Question for the lawyers

[Deleted]

In-house counsel at a pharmaceutical company.  Is this a coveted or prestigious lawyer gig?  Do these positions require specialized experience and achievement, or just like, a warm body and an active law license (or whatever you call it). 

I am genuinely curious though.  Even though lawyers are currently ruining my life, they're all very smart, capable, knowledgeable, etc.  I was just wondering what type of legal minds this job attracts.

[sparkythelawyer]

I'm in house and I love it. Some places want more specialized experience, especially if you are in a larger corporation (of which I can imagine a pharmaceutical company is) would have more stringent requirements regarding the experience the lawyer has (labor vs. securities vs. industry experience, for example), but some smaller companies with smaller law departments may very well just want a warm body with a few years of generalist experience.

What made you ask?

[MrsAxilla]

In-house is a great gig. But the pharmaceutical industry is very highly regulated, so in-house there is definitely more specialized than just a warm body.

[Deleted]

Interesting. I figured the cushy job aspect of it would make it fairly competitive.

I was just asking because I work with so many lawyers these days. I'm always curious what their previous experience is because what they do now, at least for my team, is highly specialized.

And I'll admit that I bristle at their recommendations sometimes, which is always to put the kibosh on something I want to do. Lol. Just trying to gain some general perspective.

[Deleted]

I swear some of these folks are FDA plants.

::Shakes fist in the general direction of Washington DC::

[runforrest]

I'm an in-house patent attorney at a telecom company, and before that was in-house at another telecom company. After being at a firm for 5 years, the last 6 years have been a dream. Like others said, no billable hours, generally less stressful, fewer hours in general, and at my current job, I can work from home. Money isn't as nice as at a firm, but I'm still making a good salary because patent law is specialized and that helps a great deal with my job security and salary.

[Deleted]

Getting my current job was more difficult than getting my former AmLaw 100 job.

In-house at a well-regarded, larger company (e.g., Fortune 500 level) is often considered the promised land by many attorneys.  At such companies, we still earn a very comfortable salary, but we actually have time to enjoy that salary.  I may earn $100k less than elle, but I still do well and can go on 17-day trips while she continues to slave away to the top.  LOL.

To give you an idea of how competitive it is, we are currently looking to fill one spot.  In just these first two weeks, we have already reviewed over 60 resumes, and they keep coming in.  In essence, we are selecting from people who already made it to an AmLaw 100 gig and narrowing the pool even further.

Not all in-house employment is created equal.  Jobs at smaller or less well-known companies are easier to secure and pay less.

But you have to be quite good to land top-notch in-house employment.

[Deleted]

@misoangry, this makes sense.

It's kind of the same why for my job, but I'm not a lawyer. My company is huge, so I'm betting that the lawyers here are top-notch.

I guess I will begrudgingly accept their advice then. :-)

[Deleted]

Apr 4, 2013 10:46:55 GMT -5 05heel said:

I am genuinely curious though.  Even though lawyers are currently ruining my life, they're all very smart, capable, knowledgeable, etc.  I was just wondering what type of legal minds this job attracts.

Re the specific question of what type of legal minds are attracted to in-house work:

I think, on the whole, we are smart and hard-working, but we do not need to be *the* star in the room, if that makes any sense.  Those types stay at the firm and make partner.  See, e.g., elle.

We are the ones who work hard during the day and get you good results, but we stop thinking about your case once we leave the building.  (hot)

[threejs]

Lurker here. I work for an FDA law firm - in house at big Pharma is pretty coveted, and as far as I know you have to pretty much be an expert in the field to be considered.

[MWOS]

This post is relevant to my interests.

[janegold]

I'm not sure about typical qualifications for pharma in-house jobs but none of the in-house attorneys at my client in the healthcare field are health lawyers. May be different in more life science-oriented companies.

[sparkythelawyer]

Apr 4, 2013 11:01:37 GMT -5 05heel said:

Interesting. I figured the cushy job aspect of it would make it fairly competitive.

I was just asking because I work with so many lawyers these days. I'm always curious what their previous experience is because what they do now, at least for my team, is highly specialized.

And I'll admit that I bristle at their recommendations sometimes, which is always to put the kibosh on something I want to do. Lol. Just trying to gain some general perspective.

I always feel bad when we get the rep for being "The House of No."  I really, really try to come up with a way to say, "Let's play with how we set this up so that it works."  Sorry the lawyers are chapping your butt :-)

[sparkythelawyer]

Apr 4, 2013 11:01:37 GMT -5 05heel said:

[berbles]

Apr 4, 2013 11:08:35 GMT -5 runforrest said:

I'm an in-house patent attorney at a telecom company, and before that was in-house at another telecom company. After being at a firm for 5 years, the last 6 years have been a dream. Like others said, no billable hours, generally less stressful, fewer hours in general, and at my current job, I can work from home. Money isn't as nice as at a firm, but I'm still making a good salary because patent law is specialized and that helps a great deal with my job security and salary.

Really?  I'm a patent paralegal for a semiconductor company.  The patent world is small; I bet we work with some of the same firms!

[Deleted]

You should be sorry, Sparky. Just kidding. The attorneys are as accommodating as they can be, but the industry is so highly regulated that there is almost no wiggle room on some issues. Also, the FDA is a goddamn dinosaur that hates good science, so there's that.

[sparkythelawyer]

The FDA is one regulatory beast I have not had to tackle yet, thank heavens :-)

[Deleted]

Makes sense, Tamb. (Why can't I quote?)

I'm no legal expert, but it also depends on the company you work for. Mine is huge and always under the microscope, so our approach is EXTREMELY conservative. I've consulted for smaller pharma and biotech companies in the past that do whatever the heck they want and manage to fly under the FDA radar.

