What is the key difference working in-house and in a law firm...?
This is a pretty important question if you are contemplating a move from one to the other; or trying to make sense of the feelings you have now that you have taken that leap…and just as important if you are simply trying to forge a decent working relationship between lawyers in-house and externally.
I won’t use this short blog to make the obvious points…but I would like to dive into the psychology of the different roles and why it can undo people in the early stages of their new in-house career.
In a law firm you are valued for making rain (a slightly odd concept for a British lawyer…one seems to have an abundance of damp in one’s life, but no doubt the term is meant to denote the importance of rain to the cycle of life - or something!)
Anyway…rain makers make activity; they generate work and build out the opportunity to bill more. In short, the busier you are the more revered you become…Activity, activity, activity is all you have to focus on.
Do the hours, submit the bills, do more hours.
What is more, the busier you get the more you can leverage your colleagues. No matter how busy you become it will not matter; there is a seemingly limitless resource to help you; and all the while you are LOVED by your colleagues.
Then you move in-house and you will bounce through the first few weeks like a new puppy and your colleagues will love you too.
Bring me your problems and all your matters, nothing is too much trouble… “I would LOVE to help” is all you have to say…and the work will tumble towards you like an avalanche of email and paper.
…And then you will kill yourself trying to do it
No associates to leverage, no back up resources, not much of a library, few precedents, no budget to go outside, systems that grind to a halt for anything out of the norm…
This is death by a thousand unmet expectations.
You see, in-house you are not valued for creating activity, but for first managing it, then prioritising it and then reducing it. The less work you have to do yourself – by putting in place process design, self help tools, training or simply taking a sensible view on risk – the better. It will be a structure as a result with more resilience, less dependency and more aligned to the profit and loss of your business.
It will free you then to focus on the things that properly matter and not to silt up under the burden of low risk, repetitive, and unending work…
You will still be busy – heaven knows you will be busy – but unless you can prioritise, reduce, manage activity you are sunk.
So if you move in-house you must forget all you ever knew about being a rain maker…you are now flood defences and chief mopper upper.
Paul Gilbert
Paul Gilbert is Chief Executive of LBC Wise Counsel the UK based specialist management and skills training consultancy for lawyers. www.lbcwisecounsel.com
Readers' comments (8)
Sally Dyson @ Firm Sense | 25-Nov-2011 2:56 pm
Acutely and amusingly observed Paul! Sound advice for any prospective in-housers. Career moves are so often based on hope rather than knowledge but there are some real nuggets of insight in this blog whether you are considering a move or trying to find your feet. Read in isolation, in-house life might look a little bleak but that is doubtless down to the brevity of the blog format. Reasons to be cheerful in-house may already be familiar. Identifying with the business you work for, opportunities to manage and be managed, and an escape from billable hours targets and time sheets all spring to mind.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 25-Nov-2011 4:33 pm
Sally,
Most in-housers I know still have billable hours targets and time sheets...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 26-Nov-2011 6:20 am
If in-house positions still had billable hours targets and timesheets, I would not have moved. This may be the case in very large legal departments, but in small or medium-sized departments like mine, the situation is exactly as described by Paul. Manage, prioritise, reduce - and spend a lot of your time communicating, often "just" with the aim of building the trust and relationships which will allow you to excel in your job. The upsides Sally mentions, and others, more than make up for the challenges Paul lists. In addition, nothing feels more satisfying than mastering those challenges.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sally Dyson @ Firm Sense | 28-Nov-2011 3:10 pm
Good points from both my anonymous correspondents. In-house departments come in as many shapes and sizes as the law firms they retain. A large in-house department may mimic aspects of a law firm, particularly if it has practice area specialists. Having the back-up of a larger organisation and peers to talk to can also smooth the transition in-house.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 28-Nov-2011 3:51 pm
No matter how one cuts it, in-house in the UK is by and large not a front office role. In private practice one drives revenues and hence the business. In an in-house role one supports the business.
So it's a question of expectation management. Be at the forefront, or be back/middle office. The latter ain't all bad, certainly in terms of lifestyle. Even if one has a client, it'ds nice to be the client to someone else!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 29-Nov-2011 10:41 am
Another manifestation of what the author describes is what I think of as the "funnel" effect. At a law firm you are expected to identify the broadest possible range of issues that might be associated with a transaction, case, etc. But in house counsel are pre-occupied with identifying the few key issues from that broad range which have the greatest potential impact and then prioritizing limited resources to asure that those keys are adequately addressed.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 29-Nov-2011 10:53 am
Excellent article that really gets down to the essentials.
I just wish each side understood the other better.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 7-Dec-2011 4:24 pm
There's also the issue of skills atrophying in-house. See this relevant story – 'Going in-house: Like a plate of lentis'
http://hligroup.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/69/
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment