The spiral of failure looks like this: private practice; in-house; offshore.

Typical chippy nonsense from in-house people, who are all failed lawyers.

@City 17 June 22 08:36

Funny then that pay increases as failure progresses.

Yea all the heads of legals / GCs at banks, multinationals and large law firms are all “in house failures”.  Mmm….

I'm presently an associate in a US firm in London. We work long hours, including evenings and weekends whenever required, but much of the work is interesting and we are paid a ridiculous amount of money. I understand however why it's not for everyone. Frankly, I question the values of people who choose to have children and yet continue to work such long hours: lawyers are replaceable; parents are not.

I also have friends both in-house, and offshore, and I see the attraction of each. You do have more autonomy in-house, but from my pool of friends, I don't know anyone who is paid even 50% of what I am paid, certainly with bonuses included. They are also exponentially more vulnerable in economic downturns, as they are cost centres/liabilities. I completely understand why they made the move, though: what's the point of having children if you never see them, and have to outsource parenting to an au pair?

As to offshore, the sneering from a small subset of ROF readers amuses me. It reminds me of friends in the Army who looked down on the RAF, as 'Not proper military'. The old joke went that, "Army dig in; RAF check in", reflecting the deployed reality of land component elements living in trenches on exercise (for artillery protection), while air component personnel, hundreds of miles from danger checked into Middle Eastern hotels. More broadly, the Army treats its people like children; the RAF like adults. Years later, well after Sandhurst and once they had returned to the real world (and also grown up), the Army guys conceded that the contrived sense of superiority was a self-defence mechanism akin to Stockholm Syndrome. Rather than admit that RAF personnel had an objectively superior experience to Army personnel, and either just (a) accepting that; and (b) transferring to the RAF themselves, it was more cathartic to cast aspersions on the former's military prowess, manliness and virility. I think it's the same with many people shackled to a cold, wet, punitively taxed UK because of spousal careers/children's education/access to grandparents. They're 

Offshore looks great: better weather, similar/more money (certainly once predatory UK tax confiscation is considered), and exponentially better hours. I don't fancy in-house, myself: I'd rather be a profit centre and thus an asset not a liability in a recession, but I absolutely see the merits of offshore. Life's rich tapestry - it would be an awfully boring world if we were all the same, and certainly if we were bitter UK lawyers whinging about our friends who have successfully escaped, while we feel unable to follow! ;)

London, presently 17 June 22 09:27

As to offshore, the sneering from a small subset of ROF readers amuses me

______________________________________________________

To be fair, I don't think it is sneering. There genuinely are some people in the profession and on Rof who enjoy the prospect of populating their standard form SPA and completion minutes for the next 40 years. Truly these are the people who are greasing the wheels of global commerce. I take my hat off to the brave gents (or however they want to self identify, tri gender pyro fox seems to gaining traction) who sit all day stamping agreements with thier "standard terms, no change" stamps.  

I moved offshore a while ago - I’m definitely not the brightest but the attraction was the usual work/life balance one - we had small kids and the commute in London and long hours were getting me down.  It definitely has its drawbacks (generally we see a much smaller part of a transaction so I often feel like I’m always picking things up and putting them down), but the money is decent and most days I can get home to see the kids.  Do think about whether being far from family and friends back home would be an issue though, my other half struggled with that for a while and sometimes people don’t settle.

Just going to the original post - we generally hire from onshore private practice rather than in-house.

As a "specialist" rather than a "transactional" lawyers (I'm using my kind words) - I really don't understand the difference between the boring offshore thing you describe and the generally boring things I see my corporate colleagues doing!

I moved offshore 3 years ago. The main drawbacks are the quality of the work (you act as a mere back office for the onshore legal teams, who do all the substantive work) and that the rest of the profession looks down on you. 

Anon 17 June 22 10:30 - I'm offshore and that's my take on things too. I knew I wasn't good enough to cut it onshore. When I am instructed by City lawyers, it is always clear they are so much better than I am technically. So being offshore is a professional graveyard but I am happy.

