Published on:

“Contented” attorneys in-house face the specter of retirement

Responding to the latest Corporate Counsel survey of in-house lawyer satisfaction (Nov. 18, 2005), Ellis Mirsky of criticizes two points. First, he believes that survey respondents being described as “generally contented” is pretty thin gruel: “Attorneys need to be developing skills, increasing knowledge and securing their future for themselves and their families.” Mirsky seems to think that being contented means being placid, on the treadmill professionally, no longer striving – I disagree that in-house counsel generally fall into that state, or on the other side that law-firm attorneys generally avoid it.

The second criticism he makes is that at a relatively young age in-house counsel must retire, and that they may have no pension then and therefore sink to penury. By contrast, a lawyer in private practice can continue chugging on, earning money, until Black’s Law Dictionary runs out of words. Here, Mirsky may hit the mark.

Posted in:
Published on:

Comments are closed.