Gratitude v. Want

I had an interesting discussion this afternoon with someone.  In the middle of our conversation about candidates, partners, associate hiring, and law firm economics, she stopped and said to me, “You know, I’m not even Catholic, but a little while ago when the market started getting bad, I started stopping into St. Patrick’s Cathedral after work.”  I laughed, because the way she said it made it sound like it was the last place on earth that she could see herself “stopping into” on a random night.

She went on to tell me that it ” was the best right after they burn the incense!” and we laughed again.  She then went on to share something extraordinary that she learned in those evening visits.  It is the lesson that while asking for something or praying for something creates “want,” taking a moment out of each day just to be grateful for what you have creates “gratitude”…and it is gratitude which has an immense power in a person’s life.  Taking a moment each day to be grateful created an awareness of all that she had…and perhaps all that she had coming toward her.  Shortly thereafter, she found a new job and a new career and found herself in a better place.

I am someone who takes lessons from life as often as she can.  I am someone who tries to hear a message that’s eager to get through to me.  More so, I am someone who, when she learns something of possible use to others, passes it on.

There may be something useful here for a lot of people as they end their Friday and go into the weekend.  What if you didn’t spent your weekend worrying, upset, angry, and fearing the worst about your job/career?   What if you just were grateful to yourself, to a force in the universe, to God, to whatever!  What if you were just grateful for all that you have and optimistic that while the economy and life may be in constant flux, there are a few things that remain constant…whatever those things may be in your life.  Make yourself aware of them.  There may actually be some truth to the power of gratitude in that it builds us up and strengthens us — where “want” has the tendency to diminish a person.

I don’t know if any of this will work for you — or for me.   However, it’s worth writing down and thinking about.

Resume Referrals, How to Choose Wisely

With regards to resume referrals, candidates often ask me if it is better to use a recruiter or to ask an acquaintance/friend to pass along their resume to a law firm.  My answer is that, it depends.  Personal referrals can be successful, but candidates should try to verify a few things before handing their resume off to someone.  Here are a few things to consider:

1. Do you feel that your contact will be able to represent your candidacy strongly and zealously?

2. Are you confident that the contact you want to use is respected and has a good reputation at the firm?  In addition, are you sure that your contact is not in danger of being laid off or fired in the immediate future?

3. Are you sure that your contact likes you and in fact wants to work with you in the future, should you receive an offer at the firm?

4. Do you trust that your contact will follow up with the firm and its partners, on your behalf?

5. Does your contact know enough about you and your professionalism to act as an informal reference for you?

If you have answered in the affirmative to the above-mentioned inquiries, it may be a great idea to ask a qualified personal contact to submit your resume to a firm, on your behalf.  If you are unsure about some of the above questions, however, it may be better to utilize a recruiter for your law firm search.  If you a find a diligent and well-connected recruiter, this person will be able to strongly represent and market you to the firm of your choice.  Additionally, you can be confident that you are on the “same team” as your recruiter, as you both of you have the same end-goal in mind.

Thus, if you find yourself choosing between utilizing the services of a recruiter or a casual friend/contact at a firm, think things through and choose wisely!

The Downturnaround

New York Magazine debuted a new feature for their magazine, called the “Downturnaround.”  http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2009/01/the_downturnaround.html.  In it, the author’s look for evidence that not everything in our economic landscape is so dire.

I’m hoping it soon becomes irrelevant (you know, because all the news is positive?)

I appreciate this slightly tongue-in-cheek attitude, though, because I’m tired of newspapers and blogs asking us if this is the next great depression.  I get it, it’s fun to attach labels, but it’s not really moving the ball along, either.  People are struggling, so let’s help move through to a place with less struggle.  All of this drilling down on the negative is getting old, quickly.

I was just talking to someone fairly in the know with respect to the direction we’re taking.  He’s realistic, informed, and bright.  There is no sugar-coating the difficulties, and there are more coming for some sectors of our economy.  But lots of folks are already gearing up to invest in the future.  I guarantee you they aren’t shutting down because of the bad news–they are identifying and capitalizing on opportunity.  Yay downturnaround!