The spiral of failure looks like this: living in the echo chamber of PP without a clue about the world outside, trading your life away for a mythical prospect of partnership whilst attacking others who realised the emperor isn't wearing any clothes.

The spiral of failure looks like this: living in the echo chamber of the offshore world without a clue about the world outside, trading your life away in a professional graveyard whilst attacking others who realised the emperor isn't wearing any clothes.

I did a couple of cases in a Caribbean offshore jurisdiction and ended up having drinks one evening with the local attorneys. What a sad, third rate bunch. Before the rum kicked in, they were sounding off about the far better choices they had made professionally and personally. After the alcohol, the story was very different and the truth came out. Each was bitter about not succeeding in the U.K., as well as being socially lonely and having to pretend they were friends with people they wouldn’t give the time of day to at home.

I remember what the partner in charge of trainees said to me at my MC firm: “If you fail, you can go to the Cayman Islands.”

Anonymous 17 June 22 08:49: indeed - money and prestige rarely go hand in hand. Look at the judiciary.

Practising offshore isn’t a career. It’s an impersonation, a caricature, of one.

I moved in house at a bank at 3-4 PQE. Wasn't planning too but received an offer that beat the one from a good city law firm I was moving too.

The good part

I can assure you that I have seldom regretted the move. I feel that i have time to look at legal risks from a broader picture. It's fun to see how deals come about with our business teams. I get to do more of the things I enjoy, like negotiation, and less of the things I disliked (like poring over comfort letters or legal opinions). It's very enjoyable to deal with partners and senior bankers, although a lot of them are hard asses. Mind you, the hours are not 9-5, at least in capital markets.

Compared to my friends in private practice, the move is a no-brainer in terms of value (quality of life) for money. The ones at MC firms were worked to the bone in 2020 and 2021, and made stg like 30-40K more (pre-tax) than I did. Not really worth it for me, but YMMV.

Looking back, the only private practice jobs that would be worth pursuing are US associates with a COLA at a top US firm, and for just a few years only.

The bad part
 

Very limited career prospects, there are plenty of washed out lawyers that can't get over the fact they didn't make it to partneship, limited ability to get raises.

I've had a job offer to work as a litigator in the BVIs.

The pay is equal to what I get in London (particularly given the £ is weak against the $ at the moment) but the tax rate (c. 8%) means the job would almost be doubling my net pay. 

All these comments about being in the back office for onshore legal teams. Is that comment mainly directed at corporate lawyers? Decisions decisions... 
 

I’m GC of a listed tech company. I get to do great commercial work with the biggest companies in the world, get paid plus/minus the same as a partner at a small to medium sized city firm, yet go home at five thirty every day with only the occasional evening call to the US. I would rather poke my eyes out and cut my testicles off before going back into private practice. Sure I could earn more (and external advisers regularly ask if I want to go back), but what’s the point dying with a huge bank balance that you can’t spend.

Prospective Offshore Litigator 17 June 22 12:03: as a litigator, you will also be a post box. The actual work (advice, drafting, advocacy) is done by the onshore lawyers and counsel. 

Anon 17 June 22 12:15: it’s OK. Not everyone is cut out for the most prestigious jobs. 

Re offshore litigation, no, it’s not. Corporate lawyers are postboxes offshore in the Caribbean I.e forming entities, giving opinions everything is ok but without accepting liability if it is not.

Litigators offshore actually litigate, and you’ll probably have a better quality of work offshore - you have case before courts in Cayman, not just assisting a bigger case going ahead in London, although that happens. Litigation solicitors in London are closer to being postboxes with submissions and advocacy being done by external counsel. If the case is really high value, then yes more common to ship an experienced QC from London to do the advocacy.

I say this now being neither offshore nor a litigator. I have no skin the game, but I have seen it and been a part of it first hand.

