How to Score an In-House Job Without In-House Experience
Whether you're a litigator or a transaction lawyer, the lack of in-house experience can put you at a competitive disadvantage when applying for an in-house position.
April 27, 2018 at 11:30 AM
5 minute read
Q: I'm a law firm lawyer and have lost out on in-house jobs to lawyers with in-house experience. How do I overcome this objection?
A: Whether you're a litigator or a transaction lawyer, the lack of in-house experience can put you at a competitive disadvantage when applying for an in-house position. Historically, employers have waxed and waned on their level of flexibility regarding this requirement and the pendulum has swung back and forth a few times over the course of 15-plus years.
Today, the level of consideration for law firm candidates is mixed. But with all things being equal, an employer will hire the candidate with in-house experience. Why? Because law firm and corporate environments are two completely different worlds … maybe even different planets. And the transition from law firm to in-house can be very challenging. Some lawyers never acclimate while others make the transition over a longer period of time. Neither of which is ideal for an employer.
Candidates who possess in-house experience have already been part of a corporate culture and know how its lawyers operate within it. They have handled the types of legal matters and corporate issues that are part of a corporate environment and have had to work with all the moving parts of a company. As a result, these lawyers don't have to master a steep learning curve and ramp up tends to be much shorter. They are, in other words: A safer bet.
Law firm lawyers on the other hand, work on a variety of matters for different clients. They are hyper-aware of billable hours and keeping track of their time, which is a structure that dominates their world. There are no internal clients and visibility is limited into the inner workings of the company. Consequently, a law firm lawyer isn't “under the skin” of their company client. But rather on the outside, looking in.
While more differences exist, these are the basics. And it is clear to see why a corporate employer might favor a candidate with in-house experience. So how does a law firm lawyer overcome the lack of in-house experience? Below are a few areas that will help persuade an employer in your next interview:
- Diversity. Depth. Deals.
Use the diversity of your clients and deals/matters as a competitive advantage. You're in the trenches and working on a plethora of matters for many clients so you are exposed to more variety, different situations, diverse questions—and perhaps managing multiple matters and multiple teams. It is experience you bring to an in-house role that will serve as a huge value-add for an employer. You've seen a lot and your experience is deep. This is the strongest card you have to play on the substantive side so play it with authority.
- Business Acumen.
This is a crucial skill to have as an in-house lawyer and a quality that employers prioritize. Emphasize that you are a business-oriented lawyer. Provide some examples, and communicate what it means to you and its influence on how you practice. Also articulate the context in which you would use your business acumen in a corporate setting. Demonstrate your knowledge of the company and its industry.
- You Get It.
Many employers don't believe that a law firm lawyer has the slightest idea what it's like to work in a company—hence their apprehension. Let them know that you do: The practice, the values, the collaboration, the service, the culture, the business etc. It can be part of the messaging as to why you want to go in-house or as part of addressing the objection directly.
- Culture.
Culture and “fit” are hugely important in a company. So, articulate that you understand the make-up of a corporate culture and discuss how you would approach your role as a corporate citizen and colleague. Articulate the importance of teamwork, responsiveness and reliability, intellectual curiosity and flexibility. In addition, life in a company can be more fast-paced. Demonstrate how you can move on a dime and pivot when needed.
- Ace The Basics.
Do your homework. Be prepared. Be flexible. Show up on time. Dress appropriately. Firm handshake. Big Smile. Lots of enthusiasm. Be nice to everyone. Message of thanks. If you want to win, you have the ace the basics in your interview process. This is what will maximize your best first impression and give you a running start at landing the job—in-house experience or not. Sounds simple, huh? You'd be surprised at how many people fail in these areas and compromise their candidacies. So if you want to out-compete your in-house competitor, start by buttoning up.
As you continue to pursue in-house opportunities, you'll encounter different levels of openness towards law firm candidates. If any of the above suggestions resonate with you, use them to mitigate objections and demonstrate why you will make a great in-house attorney. It may take a few tries. But if you persist, you are bound to encounter an employer who likes what you have to offer and will be willing to take a chance.
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
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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