Seriously? When did in house counsels start making so much money?

@Trident - not possible man. Must be making 60-70 L tops.

Quoting In House Counsel:

Sadly the ranks of the uninformed and ignorant never thin. There are in-house counsels making as much, if not more, than salaried partners at the biggest law firms, and for an obvious reason. If they weren't paid as much, they would be back at a law firm. BAML role pays upwards of 90L, probably 1cr, because as an American bank, they need high quality lawyers in-house. But don't let the facts get in the way of your prejudiced worldview, in which only "real" lawyers can get paid the big bucks.

I see my post has elicited kneejerk reactions,I guess presumably from all the "inhouse" lawyers. Well, sorry if I was harsh but that's the way it is, the bitter truth, the one they dont brag about at reunions and friday drinks, the one that's barely whispered to close friends and spouses.

Anyway LegallyIndia has substantiated my claim with their latest news story - on what company law officers earn. I am quoting from the article (www.legallyindia.com/In-house-counsel/indian-gcs-can-earn-more-than-rs-300-lakh-per-year-says-recruiter)

"general counsel (GC) with between 15 to 25 years of experience, working at companies, could earn from Rs 80 lakh to more than Rs 300 lakh per year as a cost-to-company (CTC) package

even a head legal with 10 to 15 years of experience could earn between Rs 40 lakh and Rs 100 lakh per year

At the junior end, salaries started at Rs 4.8 lakh per year."

As compared to this, an A0 at any big firm will start with 12 lakhs p.a., a partner with 10 years will be getting 60 lakhs+, and a partner with 15 years will be making 5 crores a year (these are low numbers actually).

So on average law firms pay about twice as much as what companies pay (except in very rare situations such as when a leading partner of a big firm goes inhouse) I have never seen such a thing happening (maybe R. Neelaantan)

[...]

Guest seems to be associated with a big law and seems to be bitter of the number of hours he has to put in and the misery he has to endure as a result while in-house counsel lead much better lives. These kind of comments probably make him feel better about his life and the moolah he makes!

Quoting Bitter Much:

Guest seems to be associated with a big law and seems to be bitter of the number of hours he has to put in and the misery he has to endure as a result while in-house counsel lead much better lives. These kind of comments probably make him feel better about his life and the moolah he makes!

Why bitter biglaw? I could be a bitter inhouse too? ;) Maybe an envious non-NLU lawyer also ? :D Anyway I am flattered you wish to discuss my thoughts and feelings, we can surely do so on a separate forum or thread.

Coming back to this subject, I am only speaking after a long stint in the legal industry having watched both biglaw and inhouse quite closely, with friends and fiends in both. Till now none of what I have commented has been refuted with facts or logic though many have made personal attacks on me. On the contrary LegallyIndia published some responses from a headhunter which backed my claim about the low salaries paid to inhouse.

To reiterate, at least in India, inhouse is not recommended unless a lawyer fits one of the following

(1) It was a backup option in his / her campus placement (like someone posted)
(2) The lawyer has been passed over or dismissed from Biglaw and is having a career crisis
(3) The lawyer wants a less demanding profile with lots of time for family and social life
(4) The lawyer is not keen on getting a partnership at a biglaw anytime soon

(2) and (1) are the most common reasons.

There will sometimes be a rare egg (like a lawyer who genuinely and sincerely prefers an inhouse role; hats off to them. I have encountered only 2-3 such individuals in 14 years since I was enrolled. Every past or present inhouse (and most probably future ones also) falls into one of the above categories.

Still, the position of 'THE' GC at a large company can be an attractive choice and that individual is usually a very well experienced lawyer who has already achieved a lot of professional success (a la R. Neelakantan). Its the other inhouse positions in companies that are a sham, much like their occupants.

I have been in both BigLaw as well as in-house, so allow me to share my observations. There is no doubt that BigLaw firms pay more to a partner than a GC position in, even, a top tier company. However, that payment is always in lieu of the business that you bring to the firm. In fact, many GCs actually understand law and business better than most of the partners,even at BigLaw level. The reasons for taking up an in house role listed above are not exhaustive. I personally know at least 5-6 GCs who took up such roles because they did not have the mental energy for the law firm politics and preferred their sanity over the pay. So, lets not always treat in house lawyers like second class citizen. Doing that is silly and just lazy thinking.

Vice President's in BAML are paid upwards of 90 L p.a. so surely a GC would be around that if not more

Quoting Guest:

These in-house roles are glamourous only on paper and have become a graveyard for passed-over lawyers, unsuccessful ones, those coming back from maternity leave and those who want to chill and have a good time. Nobody will pay north of 30-36 for that.

As a former in house counsel at an MNC bank in India, I concede most of these points but I wish it was not made in such a blunt manner.