"There genuinely are some people in the profession and on Rof who enjoy the prospect of populating their standard form SPA and completion minutes for the next 40 years."

Clueless recital of stale, cherry-picked stereotypes.  You’d expect more balance from a lawyer …

In other countries, e.g., in the US, it’s considered that a lawyer who has not experienced business / government at first hand is a bit of a eunuch in a harem. 

Over 30 years, I've worked in private practice / in-house at a plc / private practice / in-house at an industry regulator / set up my own software company / private practice / set up my own global renewable energy company and investment fund / currently being approached to go back into private practice.  The dull reality is that I never noticed much difference.  Especially when you're working in a new company, in a regulated sector, with multiple global investors and investment structures and divestments, it's bespoke work every time.  I only wish it were rinse and repeat, but as soon as a  business gets to that stable / boring point, I tend to cash out my shares and start something else.  Conversely, I know people in private practice (obviously not Slaughters) who do the exact same work all the time - and I also know specialist juniors in large in-house depts who do the same work all the time.  Beyond a certain size, in-house depts and law firms all suffer from over-specialisation.  It produces nerdy specialists who are largely inept outside their little area.  Amusingly though, all of these blinkered folk (whether in-house or in private practice) view the world through the prism of their narrow specialism.  They have very limited commercial cop-on, and business-people tend to steer clear of them and view them with a mix of impatience and contempt.  Ivory-tower nerds sitting in meetings, pontificating about theoretical risks (“I have the following concerns …”).  No business experience, offering no solutions (having to be nudged / kicked into offering any solution which deviates from the “refusal to entertain any risk scenario dictated by their PI insurance” approach to life), no commercial risk filter, no ranking order.   

A typical question I've field down the years, form both lifer in-housers and lifer privateers alike, is "did you notice a big change, going from in-house to private practice, or from private practice to in-house?"  The expectation was that I must have endured a culture shock, either way. 

I always felt I was disappointing them in some way when I told them the unvarnished, dull truth, namely that there is very little difference.  Working in-house in a global company with numerous JVs etc, most of your internal clients are overseas anyway.  Work is work; clients are clients.  A properly managed GC role is always semi-detached from its own business anyway, as you will often need to be the most unpopular guy in the room.  The dynamic is very similar to servicing clients from with in a law firm. 

I’ve very much enjoyed both, but I always tell people it’s incorrect to assume that there is a generic type of in-house role which can be neatly compared ot a generic type of private practice role.  I’ve seen and experienced wonderful roles in either setting; and I’ve also seen dreadfully narrow and tedious roles in either setting too.  It all depends on the particular role.  In-house roles vary wildly – some are a mix of legal adviser and business-person.  Some are legal managers.  Some are narrow legal nerds, churning out the same stuff (like Axiom , a private practice firm, does).  Others are absolutely cutting edge, often due to there not being enough money to instruct a specialist.  You learn fast.  As a result of working in my first start up, I was approached by McGraw Hill educational publishers in the US to write the legal chapter on an EDI handbook.  At the turn of the century, I used to run lectures for private practitioners, bringing them up to speed on the area.  

The disadvantage of in-house work is that you have to worry about implementation of your advice.  In private practice, you can craft an immaculate piece of advice which the client will often largely ignore.  You do not care; all that matters is that you get paid for your advice.  And when the client messes up as a result of ignoring your advice, you get paid again for helping them sort out the mess.  However, working in house, daily you will see whether your advice is being followed or not.  Giving advice is often the easy part; getting them to listen to you and to actually put it into practice is quite another matter.  It can be a little surreal to be in a board room full of millionaires, telling them that they’re doing things wrong and need to shape up lol.  And the politics of implementation can be toxic.  You learn a lot about viral implementation.  Despite popular stereotypes, law firms, with their much flatter structures, and paradoxically often are less stuffy places to work in than companies.  Sadly though, over the last few years, I’ve noticed how law firms are starting to ape the nannying b/s you find in companies.

