Are you a midlevel BigLaw associate who’s been trying to move in-house for many months? Maybe over a year, even? As hiring across the legal market has slowed down a bit over the past couple of years, many corporate and transactional associates have found it harder than expected to make the jump in-house.

That might surprise you — after all, isn’t going in-house supposed to be the easier path for corporate associates? It’s true that corporate attorneys tend to have more opportunities than their litigation peers. But even for deal lawyers, the path to an in-house role is rarely as smooth or straightforward as people assume. There are structural challenges in today’s market that make the move slower and more competitive than it once was.

Let’s look at why that is — and why, in some cases, it might make sense to lateral to another firm first before making that long-term in-house move.

Why It’s Harder Than You Think to Go In-House as a Midlevel

First, there is the reality that most in-house openings do not go through recruiters like myself. They’re filled through other channels:

• Existing outside counsel relationships. Many companies hire directly from the firms that already represent them.

• Secondment programs. These short-term placements often lead to full-time offers.

• Internal referrals. Many in-house openings go to lawyers who already have in-house experience.

That last group — attorneys already working in-house — has grown substantially. Many of them stay longer than expected because advancement in-house tends to be slower and less structured than in a firm environment. At a law firm, the elevation points are clear: Junior Associate to Midlevel Associate to Senior Associate to Counsel to Partner, etc.. In-house, the structure is flatter, and promotions are less automatic.

The result: a crowded pool of experienced candidates for every in-house opening.

So, if you’re a 4th or 5th year corporate associate who’s been trying to go in-house without success, you’re not doing anything wrong. You’re just up against limited openings, steep competition, and a hiring market that often prefers candidates who’ve already made the jump.

That’s why for many associates, a strategic lateral move to another firm first can actually be a good decision— not a detour, but a bridge to your ultimate goal.

Why a Lateral Move Might Be the Right Move

Lateralling to another BigLaw (or strong mid-market) firm as a midlevel associate can open up new doors — both immediately and over the long term. Here are five reasons why that might make sense if your in-house search has stalled.

1. Your client base doesn’t match your target industry.

Think carefully about where you ultimately want to go in-house — and whether your current firm’s clients align with that world.

For example: you may be representing financial services clients in your current corporate practice, but your goal is to work in-house at a tech or life sciences company. That mismatch makes it difficult to get noticed by hiring managers in the industries you actually want to join.

Why? Because the most common path in-house starts with client relationships. Companies often hire directly from their outside counsel. When a new role opens, the GC or Deputy GC often reaches out to their trusted outside partner at a law firm asking, “Do you have anyone great on your team who might be interested?”

If your firm’s client base doesn’t include those types of companies, you’re missing that crucial pipeline.

By contrast, moving to a firm whose client list includes your target industries can give you much stronger exposure and credibility. You’ll work on the kinds of matters those companies actually handle — and you’ll build relationships that can lead directly to an in-house opportunity later.

2. Your current practice doesn’t match well to in-house practice needs.

Not all corporate experience translates equally well once you move inside a company.

Many corporate associates spend their years as “deal runners” — working on teams and eventually managing those deal teams for M&A, capital markets, or private equity transactions. That work is valuable, but it’s not what most in-house lawyers actually do on a daily basis.

In-house counsel manage deals but don’t typically execute them in detail — that’s what outside counsel are for. The internal legal team’s focus is more on areas like:

• Day-to-day commercial contract negotiation

• Vendor and customer agreements

• Data privacy, marketing, and regulatory issues

• Corporate governance and compliance

• Internal stakeholder advising (HR, finance, product, etc.)

If your entire resume is "deal running"-heavy, it may be difficult to convince an in-house employer that you are experienced in the variety and volume of work that comes with being an internal legal corporate generalist.

Sometimes you can broaden your experience at your current firm — but not always. Some firms simply don’t have the mix of work to offer that kind of exposure. If that’s the case, a lateral move can be a strategic move— a way to join a firm or practice group that gives you more relevant experience before you eventually move in-house.

