My next move: When is 10 too old and 15 ancient?

Why are we seeing a move to more junior in-house roles? In the old days, a lawyer diligently toiled for five to 10 years before considering a move in-house.

Joseph Germano, director, JLegal • 07 May 2012 • Careers

My next move: When is 10 too old and 15 ancient?

Nowadays, the general rule of thumb is that anywhere between two to five years’ experience in private practice is ideal. Like all rules, this one is made to be broken, and there has always been the odd example at both ends of the spectrum of the newly qualified lawyer or partner moving into that coveted in-house position.

You’re out of free articles for this month

Username or Email

Password Forgot password?

Keep me signed in on this device.

First Name

Last Name

Mobile

Organisation Type

By becoming a member, I agree to receive information and promotional messages from Lawyers Weekly. I can opt out of these communications at any time. For more information, please visit our Privacy Statement.

Need help signing up? Visit the Help Centre.

However, we are now seeing an increased demand for junior in-house roles, even as sole counsel. Why is this occurring? Consensus states one of the major reasons companies have an in-house team is to minimise costs. If budgetary constraints are a key focus for a company, it is only logical that less experienced, and hence less expensive lawyers, will eventually be considered. Other factors may include the desire to induct junior lawyers into the corporate culture, or wanting a candidate not so entrenched in private practice.

So, if this is a sustainable trend, what are the ramifications for the senior associates looking to move? If 10 years’ experience is considered too much; what about nine, eight or even seven years? Job trends are fluid and there is no absolute answer. In gaining that elusive perfect résumé, obtaining relevant private practice experience is delicately balanced with the ability to transition to a more commercially focused role. And sometimes this transitional ability is simply a perception of potential employers. Contentious as it may be, there is a point where some potential employers may believe a long-term employee is too firmly entrenched to move. As a precautionary measure, lawyers considering an in-house move may want to consider their options earlier in their career.

VIEW ALL

Despite all this, there is no need for senior associates to prematurely abandon ship. A smart employer will look for technical skills, experience, management potential and a cultural fit when recruiting an in-house team. There will always be opportunities for a broad spectrum of experience.

Anon Wednesday, 13 June 2012

<p>Speaking from recent personal experience (having worked as an in-house junior lawyer at one of the big 4 accounting firms, it appears that many in-house teams are time poor and do not have the resources to mentor junior legal counsel or promote career progression, the interesting or more challenging work is often given to more senior members of the team so there is no room for career progression or learning, which is quiteÂ disappointing forÂ junior lawyers.Â When it comes to budgetary constraints, the junior in-house legal counsel is normally the first to go as they have less experience and hence the more senior members of the team can do their job.Â In-house teams need to have more structure and career promotion if they wish to retain junior lawyers who choose to have a career in-house over private practice.</p><p>- Anon, Potts Point, Sydney</p>

0

You need to be a member to post comments. Become a member for free today!

Lawyers Weekly - legal news for Australian lawyers

SECTIONS

MORE

My next move: When is 10 too old and 15 ancient?

OUR PLATFORMS AND BRANDS

EVENTS AND SUMMITS

PODCASTS

LEARNING AND EDUCATION

MOMENTUM MARKETS NETWORK

LINKS

STAY CONNECTED