How Do I Increase My Marketability After a Layoff?

As I currently approach my 4th month of unemployment after being laid off from a major firm, I am wondering if there is anything I can do to increase my marketability to law firms? I cannot change my past work experience or my law school credentials, obviously, but is there something else I could do that I am overlooking?

Being out of work is frustrating, for sure, and the feeling that there is nothing you can do to change your current situation probably increases your stress level exponentially. As you said, what’s done is done, and you have to focus on the future. We have seen far too many attorneys literally give up on the practice of law entirely after getting laid off during their first few months of practice. In the past several months we have seen attorneys who graduated from Top 25 law schools and worked for a few months at AmLaw 100 law firms before getting laid off become (1) a restaurant hostess, (2) a garbage man, (3) a salesperson in a men’s boutique clothing store and (4) a trainee assistant manager of a Pizza store. Nothing is wrong with any of these occupations; however, if these choices were motivated by the perception that no attorney jobs were available, these occupational choices were wrong. More often than not, the attorneys who give up are those coming from the largest and most prestigious firms. Their thoughts run something like “If I cannot practice at a very high level, I do not want to practice at all.” We believe this thinking is severely flawed because, as this article will demonstrate, you can find another job if you approach your search in the right manner.

First, you need to think geographically. You are currently living in the worst market in the country. Barring circumstances that tie you to the Seattle region indefinitely, a move to a healthier marketplace will provide you with more available opportunities, which will give you more opportunities for success. One of the strangest phenomena we have ever witnessed is talented attorneys who give up on the practice of law because they refuse to move. Detroit, Michigan used to be one of the largest legal markets in the United States several decades ago and, by today’s standards, there are fewer than 10 large law firms there. If attorneys continued to stay there instead of following the jobs, their chances for employment would be significantly reduced. While the change from an industrial-based to an information-based economy is certainly beyond the scope of this article, the fact of the matter is that certain legal markets simply contract at various points in time. Many of these markets never return to their former glory. Who knows if Silicon Valley or Seattle, for that matter, will ever be what they once were. The point is you should not let geography influence your future. You went to law school for a reason and your current geographic location should not be something that you let influence the next 25-plus years of your life.

There are tens of thousands of law firms throughout the United States and the idea that one of them does not have a job waiting for you is an absurd thought. Unfortunately, far too many attorneys accept this thought. Does this really make sense to you? If you have been practicing long enough for a legal recruiter to represent you (usually one year), then you should contact one and let them help you in your search. If not, you should find a way to apply to as many of these law firms as quickly as possible in order to increase your chances of getting hired. While job boards do not traditionally have advertisements for entry level attorneys, you should review as many potential openings as possible. In addition, you should investigate using a service such as Legal Authority to try to apply for positions in your existing market or other markets that interest you. It is extremely unlikely that you will not find a position with an aggressive approach.

Second, if you are just considering the largest, most prestigious firms, you may have to aim a little lower. While we most likely would not have said this in the heyday of the economic boom, at a time when many large firms are severely restricting their hiring, it may make sense for you to consider taking a position at a less prestigious firm. You may come across a smaller firm that might actually be in “growth mode,” unlike larger firms in the area that are experiencing financial troubles. While we are not advocating working somewhere that you regard as beneath you, giving smaller-to-midsize firms a chance should not necessarily be considered settling. When the economy does recover, your resume will look a lot better for having worked somewhere than if you were to be unemployed for a few years. It is possible that you will like the different atmosphere of a smaller firm, and perhaps your experience and know-how can even help that firm grow.

Third, you may be able to find immediate employment with the government. Clerkships, often seen as the domain of newly-minted attorneys, can increase any attorney’s marketability. More law students are likely to search for a clerkship as first-year associate hiring dwindles, so the competition may be tough, but your experience may impress a judge enough to take you on. Not only will you be working, but you will be learning more about the justice system which can only help when the clerkship ends and you want to seek out a law firm opportunity. In addition, you may be able to locate an opportunity in a local prosecutor’s office. In any of these jobs, you will begin to develop the skills of an attorney that you do not necessarily learn during law school.

Fourth, your law school record may be etched in stone, but there is always the opportunity to go back to school and further your education. While LL.M degrees are not for everyone, they have proven to be an asset to some attorneys who can get them in the right areas and at the right schools, especially for those with somewhat unimpressive law school records. Similarly, for intellectual property attorneys, getting an advanced degree in engineering or even one of the natural sciences could help your cause.

