Advice requested - applying the "be the exception" rule in my biglaw situation

[HomeSweetOz]

Hi MMMs,

My question is a follow-up to TrulyStashin's "be the exception" rule (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/jobless-debt-ridden-lawyers/msg119341/#msg119341). (As an aside, I think the story about TrulyStashin' getting the internship with a magistrate via the judge's recognizing TrulyStashin' from the past summer is simply genius/awesome.)

I have lurked here for a while and noticed that there are quite a few legal professionals on this board, along with folks from the Pacific Northwest. I'm excited to be a part of this community and would appreciate any advice you guys might have on my situation.

I'm a mid-level litigation associate in one of the big law firms in NYC/LA/etc. I went to a middle-of-the-road law school in the Pacific Northwest, had average grades, and hustled my way into big law. I like the firm and my practice area, but I'm looking to move to to an in-house position in WA state (anywhere from near Seattle to Vancouver). I really like the practice of law and would want to continue at a firm if not for distance from family and lack of interest in the sales/biz development of a biglaw practice.

For the past 6 months, I've applied a shotgun approach to applying to jobs with no luck. In the instances where I see an alum at the company, I have reached out a few times to him/her before applying in hopes this might give me a better shot, but this seems super forced to start a networking relationship with someone just to get a job there. To any law students reading this, networking for jobs as an actual lawyer seems to be much harder than networking as a law student (where it seemed that anytime I would email an alum, I would get back an immediate response and offers to pass along my resume to the hiring committee/help in any way they could).

The factors contributing to this uphill battle of moving to an in-house position in WA state:

1) my seniority level - I've heard that at a bare minimum, you need 5+ years of litigation experience to move in-house, and it's more common to have in-house litigators with 10+ years experience as a first-chair partner, prosecutor, etc.

2) my litigation background - It is much easier to go in-house having a corporate background. Though I have done litigation for my entire legal career, I am happy to switch to corporate, though it means learning on the job. I'm also fine staying in litigation, though see factor (1).

Given the above factors, if you were me, how would you apply TrulyStashin's "being the exception" rule?

[chesebert]

You are asking the wrong question. The right question is am I FI already? If not, stick around biglaw until you can't take it or get pushed out. It's hard to bank $100k+/yr at any other job as a litigator with very little experience. Yes, your life may suck now, but that's just temporary discomfort (I would refer you to MMM article about voluntary discomfort for reference).

[HomeSweetOz]

Hi Chesebert,

Thanks for your response. Yes, to clarify, I have no debt; my expenses are 15% of my gross income; and from biglaw year 1, I've saved the rest of my salary.

[chesebert]

Hi Chesebert,

Thanks for your response. Yes, to clarify, I have no debt; my expenses are 15% of my gross income; and from biglaw year 1, I've saved the rest of my salary.

You are doing great! Even more reason to stick around until FI (typically measured as 25x annual expense).

Good luck!

[Myrmida]

For the past 6 months, I've applied a shotgun approach to applying to jobs with no luck. In the instances where I see an alum at the company, I have reached out a few times to him/her before applying in hopes this might give me a better shot, but this seems super forced to start a networking relationship with someone just to get a job there. To any law students reading this, networking for jobs as an actual lawyer seems to be much harder than networking as a law student (where it seemed that anytime I would email an alum, I would get back an immediate response and offers to pass along my resume to the hiring committee/help in any way they could).

The factors contributing to this uphill battle of moving to an in-house position in WA state:

1) my seniority level - I've heard that at a bare minimum, you need 5+ years of litigation experience to move in-house, and it's more common to have in-house litigators with 10+ years experience as a first-chair partner, prosecutor, etc.).

2) my litigation background - It is much easier to go in-house having a corporate background. Though I have done litigation for my entire legal career, I am happy to switch to corporate, though it means learning on the job. I'm also fine staying in litigation, though see factor (1).

Given the above factors, if you were me, how would you apply TrulyStashin's "being the exception" rule?