There are wonderful roles, and dreadfully dull roles, in both settings folks.  Do grow up and stop cherry-picking the worst that either context has to offer, just to win a playground argument.

To Prospective Offshore Litigator, I have friends working in Cayman as litigators, and they do exactly the same as we do in London, except that several of them have also gained extensive advocacy experience (note: not all of them - some of the larger firms like Walkers and Maples apparently instruct almost everything to counsel, too). Personally, the most frustrating part of litigation in London is that we essentially do "The stuff that counsel doesn't want to do". On that, please also see a conversation about this from last year: https://www.rollonfriday.com/discussion/why-are-people-still-doing-litigation. The only exceptions are my colleagues who do arbitration matters - there are several of them, but most of our work is litigation, so it's few and far between. Even in arbitration though, we instruct out almost all high-value matters to counsel, as clients expect a QC. 

That's not saying that I'd want to be a barrister either - there are disadvantages to that route too, but what I perceive as the best of all worlds is doing what my US colleagues do: the entire end-to-end litigation piece, from taking initial instructions through pre-action correspondence, to in due course written submissions and oral advocacy. You can only do that in a fused profession. Even if you wanted to, the US is virtually impossible to break into as an English-qualified lawyer (though I'm aware of some who managed it). Offshore definitely offers great opportunities though, as both BVI and Cayman have a fused profession.

For your purposes, a brief Google for BVI litigation solicitor advocate provided several examples […]. Perhaps I'm indulging in 'grass is greener' thinking, but that's a far more attractive career path than either litigation solicitor or commercial barrister in London.

I don't know for certain on the transactional side, but having met offshore lawyers who do transactional work, apparently much of it is the same as in London, but for places outwith the UK. I suspect that most of the UK lawyers posting above can only comment on their own narrow exposure to offshore lawyers, in which the latter played only a supporting role. I don't have any experience of transactional work, but I don't understand why transactional work in London on companies incorporated in England and Wales would be substantially different to, let alone superior to, transactional work in BVI/Cayman for on companies incorporated in BVI/Cayman. I don't really understand why some UK transactional solicitors would feel the need to denigrate their colleagues overseas, unless they were jealous? If people really did believe that they were superior, why would they feel the need to indulge in online willy-waving to prop up their egos?! I also presume that they haven't made partner themselves in London, as if they did they certainly would have neither the time nor the inclination to lower themselves to such nonsense (rather, they'd be working all hours and neglecting their kids! ;).

the concept of prestige in transactional law feels a bit off to me. For the most part it's doc blozzing and paper shuffling, and most people do it because it's reasonably well paid work and being a lawyer is a respected career. If I could get paid what I do to work on the bins I'd do that. 

so all the weird snobbery about in-housers and offshorers can do one. 

@Anon 12.19 - you are right of course. I frequently have to turn down job applications from private practice candidates whose main experience is minutes and verification rolled together with a good dose of photocopying exercise.  

Anon at 12:19 said: It’s OK. Not everyone is cut out for the most prestigious jobs. 

Some more mature views:

• We buy things we don’t need with money we don’t have to impress people we don’t like: Walter Slezak, 1928;
• You probably wouldn’t worry about what people think of you if you could know how seldom they do. - Olin Miller, 1936; and
• Don't waste your time on jealousy; Sometimes you're ahead, Sometimes You're behind. The race is long, and in the end, it's only with yourself. Baz Luhrmann, Sunscreen, 1999.

What matters in life? Time spent with your partner (who you married because you like them, presumably?), reading to your children at bedtime (who only have one father/mother: you), earning enough so that you have both the security and freedom to do what you want in life, decent weather, nice location, low taxes? Or an obsessive drive, borne of narcissism and deeply-felt inferiority, to attack other people's (possibly/probably superior) life choices?