The Perpetual Salary Wars

Back when I was younger and in college I remember being amazed that salaries at some of the largest New York law firms were as much as $50,000 a year.  This was not that long ago.  Since I wanted to be a lawyer from a fairly early age, that sounded like a pretty good thing.  By the time I had gotten out of college the salaries of the same firms had risen to $60,000 a year and by the time I got out of law school they were even higher. I remember when I was applying to law school thinking that a lot of people who were applying to law school also were applying because of the high potential salaries they could earn if they joined large law firms.

Every few years there is a “salary war” of sorts as law firms raise the salaries of their incoming classes.  In response to this, a lot of stuff ends up happening.  Since I am intimately involved in the legal industry I believe that I have a particular degree of insight into what happens.  In fact, I have been an attorney in a large law firm, have placed hundreds of lawyers, have hired numerous law firms to work for me and have had numerous people work inside my various companies as attorneys.  I want to offer some insights into what happens when a salary war starts.  I have seen this pattern repeat itself over and over again over the past several years so I believe it is worthwhile to examine the stages.

I want to note at the outset that the results of a salary war are something with deep sociopolitical significance.  These salary wars throw off results and meaning for years after they start.  These are, in fact, one of the most dangerous times to be an associate in a large law firm.  Markets operate in an efficient manner and are always seeking a state of balance.  Any state of disequilibrium can never last for an extended period of time

1. Law Firms Start Getting More and More Work.

The first stage that generally precedes any salary increase is law firms start getting more and more work.  Law firms will generally start getting more and more work due to an up tick in corporate work.  The corporate work itself that law firms due for their clients is often quite profitable for the clients and a lot of gratitude is set up whereby the clients appreciate the work that the corporate attorneys have done.  The extra corporate work generally comes about in a business environment that is growing and creating opportunity for businesses of all sizes.  Corporations start believing that they need more assistance with the work that they have and start giving law firms more and more work.

When law firm start giving more and more work to outside counsel this is generally a  sign of market inefficiencies at work.  Since law firms charge more than in house counsel, corporations will generally seek to do work themselves (with salaried lawyers).  The filtering of great reams of corporate work to outside lawyers and law firms is a sign of market inefficiency.

The increase in corporate work is a sign that work will likely increase among many practice areas.  For example, practices such as trademark prosecution and patent prosecution (signs of new company formation) will also generally increase with corporate work.  In addition, many types of work will increase as well.  It is not uncommon for a surge in corporate work to throw off a surge of litigation and other types of work to other departments in a law firm.

The reason that corporate work will often generate this sort of work at these times is due to the fact that corporate attorneys will start having increasingly close (and often new) relationships with clients and these clients will often be able to give them more and more work.  This is due to the fact that there is a healthy corporate environment and corporations will not be watching their expenses and so forth as closely.  When this starts occurring the reputation of law firms will also rise with the successes of their clients.

As law firms start getting more and more work they begin finding themselves in a situation where the partners of the firm are getting more requests for work than they have the resources to handle.  The law firms will give as much work as the associates in the firm can handle.  The law firms will also hold the prospect of partner (as they always do) as a tool to get more and more hours out of each and every single associate and thereby increase the overall profitability of the law firms.  In addition, the law firms will begin hiring aggressively at the lateral and other levels in an attempt to fill their needs.

Inevitably, the law firms will discover that they are not getting enough of the sorts of candidates they want.  What then ends up happening at most law firms is in a desire to get work done (and make more money) the law firms start lowering their hiring standards.  This should be a huge warning sign and it is something that can never last.  You need to remember that law firms are like organisms and will always move towards a state of equilibrium.

I remember during the hiring boom of 1999 seeing major first tier law firms hiring laterals and others who were not even at the very top of their class at fourth tier law schools.  This was a sign that something was wrong.  (More on these sorts of hires later.)

What then ends up happening is the law firms reach a stage where they simply do not want to lower their standards anymore and are not getting enough good people.  Law firms realize that they do not have enough people to do the existing work that they are getting and face enormous pressure to bring in more good people.  Turning away clients is not easy for most law firms.  They do not want to lose business and partners usually begin making “impassioned” please to their superiors and stating that they need to be in a firm where there are more resources to do work (remember partners get paid in large part based on the amount of business they bring in).

At some point some firms are at a point where in the race for lateral and other talent they feel they are losing too many attorneys to other firms.  Once this occurs a “boiling point” is reached and the decision to raise salaries begins to be contemplated.

