Not All Gen Z Lawyers Are Climbing the Law Firm Ladder

Some are heading straight for in house legal opportunities. If more juniors start in-house, what does that mean for the future talent pool?

In-house law used to be Plan B.  The career choice you made once law firm life had taken its toll. That’s changing. More graduates and NQs now look to in-house legal jobs as a launchpad. For firms, even a small shift makes a difference to recruitment. Even with AI cutting into junior work, firms still need a flow of trainees, because no algorithm grows into a partner.

The pull of in-house law for new lawyers is obvious: early client contact, direct access to decision-makers, and the chance to shape strategy from day one. And the market backs it up. In early 2025, in-house vacancies rose by 20% year-on-year. And over 31,000 solicitors now work in-house in England and Wales — nearly triple the figure from 20 years ago (Law Society). 

That data reflects what we’re seeing on the ground too. Graduates want business exposure, hybrid working and fast progression. That’s why in-house training contracts and junior roles are starting to rival law firms as a genuine first step. And with the in-house legal path shifting from rare exception to mainstream route, that trend is only accelerating.

Why new lawyers are choosing in house law first

For years, the in-house legal route was seen as a softer option. Work at a firm first, earn your stripes, and only later move across for balance. Gen Z lawyers are rewriting that narrative. To them, in-house legal opportunities aren’t a compromise, they’re a career launchpad. They see the chance to get client-facing work from the start, work alongside commercial teams, and actually shape decisions.

Recruitment conversations with graduates and NQs back this up. They’re asking us less about “training seats” and more about “business exposure.” That mindset shift is why entry-level in-house routes are a popular option.

From rare exception to real rival: the rise of the in-house training contract

The in-house training contract used to be an anomaly. A handful of corporates offered them, but most graduates saw law firms as the only credible path to qualification. Not anymore. Today, corporations are partnering with law schools, building structured programmes, and giving trainees the same seat rotations and SRA recognition they’d get in private practice. The difference? From day one, you’re embedded in the business, sitting alongside the people making commercial decisions.

This shift has split opinion. Legal Cheek recently asked whether in-house training contracts hurt your chances of moving back into private practice. The article and its lively comments section showed the divide. Traditionalists still see law firms as the “proper” training ground. While many younger lawyers see in-house as the smarter move. For recruiters, the takeaway is clear. When in-house options look this credible, law firms can no longer assume the best juniors will default to them.

Old rules vs new priorities

Older generations of lawyers often see private practice as the only correct grounding. Firms give breadth of training, structured career ladders and the prestige of big-name clients. For many Gen X and Y lawyers, in-house law was the lifestyle move you made later.

Gen Z see it differently. They value flexibility, hybrid working and impact from day one. They want roles where they can contribute to business strategy, not just sit in the background. For them, in house legal opportunities feel modern and aligned with their priorities.

The result is a clash of expectations. Traditionalists think you need to do your time in a firm before moving across. Many younger lawyers question why they should. Recruiters are caught in the middle, hearing both sides daily.

What it means for the law firm talent pool

Law firms rely on a steady stream of juniors to build their future teams. Even as AI reduces some routine tasks, no software develops client judgment or grows into a partner. The talent pool still matters. But if more graduates start in-house, the pyramid narrows at the base. Fewer juniors come through firms, which means fewer associates moving up the ladder later. That has long-term consequences for leadership and succession planning.

We’re already seeing early signs in interviews. Candidates want hybrid working, early responsibility and visible career progression. In-house legal roles often tick those boxes more easily. Firms that can’t offer the same risk being left behind in the competition for talent.

What firms must do to keep Gen Z talent

This isn’t about firms versus in-house. It’s about choice. Gen Z now see in house legal opportunities as a credible first move, so firms need to adapt. That doesn’t mean copying corporate culture. It means rethinking what juniors want. Earlier client contact. Clearer career pathways. Flexibility that matches the modern workplace. These are no longer perks – they’re expectations. Firms that listen can still attract the next generation of talent.

The future shape of legal careers

The direction is clear. With more juniors choosing in-house solicitor jobs, in-house paralegal roles and in-house training contracts, that changes how the profession develops its talent.

For law firms, even a small shift matters.  The talent pool narrows if juniors bypass private practice entirely. For in-house legal teams, the competition is heating up to attract lawyers into in-house recruitment jobs that didn’t exist a generation ago.

This isn’t the end of the law firm ladder, but it is being reshaped. The next generation are choosing differently, and the profession needs to adapt.

Thinking about your next move? Explore the latest in-house legal opportunities with JMC Legal. And if you’re hiring, talk to us about how we can help you attract and retain the next generation of lawyers.

Further Reading:
[Want hybrid, want in house? Manchester's legal jobs deliver both]
[The Partner Talent Funnel]
[A Guide For Start Ups Looking To Make Their First In House Counsel Hire]