Print article
Author
Author
Three months into my client secondment at Natural England feels like a good time to reflect on how working in-house differs from life in private practice. While both roles rely on the same core legal skills, the day-to-day experience, expectations and level of responsibility can feel significantly different. The contrast has given me the opportunity to see how the same profession operates in two very distinct environments.
Client relationships
In private practice, you act for external clients who choose the firm and can move their work elsewhere at any time. The role involves advising across a broad range of industries, which provides exposure to varied legal issues. At the same time, this diversity brings the challenge of managing competing deadlines and balancing the expectations of multiple clients.
In contrast, working in‑house means advising the organisation as your sole client. This gives you the opportunity to build long‑term, collaborative relationships and gain a deeper understanding of how the business operates. You become involved in a wider range of issues and must consider the company’s commercial priorities and appetite for risk in every piece of advice you give. I have really enjoyed this aspect of the secondment, and it has taught me to think not only as a legal adviser but also as part of the organisation’s decision‑making process.
Practice areas
When you undertake a seat in private practice, it is usually within a specific department, allowing you to focus on one area of law. This provides a valuable opportunity to develop specialist knowledge, which can be particularly beneficial for long‑term career progression.
In contrast, working in‑house often requires you to operate as a generalist, handling a broad mix of legal issues that arise across the business. During my secondment, I have gained experience and provided advice on commercial contracts, technical IP provisions, procurement, planning law, protected sites, species licensing, and Judicial Reviews. This variety has enabled me to develop a wide‑ranging skill set and has required adaptability and a willingness to engage with unfamiliar topics, always with a focus on delivering practical and commercially workable solutions. This has been one of the most rewarding aspects of my secondment, giving me the opportunity to explore niche areas of law and collaborate with specialist colleagues across the organisation.
Responsibility
In private practice, trainee responsibility is typically more tightly controlled, with a strong emphasis on supervision. Emails, letters, and advice are usually reviewed before they are sent out, and tasks are often broken down into discrete pieces to ensure accuracy and consistency for clients. This structure provides valuable guidance but can limit the extent to which trainees independently run matters.
In-house, the dynamic is quite different. Legal teams are often smaller and operate with fewer layers of supervision, meaning trainees are trusted to take ownership of work at an earlier stage. During my secondment I have communicated directly with clients and external law firms, managed queries, and progressed matters independently. This level of responsibility demands confidence, but it has also accelerated my learning and helped me develop a practical, solution‑focused approach to legal work.
Billable hours vs. business priorities
Billable hours are a core part of a training contract and assist in shaping how trainees structure their day. You quickly learn to record your work in six‑minute units, balance competing deadlines, and justify how long each task takes.
In‑house teams tend to operate differently. There are no billable targets, and success is measured by how effectively the legal team supports the organisation’s commercial objectives. As a trainee you focus on delivering pragmatic, risk‑balanced advice that helps the business move forward, even if the solution is not the most technically perfect on paper. This contrast offers an opportunity to experience legal work through a more commercial, outcome-driven lens.