Post-Admission Career Options: The Road Ahead
Every law graduate reaches a point when he or she is confronted with the decision over which career path to take following admission to the Bar. With the coming into force of the Legal Profession (Amendment) Act 2023 in 2024, law graduates may be admitted to the Bar after passing the Part B examinations without completing practice training. This may ease the transition for law graduates to career paths other than private practice, such as in-house and other roles.
At the same time, the legal industry is going through a sea change, with job tasks (and potentially job roles in the future) increasingly modified or replaced by artificial intelligence (AI) tools. Savvy law graduates these days would also be aware of the many other potentially more lucrative and fulfilling non-law career options out there. So how should one decide on one’s career path given the uncertainties over how the legal profession may change in the future?
As compelling as such questions are, the aim of this article is more modest – it hopes to shed some light on some of the differences between two of the primary career options for law graduates, namely, private practice and in-house (with the caveat that the following are merely subjective observations which one is entitled to disagree with).
1. Work Expectations
Lawyers in private practice focus on providing legal solutions for external clients whether the matter is contentious or otherwise. There is an emphasis on meeting client expectations to meet billable hour requirements. It is important to understand the background and objectives of the client and to tailor one’s approach accordingly. Certain clients may have requests which may not accord with the relevant legal requirements, and it is the responsibility of the lawyer to point out such risks even if this may lead to increased costs for the client. Since a lawyer in private practice is a fee earner to his firm and in light of increased competition in the legal industry, there is a lot of focus on business development especially in smaller practices. While not every lawyer may enjoy undertaking business development, this will be an important consideration in progressing on a partnership track.
In-house lawyers support the business stakeholders in their organisation as their “internal clients” in line with the strategic objectives of the organisation. The main challenge faced by many in-house lawyers is balancing their roles as business enabler and gatekeeper of their organisation’s business practices. As a business enabler, an in-house lawyer is expected to collaborate with the business stakeholders to ensure that transactions or matters fulfil the relevant legal requirements. As a gatekeeper, an in-house lawyer is expected to advise on the legality of a course of action contemplated by the organisation (for example, retrenchment exercises, industry collaboration with competitors, etc.) and enforce internal ethics and compliance requirements (for example, providing gifts to customers, third-parties, etc.). Oftentimes, internal clients may also approach in-house counsel with issues that may not be strictly legal, but operational or administrative in nature. Hence, it is important for in-house counsel to understand the objectives of their stakeholders, and also the ins and outs of their organisation and industry.
Unlike external clients with whom private practice lawyers engage, internal clients in an in-house setting are more “homogenous”. An organisation will usually hire people who are aligned to its values and have the skillset and knowledge required for their roles. Since internal clients would have the same overarching objective as in-house lawyers in furthering the organisation’s interest, it may be easier for in-house lawyers to understand the internal client’s background and objectives as these would relate to the internal client’s key performance indicators (KPIs) in the organisation.
A legal department in a large multinational organisation may be structured like a private practice. There will be generalist roles (for example, market counsel) and also specialist roles (for example, privacy counsel, regulatory counsel, M&A counsel, etc.). Large multinational organisations would usually roll out complex products and services, which require inputs from all relevant counsel. Further, unlike in private practice where the legal issues tend to be more specialised and compartmentalised within an area of law, legal issues in an in-house setting are likely to touch on different areas of law which may involve the laws of various jurisdictions. Hence, it is important for in-house counsel to collaborate with their peers in the organisation and have good contacts of external counsel whom they may rely upon. In this regard, if the bugbear for many lawyers in private practice is attracting more clients, the bugbear for many in-house lawyers is managing the cost of their external counsel. Legal cost is seen as a cost of doing business which needs to be minimised. Engagement of external counsel would, therefore, depend on the extent of legal risk involved.
2. Opportunities to Grow
It used to be the case for newly-qualified lawyers to start off their careers in legal practice in their formative years before moving to an in-house role if one wishes. Law firms generally have the resources and structure to provide legal training for a newly-qualified lawyer to hone his or her skills in drafting, research and client interaction even though this may vary from firm to firm. In-house lawyers are normally expected to have already attained the relevant technical legal skills and in-house departments do not generally have the resources or capacity to provide training for this purpose, even though this may be different for bigger and more established in-house departments.
Advancement in private practice would depend on one’s ability to develop a niche and build a strong client base to eventually become a partner in the firm. In-house careers offer a more varied career trajectory depending on one’s interest and capability. In a large multinational organisation, in-house lawyers may make a switch from one practice group (for example, a corporate commercial role) to another practice group (for example, a regulatory role). This is not likely to be possible in private practice as fee earners. It is also not uncommon for in-house lawyers to make a switch to a business administration role with the opportunity to contribute to the strategic development of the organisation.
3. Work-life Balance
The issue of whether private practice or in-house offers a better work-life balance is a difficult one to answer, especially after the post-COVID-19 return to office. The extent of work-life balance depends on the organisation and the nature of the work, whether it is in private practice or in-house. That said, private practice can be hectic and fast-paced even though the workload may be cyclical, while the workload as an in-house counsel tends to be more predictable with fewer urgent client deadlines. Lawyers in private practice are often under pressure to complete matters under tight deadlines, whether they are imposed by the client or legal/regulatory requirements under the Rules of Court, SGX Listing Rules, etc. Junior lawyers also need to be prepared to multi-task between the work assigned by different partners in the practice group and often have to work overtime to meet expectations. Although strict deadlines may be less prevalent for in-house lawyers, it is also important for in-house lawyers to manage the expectations of their internal clients.
In summary, the choice between a private practice and an in-house legal career is a highly personal and subjective one and the above are but some of the potential differences between the two. Ultimately, in making a career choice, it boils down to one’s strengths and interest in the nature of work and preferences in client interaction, and the ability to adapt to the organisation and its demands. Understanding these considerations can help newly-admitted lawyers manage their career expectations.
The views expressed in this article are the personal views of the author and do not represent the views of the Singapore University of Social Sciences or any other organisation.
