New York Lawyer
February 19, 2002

Q:
Is it realistic to expect that an in-house legal position will help me secure a non-legal position at a later date with the same company?

Submit Your Question

Find More Answers

A:
If you look at the ranks of successful managers and executives, you see a lot of people with legal training, so it's safe to assume that a legal background is not a bar to a career in corporate management. Indeed, many people say they went to law school not to become a lawyer or to practice law, but rather to master the analytical, communications and negotiation skills that a legal education supposedly provides.

That said, a legal education and a subsequent legal career path are not the optimum approach to a non-legal career path. That's why we have MBAs. The world assumes that people naturally will self-select into educational and career paths that temperamentally are the best fit for them. Generally speaking, people who decide to become lawyers are proclaiming that they want to be knowledge experts, to be specialists whose authority derives from their competency in some specific discipline, whether it be labor law, compliance, or generation-skipping taxes.

Accordingly, in corporations people who want to be knowledge experts tend to gravitate toward "staff" roles, that is, positions that are essential for business functioning but which cost the company money rather than make it money. HR, IT, and the legal department are all examples of staff roles generally populated by subject-matter experts. Moreover, people in staff positions frequently are wired to be "individual contributors" -- they want to do the work themselves (and gain respect for their personal achievements) rather than manage others.

"Line" management, on the other hand, refers to roles that contribute directly to making the company money. People who aspire to general management roles tend to be generalists. They don't need or want to do everything themselves; rather, they prefer to couch their accomplishments in terms of how their division, business unit or overall company performs. The higher they go in the company, the more their task is to integrate the activities of others. They don't need to know how to make a circuit board in order to manage manufacturing. In addition, their sense of authority tends to derive from their status -- from where they are on the org chart -- rather than on the display of some specialized type of knowledge.

Accordingly, it is comparatively rare for even a gifted lawyer to "move across the line" into a non-legal or management role. Litigators in particular find it a tough swim, because they are often regarded as contentious or adversarial -- "deal breakers" -- if put into a general business setting (which is supposed to be collaborative and "win-win," not "win-lose").

However, the more generalized the nature of one's legal duties and the more related they are to doing the company's business, the less of a stretch it is for a lawyer to "move to the client side" within his or her company. Indeed, legal positions focusing on corporate finance, intellectual property, commercial transactions or general corporate governance may provide a deep understanding of a company's business operations and priorities. Similarly, if a senior in-house lawyer is functioning as an integral member of the senior management team, it is less unusual for that person to segue into executive responsibility.

All this may seem a long way from your question, but I am trying to describe a predictable career endpoint attending a decision to take an in-house legal role early in one's career. Whether it is realistic to expect that your role as lawyer could lead to a corporate career shift depends not only on the nature of the legal tasks you perform, but also on the size and structure of the company whose legal department you join. If it is large, mature, highly hierarchical and highly structured, your chances of initiating a successful "sector-shift" diminish. If it is growing, opportunistic, competency-based and fluid, the display of non-legal aptitudes is more likely to be recognized.

One thing is certain: You can't hang out in the corner handling qualified withdrawal orders for the benefits department and expect to be tapped for a rung on the management ladder. From the get-go -- without looking like you're ignoring your legal duties -- you have to be visible and to display an active developmental interest in learning those things and participating in those activities that provide managerial expertise and experience. You can try to bridge disciplines -- such as negotiating the acquisition and then volunteering to serve as liaison with other line and staff functions during due diligence, structural integration and operations. In various ways you can communicate that the identity of a lawyer is less important to you than participating broadly in the company's growth and operations.

You also can enhance your managerial marketability by taking courses or programs that credential you for general management -- courses in marketing, business planning and development, information technology, and corporate finance all could help demonstrate your commitment to learning the skills of "your new trade."

The shift into non-legal roles is much easier in entrepreneurial settings than in mature companies. In fact, if you get in on the ground floor of a start-up or rapid-growth enterprise, you may be able to negotiate a transition into a non-legal role as part of your anticipated career path. Just understand that the move you imagine is exceptional and requires you to make exceptional effort and take exceptional steps if you are to achieve it.

Sincerely,
Douglas B. Richardson
President, The Richardson Group