OP here again. Thanks for all the responses. I will start by saying while I appreciate all of your views, and that the following is generally the advice given to people intending to move in-house (yes, gain legal substantive skills, then move in-house; no one wants to train ppl in-house cos you are a cost centre; only law firms are invested to train you b/c you are an asset there).
However, my point was not that. My point was on doing a stint (e.g. 3 months/6 months in-house, akin to a client secondment seat in the E&W TC programme) to which you will pick up commercial skills and understanding beyond (or more fully integrated with) legal, and communication/process management with the other functions in the company, which you can then bring back with you when you return to private practice (yes, more likely with an int'l firm than local firm) and then proceed to being a solid associate/SA who can resonate better with clients.
This is already being done as part of 3 or 6 month client secondments in the E&W
TCs. By the time people go on such secondments, they would already usually have at least say 6 months of practice (as a trainee). Also, in the Singapore context- there are clearly some current associates/SAs/even trainees who had done legal in-house internships (usually at least 3-6 months) and in a niche area such as tech/web3/crypto/VCs/project developers, which I am sure must have been hugely beneficial for them when they return to private practice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
In house lawyer here.
Good mentality. ...
But I would still recommend going PP first because there are skills you should learn as a freshly called lawyer at a PP where you still can have the "im new" card.
I was in PP for 3 years before moving in house and the first 2-3 months of moving in house, I could already see myself displaying skills/attributes I gained over the course of 3 years in PP in my new role. Things I learnt from my mentor in PP were put to good use, even in the mundane stuff like replying emails with precision, labelling attachments etc.
Some people scoff at such comments but a good lawyer knows that we as individuals, do not sell a physical product. We advertise and offer our skillset in knowing the law, how to explain it to laymen, how to apply it in situations.
I would bet my left testicle that any corporate company would appreciate an in house who is able to reply emails with qualitative feedback over someone who did not gain all those skills under mentorship at a PP and went straight in house after being called (in fact you may not even need to be called to go in house under the new regime).
All jokes aside, I regretted the nights I slogged away at PP but I never regretted going to PP first even though I knew my end goal was always to move in house. Given the same situation, knowing that I would have learnt what I know now only at PP, I would do the same thing again.
Made my life a lot easier in house with what I learnt at PP. I hope you go through the same path and have an excellent career ahead.
|
I do appreciate this reply - as yes, it's true that as a trainee you get more chances to f up and improve, rather than as an associate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
Depends on the department / firm.
If you are in a local firm, the runway to Partner is short, and inhouse stints may result in PQE cuts. Less so for intl firms. Generally, the mindset is most law firms is still that 100% practice is the way to make partner.
However, depending on practice area, from a substantive/work pov, inhouse exp is likely to be very useful for more "operational" and/or "specialised" fields, and less useful for more "project-based" fields. For instance:
Disputes - inhouse exp is not useful at all
M&A - limited use, unless you are inhouse in a company that does M&A on a regular basis
Funds - prob quite useful, as fund structuring is all about the underlying commercial considerations
Finreg - useful, as alot of Finreg is about understanding the business and how that relates to regulations
Projects - prob quite useful to understand the underlying commercial realities
You probably also can take max 2 yrs inhouse before firms consider that you are too detached from practice
|
I also appreciate this response - and I agree, that it is more useful for the practices you mentioned above, particularly areas where you would only be able to appreciate the work/motivations/drivers/painpoints beyond pure legal perspectives toward commercial ones, particularly in areas where it would not be easy to break in even as a NQ associate.
I would also add that in in-house teams (most of which are extremely lean, with many being 3-4 man shows, and some even 1-2 man shows) if you were able to break in as a legal intern/trainee/executive, you would do far more (in terms of responsibility, being able to take on certain tasks) in this role than you would as a trainee assisting a partner in a traditional law firm setting. All experiences are what you make of it, so if you are working in a lean transactions team, it would be very possible that you do take on higher-level work even at your lowly level just because the team is so lean.
I suppose, the post that resonates with me the most is the one where such experience would be most fruitful if: (1) the in-house team does much of their transactions in-house; (2) the in-house team works directly with their other corporate functions; (3) the nature of their work is in a niche area that you would not easily break into at a law firm as a junior; (4) the connections and working relationship matter (but while this would be a potential advantage to your law firm, I would say it is definite advantage to you in that you gain commercial/stakeholder perspectives, connections and knowledge of the sector you are working in).
Qualifier: I understand the above all requires you to have some basic fundamental experience (that trainees/junior assocs are expected to know)- so take this as an assumption that has been met.