ILNews

Attorneys discuss key traits of in-house counsel jobs

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

You’ve got your law degree. But that doesn’t mean your education is over – especially if you envision yourself someday working as an in-house or corporate attorney.

With a handful of exceptions, rarely do new law graduates waltz into a general counsel job. Making careful decisions now, however, could create an opportunity to move from a law firm to a corporate law position.

The right skills

Altice Altice

Kris Altice, general counsel for Shiel Sexton, said that to be a good in-house attorney, you need to be able to answer a variety of questions, and quickly.

“I have people walk in my office, and they need an answer in two seconds,” she said. Unlike working for a law firm, where an attorney may be able to tell a client, “I’ll get back to you,” Altice doesn’t have that option.

The broad knowledge that enables her to handle a variety of legal issues comes with experience. And that’s why most companies prefer to hire an attorney who has worked at least a few years with a law firm. Altice said that new lawyers learn a lot about analytical skills and basic tasks like writing a good memo in the first few years working for a firm.

Jason Schiesser, senior attorney in legal operations for Simon Property Group, agreed that law firm work is a good way to learn the skills that an in-house attorney will need.

Schiesser Schiesser

“Learn as much as you can from the partners in your firm, both in terms of substantive legal work and client service,” he said. “Companies are just not good training grounds for new lawyers.”

Schiesser said transactional attorneys tend to have an advantage in transitioning to in-house positions, most of which involve contracts and commercial issues.

When Altice was a business litigator for Ice Miller, she worked on many cases involving mortgages, construction contracts and employment contracts.

“I wasn’t drafting a lot of contracts, but I sure was arguing what was good and bad about them,” she said. That experience has helped her in creating contracts at Shiel Sexton.

Beyond lawyering

Martin Martin

Amberly Martin is vice president, general counsel and risk manager/chief privacy officer for Redcats USA, an online and catalogue retailer that encompasses many brands. She said that her background working in retail and accounting probably helped her land the legal job at Redcats.

Martin was working in the Redcats tax department in 2001 and attending law school in the evenings. When she graduated in 2002, she said the company decided to form a legal department.

“They put me in charge right out of law school,” she said. But she already had eight years of financial experience.

“One of the main objectives in my role of general counsel is to efficiently manage risk and resources. In doing so, your decisions must make sense to the business and finance side,” she said. “My tax and accounting experience gave me the skills to understand the financial risks and be in a position to explain the legal and financial impact of a recommendation.”

Altice wishes she had some background in accounting or finance so that when she’s reading a balance sheet, she could understand what she’s seeing and how it’s relevant. But she said the accountants at Shiel Sexton help her interpret financial information – even if they do make fun of her big-button calculator.

Personal characteristics

Martin said the Redcats legal team must be accessible to business customers and executives around the clock. She says an in-house attorney should be flexible, willing to work long hours, and stay calm in the face of unexpected events, like a recent travel delay she experienced.

“I was working on a project in Miami a few months ago, and I thought we were in a good position and I could come home. I got to the airport and was 20 minutes from boarding my flight when I got a call that I had to go back to the project in Miami. At that point, I had already checked my luggage, so I had to leave the airport without it and hoped that I would meet my luggage back in Indianapolis whenever I could get back,” she said. “That was certainly a unique situation, but you never know what might happen.”

Altice said her job demands patience and sincerity – she can’t be dismissive of questions or bothered by the multiple requests she handles each day. She also said that a good corporate attorney does not back down from uncomfortable situations.

“You can’t be a ‘yes’ man, you have to be able to stand up to people,” she said. “You have to know when to stand on a table and beat your chest and say, you can’t do this, this is wrong.”

Stevenson Stevenson

Naima Stevenson, director of legal affairs and assistant general counsel for the National Collegiate Athletic Association, explained that character is important for a general counsel, too.

“You need to have a good reputation, exceptional judgment and essentially have the ability to elicit the confidence of those who are on the receiving end of your legal advice and counsel,” she said.

How it’s different

Schiesser said the most obvious difference between working for a firm and working as an in-house attorney is that in-house attorneys don’t log billable hours. And Schiesser appreciates having the inside knowledge that enables him to help clients in a different way.

“As an in-house attorney, you are viewed as a valued team member instead of a hired gun like an outside counsel is. You are more likely to be consulted with in advance because that consultation isn’t going to cost the business person any money,” he said. “Therefore, you function as more of a business partner with your clients and are more involved in the decision-making process of the organization.”

In-house opportunities are not easy to come by, because many companies have small legal teams. But making connections in the legal community may be one way to transition to such a role, and that means taking the time to participate in networking opportunities.

“It pays off dividends later,” Altice said. “I think finding time to do that is critical.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT