We have noticed a growing trend in recent months at RSP. One that has taken us somewhat by surprise and is, perhaps, indicative of the market in recent months. And that growing trend is the number of candidates asking us about in-house roles.

Now, I appreciate that this may not sound terribly groundbreaking, and before everybody groans about a blog which at first glance may not be terribly pertinent to their situation, I would urge everyone to hear me out. Managing partners, aspirants for partnerships, candidates for senior associate positions; you may be all pleasantly surprised.

Back to the topic; in-house positions.

Certainly when I was at law school (about 20 years ago), there was a perception about in-house roles. I hasten to add, absolutely nothing negative, but rather they were positions you progressed into on the way to retirement or ideal for a lawyer who needed, wanted or required a part-time position. And, with the usual danger that is associated with the following comment, it was always seen to be a more attractive proposition to women, as the demands of working as an in-house lawyer were seen as being more conducive to a family life than working towards partnership at a city firm.

Twenty years later, the perception of in-house has changed. Like everything, it has evolved. Firstly, the age of candidates has fallen, and with it, their PQE and roles. Lately, we have seen senior associates who you would otherwise have considered ideals candidates for partnership seeking legal counsel roles instead.

Lawyers, who should be at the peak of their ambitions for both themselves and their firms, are now approaching us with the intention of leaving private practice.

Now, I want to make one thing perfectly clear. There is absolutely nothing wrong with looking to go in-house. We are not negative about it; indeed, some of our most rewarding placements and some of the candidates we have enjoyed working with the most are legal counsel.

In fact, I can completely understand one massive attraction to working in-house. The variety of placements as you move from one company to the next over a couple of decades will ensure that you will experience frequent new challenges and you "will never grow stale."

But therein lies the crux of it, and is something we explain to all new candidates. I fully appreciate, having just said that this will not be a negative blog, that I am now going to sound quite negative. I don't mean to be, but there are certain things about the move from private practice that should be explained to candidates.

If we failed to do this, and endorsed their decisions without question, then we would be failing in our responsibility as consultants who can be trusted to act in your interests.

The main point we make to candidates is that it is very easy to move in-house. What is harder is moving back again, especially after more than 12 months. We all know that the grass is always greener but consider this one thing. If you were to remain in private practice, your career path is mapped out for you.

Senior associate, salaried partner, equity partner, the sports car on the driveway.

When you move in-house, you lose this. That's not to say that you'll be stuck in the same job for the rest of your life and the monetary rewards will not be good. We all know that you can earn very good money and have a very comfortable lifestyle by being a legal counsel.

But that is the danger; you will remain a legal counsel, undertaking the same type of work for a different company for the rest of your career.

Now, there are a lot of lawyers (and I am sure that you are one) who can make a real success out of this. They can move seamlessly from one contract to the next, or they identify the exciting new start up and become a founding member, or they transition from legal counsel to the board of an international conglomerate.

But for these lawyers, a substantial part of their time is spent on career development; i.e. finding the next job, polishing their CVs, talking to recruiters.

Let's face it, if you want to leave private practice because you don't like business development, are you really going to enjoy the career development part of in-house, which amounts to the same thing?

As I said earlier, it's very easy to switch to in-house, what isn't as easy is the move back. Why is that, I hear you all ask? It's actually pretty easy. When you're a senior associate on the cusp of partnership, the most attractive thing in your favour is your client following, i.e. the monetary value of the income you can bring a firm.

Think about it. You have been a legal counsel at Coca Cola for 4 years, with a total of 12 years PQE in total. However, all of your friends have just made partner and you feel like trying your hand at it, so you decide to leave. But how attractive will you be? In other words, what income will you be able to bring with you?

Coca cola? Who will no doubt have other legal counsel other than you and will have a Magic Circle firm on a retainer. Will they follow you? I doubt it.

And without that client following, you will become as attractive as a partner as NQE.

That may sound cynical, and there are obviously other things (how you fit into the company, what are your ambitions etc etc), but if you cannot a sizeable income with you, then you're going to struggle.

As we say to all our candidates, think of where you will be in 5 or 10 years from now.

Managing directors, consider why this should be important to you.

You can do this by asking why so many candidates are looking to make the move in-house. The reasons are usually the same. Burn out, exhaustion, work/life balance, changes in ambition and priorities.

There will always be employers who would say (no doubt some are reading this blog) that they are not interested in candidates who are not ambitious or whose priorities differ from theirs. I understand that. As a business owner, I also people to work for me who are just as ambitious as I am.

But there is a balance. Regardless of any preconceived perceptions you may have, excellent lawyers and superb candidates are leaving private practice. And if their firm monitors their time spent in the office, or has an Orwellian obsession with recording time spent on a lunch break, then who can blame them?

If there is an exodus into in-house roles, then it is also the part responsibility of managing partners and law firm owners to ensure that there are enticements in place to stop their best prospects from leaving.