By James Dennison

11 July 2025

Lawyer

"It's not that I'm better than you - it's just you're not as good as me."

In The RollOnFriday In-House Lawyer Survey 2025, perhaps unsurprisingly, brash lawyers are getting some stick.

One in-house lawyer in banking singled out a City firm: “Every time I deal with their lawyers, I can tell they think I’m a loser for being in-house and they do little to mask their generalised contempt. I wouldn’t mind if they were actually competent and didn’t make errors that I have to waste my time correcting.” They concluded that “basic social skills and some professional pride are clearly not high on the criteria list”.

Another client criticised a large firm for “always trying to be smart arses but often failing”, and making unwarranted “critical remarks about other firms” to mask their "own insecurities".

One in-house lawyer suggested that firms should “move away from the addiction to hiring and promoting posh, privileged grads with an overdeveloped sense of their own importance and worth.”

Another client opined that "arrogant lawyers will get their comeuppance," when "AI takes over and means the lawyers are forced to form proper relationships with their clients to justify their fees, while the robots do the work".

Some lawyers were chastised for failing to build rapport.

"Our core partner retired and it's been embarrassing watching them suck up," said one GC in energy about a transatlantic firm. "We won't use them again however because in the US they kissed the ring”.

Another US firm also came in for criticism, for “seeming to have bigger fish to fry and showing no interest in maintaining a proactive client relationship.”

While a GC noted that one Magic Circle firm may be “technically fine” but had made “no real effort to develop a relationship.”

Conversely, clients valued firms that had affable lawyers. A GC in financial services praised HFW for being “actually pleasant to deal with” as well as providing “excellent non-contentious regulatory advice”.

“A solid relationship benefits everyone,” said an in-house lawyer in insurance. “It means we can pick up the phone to the lawyers when the sh*t hits the fan and something had to be done urgently. It also means our lawyers don’t have to worry about having tricky conversations with us, when sticky situations arise”.

While an in-house lawyer commended one relationship partner for “contacting me about developments before I need to ask her about them – it’s like she’s got this sixth sense – it’s really spooky but genuinely impressive.”

Some highlighted trust as a key point in strengthening the relationship, particularly when it has been built over time. A GC in travel said that Kennedys have “have a reliable and well-established team that we've worked with for years. I trust their advice implicitly.”

“Ideally we should be thinking less about ‘us’ and ‘them’, and working as a team,” said one in-house counsel. “For this to happen, trust and respect are vital.”

Clients advised firms to make an effort when it came to client entertainment.

“In a world of performative, hand-wringing International Women’s Day events, it was really refreshing to be invited to an IWD event hosted by one of the Addleshaw Goddard teams which was more low-key - an exhibition followed by cocktails for a small group of clients,” said a GC in energy. “It made clients feel valued and really helped with building relationships (and a fun evening to boot).”

An in-house lawyer in the construction sector commented: “I was taken to the darts, which was an experience!” But did not divulge whether it was a good one.

While the power of good freebies were noted by one client who said that a firm “still recycles shit advice, safe in the knowledge that as long as they keep inviting the UK GC to the cricket they’re on safe ground.”

One in-house lawyer highlighted a lunch fail: “A retiring partner was handing the relationship with us over to a new partner, during which the new partner failed to realise it was me who made the decisions on whether to instruct them or not. They spent most of the lunch ignoring me as presumably they thought I was too young/unimportant to focus on.” The client concluded that the partner “would have been better off not coming down for lunch at all!”

Also demonstrating the pitfalls of schmoozing, a GC in technology said: “Dinners out are great fun, until the Partner you're sat with tries to prove how cool and hip they are by listing bands they like. I don't care if you know who Jamie xx is, mate”.

But perhaps the worst attempt to network, goes to the firm that “gave out sandwiches at a client lunch that were so bad they poisoned one of our trainees.”