I remember when Gunderson Detmer was exploding with attorneys in 1998 and 1999 and someone I knew received a lateral offer from there (Gunderson is also the firm that started the salary wars in 2000).  The firm sent her a giant gift basket and wines and was calling her on a daily basis telling her they really wanted her to come and so forth-this is not normal for law firms.  I remember a partner at Wilson Sonsini got down on one knee and begged her to come to the firm.  At the time I remember thinking to myself that this sort of behavior was highly and extremely unusual and would not last.

Finally, after a certain tension point is reached, one firm raises salaries for its associates.  Not to be outdone, other firms rapidly follow believing that this too will be a major factor in how they are viewed by potential hires.

Keep in mind it takes law firms a lot of time and resources to hire laterally and hire associates in the first place.  Firms are indeed competing for talent.

2. Salaries Are Raised: The Honeymoon Phase

Firms raise salaries at a point when they are generally “flush” with cash.  These rising salaries are something that at the time are not really all that threatening to the largest firms because there is an atmosphere of optimism and a great deal of work coming through the door.  Salary increases are justified within the firm as something necessary to keep growing with the new business flowing in.  Salary increases are also justified as something that all large law firms and competitive law firms have to do and is seen as a source of pride within the law firms.

It is important to note that the salaries are not increased from a source of rationality.  They are increased as “gut reactions” and as a way of keeping up with the Joneses.  The salaries are also increased in an atmosphere of believing that everything will always be good and that business is bountiful.

On a macro level, it is important to note that there are some deeper economic trends which govern times when salaries are increased like this.  Generally in most societies the increase in economic and corporate wealth increases due to advances in productivity and means of production.  For example, farming equipment and the use of animals at one time enabled the development of societies and cities.  This was a major economic change.  Other advances such as the automobile and the assembly line means of production brought about great technological change.  In the more modern day, the Internet and telecommunications environment brought about a great influx of wealth into IPOs and other sources of money in the late 1990s.

It was precisely this influx of money into IPOs and the optimism this created that led the salary wars that occurred in 2000. The corresponding exit of money from these markets is also what caused the crash and dearth of legal work.

What ends up happening when new technologies begin is that there is a rush of capital into these new technologies.  However, most of this capital is ill placed and simply chases after the wrong thing.  None of this is to say that the technologies and ideas that this money was chasing are bad-it is just that they money was going at the wrong people.  Following such a crash, what generally ends up happening is the technology is still around but money begins being directed at expanding the technology and broadly adapting the technology to the entire market.  The spread of the Internet and cell phones everywhere between 2006 and 2007-the mass adoption of these-is an example.  As this occurred by 2006 the stock market had again reached historic highs and more and more opportunity started being created throughout the market.  The salary increases in law firms of 2007 are something anyone could have predicted with an understanding of basic economics.

What happens, then, when the market begins to become completely saturated with a new technology that gave rise to the mass economic changes in the first place?  The answer to this should be pretty obvious.

As the salaries increase at these firms some other not so predictable results occur.  While middle tier and smaller firms may have been able to moderately (or completely) compete with the salaries that the largest law firms were paying prior to the salary increases, these same law firms are generally not built for the same sort of “competition” the largest law firms are and simply do not match these salary increases.  (As a side note: The ones that do match these salary increases can generally not afford to do so and often within a year or two merge with larger law firms to remain competitive!  In addition, these smaller law firms often simply go out of business because they feel they cannot attract attorneys to work for them at the salaries they  pay the partners and scatter to other firms in search of greener (i.e., more money) pastures and associates to do their work.)

Consequently, the largest law firms that have raised their salaries then begin receiving an increasing influx of interest from law students and lateral attorneys all wanting to make more money due to the higher salaries.  This is particularly pronounced in smaller law firms because the gap is often further divided between what they are receiving and the largest law firms are paying.  Law firms that do not match their salaries are left in a position where they are likely to lose associates due to these lower salaries.

Associates also begin to feel they are extremely valuable at this time.  Message boards popularity increases dramatically and the chatter and banter between associates begins to get somewhat out of control.  Interest in lateral opportunities outside of the highest-paying law firms increases.  Interest in relocating from lower paid to higher-paid cities increases.  Dissatisfaction of in-house counsel with their salaries compared to law firm associates, also increases.

