Related Posts
Q for guys. Any recommendations on face lotion?
Sometimes, I think he's dead. Then I hear him snore.
1/26 Thread (General):
Please give ur suggestions
Additional Posts in Attorneys of Color
I’ll just leave this here…..
New to Fishbowl?
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Yes they are, if you read the docs you’re review/redlining. That’s how you learn how things work.
I disagree with the above point. You can read redlines until your eyes bleed but that doesn’t necessarily mean the substance of the documents is going to sink in.
It’s important to understand the why behind provisions included in the document. Grabbing a mentor or sponsor who is invested in your growth and having them explain why Document A has Paragraph QQ and Document B has Paragraph GG is as important as taking the time to read the documents yourself. Be diligent about putting time on peoples calendars and asking the questions that you have so you begin to understand not only the relevant documents, but also the overall shape of the deal/case, where you are on the timeline, and what areas you should focus on and when.
Happy to chat more, just send a DM.
As a current In-House Counsel, I can offer this:
The way to look attractive to Corp. Counsel departments - from where you sit as a first year law firm associate thinking about going in-house in 4-5 years - is to focus on those skill-building experiences right in front of you.
I know it sounds trite but, in short, be a good, quality lawyer.
In-House Practice - particularly since the Financial Crisis in 08/ 09 - is not the leisurely “in the clouds” practice of yesteryear (not that it ever was, but that’s the predominate myth).
When you come in-house, I’m going to assume you have all the basic, fundamental skills intact - inclusive of redlining and document review. As an In-House leader, I will have zero time to teach you - because we need to advise “the business”every day on solutions to their problems and you need to have a great facility with all of “the legal basics” waking in the door.
I echo the earlier comments regarding knowing the “why” of a provision’s existence in a document - as that will lead to an understanding of the “why and how” of the client’s business.
And *that* skill - understanding the synthesis between the client’s business objectives and the legal principles of a deal or dispute - it’s *that factor* which makes you attractive to an In-House employer.
Work on what’s in front of you, do it well and build your skill sets.
I’m currently in-house after 2.5 years in NYC BigLaw. Lead Counsel 1 is exactly right—take advantage of the experiences in front of you, go to as many CLEs and lunch talks, build relationships with as many people as you can. If you’re reviewing a document, understand why certain provisions were changed.
I think there’s a tendency to focus on what makes you attractive to in-house/what skills are needed and really most in-house roles just want to know you have good judgement and reasoning skills however you can display those. In my experience, except for certain roles, your background is less important than how you reason through an issue or spot concerns. That’s what the business wants in house. Can my lawyer think creatively and get us to yes opposed to being a blocker?
I would suggest posting this in the InHouse bowl. There could be some valuable insight there.