It is a fact that most of the lawyers there were not out of choice. I did not make it to AZB, AMSS (now CAM), Khetan and JSA and this was my backup option. Everybody else around me was in the same boat. To best of my knowledge all my colleagues were busy sending their CVs to the big firms.

While the writing was on the wall many of us did an ostrich-behaviour and chose not to accept that our "role" was minimal in any deal. 99% of the time some big firm would be engaged and we would act as dalals while the CEO , country-head only spoke to the law firms.

The quality of the people was sad. Just 1 year after I started working the GC quit because he was fed up of being treated badly compared to his non-legal peers inside the org. They tried to entice several partners of the big and small firms to join but nobody was interested. Finally they hired an out-of-work former GC who had been dismissed by his earlier employer and who was the only one available, after serving out his non-compete period. Today that GC is just a glorified clerk for the South Asia legal head. And the people under him are in low-performance roles. One of the reasons I quit was because I realised my classmates were doing much better, making more money and learning a lot more whether as associates or as litigators.

In my NLU class nobody in the top 20 ranks joined or wanted to join companies. People preferred to litigate but not take up such jobs. The promotional scope in careers is very bad.

I can say from personal experience that except for the one post of countrywide GC, all other VPs, AVPs, deputy GC, Assistant GC are decorative designations and the pay is average (not bad but not at all close to what law firms pay to comparable lawyers)

I would disagree.

There are enough examples of individuals who were doing well in the law firm circuit and simply decided to move in-house because they were running blind and did not have a commercial perspective to transactions in the area they chose to practice in. I can cite a few examples of a few MNCs whose base salaries are better than the senior level retainers in some of the best law firms of the country (although as a general norm domestic corporates would pay you way lesser).

In such multinational corporates the quality of work is also way more challenging given strategy and some of the documentation is done in-house.

Google, SAIF Partners are some of them which come to my mind. I am sure there would be some others.

I am sure some of them would again move back to a law firm with these corporates as their clients when they have created a significant close relationships. That is also one of the ways of rising up the ladder.

I am sure you have not considered these points have you. Myopic thinking indeed!

Quoting Me Want Banana!:

I would disagree.

There are enough examples of individuals who were doing well in the law firm circuit and simply decided to move in-house because they were running blind and did not have a commercial perspective to transactions in the area they chose to practice in. I can cite a few examples of a few MNCs whose base salaries are better than the senior level retainers in some of the best law firms of the country (although as a general norm domestic corporates would pay you way lesser).

In such multinational corporates the quality of work is also way more challenging given strategy and some of the documentation is done in-house.

Google, SAIF Partners are some of them which come to my mind. I am sure there would be some others.

I am sure some of them would again move back to a law firm with these corporates as their clients when they have created a significant close relationships. That is also one of the ways of rising up the ladder.

I am sure you have not considered these points have you. Myopic thinking indeed!

"decided to move in-house because they were running blind and did not have a commercial perspective to transactions in the area they chose to practice "

Are kidding? A lawyer who does not have a 'commercial perspective' in his practice area is an incompetent ass. Going inhouse will do little to make up for that defect.

By your logic should MBAs join law firms to get a 'legal perspective' into their lines of work? Maybe a CA firm to gain an accounting perspective ?

Part of being a good lawyer is developing commercial perspective. It's not very hard and plenty of well known names such as Umakanth have done it without an iota of inhouse experience.

I can understand lawyers who are forced to join inhouse due to bad placements, law firm rejections, etc. Most will migrate out at the first opportunity. But there's no excuse for leaving a law firm and joining inhouse unless you're forced to, or youve taken a call that life holds no further challenges or you genuinely want to chill.

Awww.. it is ok, apply again maybe a company will consider interviewing you this time. We all feel for you. So Kirti Ram, Pramod Rao are not good lawyers? Poor little frustrated lawyer and i doubt this 'Guest' in any top tier law firm!

Quoting Former in-house:

The quality of the people was sad. Just 1 year after I started working the GC quit because he was fed up of being treated badly compared to his non-legal peers inside the org. They tried to entice several partners of the big and small firms to join but nobody was interested. Finally they hired an out-of-work former GC who had been dismissed by his earlier employer and who was the only one available, after serving out his non-compete period. Today that GC is just a glorified clerk for the South Asia legal head. And the people under him are in low-performance roles. One of the reasons I quit was because I realised my classmates were doing much better, making more money and learning a lot more whether as associates or as litigators.

Are you referring to the [...] batch guy? If so, my sympathies, apparently his former boss (a leading Indian private sector bank) was all set to file criminal charges against him. It would have been an unprecedented step for a bank to file an FIR against its own GC. Wish you best of luck in your new role.

I second most of that.

Except that in-house legal does command quite a lot of respect (even envy) with Business. Reason: Legal gives go ahead for all transactions beyond a minimum threshold - replete with formal signature!

Work is mostly mind-achingly boring.....endless form-filling and box-ticking, At the end you get to write a short para on the risk and opportunities you have identified in a transaction and why you are or not giving the green signal.

Pay and perks are good though - much better than what the sales and marketing or the technical guys get. And that is their constant grouse that business "facilitators" are getting paid more.

BTW, I work as in-house legal counsel in an MNC.

Quoting Glorified Clerk la Esquire:

I second most of that.

Except that in-house legal does command quite a lot of respect (even envy) with Business. Reason: Legal gives go ahead for all transactions beyond a minimum threshold - replete with formal signature!

Work is mostly mind-achingly boring.....endless form-filling and box-ticking, At the end you get to write a short para on the risk and opportunities you have identified in a transaction and why you are or not giving the green signal.

Pay and perks are good though - much better than what the sales and marketing or the technical guys get. And that is their constant grouse that business "facilitators" are getting paid more.

BTW, I work as in-house legal counsel in an MNC.

Sorry to burst your bubble but inhouse legal commands no respect with the business teams in all companies, exceptional individuals aside.
On the contrary they are viewed as a pain to be tolerated and humoured, an annoyance cast upon them and a pack of naysayers who react in the negative to anything. They are also hopelessly slow and quality / turnaround time control is impossible.

This is reflected in the much lower salaries paid to inhouse lawyers as well as reduced scope for promotions and career advancement. No surprises though, inhouse is a cost centre, not revenue earners so there is no case to reward them more. Anyway just open the list of highly paid company executives in the annual report of a listed company and see how many lawyers make that list.

If you are unable to understand this simple fact, you're proof of what I've been writing about the low quality of inhouse lawyers. Lol

Hey man, are you living in the medieval ages or what. Well, I suggest that you crawl out of under the rock you are hiding.

In-house counsel are increasingly taking on a business role...advising on the fields, ventures etc the company should or should not get into, which divisions to expand, etc - utilizing all the opportunities provided by law.

Companies want, and value, people who can understand their business thoroughly....something which an external law firm wallah will never be able to...and for this role major corporates are willing to pay top dollar.

Every top management meeting/ review or to chalk out strategy- Legal/ GC is always present. GCs march with CEOs..hand-in-hand, shoulder to shoulder.

And you stay buried under your rock...."rock of ages cleft for me, let me hide myself in thee!"

Quoting Guesticus Patheticus:

Hey man, are you living in the medieval ages or what. Well, I suggest that you crawl out of under the rock you are hiding.

In-house counsel are increasingly taking on a business role...advising on the fields, ventures etc the company should or should not get into, which divisions to expand, etc - utilizing all the opportunities provided by law.

Companies want, and value, people who can understand their business thoroughly....something which an external law firm wallah will never be able to...and for this role major corporates are willing to pay top dollar.

Every top management meeting/ review or to chalk out strategy- Legal/ GC is always present. GCs march with CEOs..hand-in-hand, shoulder to shoulder.

And you stay buried under your rock...."rock of ages cleft for me, let me hide myself in thee!"

Quoting Toplady will not turn your post into anything meaningful any more than working inhouse counsel roles turn lawyers into ace business advisors.

Companies do not hire inhouse lawyers to advise them on 'business'. They have trainloads of MBAs and McKinsey for that. They hire inhouse lawyers to save some money by keeping mundane legal work and minor legal opinions from being outsourced to firms which would charge a bomb. That's a great business move in itself.

You do not seem to have much interaction with the "businesswallahs" you quote if you believe they seek advice of inhouse counsel to suggest which businesses they should enter into. The most they will ask is if a particular business is legally risky and if so what are the risks, questions most inhouse counsel would balk at replying. In the end AMSS or AZB would get a brief to prepare a brief outlining possible risks and maybe supplement it with an opinion from a senior advocate. A few (inhouse and outhouse) lawyers may pursue an MBA and join the business afterwards but thats in a completely different capacity.

Genuine question, Guest. Have you any idea how much Mr. Kartikeya Singh was being paid at IFMR Capital/Phoenix Legal?

Quoting Bill Carson:

Genuine question, Guest. Have you any idea how much Mr. Kartikeya Singh was being paid at IFMR Capital/Phoenix Legal?

Genuine Answer: The IFMR position was well advertised in legal circles and IIRC the CTC per month was nearly a lakh. In effective terms Rs. 80,000 before tax. IFMR was simply not able to attract lawyers (understandable) and had been searching for a while with little success. Almost every banking partner / GC on the biglaw and littlelaw circuit was tapped to recommend suitable candidates.

I cant talk about Phoenix Legal (not clued into lower tier firms) but it would not surprise me if they offered him a 50% raise without a fuss.

As for IFMR, it's the proverbial deadwater for banking lawyers who have no options or are stagnating. The organisation is Chennai based, they have a negligible presence except to act as ICICI's proxy in a few deals, their website is not updated and features [...]

Nope....he had a kindle wityh many ebooks.