Are those headhunter articles bashing in-house jobs pure BS?
| Fighting Hall | 09/19/16 | | Mind-boggling Coffee Pot | 09/19/16 | | Fighting Hall | 09/19/16 | | Ultramarine shivering degenerate | 09/19/16 | | Sickened lake gaping internal respiration | 09/19/16 | | Mind-boggling Coffee Pot | 09/19/16 | | Mind-boggling Coffee Pot | 09/19/16 | | Sickened lake gaping internal respiration | 09/19/16 | | stirring church building hissy fit | 09/19/16 | | abnormal rose shrine roast beef | 09/19/16 | | Bespoke cruise ship cuckoldry | 09/19/16 | | Motley karate | 09/22/16 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: September 19th, 2016 4:54 PM Author: Sickened lake gaping internal respiration
The vast majority of headhunters have zero in-house contacts and jobs and can only realistically make money with a pipeline of candidates willing to jump from AmLaw 200 to AmLaw 200.
In-house can be unpredictable in that you're at the whims of restructurings and acquisitions, and your career is no longer on the conveyor belt. You could be stuck at an "Associate GC" title for a while if your company has a young GC.
And going from one firm to another could make sense if the second firm has a practice area which is more conducive to making an in-house switch.
But mostly these articles are complete bullshit.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3357073&forum_id=2#31445592) |
|
|