The influx of interest in working for the largest law firms also emboldens these larger law firms who begin to feel they are very desirable places to work again.  With a heightened interest in working for their firm, the law firms start believing that their existing associates are more expendable.  The amount of work expected of the associates increases.  Some lateral movement also increases in response to the higher work demands.

Law firms also begin having many more people to hire due to the salary increases.  This means that they also increase their hiring.  More associates are hired and the firm will generally grow quite rapidly in a narrow space of time

As the firm grows so do the profits of the partners.  These rising partner profits become a further incentive for associates to work hard an make partner.

It is worth noting that in this atmosphere everyone is also not always happy.  While an exceedingly small percentage of the attorneys in America earn the sorts of salaries associates at the largest law firms do, the ones that do not never feel good about themselves.  Many feel there is something wrong with them and are very envious.  The truth is there is nothing wrong with these attorneys-they are simply not part of the same economic paradigm.
3. The Tide Stops Rising and Reverses

What goes up must generally go down.  This adage is true in the practice of law as it is elsewhere.  As salaries rise law firms begin aggressively increasing their overhead. Most law firms are not more than a month or two away from bankruptcy to begin with and at some point a series of economic events causes the amount of work flowing into a law firm to slow does.

This work can slow down dramatically or it can fall off a cliff.  I remember that I saw the market almost grind to a complete stop in November of 2000 from what had been a very, very brisk bit of hiring.  All of a sudden, it seemed, law firms simply stopped getting as much work as they had previously from their clients.  The work literally came almost grinding to a halt.  In other periods, this slowdown has been more gradual.

While this is not a paper on economics, the fact is that the good times cannot ever roll on forever in any economy.  As particular technologies reach a saturation point (or great amounts of capital chases inefficiencies and loses) things always have to change-unless there is a complete sea change in how things are done.  This is precisely what happens in large law firms now because they are so well connected with the forces of industry around them.

When the tide stops rising and reverses law firms simply cannot afford to pay as many associates as they used to.  In addition, they also have certain pressures which further complicate the situation. The largest pressure the law firms face is “You cannot take away something you have already given.”  Salaries therefore do not go down when the tide turns.  They remain where they were.  Bonuses may go down, however.  In addition, expectations of what is required generally dramatically increase.  So too does insecurity …

You must always remember that a law firm is a socio-biological organism and the desire of any socio-biological organism is to survive at all costs.  In order to survive a law firm must maintain its partners who are bringing in the most revenue.  This the most important thing for the law firm.  Consequently, when economic patterns in society change the law firm is very unlikely to suddenly start shedding its partners who bring in income.  Instead, it will do everything it can to hold onto its most economically productive partners. The law firm will also do everything it can to eliminate its economically unproductive partners and eliminate its excess overhead of associates.

Non-productive associates will immediately begin being let go in droves when the economy weakens and the work stops coming in.  The associates from the poorest schools and with the least desirable backgrounds and lowest billable hours will generally be let go first.  Associates who have made close alliances with the most productive partners will generally not lose their jobs.  Corporate attorneys will generally be the very first to go.  The associates in danger of losing their jobs may be moved to other floors of the building.

Corporations will begin being extremely conservative with their work once the economy starts changing course and will bring in as much of it in house as possible. Many legal projects requiring outside counsel will be put on the back burner until things change in the economy.  Many of these same corporations will simply go out of business.

Law firms will begin eliminating associates through “trumped up” negative assessments in performance reviews and also by eliminating a lot of lateral hiring.  This pattern will continue until the law firm stabilizes.  Some law firms simply “flame out” overnight like Brobeck did in the 2002.  The list of calamities will go on and on and on.

Many associates will leave the practice of law completely because there are not a lot of jobs in corporations either.  These associates will talk about wanting to do alternative sorts of legal careers.  Lots of families will be hurt and bad stuff happens.  The traffic to message boards will begin being filled with more gloom and doom-but less traffic.  Law school applications will decrease.  Hiring standards will return to what they were inside the most desirable law firms.  Associates will feel more expendible.

The pattern will repeat itself.

Conclusions

Not everyone wants to believe what salary wars mean.  What happens in this “war” is as old as the hills and the product of economic cycles that repeat themselves over and over and over again.

What I like to take from this pattern is this: You can either work on your career or in it.  The person who is a strategic player will always be watching for patterns and avoiding the negativity and issue surrounding it before it strikes.

