Related Posts
Conversation Starter
Fly day miracle! Exit row to myself!! 🎉🎉
Disney Streaming Services I completed my interview process with DSS early last week, and was reached out by recruiter that all rounds were strong hires, and they are extending an offer. We set a time to talk on Friday about the offer. However, the announcement of targeted hiring freeze happened on Friday. I was ghosted with no call. What should I expect now? Would I still have chance to be offered?
Additional Posts in Big Law
Subject Expert
Subject Expert
Mentor
How do you give notice in big law?
Coach
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Mentor
General rule of thumb is 4-5 years, you have plenty of firm experience at this point. Staying longer than 5-7 years generally is a net negative, because most in-house roles won’t be able to afford your high rates/value at that point (essentially, you’re getting the same offer that someone with 5 YOE has, even with 7 YOE).
I’ve seen some go in house earlier, and they’ve still been really successful IMO, just have a lower salary since they’re less experienced at first.
I see M&A associates leave between years 4-7. But those who leave in years 4-5 are doing jobs that I would consider anyway to be of a more rote and less leadership role: government, commercial contracts, M&A and D&O insurance placement, stuff like that. Those who want to go in house at a fund or investment manager I’ve seen stay closer to year 7 or 8 because they can’t get the asset manager in house gig unless they have more experience. I know one person who went to Carlyle at year 4 for example, but more often, I’m seeing Carlyle hire M&A associates at 6 or 7.
The MM PE firm that hired me wanted an in house attorney who could navigate fund and portfolio company management roles, so they needed someone more experienced. I wouldn’t have gotten the role without 6+ years. And frankly I’m glad I waited because the role pays really well.
That’s my .02 anyway.
Yeah A3 the fee free investing ops are nice. I just got here this year so no carry yet but I think it’s only a couple years away
Subject Expert
Most people I see go in house are 7th year +. Yeah it’s a bigger pay cut as A1 says, but you also have more time to save up money
As another data point: I am a seventh year and I keep a very casual in-house search generally open, but I have increasing doubts about going in-house. I am finding I have decent flexibility (both because of relaxed rto and earned) at the firm. So might as well stick it out with the higher pay.
The overwhelming majority of opportunities are in the 4-6 year range. This will be your best window. After 8 years it becomes significantly harder bc you’re now competing for roles against folks with in house experience.
They are different jobs with different functions exercising different muscles. There is a competitive disadvantage after 8.
Yes it can be overcome but you didn’t ask about possible you asked best time. Statistically that’s the 4-6 year range.
PEMA associate here, half way through my 5th year. Just accepted my in-house role at a public company. Definitely taking a 50% haircut, but hard to beat 5 weeks paid vacation and hybrid role. The others here are correct in that you will likely not be taking a leadership role as a 4th or 5th year exiting big law. Not sure that’s a bad thing since it gives you some runway to get the hang of in-house.
So anything from reviewing customer contracts, vender contracts, L&e matters, managing external law firms for litigation (all kinds), reviewing lease agreements for our training centers, reviewing jvs, and anything else that has a legal esque portion. Very little M&A work, but if we acquire a business in the US, I’m sure I’ll over see it.
4-6 years is ideal. Above that, you will often be competing with folks that are already in-house, in roles that have a preference for prior in-house experience. Can the disadvantage be overcome? Yes, and plenty of people overcome it, but it’s not “ideal.”