There was an interesting FT article a couple of years ago about dysfunctional lawyers, reviewing the book "Smacked" by Eilene Zimmerman, about her high-profile law firm partner's death:

"The most high-powered and remunerative professions in the US — law, banking, tech — appear to be awash with narcotics. People turn to them for numerous reasons: to improve focus and performance; to bring excitement to drone-like lives; to cope with the stress of working 100 hours a week. [...] Peter’s funeral drew a large contingent from his law firm. As one of them delivered a eulogy that “canonised” their former colleague, Zimmerman scanned the room. Most of the lawyers were staring at their phones. “They are reading texts and emails, perhaps even reviewing documents on those tiny screens; some of them are actually thumb-typing.” In this one scene is perhaps the most eloquent answer to the question of why Peter met the fate he did."

(Source: Smacked by Eilene Zimmerman — executive drug addiction, William Skidelsky, FT, 6 March 2020. https://www.ft.com/content/73f46de0-4f31-11ea-95a0-43d18ec715f5)

See also, regarding another high profile male lawyer's death:

"Biglaw Widow Blames Firm For Husband’s Suicide", Above The Law, 12 November 2018. https://abovethelaw.com/2018/11/biglaw-widow-blames-firm-for-husbands-suicide)

But they both had very prestigious jobs, and - according to some - that's what's important.

Finally, how many of those whinging about offshore (a) have any experience of working overseas themselves; and (b) actually have any realistic prospect of getting the UK partnership that they plainly so desperately crave, and to what extend are their fears manifesting themselves in their online commentary?

To Prospective Offshore Litigator, I have friends working in Cayman as litigators, and they do exactly the same as we do in London, except that several of them have also gained extensive advocacy experience (note: not all of them - some of the larger firms like Walkers and Maples apparently instruct almost everything to counsel, too). Personally, the most frustrating part of litigation in London is that we essentially do "The stuff that counsel doesn't want to do". On that, please also see a conversation about this from last year: https://www.rollonfriday.com/discussion/why-are-people-still-doing-litigation. The only exceptions are my colleagues who do arbitration matters - there are several of them, but most of our work is litigation, so it's few and far between. Even in arbitration though, we instruct out almost all high-value matters to counsel, as clients expect a QC. 

That's not saying that I'd want to be a barrister either - there are disadvantages to that route too, but what I perceive as the best of all worlds is doing what my US colleagues do: the entire end-to-end litigation piece, from taking initial instructions through pre-action correspondence, to in due course written submissions and oral advocacy. You can only do that in a fused profession. Even if you wanted to, the US is virtually impossible to break into as an English-qualified lawyer (though I'm aware of some who managed it). Offshore definitely offers great opportunities though, as both BVI and Cayman have a fused profession.

For your purposes, Google "solicitor advocate" "BVI Commercial Court" to see what can be achieved. Many of the resulting profiles are far more attractive career than either litigation solicitor or commercial barrister in London.

I don't know for certain on the transactional side, but having met offshore lawyers who do transactional work, apparently much of it is the same as in London, but for places outwith the UK. I suspect that most of the UK lawyers posting above can only comment on their own narrow exposure to offshore lawyers, in which the latter played only a supporting role. I don't have any experience of transactional work, but I don't understand why transactional work in London on companies incorporated in England and Wales would be substantially different to, let alone superior to, transactional work in BVI/Cayman for on companies incorporated in BVI/Cayman. I don't really understand why some UK transactional solicitors would feel the need to denigrate their colleagues overseas - unless they were jealous? If people really did believe that they were superior, why would they feel the need to indulge in online willy-waving to prop up their egos?! I also presume that they haven't made partner themselves in London, as if they did they certainly would have neither the time nor the inclination to lower themselves to such nonsense (rather, they'd be working all hours while neglecting their kids! ;).

