A perspective from William D Marcum, Director Legal – AI/Analytics, Legal Tech and OEM, on the differences between following a private practice or in-house career path.
Ask ten attorneys about the biggest difference between private practice and in-house counsel, and you’ll likely get ten different answers and all of them will be right.
Having worked on both sides of the legal spectrum, I’ve experienced firsthand how different these worlds can be. Both are intellectually demanding, rewarding, and critical to business success but they function differently, require different mindsets, and offer different pros and cons.
If you’re considering a transition – or just curious how the other half practices – here’s a practical look at what distinguishes the two.
1. Client vs. Company
– Private Practice: Your “client” is external. You work on a variety of matters for different businesses or individuals – sometimes for years, sometimes for months, sometimes for days.
– In-House: Your client is your employer. You support one business, deeply and consistently, across its full lifecycle.
Pro: In-house counsel get to truly understand the business.
Pro: Private practice attorneys get a wider range of exposure.
Con: In-house, you may miss out on cutting-edge legal developments in other sectors.
Con: Private practitioners often juggle more unpredictability in client needs and timelines.
2. Specialist vs. Generalist
– Private Practice: Most lawyers specialise, e.g. IP, employment, litigation, tax, M&A.
– In-House: You often wear many hats, e.g. contract review, compliance, data privacy, HR investigations, maybe even real estate or marketing law.
Pro: In-house roles develop legal agility and business fluency.
Pro: Private practice lets you become a deep expert in your field.
Con: In-house lawyers may feel stretched thin across unfamiliar issues.
Con: Specialists can sometimes feel siloed or narrowly defined.
3. Advisory vs. Execution
– Private Practice: You give legal advice, outline risks, draft documents but rarely make the final business decision.
– In-House: You’re part of the decision-making process, helping shape risk strategies in real-time with business leaders.
Pro: In-house counsel have a seat at the table.
Pro: Private attorneys retain clearer boundaries and reduced exposure to operational risk.
Con: In-house means owning the outcome – legal and business.
Con: Private counsel may feel distanced from the long-term impact of their work.
4. Billable Hours vs. Business Goals
– Private Practice: Time is money. Your value is measured in hours billed, utilisation, and collections.
– In-House: Time is still money, but your value is measured in risk mitigation, efficiency, enablement, and strategy.
Pro: In-house roles avoid the billable grind and allow for strategic planning.
Pro: Private attorneys can scale their compensation and value quickly with performance.
Con: In-house salaries can plateau.
Con: Billable demands can lead to burnout or imbalanced work-life dynamics.
So, Which Is Better?
There’s no universal answer. It depends on your goals.
Crave variety, prestige, and complex legal puzzles? Private practice might be the right place.
Want to go deep on one company, impact business decisions, and escape billables? In-house may be your path.
Many of the best in-house attorneys I’ve worked with began in private practice and many private attorneys bring in-house experience that makes them better external advisors.
The two paths are different, but not mutually exclusive. And in today’s evolving legal landscape, the ability to navigate both worlds is more valuable than ever.
