In my opinion , in-house is much more comfortable but learning wise law firm will give you much more oppportunities. Work in a law firm is much much more challenging and stressful . In house is a bit relaxed in terms of environment. Law firm has that ''hustle Culture''. Again, a lot depends on your inhouse company. In some companies inhouse counsel have reported to work equally hard (including most sundays) if not more. Another problem going in-house is that sometimes you can be sole spine for legal work and if something new comes up (say you are experienced in company law / drating but a matter to negotiate concerning energy laws) then you will have noone to consult and get discuss. On the flip side, In law firm it will be made sure that you dont make mistakes. Everything will be double checked .

But Law firm wins for me as it polishes you very very well.

Dear Uncleji,

Thank you for your wisdom. Request you to also name these toxic promoters of yours, so that anyone with half a brain can stay far away from them. Request you to also name these arguing counsels, so that we avoid cantankerous and egotistic uncles like these.

Not that hard if you perform consistently and are seen as someone who won't evade work or say it was someone else's job. You have to look around and make sure you're always among the best of your peers. And frankly with the reasonable hours and (more) meaningful (than law firms) work, it is not hard to put in a bit of effort and maintain great standards for yourself.

In my decades of xperience, most in house advocates r failures n paper pushers. Dey do nt enjoy d confidence of d promoters (who are directly in touch wit me/other senior partners) 4 der matters. In fact, most of d time d promoters keep dem out of sensitive decisions and tell dem things on a need to know basis. Dis is 4 transactions. 4 litigation, I hav seen foolish in house advocates being thrown out of conferences by arguing counsels. Quite funny.

I spent nearly 4 years with law firms (tier-1) and then nearly 5 years in-house. My years in-house were tons more interesting, productive and enriching than my time at firms. I guess I was fortunate in working for a company where the lawyers weren't simply paper-pushers. I picked up my best lawyering skills in-house - where you can't simply issue an opinion saying "No, it can't be done" - you have to find a way to get it done and see it through to execution and beyond.
For the first couple years I think I made significantly less than my law firm peers (given tax structure + the limitations of pay bands etc) but it was corrected in time and in the last year or so I was pretty happy with my pay. Still probably significantly less than a law firm, but it was the best trade-off. I worked roughly 10-7.30 (only a few exceptions), did little to no grunt work, and literally never had a boring day.
Eventually I quit to do my own thing, but look back on the job with lots of appreciation.

Not much to say about my law firm days - pretty bog standard, all nighters, toxic bosses kinda stuff. Most importantly I felt zero connection to the work and environment. It was a good training ground in terms of what never to settle for.