I'm breaking this down into multiple posts because I got logged out and lost my entire post earlier when I tried to make this thread.

BACKGROUND: Graduated middle of class from T14 and struck out in OCI (for any good firms at least) during ITE. Used family connections to get hired in-house at a family office. Worked my way up to GC-equivalent position at the family office, and have had that role for 5+ years now. My legal department is small, 3 people total. I'm located in NYC/SF/LA/Chi. I have a wife and kids. Wife works and makes around $100k / year.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5668105&forum_id=2#48578255)

(1) Real Estate: Since I started here, the family office has grown a real estate portfolio from ~$100 MM to ~$1 Bil. For the past 7+ years I've effectively handled all of the legal work for all transactions and financings, along with the non-litigation legal work for the management of the real estate portfolio generally -- all without ever needing to bring on outside counsel.

(2) General Corporate / Outside GC: The bulk of the rest of my time is acting as outside GC to a handful of smaller companies in the tech space that are either wholly owned by the family office, or for which the family office is the primary shareholder. They all operate in two very separate and very different niches of the tech space. For all but one of these, I was involved pretty much from the get-go. For all, I handle all of their legal needs, other than litigation. For scale / scope, total EBITDA for all combined is around $25MM.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5668105&forum_id=2#48578259)

It's not clear to me whether it's a good or bad thing that I've effectively been working in and gaining experience two different areas of law (real estate and general corporate in the tech space).

At first, I would try to build a practice doing both real estate transactions and general corporate / transactional work for smaller companies in the tech space. My assumption is that, over time, I will end up focusing on one of those two. Given that I have essentially no experience whatsoever litigating, I would plan on not doing any litigation.

I will need to start from scratch bringing on clients. If I go solo, there's a zero-percent chance the family office would be willing to hire me on an hourly basis (or let their portfolio companies do the same). It would be great to get the ball rolling, but that won't be an option.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5668105&forum_id=2#48578287)

(1) Is my plan broadly realistic? I don't have much of a reputation outside of the people I've done deals with directly or worked with directly. My current network is small given my overall level of experience. So I would likely need to develop mostly brand new relationships to bring on clients.

(2) What should my hourly rate be -- both on the real estate side, and the general corporate side?

(3) My target net income for my first year solo would be $200k. Is that realistic?

(4) How much harder will this be given that I don't plan on doing any litigation?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5668105&forum_id=2#48578319)

As long as you have the savings to go 1-3 years making far, far less, you're set there. Your biggest limitation is clients. I have no idea what your expectations are but I would guess you'll end up doing shit you hate at least for a little while to just get some work. Are you "networking" with other lawyers in your market in related fields. I would guess T&E lawyers would be a great source. Do you know other solos in your area?

As for rate/income no idea. I also went solo straight from law school so the first year was 30k but again, a town with a population under 4k isnt comparable.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5668105&forum_id=2#48578343)

Thanks. For context, I have enough accessible-net worth to cover my / family expenses for roughly 10 years. So, in theory, I have a long runway. Although, in practice, it would probably be too stressful for my wife if I didn't get up to ~$200k / year in the first year or two.

"Are you "networking" with other lawyers in your market in related fields. [...] Do you know other solos in your area?"

No and no. I used to network a decent amount years ago, but at the moment I'm too busy to do anything other than work and spend time with my wife and kids when not working. I would increase networking leading up to going solo, and would be networking in-person on a near-daily basis when I go solo -- including a decent amount of traveling to conferences, etc. I don't know any solos in my area. The lawyers I work with are all Big Law or regional midlaw.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5668105&forum_id=2#48578449)

2) Entirely market dependent, but you should have almost no expenses outside of software as you do this (assuming home office), so charge a respectable rate. You don't want to go to0 low, just below whatever the prospective client is currently paying. You're gonna eat 80 percent of the fee because you have no overhead, compared to 30 percent when you're an associate. Ballpark, probably somewhere between $250 and $400 your first few years.

3) LMFAO

4) Easier, imho. There are a million clients who need 5-10 hours of attorney time.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5668105&forum_id=2#48578379)

Plan on making $0 for two years or so

Other than that most people are just afraid to try it. I had to restart my firm on a farm with zero clients as a solo after a really bad injury nearly killed me and left me temporarily paralyzed and I’m still going. Just fake it till you make it

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5668105&forum_id=2#48578626)

(1) Other than managing outside counsel, I have no direct experience with litigation.

(2) My target clients are reasonably sophisticated parties that are largely not the type of clients you can "fake it til you make it" with. On the transactional side, I'm looking to provide Big Law quality work for 1/2 the price. I don't think I can realistically provide that with litigation.

(3) I've always thoroughly hated the litigation process. Although, admittedly, this is mostly because I feel "out of my element" in it. If I learned it well, and knew what I was doing, I might like it.

And, to be clear, unless or until I was reasonably busy, I would not turn down litigation work. It's more accurate to say that I would not be "selling" it as a primary service to potential clients.

One thing I do have lined up is relationships with boutique / smaller litigation firms to whom I would refer most litigation. The plan would be to have them do most of the real litigation work, with me leading things off pre-litigation and mostly turning over to them once things are filed. Even if I never litigate on my own, I would imagine a fair amount of the hours I bill would be in connection with litigation.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5668105&forum_id=2#48578798)

It’d be a waste of your time and a huge malpractice risk. You’re way better off not doing any.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5668105&forum_id=2#48596271)