3. You’re in the wrong geography.

This one’s simple but critical: location still matters.

If you’re in New York but trying to move in-house in Boston, Chicago, or San Francisco, that transition is much easier if you’re already based there.

While BigLaw practices have become increasingly nationalized, the in-house market remains local at its core. Companies tend to hire new in-house lawyers from law firms and other companies in their region. Partners in those local law firm offices usually have deeper, more personal relationships with the local business community. A Boston biotech company is more likely to hire an associate from a Boston firm than from a New York one. The same holds true in other markets.

If you know you want to end up in a particular city or industry hub, lateralling to a firm in that geography can be the most direct step toward building those connections and increasing your visibility with local clients.

4. Your current group doesn’t have the right connections to in-house openings.

Not every BigLaw practice or working group is equally well-connected to the in-house world.

You might be in a respected practice doing great work, but if your clients keep their legal departments extremely lean — or rarely hire from their outside firms — your exposure to in-house opportunities will be limited. Some companies simply don’t hire much in-house. Others have low turnover and small legal teams.

That’s not a reflection on your ability. It’s a structural limitation.

By contrast, joining a firm or practice group that’s known for being a “feeder” to in-house roles can make a huge difference. Those partners have clients who actively hire, and those clients trust them enough to ask for referrals when they do.

If your current group doesn’t have those connections, lateralling may be the most practical way to get closer to your long-term goal.

5. More time in practice will strengthen your in-house marketability.

Finally, it’s worth remembering that in-house roles are incredibly competitive, and hiring managers tend to favor attorneys who have a lot of experience and can operate independently.

If you look closely at in-house job postings, you’ll notice a pattern: even when the listing says “4+ years of experience,” the person who actually gets the job often has 6, 7, or 8 years.

That’s because companies want lawyers who can jump in with minimal hand-holding.

If you’re a 4th or 5th year associate, you might simply be a bit early. And that’s okay. Spending another year or two in private practice — ideally in a setting that builds the right skills and relationships — can make you a much stronger candidate when you try again.

A lateral move at this stage can also help you reposition your brand: new firm, new client base, new story. That’s often what separates the candidates who eventually land in-house from those who keep getting close.

---

When you’re deep in the BigLaw grind — the long hours, the late-night closings, the endless doc review — it’s easy to think that going in-house is the magic answer. And for many lawyers, it does bring a welcome change: more predictable hours, a closer connection to the business, and new kinds of challenges.

But timing and positioning matter just as much as the desire to move. The in-house market is tighter than ever, and the most successful transitions happen when you’re intentional about when and how you make that move.

A lateral move doesn’t mean you’ve failed to go in-house. It can actually be the smartest intermediate step — one that positions you to succeed when the right opportunity arises.

If you’ve been targeting in-house roles with little progress, take a step back and ask:

• Does my current client base align with my target industries?

• Am I getting experience relevant to what in-house counsel actually do?

• Am I in the right geography for my long-term goals?

• Does my practice group have meaningful in-house connections?

• Would a carefully chosen lateral move actually accelerate, not delay, my path?

If you answered “no” to one or more of those questions, it’s worth exploring what a lateral move could do for your career trajectory.

If you’re a midlevel corporate associate — a 4th, 5th or 6th year — who’s been trying to move in-house without traction, don’t get discouraged. Take a moment, reassess your positioning, and consider whether one more strategic firm move could get you where you want to go faster.

In my capacity as an experienced legal career advisor, I have worked with many BigLaw associates who are completely focused on moving to an in-house attorney role at a company. There is a perception that in-house attorneys make a little less money than BigLaw associates, but in-house roles offer very positive trade-offs in terms of work/life balance and advancement.