A GC in financial services commented that the firms they dealt with this year ”did a good job, with minimal fuss, and none of them offended me with substandard sandwiches, badly-judged jokes or drug-crazed romps,” adding wistfully: “I miss the nineties.”

https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/they-think-im-loser-how-firms-wind-house-lawyers

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755930&forum_id=2...id#49139923)

different mentality over there, might well be something to the notion that inhousemos are less than when the firm requirements aren’t as demanding, as opposed to the US where it’s just as likely an indicator that you’re sane and don’t want 70 hours per week of THE LAW

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755930&forum_id=2...id#49140101)

A lot of in house lawyers are very good at what they do. Their work might not be classified as practicing law though.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755930&forum_id=2...id#49140046)

Not sure where you're getting arrogant or insecure vibes here but please expound ....

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755930&forum_id=2...id#49140081)

i can break it down if you wish. this reeks of arrogance + insecurity. the only reason i hesitate to call it obvious flame is because ive seen too many kool-aid drunk biglolyers say it unironically.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755930&forum_id=2...id#49140113)

i don't have anything against biglolyers. many of my best friends are biglol partners now. ones that wound up in a practice group and culture that doesnt grind them 70 hours a week are right to stay.

but calling people who left "burnouts" can only be interpreted as arrogant and insecure. your ego has to really be wrapped up in your tolerance and pride in checking commas to do this. biglaw isn't hard, it's tedious.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755930&forum_id=2...id#49140150)

"important contributor the the business": biggest red flag which you've repeated here. ljl at legal being considered an important part of the business. legal is a cost center. that's why so few GCs become CEOs and when they do its when the company is embroiled in some legal dispute. maybe there are some companies focused on litigation where this isn't the case, but in the context of banking in this article: lmfao. the business side wants the lawyers as far away from them as possible. this "my job has an important business function" is the type of cope we feed to credulous lawyers to keep them billing.

v100 biglaw in quotes: this is why i think it might be flame as most v10 biglawywrs will at least pretend not to lord their status over lower ranked ones. but not always. either way, this completely unnecessary dig adds but signaling that you consider lower ranked associates beneath you; per se arrogance and insecurity.

the other inflammatory language like burnout, shoved, forced, etc. doesn't merit specific attention other than to point out the entire poast is sprinkled with rhetoric that indicates feelings of superiority. a secure person would not feel the need to push down sua sponte.

since i took the effort to respond, can you let me know if i fell for flame? and if not what rough vault and year you are? i only ask because im always curious how long people can remain true believers. all my senior biglol bros admit it's rancid flame.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755930&forum_id=2...id#49140187)

What stood out to me is how Brits will not speak up about something that is bothering them. Take the guy who went to lunch with his GC and was a little put off because the junior partner was trying to build a relationship with the GC instead of him (who does all of the instructing). Do you think this lawyer ever spoke up and said, "It's actually my function to instruct law firms" during this lunch? Of course not. They say nothing, quietly stew, and then mouth off with weird anecdotes to any reporter that calls looking for an angle to print.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755930&forum_id=2...id#49140121)

But lmao on taking any shit from firm lawyers. I would chew them out (first time)and fire their fucking asses if they continued disrespecting anyone on my team. Who puts up with any shit from outrageously priced billable hour monkeys? I can just go to the next zoo and give their apes a try, probably cheaper

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755930&forum_id=2...id#49140169)

On the other end of the spectrum, there’s another firm that’s incredible to work with, always very thoughtful and practical advice, treat every email like it’s their top priority. Not sure how toxic cultures develop at some of these places. It must be really bad when it gets to the point of not caring about negative feedback from clients.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755930&forum_id=2...id#49140548)

I'm at a portco too, but I would tell the fund GC this is shit and I need some help lighting a fire under their ass. Mine would be on board with that. Yours might be too.

EDIT: you'll be surprised how much speaking up solves relative to quietly seething. If you level with the firm like I said above, tell them in the interim you will be looking for every smaller matter you can carve out of any work that would otherwise go their way. I'll be surprised if they totally ignore you

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755930&forum_id=2...id#49140631)

Provide feedback to in-house counsel at the sponsor. It'll get back to the firm very quickly. You will see their behavior improve overnight.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755930&forum_id=2...id#49140761)

This is the key point. We can fire them and 100 firms will show up begging for our business. If someone so much as farts and tries to blame one of our lawyers we can tell whoever owns the relationship to never staff them on another matter for our company.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755930&forum_id=2...id#49140758)