Anonymous 17 June 22 12:32: I'm a Cayman litigator and I'm afraid you are talking total rubbish. We are postboxes: Anon 17 June 22 12:17 is right. None of the underlying business which is the subject of the litigation actually happens offshore. It takes place onshore. So the businesses have the relationships with the onshore law firms, which in turn instruct counsel. In short, the legal teams are entirely put together onshore, and then imposed on the local attorneys. The onshore lawyers do all the substantive work, and send it to the attorneys for filing. Likewise, counsel do the advocacy, not the attorneys. I made the move offshore because I was struggling to succeed onshore. But I make no bones about the fact that it is a huge step down and professionally unsatisfying. I loathe playing not just second fiddle but third fiddle to other lawyers, who all look down on you. At all times, as the attorney, you are the least important person in the room. You are only involved because you have to be, and have no role of any real value.

Blimey papercuts. I've seen shorter SPAs than that!

Crikey the negativity from some people on here is nuts. Isn’t the answer just:

Private Practice - If (i) your ultimate goal is to be a partner and earn the associated financial rewards and (ii) you are happy with the sacrifices in terms of hours / stress of winning work etc, then this is usually the best option for you.

In-House - If you are okay with (i) not earning the same as an equivalent private practice partner (either because realistically that option isn’t available to you or the sacrifices aren’t worth it in your circumstances) and (ii) being less likely to be doing the most interesting / complex work (because you will be a generalist rather than a subject matter specialist) then this could be a good choice. Difference in earnings may partly be mitigated by being able to live further away from big cities / work form home more often.

Offshore - If (i) you are prepared to accept doing really quite mundane / repetitive work for your whole career (which may make it tough for you to come back onshore if you stay a long time, given the nature of your experience), in exchange for good post-tax pay and good hours and (ii) you consider the benefit of living somewhere sunny with lots of ex pats exceeds the disbenefit of potentially being far from family / friends, this might suit you.

Simples.

Seems to be a lot of chippy, non-transactional lawyers arguing about where they're more irrelevant in these comments. Anyway, what anon 12:17 said, but without the experience.

No two roles are the same.

Honestly, offshore work isn't that bad. Might help that I live in Jersey which is a little less post-boxxy than other places offshore (BVI etc) and I do a lot of local legal work to supplement my more international stuff (which is all led by English counsel).

I leave in relatively good time most days (6-7ish). The money is pretty good - I've just accepted job for 75kish at 1 year PQE. If I worked for, say, Slaughter and May, I'd be on 120k ish, sure. But after tax, that's only 15kis more per annum. I really like law, but I just don't think its worth the stress of working 9am till 10pm every day for a bit more money and "prestige".  

Different strokes for different blokes and all that. 

@ Offshore Fool: if you take an offshore role for £75k you’re doing it wrong.  Go to Caymans and get at least US firm rates.  It’s not worth the career limitations otherwise.  (I’m an offshore lawyer).

This 'spiral of failure' stuff is so weird. I moved in-house from a transactional role at an MC firm (quite early on, 2-3PQE) because I was absolutely miserable there - I never saw my partner or friends, never had a proper work-free holiday and was constantly on call. The work might have been objectively interesting but it was very hard to tell at 4am.

I can't say I don't miss the money but I'm about 3000% happier in every other way. If you're content with your life at an MC/US firm then good for you - success looks different to each of us. How strange to believe otherwise.

anon 17 June 22 13:15 - that's exactly my experience of being a litigator in BVI. Pretty soul destroying from a professional standpoint, frankly. My advice to onshore litigators: unless the wheels are coming off, stay where you are.

Anon 17 June 22 15:23:

"success looks different to each of us. How strange to believe otherwise."

No. As you well know, there is an objective standard to determine success. And judged against that standard, you have not achieved as much as someone in private practice.

This is like a prison wing full of thieves sitting down to discuss who is best. It’s irrelevant. Tallest of the dwarves. 

And let’s not forget that all the good comments from in house will have been generated by the marketing teams of the highly praised firms. 

