OtherGround Forums In-house, law-firm and back

Edited: 10/11/14 8:01 AM
11/3/02
Posts: 2531
I currently work in-house making decent money, but not enough to pay off my loans and save for a house. I have an opportunity to make considerable more money at a firm (almost a 50% increase). I want to take the position so I can get my finances in order, but would eventually want to return in-house.

Does anyone have any experience with making a similar move? My concern is that future in-house positions would question my commitment, and I would wind up stuck at the firm. <br
Thanks in advance.
10/17/14 2:55 PM
1/1/01
Posts: 35597
No idea, but TTT.
10/18/14 4:59 AM
11/3/02
Posts: 2532
Thanks for the TTT.

Beuller? Beuller?
11/25/14 7:06 PM
8/6/08
Posts: 28382

I dont see a problem with it...the opposite is harder (firm to inhouse and back)

11/26/14 1:37 AM
3/12/07
Posts: 8310
Yes, I do. The problem isn't getting the in-house position back because you will likely have much more experience when you make the move. The problem is getting accustomed to the lower pay again. If you find the right employer, you may be able to go in-house for a premium, but it is much more difficult and you really have to work on your national/industry reputation when working for the firm.

My advice, do as many speaking engagement/panels as possible when working in an outside firm and you may end up being courted by companies looking to bring you in-house.

If you're in a highly regulated industry, working for the regulatory agencies is not a bad idea either. If you ever decide to go back to the firm life regulatory experience helps land you in Big Law. (But get enough time for a lateral, DO NOT start over at a firm.)
12/5/14 12:02 PM
12/2/05
Posts: 45972
There are in house spots that pay pretty well.

What kind of work do you do?
Edited: 12/6/14 5:00 PM
11/3/02
Posts: 2536
I work in-house for an insurance carrier. I do insurance coverage and manage outside counsel in employment and securities litigation.

I have actually been interviewing with a financial regulator too. It is for a policy/rule making position. It wouldn't be an increase in pay, but I think it would make me very marketable.

My plan was to either go to the firm or regulator and then go back in house at a higher pay scale/position than I have now. The economy was awful when I graduated so I am paid severely below market.

Thank you for all of your responses.
12/17/14 9:50 AM
3/12/07
Posts: 8343
You may want to stay away from the CFPB for the time being if that is the regulator you're talking to. They stirred up some shit storms and are getting all kinds of political and legal flak now because of it. My lobbyist and Congressional contacts all seem pretty anti-CFPB right now, and being such a new agency, I would recommend shying away from the formative years.

FDIC is catching some grief, too. However, I know a few former FDIC attorneys who make bank (pun intended) in the private sector now. One is a complete moron and yet he draws that Big Firm $1000+/hr type of money.
12/17/14 12:24 PM
11/3/02
Posts: 2558
Wiki-

Thanks for the insight. Without trying to out myself, the regulator is a SRO that deals with broker-dealers. Can you offer any insight?