You can also make the good work for you and if it is your moment in the site then please enjoy it-just always be aware that there is something else around the corner.  What you do in both good times and bad is a testament to your character and what will become of your career and the course of your life.

What to Do if You Do Not Make Partner

Suppose you spend 7 years at a law firm and don’t make partner.  I know that not making partner does not always mean that you did crappy work, especially if they kept you there for 7 years.  What can you do in your career at that point?  Do you leave?  Are your chances of making partner anywhere greatly diminished?

It is hard to tell based on your question whether you are anticipating the possibility of not making partner someday, or have actually been ignored for partnership at your current firm.  Either way, you should remember that the partnership track is different from firm to firm.  You might have spent 7 years with a firm.  Some firms do make decisions about partnership after 7 years, however, many firms have partnership tracks based on 8, 9, 10 or 11 years.  At a firm with a track of 10 years, it would not be at all unusual to be a 7th year associate who was not yet up for partner.  In that situation, the fact that you aren’t a partner would not be any indication that there is something wrong with your legal presentation skills or your professional development.

Preparing for Partnership. However, if the partnership track of your firm is 7 years (as I suspect it may be, based on the question), it may be an indication that the firm does perceive that there is something lacking.  Your work may be excellent, but it may be that you have not developed any business, or have not shown enough management potential.  Of course, that’s entirely speculation.  Regardless of why an attorney does not make partner, it would be highly unusual for a lawyer to spend his or her career with one firm, and over the course of seven years, not get any feedback on whether the firm felt that the associate was ‘on track’ for partnership.  In essence, your path to partnership should be fairly well defined both by you and by the partners at your firm.  If you start considering what the issues are surrounding the partnership track for the first time after 7 years, you are a bit late in the game.

Whether a lawyer makes partner is not necessarily an indication of that lawyer’s abilities.  Again, depending on the firm, that is probably true.  Some firms hire many associates, and only intend to give a relatively small percentage of those associates offers of partnership.  In these cases, it is not unusual to not be elected partner, and as such, is generally not an indication that an attorney is not skilled.

Passed Up For Partner? Re-evaluate.  What do you do if you don’t make partner? Let me answer the question in two ways. First, a lawyer who doesn’t make partner at 7 years should immediately set about finding out what his or her firm’s criteria are for making partnership decisions.  ‘What is it that I can do to prove to you that I am worthy of this position?’ should be the first line of dialogue.  It may be that a firm wants to see more business development.  It may be that there are concerns about the lawyer’s work.  In any event, it is not sufficient to sit back and simply wait to hear whether you will ever become partner.  Although you would have ideally started dealing with these issues years before, there still may be time to define what hurdles you need to jump to get where the firm wants you to be.

Life Outside Partnership. In the event that the firm’s management has made it clear that a lawyer will never be a partner, should you leave?  That depends.  Are you happy and fulfilled at the firm?  Are there alternative designations or titles that might make you happy, such as of ‘counsel’ or ‘senior associate?’  In that event, there may very well be every reason in the world to stay with your firm.  Many firms accommodate senior attorneys who are not partners, and those types of relationships are often quite successful.  In fact, there are many attorneys who would rather practice in this sort of a role than as a partner of the firm.

However, if it is your goal to become a partner at a law firm, and your current firm isn’t going to provide that opportunity, you may want to try to switch firms.  Whether you can readily change firms depends on any number of factors, including your location, your practice area, and your portable book of business.  In our experience, a portable book of business is the single most important issue for many firms looking to bring on a senior-level associate.  Without portable business, whether you can readily move from firm to firm is really dependent on a variety of other factors.  In any event, we believe that attorneys should focus on partnership issues as soon as possible.  Most firms begin reviewing associates 4-6 years into their practice specifically with respect to whether the associate is capable of becoming a partner in the firm.  You should strive throughout your associate career to find out what benchmarks you need to be meeting in order to reach that goal.  If you do not reach that goal at your current firm-all is not lost, and you need to evaluate how you would fit into another law firm practice in the future.