And while I’m here, take a look at the ROF email which summarises today’s headlines. It is a succinct and accurate reflection of the industry. Littered with terrible behaviours. EVERY WEEK! 
 

Do yourselves a favour, get some therapy, work through the top of class / risk averse / massively insecure complex and get out the prison you call work. Some of you are probably alright. 

And have a great weekend.

(and is it still ok to say dwarves?)

(and how do I get out this toilet cubicle?) 

Take whatever you want from what I'm about to say, dismiss it if you want, but I feel the need to write this to add some balance to the discussion.

To anyone thinking about moving offshore, if you don't like it, you can move back. Give it a chance.

Personally I love it. Aside from the better hours, better money and better standard of living (every weekend is a holiday and sunshine everyday has a huge impact on my happiness), I love working in law again. I was very much starting to hate it before I came (rinse and repeat M&A deals), now I'm working on cutting edge Crypto work, SPACs, and some of the biggest transactions in the world, while still doing the standard M&A work - but for a much broader range of more interesting clients.

Yes, onshore counsel more often than not take the lead, but that has its advantages. You can escape the mundanity and stress of client handholding and project management and actually focus on what you trained to do. A lot of the time you get out what you put in. If you prove yourself to be switched on, pro-active and an asset to onshore, they'll come to you more and get you more involved, I definitely never feel like a "post box" or a rubber stamp. 

For me, Offshore is a hybrid of the best bits of PP & InHouse (having previously done both).

So, before those of you who are thinking of coming here are dissuaded from doing so because of comments from those who have never actually tried it, give it a go. 

But that's just me, someone who actually works offshore.

papercuts 17 June 22 12:34

____________________________________________________

wow

never understood what "triggered" really meant until now

I cannot believe how much tripe is being spouted on here these days re in-house/offshore lawyers. The complete lack of nuance in these comments demonstrates that those making them lack the perspective that comes with both life and professional experience. Let me be clear: That "prestige" stuff matters to you when you are (1) doing vacation schemes (2) doing your training contract and (3) in the first year or two post qualification. After all that, you realise that there is more to life than your job and that if all you have to hang your hat on to give your life meaning is "the prestige brought by your job", you need to have a long hard look in the mirror (presumably after you have completed your full "American Psycho" morning routine).

There is no design for life. The profession needs people to do all the roles mentioned above. You can be a bad lawyer in the best rated US or MC firm and you can be a great lawyer offshore. It can also be the reverse. At the end of the day, if you are happy with your lot in life, good for you. Your sense of self worth shouldn't come from the fact that you think you are better than someone because of some self created prestige pecking order. 

This comment comes from someone who has worked in the MC (both in London and in an overseas office), in a major UK regional firm and who has been in-house. I've been happy in all of them. I've had crap days in all of them. I've worked all-nighters in all of them. Work is work, it's all irrelevant at the end of the day. Life is what happens when you leave the office folks...so don't get hung up on all this BS.

Private practice was great fun; it formed me as a lawyer. But it is also chock full of psychopaths. That's not entirely derogatory, it's just a necessary part of the character required to work in that environment. I was fortunate to find my dream job in house which incidentally pays a lot more so please don't assume in house means lower pay. The best measure of your quality as a lawyer is would you ever spend your own money on the level of fees you charge? Private practice is a sales job so don't forget we get to choose who we want to instruct. 

The consensus seems to be that private practice is the most prestigious professionally; next down is in-house; and offshore is at the bottom.

You are a postbox in Bermuda, too. I am a litigator here and we just file what is sent to us by the onshore law firms (mainly in NYC and London). I don’t pretend it is a challenging role and I am certain I have sold out.

I am a pretty senior in house counsel and spend my days flicking through our panel database or Legal500 to find who I'm going to delegate the work to. I do hardly any legal work myself. I'm perfectly prepared to accept that my career is no way near as challenging or prestigious as those who stuck it out in private practice.