Is going in house ever a good idea?

[EVERYTHINGISOBVIOUS]

There are a lot of scary articles out there about going in house, although it's not clear they apply to patent attorneys.  Take the BCG article:

bcgsearch.com/article/60637/The-dark-Side-Of-Going-In-House/

Does going in house really prevent you from ever working anywhere else again?  The article basically says that, if you go inhouse, you'll never work for a law firm again.  It also says that, if you go in house, you'll probably never get an inhouse job for another company again.  It further says that inhouse lawyers are laid off all the time and they're basically unemployable after that.

Is this really true, or is it just propaganda being spread by a legal recruiter that makes a ton of money off of lateral attorneys jumping from firm to firm?

If it is true for most lawyers, is it also true for patent attorneys?

[Oh, Crud]

There are a lot of scary articles out there about going in house, although it's not clear they apply to patent attorneys.  Take the BCG article:

bcgsearch.com/article/60637/The-dark-Side-Of-Going-In-House/

Does going in house really prevent you from ever working anywhere else again?  The article basically says that, if you go inhouse, you'll never work for a law firm again.  It also says that, if you go in house, you'll probably never get an inhouse job for another company again.  It further says that inhouse lawyers are laid off all the time and they're basically unemployable after that.

Is this really true, or is it just propaganda being spread by a legal recruiter that makes a ton of money off of lateral attorneys jumping from firm to firm?

If it is true for most lawyers, is it also true for patent attorneys?

Oh no, it's even worse.  He left out several other aspects.  For example, I talked to a guy just the other day who told me that he had been a well-endowed 5th year, but once he went in-house his testes dried up and fell off and his Johnson shriveled up to nothing!  Oh, the humanity.

Seriously, it seems this person strung together every negative anecdote he could find (even if contradictory, cf paraphrased "you'll have to send the work out to outside counsel and your legal skills will shrivel up and fall off" with "in-house depts are getting lean and you can't send work out to outside counsel") and slapped them together in an attempt to keep those laterals lateraling (as you pointed out).

The truth of course lies somewhere in there and somewhere else as where.  I agree that in my experience it's not very common to see folks go back to firms from in-house.  But I do know several.  On the other hand, most of the in-house I know have had more than one in-house position.  So my own anecdata goes against his claim that in-house don't find subsequent in-house placement.  That even seems an almost laughable proposition when, if you go through ~ 300 listings of in-house jobs at ACC or Go InHouse, you'll see repetitively that substantial prior in-house experience is stated to be preferred.

I get the feeling the article is 7-8 years old, or even older, by the way.  This article may have been contemporaneous with the economy imploding and he also may mostly know young lawyers who jumped to failed startups.  That's not to say everything's rosy now; corporations are telling legal depts to get by doing more with less.  And I do know quite a few guys who got laid off from corps after 10+ years in-house who either ended up taking lower-paid in-house positions at other corps (who knew they were in a buyer's market) or have been working in eat-what-you-kill of counsel arrangements.

Finally, consider that it's unlikely the author ever speaks to anyone who went in-house and had a successful career; not because they do not exist, but instead because in his line of work (shuffling biglaw 3-5 years from firm to firm) he could hardly be expected to know anyone who went in-house unless their in-house bid failed.

[MLM]

As Oh, Crud pointed out, there are no absolutes.

I once interviewed with a partner at a big firm who went law firm -> in-house -> solo -> law firm (with big book of business). I know another partner who was in-house and went into a boutique with his former employer as his book of business. Of course, these things happened many years ago...

[klaviernista]

Bump for in-house folks?

I made the jump from big law to in house at about the same level you are at.  My advice to you is do your due diligence before jumping ship.  And by due diligence I mean talk to everyone you can in the target company of interest to see what the backbone of the company is really like.  At least that is what I would do if the company is not huge. 

I mention this because of my own personal experience.  I left a very nice big law position for all the reasons you mentioned.  My wife had just delivered our first child, and I realized that I couldn't take time to spend with him.  I saw him for ~ 20 minutes a day for the first two weeks of his life, and that drove me over the edge. I. Had. To. Get. Out. . . .  ASAP.

So, I started scouring job boards for in-house positions in my area.  I found a relatively local listing that looked promising, applied, interviewed, and was offered the job.  The company was a startup in the green energy technology area.  It appeared to be on the up and up.  They had just landed ~50 million of new financing, hired ~50 new employees, etc.  And they were looking to build a big IP portfolio to support company efforts.  They offered a decent salary for the area, but it was a big paycut (~40%) from what I was getting from the big law position.  That said, it came with a stellar benefits package including 5 weeks of vacation.  Mooning over the benefits, I took the position.

