Emerging Practitioners Considering Moving In‑House

Transitioning from private practice to an in‑house role can be a significant career shift for junior intellectual property professionals. This move offers new challenges and opportunities, shifting priorities from business development and billable hours to organizational integration and long‑term business strategies. Below are a few key considerations for emerging professionals considering this move.

Your Client

Private practice practitioners typically act as external consultants providing legal and strategic advice to different clients. In‑house practitioners, however, usually focus on supporting one organization, which may comprise executives, managers, and other employees with a unified direction. As a result, when going in‑house, a practitioner’s focus may shift towards managing business risks and aligning with the organization’s strategic objectives. It is therefore important for in‑house practitioners to develop a detailed understanding of the dynamics within a particular organization (e.g. decision-making processes, values, and culture) and its business sector(s), including legal and regulatory landscapes.

Specialist or Generalist

Private practice practitioners often specialize and become experts in one or more areas of intellectual property or other legal fields, whereas in‑house practitioners tend to encounter diverse issues outside a single area of expertise. For example, even within the specialized field of intellectual property, a patent practitioner may be called upon to handle trademark or copyright issues or to provide for advice in litigation, licensing, or transactions. Flexibility and adaptability are important.

Timing Your Move

Many private practice environments comprise a concentration of subject matter experts in different fields, such as patent law, trademark law, corporate law, and litigation. As a result, many experts will be available in private practice for both training and consultation purposes. In contrast, in‑house practitioners may operate alone in their area of speciality or take on more generalist roles, venturing into unfamiliar fields of intellectual property. As a result, those considering the move should take stock of their skills and knowledge and how they may apply in an in-house setting when deciding on the timing of a potential move.

Practical Advice

Advice provided by in‑house practitioners may often be less formal, delivered verbally or by email or phone, rather than through lengthy reports. Similarly, advice is provided in writing is often concise, emphasizing timeliness and focusing on risks and solutions rather than extensive legal details. The ability to explain legal issues succinctly within a business context is an important skill for in‑house practitioners to effectively capture attention and quickly arrive at key points for the audience in question.

Available Resources

Law firms, especially large law firms, tend to have more external resources, tools, and support staff for research and matter management. For those in‑house, obtaining information may require more independent investigation and research. In‑house teams are also less likely to have an equivalent range of support personnel. To address these challenges, networking and becoming involved with professional groups, such as on IPIC committees, can provide valuable support and resources.