Here are just a few ideas I'm throwing out there:
1. Don't be afraid to contact people.  Look for alums that are working for companies you might be interested in, even if there are no positions open at the company.  Ask them to meet you for coffee for 20 minutes to discuss how they got into their position.  Bring some questions to the coffee date about what it's like to work in-house, etc.  Best case scenario: You get a lead on a job from them.  Worst case scenario: They're a dick and you never see them again.
2. Do you have any non-law experience you can combine to fill a niche?  I had some experience from my summer jobs in university that fit nicely with my current in-house position.  Even if all you did was work in a button factory, maybe there are button companies that need a lawyer who understands how the company works a bit.
3. Talk to recruiters.  I got a couple of interviews, one if which was pretty promising, through a recruiter.
4. Depending on the rest of your circumstances, think outside the box.  Consider applying for a job in Dubai or filling in a temporary contract for a company that doesn't necessarily need someone permanently.
5. See if you can get some exposure to more solicitor's work in your firm, to make yourself more attractive to in-house departments.

[Malloy]

I know many people in the same position.  I actually saw a job posting recently for in-house counsel that said "please do not apply if you only have litigation experience and are hoping to transition to transactional work."  Cold.

There are jobs that are litigation management, but there aren't as many.  You are hitting a double-whammy: selective job + desirable area you don't live in.  I'd eliminate the new area part of the equation at this time.  Find an in-house job that gives you a broader range of experience, anywhere that will take you but you'll probably have better luck in the city you are in now.  Once you get in the club, you'll have an easier time finding a job in the area you want to live in, plus you'll have desirable transactional experience. 

[Daleth]

I know many people in the same position.  I actually saw a job posting recently for in-house counsel that said "please do not apply if you only have litigation experience and are hoping to transition to transactional work."  Cold.

There are jobs that are litigation management, but there aren't as many.  You are hitting a double-whammy: selective job + desirable area you don't live in.  I'd eliminate the new area part of the equation at this time.  Find an in-house job that gives you a broader range of experience, anywhere that will take you but you'll probably have better luck in the city you are in now.  Once you get in the club, you'll have an easier time finding a job in the area you want to live in, plus you'll have desirable transactional experience.

Excellent advice. That's my advice too, and I'm a big-law litigator.

BTW you probably can't work in Vancouver, at least not without getting a Canadian law degree, because Canada has set up various obstacles to entry for US-trained and licensed lawyers. So, what about focusing on Seattle/Portland instead of Seattle/Vancouver? And if not living in Vancouver makes you sad, remember that Vancouver is almost as expensive as Tokyo...!

[kdms]

The OP may not mean Vancouver, BC....there's a Vancouver, WA as well.  :)

[Daleth]

The OP may not mean Vancouver, BC....there's a Vancouver, WA as well.  :)

Oh! I didn't know that, thanks. Doesn't that get a little confusing? And not just for me... :)

[Undecided]

If you're not barred in WA (or a state with reciprocity), consider taking the exam while you work on all of this (given the lack of reciprocity with CA), so you at least have that going for you (although I personally think it's silly, I suspect some people would see it as a plus).

I have seen litigator friends switch to a corporate practice (staying with the same firm) to expand their in-house opportunities, only to realize that they didn't enjoy the new practice (or the step back down the learning curve), so I think that's something to be careful with.

Would you consider a lateral move to the LA/NY (wherever you are, that is) office of a firm that also has an office in Seattle (ideally one that's based in or has a large operation in Seattle)? If it were me and I were really set on ending up in Seattle, that's probably what I'd try to do, to at least open the door to one route (even if it means it's two years off, after the lateral move) and keep looking for other opportunities even after doing that. In addition to setting yourself up for a potential office transfer down the road, you may be more likely to hear of (and have an indirect contact with) inhouse opportunities in Seattle if you're working for, say Perkins Coie LA or K&L Gates NY.

[HomeSweetOz]

Hi MMM Community,

Thank you all for your responses!

