Separating the grim legal reality from the fairy tale

The number of qualified lawyers being recruited to work in-house has grown exponentially over the last 10 years.

Although, traditionally, the role was viewed as a saving on the costs associated with external legal advisers, it is increasingly recognised that the real value of an in-house lawyer is to speed up decision making, increase management options and reduce legal risk.

This increased demand for in-house lawyers is set to continue for the foreseeable future in light of increasing regulation that obliges organisations to review their legal risk and imposes severe sanctions, not only on the organisation itself, but also on individual directors.

Many lawyers in private practice hold the view that an in-house legal role is a fairytale job of 9-5, stability, and work-life balance. The reality can be very different and it is equally important to consider these drawbacks before deciding, on balance, that an in-house role is the right career option, bearing in mind that taking an in-house legal role still means working as a lawyer: this is always worth remembering, as sometimes those who move in-house discover that that they were not trying to escape private practice, but the practise of law itself. The timing of the move is also important to consider. As a general rule of thumb it is best to gain a number of years’ experience in private practice before moving in-house, but by staying in private practice too long the lawyer will find it harder to achieve a good ‘fit’ within the structure of an organisation or compensation appropriate to their experience.

There is a steep learning curve for any private practitioner adjusting to the role of in-house lawyer, and one of the biggest challenges is learning to tailor advice to fit the business as this will go against many years of law firm training to advise clients cautiously. Lawyers moving from private practice should also be aware that they may experience a loss of prestige as, in the role of private practitioner, they will have been ‘fee earners’ responsible for generating the income of the law firm and held in high esteem by clients who paid for their experience and advice. By contrast, some in-house legal departments are viewed as a cost to the business and it can be a difficult task for the in-house lawyer to explain their value, particularly where protecting the organisation’s best interests may mean telling business people that they cannot do what they want to do.

Once a decision has been made to move out of private practice, the lawyer must have regard to the type of legal department they will be moving to. To some extent this will be determined by what the lawyer wants to gain from the in-house role, and a lawyer in search of sociable team mates and regular hours is likely to seek out a legal department that is very different to one in search of good promotion prospects and maximum compensation. Similarly, not all in-house roles are the same and it is essential to understand exactly what the role involves. If there is an expectation that the in-house lawyer will assume associated functions, such as compliance officer, money-laundering reporting officer or company secretary, the lawyer will need to confirm that the organisation’s directors and officers insurance covers these activities. Any lawyer assuming multiple functions within the organisation will need to be mindful not only of competing legal and ethical obligations owed in these distinct roles to the organisation, its shareholders and its employees, but will need to be particularly aware of the limits of these intersecting role so that legal professional privilege over advice given in the capacity as lawyer is not inadvertently lost.

When brothers Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm first published Kinder und Hausmärchen (Children’s and Household Tales) in 1812, many of the tales had very brutal storylines: eyes were pecked out, toes sawn off, and brutality commonplace. Over time, the more chilling aspects of these tales were discarded, and the Disney versions that are universally familiar today have been bleached of the impassive horror of the originals.

In the same way, the tales private practitioners have heard about life in-house may not reflect the potential downside.

The reality is that going in-house is one of the most significant career decisions a lawyer will ever make: for some, it may be a job they do happily ever after, but others may regret ever fleeing the highest room in the tallest tower of the law firm.

By thoroughly researching the role and waiting for a position that is the right fit, you may be one of the lucky ones who find that the fairy-tale can come true.

* Patrick Ambrose is the author of The Inside Job: Working as an in-house lawyer, published by Oak Tree Press, and available to download on iTunes and Amazon