[berbles]

Apr 4, 2013 15:16:35 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

It probably requires some background in patent law and/or regulatory law, so it's highly prestigious, highly coveted, difficult to get (qualify for), and well compensated.

Probably not.  Patent attorneys are their own special breed.  If they wanted someone with patent experience they would advertise for it specifically.  An attorney who hasn't taken the patent bar would be useless to a patent department.  They can't file with the PTO or argue with examiners.

More likely they want someone with regulatory or contracts experience.  Possibly litigation.  Or HR.

[Deleted]

I wonder if pharma contracts out their litigation work.

[berbles]

Apr 4, 2013 15:22:09 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Apr 4, 2013 15:19:51 GMT -5 berbles said:

Probably not.  Patent attorneys are their own special breed.  If they wanted someone with patent experience they would advertise for it specifically.  An attorney who hasn't taken the patent bar would be useless to a patent department.  They can't file with the PTO or argue with examiners.

More likely they want someone with regulatory or contracts experience.  Possibly litigation.  Or HR.

I've looked at several in house positions with Eli Lilly because I do health care law now.  They always require a background in either IP or regulatory law.  I've yet to see one that gives a shit about litigation.  I wish.  I've got loads of experience in that.

Weird.  I wonder if it's more on the IP litigation side, because, like I said, not all attorneys can do IP prosecution.  You have to have passed the patent bar.  

OR, they want someone familiar enough with IP Law to help advise/strategize , but not actually prosecute.

[Deleted]

I'm sure they do in terms of the attorneys who actually are in court.
 Those attorneys would then be supervised by the in-house legal
department.  That's one of the things that makes in-house counsel so
cushy.  You sort of direct litigation, but you don't have to actually deal with a litigator's schedule which fecking sucks when you're on trial.  

Makes sense.

[Deleted]

In-house counsel doesn't always just supervise outside counsel.

We have over 90 attorneys in-house. We handle our own case loads. Only if we have class actions or other similar giant cases do we employ outside counsel. This is how we keep costs down.

We go to court, appear before commissions, and argue before judges, arbitrators, and mediators.

[tdk2]

No input as it's not my field. haha.

However, your post title has me singing "All the Legal Ladies" to the tune of single ladies.
no idea why....

[berbles]

Apr 4, 2013 15:36:19 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Apr 4, 2013 15:27:25 GMT -5 berbles said:

Weird.  I wonder if it's more on the IP litigation side, because, like I said, not all attorneys can do IP prosecution.  You have to have passed the patent bar.  

OR, they want someone familiar enough with IP Law to help advise/strategize , but not actually prosecute.

I would think it has more to do with strategics and then supervising outside patent counsel.  They're not so much interested in "prosecution" as protection and extension of existing patents.  I have a family friend who is in research and development at Lilly and I remember him just freaking out when Prozac's (? I think it was Prozac) patent was about to expire.  Like Lilly was just going to go up in smoke when that happened or something.  Then they developed Stratera and thought that would carry them for a while.  I don't know.  I don't really follow that company because, like I said, every time they put up a job posting, I'm like (OOooh they want a health care lawyer!  Shit they want IP/Regulatory).

I'd imagine for some positions, they do want someone who has passed the patent bar.  I have a friend who is a patent attorney with Under Armor (obviously not a pharmaceutical company, but in terms of in-house patent positions) and I know they wanted a "real" patent attorney who had passed the patent bar.  Not just sort of generic IP attorney.  She makes bank.  She works really hard though.

Yep.  I work with patent attorneys and my mom is a partner at an IP firm.  All of the attorneys I work with have masters degrees in engineering (well, my boss's is in bio, but he's mostly here for litigation) and my mom has a PhD in molecular bio.  Most patent attorneys will tell you they're "fake" attorneys.  Because they're really scientists/engineers who decided to go to law school.  LOL  But yes, BANK.

[sparkythelawyer]

See, weirdly, I have been told that McDonalds is a crappy place to be in-house, very cutthroat.

We don't handle our own litigation here, which is probably why I don't make Miso's bucks :-)

But it gives you the chance (especially in a smaller company) to really be a part of how policies are made, decisions are arrived at and the company is run. Its fun :-)

[threejs]

Apr 4, 2013 13:46:34 GMT -5 @tambcat said:

Apr 4, 2013 13:00:17 GMT -5 threejs said:

Lurker here. I work for an FDA law firm - in house at big Pharma is pretty coveted, and as far as I know you have to pretty much be an expert in the field to be considered.

Do you work in DC? How did you get into the field? If you don't mind my asking.

I do work in dc, but I'm not a lawyer. Sorry. Just the firm administrator. It's such a specialized field, but most associates come in through internships or summer programs in related fields. We've also hired associates directly from govt. I don't want to give too much identifiable info, but please feel free to pm me. 

[sparkythelawyer]

Apr 4, 2013 15:51:57 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Apr 4, 2013 15:48:59 GMT -5 sparkythelawyer said:

See, weirdly, I have been told that McDonalds is a crappy place to be in-house, very cutthroat.

We don't handle our own litigation here, which is probably why I don't make Miso's bucks :-)

But it gives you the chance (especially in a smaller company) to really be a part of how policies are made, decisions are arrived at and the company is run. Its fun :-)

I wonder if it depends what department you're in.  He's in litigation and I think they keep them separate from their commercial/contracts attorneys.  Plus I know him from working together at the last firm we worked at and that place SUCKED, so maybe as compared to that it seems cush.  

Could be.  A group like McD's is going to have about eleventyzillion lawyers. different practice groups are going to have a different experience.My company? Three.  

I like this "summer hours" thing though, I need to gat that incorporated over here!