@Chesebert - Thank you for your kind words. I was fortunate to be raised by parents and relatives who are hardcore MMM'ers, and they are the reason for my wanting to get back to the Pacific NW. During OCI, I actually had a few offers from Portland/Seattle firms and ended up deciding on biglaw under the assumption it's easier to go from biglaw back to the Pacific NW. Now I am somewhat regretting my decision of doing biglaw so far away from home, but I guess hindsight is always 20/20.

@Myrmida - Thank you for your comments. As to your 5 points,
1. This is how I landed my biglaw job. By talking to any biglaw attorney that gave me their time. Since law school, I've grown more risk-averse in talking to people when I want something from them, and I think that is playing a huge role in my situation now. You're right, I need to get into that habit again.
2. Sadly, I basically went from undergrad to law school. I do have a couple of summers doing research assistant work, so that is something to think about in terms of how I can tie that in to the in-house positions I am aiming for.
3. I've worked with a couple of recruiters and am honestly not that impressed. Maybe it's just the few I have worked with. Would you happen to have names of good recruiters? Please feel free to PM me.
4. Taking a job in another country - after I posted earlier today, I actually realized that I was leaving BC/other nearby provinces to the Pac NW out of my thinking. This was before I read the post about the difficulties of U.S.-barred lawyers practicing in Canada, but I did find a temporary in-house 1 year gig in a nearby province which looked very interesting.
5. Yes, I've started taking on a small piece of pro bono corporate work on the side.

@ Wexler - Thank you for your thoughts, especially the equation you raise  (selective job + desirable area that I don't live in). Yes, I think you hit the nail on the head in that the two variables are too daunting together, so it's easiest to tackle one of them at a time. My current city has way more in-house options than the Pacific NW, and therefore it'd be much easier to get into the in-house "club" from my current city, get experience, and then try to find a job closer to home. My only hesitation is that my current city has a very HCOL (over 70% of my expenses go to my housing in the safest part of town). I'm not really sure I would feel (financially) comfortable living where I currently live (without dipping into savings) if I didn't have a biglaw-like salary. Based on conversations I've had with former colleagues who have gone in house, base in-house salaries (w/o bonuses, stock options, addl compensation) in my current city appear to be nowhere near biglaw salaries.

@ Daleth/kdms - Thank you for your comments. Yes, I initially meant to say Vancouver, WA. Vancouver, BC didn't even factor into my thinking until I read Myrmida's post. And then I got very excited given the proximity of BC to Seattle/Vancouver, WA until I read Daleth's post about the Canadian law degree requirement.

@ Undecided - Thank you for your thoughts, especially the difficulty switching from lit to corporate. From speaking with my corporate colleagues, it does seem like a very different mentality than litigation. Your lateral move to a firm with a Seattle office comment is definitely one I need to think more about (hadn't thought about it before). Like you said, it probably means an in-house WA move wouldn't happen for a few more years, but it does open the door wider to that route. My hesitation is the thought of starting over at a different firm/worries about the stability of other firms. I am truly grateful to be working at my current firm (of course there are bad days, but on the whole, I work for/with people I like), and with the Howrey/Dewey collapses, I'm just worried what that would mean to start over. That being said, who knows what will happen at my current firm a few months down the line, so I'm going to give your lateral suggestion some thought. 

[dragoncar]

Hi Chesebert,

Thanks for your response. Yes, to clarify, I have no debt; my expenses are 15% of my gross income; and from biglaw year 1, I've saved the rest of my salary.

Hmmm... by my calculations you should be getting mighty close to FI then.  Some random thoughts:

For in-house jobs, I'm not sure if you really need to be licensed in your actual state of residence (maybe only for national corporations though).  If you don't have reciprocity, consider what I call the "DC loophole" where you waive into the DC bar and then use DC reciprocity with another state.

Why in-house if that doesn't really match your interests?  Have you considered small-mid law where their expectations for a senior associate/partner may match your goals better than biglaw?

Have you tried using your career services?

[Undecided]

Hi Chesebert,

Thanks for your response. Yes, to clarify, I have no debt; my expenses are 15% of my gross income; and from biglaw year 1, I've saved the rest of my salary.

