Related Posts
Additional Posts in Ask A Recruiter - Law
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Download the Fishbowl app to unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Copy and paste embed code on your site

Scan your QR code to download
Fishbowl app on your mobile

Rising Star
I’ve never had an issue finding roles as a specialist with generalist capabilities. For reference, I specialized in healthcare/life sciences but did corporate/regulatory/transactional. So I’ve done regular corporate/ M&A, commercial contracts, and regulatory compliance. I lateraled twice at firms and it took about 2 weeks to find a better role both times, and I’ve been at two in house roles and each time took about 2 months from starting to offers.
Edit: I’m product counsel in pharma but am also Privacy Officer for reference.
Thanks for sharing your experience
I remember someone once saying the best profile is to be a specialist who can talk generalist. A specialist is generally someone who is hard to replace, though one wouldn't want to possess tunnel vision. Being generally aware so you can spot other issues matters a lot.
That’s a good way to describe it
Long-term marketability depends on career stage. Early to mid-career, being a generalist is usually more marketable and safer for a first in-house move because companies value flexibility. Mid to late career, a well-chosen specialty (e.g., privacy or product) can increase value but narrows options. I say the safest approach is to start in a generalist role with some focus, then specialize gradually over time.
Sounds a good strategy