Never underestimate the power of a positive attitude

A lot has been written about the power of positive thinking and a positive attitude.  I, myself, have read a lot on this particular topic.  But, a recent personal example has shed a whole new light on the power of having a positive attitude.  It has to do with a dear friend of mine whose industry is getting absolutely devastated by the current economic downturn–he’s in construction.  When news started coming out of impending layoffs at his company, he was sure he’d be one of the first to go.  Why?  He was the most recent hire and commanded a hefty salary.

At last, the day came.  People were called into the conference room, one at a time.  A few were given the news that it would be their last day.  Others were told they were being forced to take a reduction in hours and, in turn, a reduction in pay.  My friend was in the latter group.  His hours were cut and the accompanying pay reduction of 15% of his salary would have a most detrimental effect on his family.  Still, he thanked his employer and vowed to work just as hard on his reduced schedule as he had on his full-time schedule.

The next round of layoffs came.  Again, some were given the news that it would be their last day with the comany and again, some were told of further reductions in hours and, of course, pay.  Many lost their benefits.  Still, my friend was “spared” and expressed gratitude to his employer.

The company is now in its 5th round of lay-offs and everyday, my friend remains thankful that he still has a job.  He is searching for part-time work to set off the pay cuts he has taken but remains one of the hardest working individuals at his company.  Though he has taken a serious financial hit, his work ethic remains sound.

Not too long ago, he was in the office early one morning when one of the company’s founders arrived.  He thanked my friend for his hard work and said, “You know, a lot of people have been extremely rude and angry when we’ve informed them of the need for pay cuts.  While I understand we are delivering bad news, it seems to escape most people that were are, at the same time, doing everything in our power to keep folks employed as long as we possibly can.  I can tell by your positive attitude through all of this that you really do get it.” Suddenly, my friend understood why despite being the last person hired, he has yet to be let go.

It’s really quite amazing how much your employer will learn about you in these times of adversity.  Keep working hard and keep a positive attitude–it will pay off in the long run because your employer will identify you as a sound long-term investment.

AmLaw100-A Work in Progress this Year

The American Lawyer generally releases the results of the AmLaw100 survey in late Spring.  This year, the publication has elected to place the data on-line as it becomes available.  Sounds like a sensible approach in an electronic world.  It is also a smart way for the editors to get firms to cough up the data more quickly (no one wants to be left off of a list).

What Are the Challenges for American Attorneys Working in Australia?

I am a fourth-year lawyer who is considering working overseas or possibly in Australia.  What are the kinds of challenges that North American attorneys need to consider when trying to find employment as a lawyer in these countries?

Area of Practice

In recent times, the increasing amount of privatization and the ease of capital transfer globally have driven much of the demand for American lawyers overseas.  Many foreign companies are obtaining capital in ways that require a great deal of familiarity with the American legal system.

Accordingly, the areas of practice that have attracted foreign law firms’ interest in American lawyers overseas are project finance, M&A, debt/equity, capital markets, and generalized securities and derivate work.  Given the differences in law between the Australian and American system of jurisprudence, it is very difficult for non-transactional lawyers, i.e., litigators and regulatory attorneys, to have success with firms in Australia.  Note that overseas law firms or American law firms with offices overseas are seeking American attorneys with strong academic records, degrees from top American law schools, and solid transactional experience with a major recognized American law firm.

Qualification

While Australia and America share the same foundation in common law and democracy, qualification requirements differ greatly between the two countries.  Similar to a bar examination in the various states in the United States, most countries have certain qualification requirements for those practicing law.  How one gains qualification to practice law in a given country varies substantially from one country to another.  Australia’s qualification requirements are unique.  There is no bar examination in Australia.  In Australia, a regulating authority approves undergraduate courses of study, and graduates of those programs are entitled to undertake practical training and can then be admitted as lawyers.  Hence, the first thing you must do is find out what are the qualification requirements to practice law in Australia and see if you meet those requirements.

In addition, most firms in Australia, Asia, and Europe require certain years of Post Qualification Experience, or “PQE”, for lateral lawyers, meaning that they expect you to have worked as a qualified lawyer in the subject country for a said period of time before they would consider hiring you.  Thus, even if you have the requisite experience, PQE might limit the chances of you obtaining a position in Australia.  Certainly, only in rare circumstances would a native Australian law firm be interested in a US lawyer with no Australian qualifications.  On the other hand, US law firms with offices in overseas tend to be more willing to consider non-PQE candidates.  However, whether a given foreign office of an American firm may have a need for American attorneys is a product of the type of work performed by the firm.  Just because a firm is based in the United States does not mean that it has a need for American attorneys.