For in-house jobs, I'm not sure if you really need to be licensed in your actual state of residence (maybe only for national corporations though).  If you don't have reciprocity, consider what I call the "DC loophole" where you waive into the DC bar and then use DC reciprocity with another state.

More and more states have an "in-house counsel" exemption from admission, but also, more and more states have adopted reciprocity rules that would require a California atty (not that I know whether the OP is a CA atty, but really it should be an attorney admitted only in a "closed" state) to be admitted in D.C. for five years before using that as a basis for reciprocity, and some states have said that even that is not sufficient, offering reciprocity only on the basis of "admission by exam" to a reciprocating jurisdiction. (Can you tell I recently thought about "moving anywhere" and was admitted only in CA?)

[TrulyStashin]

I have seen litigator friends switch to a corporate practice (staying with the same firm) to expand their in-house opportunities, only to realize that they didn't enjoy the new practice (or the step back down the learning curve), so I think that's something to be careful with.

Would you consider a lateral move to the LA/NY (wherever you are, that is) office of a firm that also has an office in Seattle (ideally one that's based in or has a large operation in Seattle)? If it were me and I were really set on ending up in Seattle, that's probably what I'd try to do, to at least open the door to one route (even if it means it's two years off, after the lateral move) and keep looking for other opportunities even after doing that. In addition to setting yourself up for a potential office transfer down the road, you may be more likely to hear of (and have an indirect contact with) inhouse opportunities in Seattle if you're working for, say Perkins Coie LA or K&L Gates NY.

+1

These are great ideas.  Depending on the culture of your current firm, you may or may not be able to cross-train in the transactional/ corporate department.  At my firm, I have access to the monthly productivity records of all associates, counsel, and staff attorneys.  I started by identifying several partners in a different department whom I'd like to work for.  Then I looked up the names of their associates and checked how many billable hours the associate(s) were clocking.  One partner had two associates up until very recently when one of the associates made partner.  That left Original Partner with just one associate and the poor dude was clocking 240 billable hours PER MONTH for the last several months.  Clearly, this was a team that needed another set of hands.  I talked to the partner and volunteered to help with the really easy, scut work kind of legal work that no one wants to do.  It lightened the load on the overworked associate, helped the partner, and gave me hours and experience in a different department.  It's relationship building too.

You could employ a similar strategy at your firm -- keep your ear to the ground and watch to see what dynamics are at play in the department(s) that you would want to work in (not just "corporate" but more specifically, finance, M & A, SEC compliance/ reporting, tax, or even real estate) and try and get your toe in the door there.   

Like you, I'm new at this but my understanding of in-house jobs is that they require 8 to 10 years of practice before you're really a strong candidate for a position at a good company (and you don't want a position at a bad or unstable company!)  So, perhaps you should think longer term but in the meantime strategize how to get over into the corporate/ transactional side of things, either at your firm or at another.

Keep us posted!

[CommonCents]

At my firm, I have access to the monthly productivity records of all associates, counsel, and staff attorneys. 

Wow, your firm is a lot more transparent than the one with which I worked, or any of my friends worked.  Great idea though.

[CNM]

I don't have any direct experience moving from a firm to an in-house position, but I would echo what Myrmida said.  Contact lawyers who have the job you're interested in and talk to them about how they got it.  It'll give you more insight on how to negotiate your career change and get your name/face out there, in case an opportunity comes along.

I am curious, though, how you decided that going in-house was a good choice for you, considering your experience is in litigation.  It sounds to me that you don't like the rainmaking aspect of your current job.  Perhaps look into moving to a litigation firm that does insurance defense.  That is what I do and the client development aspect of the job is pretty limited.

[bettyb]

I moved inhouse but I took my time (approx 6 months) to network, take people out for informational interviews, conferences, cocktails, etc, before a suitable opening did come up (and the posting did come from someone I networked with).  Point being, if you know what location you want to be, it might help to move to another firm in the area, get admitted to that State bar & start networking in the area, rather than trying to network long distance.  I also came from a corporate background, though, so can't speak to inhouse opportunities for litigators.