Yet, before you dive into making the move from BigLaw to in-house, there are some important considerations to keep in mind:

If planning to relocate geographically, consider a BigLaw relocation first. In an analysis that I did on 2018 BigLaw associate moves to in-house, I found that the vast majority of in-house attorneys lateralled in from firms in the same geographic market (see this visualization). Even though work has been completely virtual and remote at both in-house and firm employers, geographic connection is still incredibly important. Most attorneys in a given BigLaw firm office location work with clients that have some kind of presence themselves in that same location. This is why you've seen BigLaw firms continue to open up new offices across the U.S. They want to have their attorneys close to their clients. So if you want to work in-house at a big tech company headquartered in Silicon Valley, you have a better chance of getting a job if you have been working for a BigLaw firm office in.... Silicon Valley.

Don't rely exclusively on traditional legal recruiters for opportunities. Unlike BigLaw hiring, you should not rely on legal recruiters and headhunters to identify positions for you. There are recruiters that have strong in-house connections. However, there are lots of in-house employers that will not work with legal recruiters. Instead, they post openings on job sites like LinkedIn Jobs and/or rely on internal referrals. So rather than seek out recruiters who "have lots of in-house openings," focus on identifying positions on your own and relying on your personal network (and extended network).

If you have more experience than what is advertised in an in-house position description, still apply. Lots of in-house legal positions are very competitive. Particularly if the needs of the position are general in terms of litigation and/or transactional experience and the company is located in a highly desirable location, the company may be sifting through hundreds and hundreds of applications. Therefore, it is not uncommon for an in-house employer to ultimately hire someone with more years of experience than the position advertises because the company ended up with an extremely qualified and large candidate pool.

The timeline for a single position may take several months or more. Depending on the in-house opening, the timeline for interviewing and hiring can take days, weeks or months. BigLaw firms interview and hire in a very standard way for lateral associates: a screening interview followed by 1 or 2 rounds of callback interviews. Some in-house employers will want you to meet with several different people across business and legal lines. Sometimes they will combine these interviews into a single time block, and sometimes not. (Keep in mind that an in-house attorney opening may only come up at a particular company once every few years, so the employer may be very deliberative and evaluative in their hiring process to ensure a good fit.)

Tailor your resume to the job description as tightly as possible. Tailoring your resume to the position is important no matter what, but it is especially important when moving from BigLaw to in-house. The internal recruiters and HR professionals that sift through in-house attorney applications work across several different company functions and may not knows the ins-and-outs of what makes for a strong attorney candidate. Therefore, your resume should reflect requirements and preferred qualifications in terms of experience, credentials and more. You want to make it easier for these screeners (and eventually, the attorney interviewers) to know that you are the right fit for the job.

Don't assume the hours are better. There is a presumption that since in-house legal departments do not rely on the "billable hour," that the work/life balance and hours are better than BigLaw firms. But this is not always the case. Every company is different. In-house lawyers can have a wide range of responsibilities that include meetings at different times of the day across different functions. If the company is large and multi-national, this may include connecting with co-workers across multiple locations and time zones. Additionally, the work you are called to do may have quick and urgent deadlines due to business demands. And the amount of responsibility and work on your plate can vary by company and position as well.

Remember that you are hired to add value, not learn something new. The ability to "add value" is the main reason anyone is hired into any position, and this is no exception for in-house attorney roles. At BigLaw firms, when you are hired as a summer associate or entry-level attorney, there are often different training modules and sessions that cover a lot of what you need to know about the firm and its practices. This is unlikely to be the case when you move from BigLaw to an in-house role. It will be up to you to introduce yourself to co-workers across business and legal lines and to learn on-the-job about your role and how you fit into the company.

Analyze the advancement opportunities carefully. BigLaw firms are more consistent and predictable than in-house legal departments when it comes to advancement. At a BigLaw firm, you have a general sense of how long it takes to make partner or counsel. Additionally, each year you work in BigLaw as an associate is a literal time marker of advancement: 1st Year Associate, 2nd Year Associate, etc. In-house legal departments are structured differently and individually. As you consider an in-house attorney option, pay close attention to titles and advancement targets. Ask questions for clarification and use LinkedIn profiles to learn more.