2 months after I started at the company, the company nearly imploded.  Turns out that all  that growth and financing I mentioned was leveraged on a single contract that had recently been inked by the company.  But here is the kicker . . . nothing in the contract ensured that the financing was guaranteed.  All hinged on testing of the company's product for the particular application specified in the contract.  Everyone at the company assumed that the product would work.  But when it didn't (and when it would cost 250% more to modify to suit the client), the client exercised the revocation clauses of the contract and all the stuff supporting the company's new found growth evaporated.  All 50 of the new employees were let go.  I was the sole survivor of that employment massacre, and I was riding a ship that was rapidly sinking in rough waters.

During the downfall I got to handle all sorts of neat legal issues, though few were IP related.  I negotiated the company's lease, various employment disputes, etc.  Basically I became the company's GC.  I did very little IP work because the company had no budget for it.  To prevent my skills from deteriorating, I took on pro bono IP work and spent a lot of time speaking on various IP topics.  Basically I could see the writing on the wall, and I knew that I needed to do anything and everything I could to make myself marketable for another law firm position.  I also had a humiliating conversation with my former big law employer, during which I pleaded for my old job and was told that while the firm thought highly of me, none of the partners were willing to back a candidate that had previously left the firm.  I was essentially blacklisted from that firm, at least from the standpoint of possible employment.

That said, it took about two years for the ship to fully sink.  For which I am grateful because it gave me enough time to network with local attorneys and ultimately land a position with my current firm.  And you know what?  Despite all of the stress.  Despite all of the sleepless nights.  I don't regret leaving that big law position.  I spent more time with my son during that two years than I probably would have in five at the big law position.  I got to lead a "normal" life.  And perhaps most importantly I got hooked up with my current firm, which is staffed by excellent attorneys who all left big law firms to create a firm that does things in a more family friendly way.  I went from billing 2600 hours a year to having a 1600 billed hour (~1800 billable) hour requirement.  I went from working 6-7 days a week to working 5.  And I got all that because I took that jump from big law.

Now that may not sound like the most ringing endorsement for going in house, and it is not meant to be.  What it is meant to be is encouragement to allow yourself to change.  You are a 5th year at a big firm with a prospect of non-equity partnership.  That means you are smart, which also means that you likely have the ability to adapt to different circumstances.  So don't be afraid to take a risk and do something different.  So what if you can't go back to a big law firm?  Is that the worst thing in the world?  If you think so, then your question as to whether in house is a good option for you has been answered.  But if not, there is a whole world outside Big law.  While it might not give you a huge salary and a window office, it could very well give you better balance and good peace of mind.

In sum, do your due diligence before moving in house.  But don't let what ifs stop you from taking a position you think will improve your quality of life. 

Good luck,

Klav

[klaviernista]

PS:  One important factor that you should consider before going in house is the impact it will have on your existing client base and contacts.  I had a fairly good client base before moving in house.  When I was ready to move back into private practice, I found that all of my clients had long since moved on to new counsel.  So . . . be prepared to completely reboot your client development efforts if you go in house and ever decide to move back into private practice.

[JimIvey]

Does going in house really prevent you from ever working anywhere else again?  The article basically says that, if you go inhouse, you'll never work for a law firm again.  It also says that, if you go in house, you'll probably never get an inhouse job for another company again.  It further says that inhouse lawyers are laid off all the time and they're basically unemployable after that.

Sorry for coming very late to the party, but here's a tidbit I learned by observation.

If you're inhouse at a (very) large company, pick a firm you'd like to work at and send them tons and tons of work for years.  When you need to jump ship, the firm will be there for you with a comfy "of counsel" position.  You don't even have to be competent.  With a few years of that on your resume, you can go just about anywhere you want.

Call me a cynic, but I've seen that more than once.

Regards.

[bleedingpen]

Klav w excellent advise.

You need to figure out if you are private practice versus in house material.

If it's mostly the hours commitment, you might be better served in a small boutique. And when you go in house, you can jump back to private practice but your client contacts do absolutely get rebooted as Klav said.

So a better option for you might be to go smaller private practice and then determine from there if it is for you.

One thing that hasn't been brought up-- what is your tech background? I think that makes a difference in the decision making process.

[ConfusedIP]

bleedingpen,

I'm curious, how do think the tech background would affect the decision process?  I have the EE background.  Also, what do you mean by the "in-house material"?

[klaviernista]

bleedingpen,

I'm curious, how do think the tech background would affect the decision process?  I have the EE background.  Also, what do you mean by the "in-house material"?

Tech background is relevant because the amount of EE jobs in private practice has always been greater than the amount of jobs for non EE types.  The risk of moving in house for an EE is therefore lower than it is, say, for someone with a biotech or gen chem background.

I won't speak for BP, but in my opinion "in-house" material means that you have a good understanding of business and are willing to adapt and assimilate into corporate culture, which is VERY different from law firm culture.  It also means that you have to be willing to accept that you will be a cost center for the company, where you were a profit center for a law firm.  That may mean as in-house counsel that you will have to constantly justify your existence to your employer.