is co-founder of Solutus Legal Search, a legal search/consulting boutique firm, serving as a strategic adviser to lawyers, law firms and corporations.
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 AllFaegre Drinker Adds Three Former Federal Prosecutors From Greenberg Traurig
4 minute readAnapol Weiss Acquires Boutique Led by Star Litigator Alexandra Walsh
5 minute readPierson Ferdinand Lures Veteran M&A Specialist From Sheppard Mullin in Silicon Valley
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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