Risk

In the past years, we have spoken to several American attorneys practicing overseas, and each appears to feel that they are having a good experience.  However, it is important to note that relocating overseas is a difficult decision and can be very risky.  When a country is prospering, lawyers with experience in a needed practice area can be in high demand, but work in an economically volatile or depressed region can dry up very quickly and American lawyers may be the first to be forced to seek out new positions.  Additionally, the average salary for Australian firms (including the Australian offices of US firms) generally is lesser than the salaries in, for instance, New York City.  Accordingly, any attorney relocating overseas should approach their search carefully.

Immigration

Issuance of a visa to work in Australia is solely a decision of the relevant Australian government authority.  Immigration is one issue that places you in a disadvantage over an equally qualified and credentialed Australian lawyer.  But immigration issues have been overcome numerous times by the candidates we have placed overseas.  Of course, if a firm is interested in hiring you, they would sponsor you to obtain the necessary visa.

Why Will Good Legal Recruiters Not Work With Me?

Working with a legal recruiter is the smartest decision a good attorney can make. Legal recruiters typically operate in the “upper eschelons” of the legal profession and for people who are suited for their services legal recruiters are the absolute best career resources. Legal recruiters can identify the best opportunities for you; will counsel you on your move; will provide you inside information about the various employers you are investigating; will draw out your strength and present them to employers in a convincing way; will provide a “valuable prescreening” function for the employers and just by their virtue of representing you provide you with a good entrée’ to the employer. In fact, many of the largest and most selective law firms rarely look at candidates unless they come from a preferred legal recruiter. For example, numerous candidates I have represented at BCG Attorney Search may have not even received a response when they approached a firm on their own before coming to our firm. A good legal recruiter can make that much of a difference.

There is a catch to using a legal recruiter, however. The main and largest catch is a good legal recruiter cannot and will not work with everyone. In fact, the best legal recruiters will only work with people who are stars. One analogy I like to make is that there are a lot of people out there who play sports but only a very small percentage of people who have sports agents. The same thing applies to using a legal recruiter. I estimate the number is less than one percent of all attorneys out there who should be using a legal recruiter for their job search.

There are a few rules you need to be aware of when considering whether or not to work with a legal recruiter. These are the main rules I would recommend most attorneys follow.

1. A Good Legal Recruiter Never Works With Law Students

Legal recruiters are hired only to find experienced attorneys. There are literally tens of thousands of law students who blanket firms with their resumes each year. Firms (even small ones) generally need no outside assistance to find recent law school graduates to hire. It is very easy for law firms, corporations and others to hire law students.

An important rule to remember about the use of recruiters is this: They are used only to hire people who have immediately transferable skills. Transferable skills are picked up by actually working inside a law firm or corporation and being aggressively supervised and having work looked over on a daily basis and having a consistent supply of work. This is much different than the theoretical grounding and other sorts of information that someone picks up in a law school. Many law students are very enthusiastic about their prospects, former jobs they may have held before law school and more. None of these translates into an organization that will want to use a recruiter to fill the job.

Recruiters charge fees to hiring organizations. Because they charge fees their work is largely covered by the supply and demand. This very simple law states that people will only pay for something when they have to. Rest assured, law firms do not need to pay for law students. In all of my years of recruiting I have never seen a law firm or any other organization use a recruiter to hire a law student.

The caution here is that this does occurs. Recruiters will experiment and occasionally try and represent a law student. They should not be doing so.

2. A Good Legal Recruiter Only Works With Attorneys With Rare Qualifications Who Are in High Demand

This is a loaded statement and does require some explanation. Here are the basics so you know if you fit in this group:

(a) If you have between 1 and 5 years of experience and are working at a top law firm you are likely a good candidate to use a legal recruiter.

How do you know if you are working at a “top law firm”? A top law firm is one where most of the attorneys went to top law schools and where most of the attorneys know they are the cream of the crop. Here, the attorneys are generally representing significant corporations in significant matters—whether it be real estate, corporate law, intellectual property, or litigation. If you are working at a top law firm you generally will know it. These law firms are typically among the largest 200 or so in the country and recruit at top 20 law schools regularly. “If you have to ask” is a good analogy for these sorts of firms. There are some exceptions to this. There are often small patent boutiques; small real estate boutiques and other sorts of firms that may not be large but nevertheless are considered excellent shops.

The reason law firms require you generally have between 1 and 5 years of experience is due to the fact it is in this period that you are not a major contender for partnership and your billing rate is still attractive to clients. First, if a law firms hires someone with more than 5 years of experience they will likely be competition for partnership in the firm. This can upset the balance of power among associates who have competed for partnership for years. None of this is to say firms do not hire people beyond this level; however, it is rare.

Second, as someone gets more advanced in their years their billing rate increases. As their billing rate increase it becomes more expensive for them to be given work instead of lesser experienced associates. For example, someone with 8 years of experience who is an associate will likely be doing work at a billing rate compatible with a partner. The client paying the bill would rather have a partner doing the work at a similar billing rate. In addition, the partner would likely also rather do this work themselves and get credit for it rather than farming it out to an associate.

Finally, until you have at least one year of experience you really do not know what you are doing. Remember: The law of supply and demand governs the use of recruiters. There are plenty of attorneys who do not know what they are doing and employers are looking for those who do.

(b)If you are a partner with a lot of portable business you are likely a good candidate to use a legal recruiter.

Law firms are businesses and make most of their decisions based on business calculations. If you have a lot of portable business as a partner that will likely be good if you are seeking a position in a law firm. Your billing rate should also be compatible with the new employer. Most partners will have a good idea if they are marketable to another firm and generally do not need to ask it is appropriate for them to be using a recruiter.

(c)There are always “in fashion” practice areas that may make you in demand.

During the real estate book in 2004-2005 real estate attorneys were in demand. Before that in the dot com boom corporate attorneys were in demand. At other times patent prosecutors have been in exceptional demand. That fact is there are always economic cycles that are acting out which make one sort of attorneys far more in demand than another. The way to know if you are in special demand is generally to listen to your phone. If your phone is ringing with lots of solicitations from legal recruiters your practice area is probably in demand. You will generally know if your practice area is in demand.

(d)“Rare qualifications” can mean different things in different times and places.

I put this section last because every attorneys out there believes they are special. Everyone is special but whether they are special enough to use a legal recruiter is another matter entirely. Going to a top law school and not working a prestigious firm after law school may make you “rare” in the right market and marketable. Having a certain language may make you rare in the right market. The fact is: You never know what “rare” is. By “rare” it must be quite rare as a general rule.

If you are a part of the group who should be using a legal recruiter then you should be using a legal recruiter. If you fit into the group above then by all means use a legal recruiter. A good legal recruiter could literally change your life and do so dramatically by ushering you into an outstanding employment situation.

Like all good things a good legal recruiter generally is very organized and also brings a bit of “art” to their work and will generally have a very highly developed way of working. There are very, very few good legal recruiters. Being a good legal recruiter means different things to many people. Being a good legal recruiter is not easy—it is hard. Just like you should “know” if you have the qualifications to use a legal recruiter, you should also “know” a good legal recruiter when you speak with one.

Today is a day to celebrate! No, really. Stop and CELEBRATE.

Are you like me? Did you expect the New Year to signal an end to the layoffs? Were you excited to see all the new job openings that January usually brings for attorneys? Typically, law firms hire more in January and February than any other time of the year.

Instead, we’ve seen more layoffs. Today, I saw an article concerning layoffs at a reputed U.K. firm. Yesterday, I saw news that support staff had been drastically cut at a national law firm. Contract attorneys in New York are reported to be working for scale (I exaggerate, but only slightly). This week it was reported that several firms in Texas have frozen associate salaries for 2009 (what a difference a year makes). And every day I hear from attorneys who have either been laid off or fear that they will be laid off very soon.

However, last week, I was buoyed by a miracle that came out of New York. A city so used to bad news that some have described its climate as similar to post 9/11. But last Thursday in New York, I saw the greatness of mankind and the kindness of strangers. Did you see it too? New York really needed some good news. I needed it too.

Today my phones are quiet. And I’m glad. I think everyone needs a day to forget the recent past and look forward to the future.

For it is a special day. A momentous day in history, no matter your political leanings. A day for change. A day for hope. So let’s take a day and forget the economy, take a deep breath, and celebrate!