In conclusion, while none of these methods are guaranteed to get you a job, anything is worth a shot in dire times. The economy will recover, as it always does, and when that happens, it will be better to have built up some experience and improved your resume than to have sat back and ridden it out. The holy grail of many firm lawyers is partnership at a large firm, and the best way to obtain that is by proving yourself consistently throughout your career, no matter what roadblocks stand in your way.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Something Most Recruiters Will Never Tell You: The Way Most Recruiters Recruit

Every individual recruiter’s style has a certain merit.  Nevetheless, when you are dealing with recruiters it is important to be aware of their particular recruiting style.  As the head of a national recruiting firm, I speak with legal recruiters both within and outside of my recruiting firm each day and have become quite familiar with various recruiting styles.  If you use a recruiter for your job search, the recruiter you use will undoubtedly have their own particular style.  It is important that you be aware of your legal recruiter’s particular recruiting style because this will determine how successful the recruiter is for you.

In my experience, there are three main styles of recruiters.  The first type of recruiter I call the Cougar.  The Cougar typically most concerned with making the perfect match and does not submit people to a lot of firms or work with a lot of candidates at one time.  The second sort of recruiter is the Market Penetrator.  A Market Penetrator typically works with many candidates at one time and submits their candidates to many firms at once-often regardless of whether they have a position.  The third sort of recruiter is the Database Lover.  The Database Lover generally is somewhat literal and submits only highly qualified candidates to active openings.  Unlike the Courgar, the Database Lover is a little more literal in terms of their approach to recruiting and placement.

Each recruiting method has its own sets of advantages and disadvantages.  The recruiting styles of the Cougar, Market Penetrator and Database Lover are explored below.

I
THE MARKET PENETRATOR

A Typical Market Penetrator Placement.  The Market Penetrator spends a couple of hours each morning studying law firm websites for openings.  They also are very interested in law firms and read most periodicals and legal newspapers they can get a hold of.  The Market Penetrator may even spend some time in front of the television reading Martindale Hubble.  The Market Penetrator wants to know everything they can about the market because they believe this will allow them to make placements.  While the Market Penetrator may meet with law firms on an ongoing basis, their belief is that the market is huge and that their emphasis should be on the global picture.

The Market Penetrator decides a certain type of attorneys in a certain practice group is in demand.  They have openings for that attorney; however, they also believe a good attorney in that practice area will be marketable at firms that do not even have openings.  The Market Penetrator takes out a few ads in legal periodicals and job posting boards seeking those sorts of attorneys.  The Market Penetrator makes a bunch of calls.  When the Market Penetrator starts finding candidates, they submit them to a large number of firms-firms with openings and firms the Market Penetrator believes have openings.  As their candidates get interviews, they submit more candidates to the firms that it sees are interviewing its people.  Without ever forming a particular close relationship with any law firm, the Market Penetrator makes a placement.

The Market Penetrator’s method of recruiting and placement is based upon sheer force and aggressiveness.  This Market Penetrator’s recruiting method is based upon the belief that the (1) respective candidate’s goal is to get the best possible job and (2) the candidate needs to be aggressively marketed because (a) they will find a job (through the recruiter-or otherwise), and (b) the recruiter should be the one who gets them the job.  The Market Penetrator also believes they cannot possibly know everything that is going on in their market and must constantly be pushing to market their candidate to new and potential opportunities matching the candidate’s interest.

Under the Market Penetrator’s method of recruiting and placement, the recruiter will seek to represent a high number of candidates under the belief that they are constantly taking the pulse of the market (through submitting candidates to employers) to see where the opportunities are most likely to be. This, in turn, enables the recruiter to be able to make choices about proper submissions due to the constant feedback the market provides.

The Market Penetrator typically takes a candidate and researches (1) current jobs, (2) past jobs in a market, and (3) potential jobs.

First, the Market Penetrator will know the current jobs where the candidate is or is not a good fit and will choose these jobs from the list of active jobs in the database.   The recruiter will always attempt to interest a candidate in the positions that are most appropriate for a candidate that are active.  The Market Penetrator will also likely do independent research to find active jobs for its candidate.

Second, the recruiter will then look at past jobs and, depending upon the candidate’s practice area or-the strength of a given market-will also select a certain amount of past jobs for the candidate if there is a likelihood in the Market Penetrator’s mind that the same firms may have the same openings again.  While it is not always the case, if a candidate is in an obscure practice area where there are typically very few active jobs, the recruiter will spend a great deal of time studying past openings.

Third, the recruiter will use Martindale and knowledge of the market gained from reading legal periodicals and so forth to develop a potential list of firms to “hit” with the candidate’s materials in order to see if the firm has any interest. In some instances, the firms the recruiter “hits” will be firms the recruiter and/or recruiting firm has not dealt with in the past and does not even have openings.  This method of recruiting is something that not many recruiters necessarily do; however, it deserves mention since it is a tool in the Market Penetrator’s arsenal.

1. The Advantages.

The Advantages of the Market Penetrator’s method of recruiting and placement are:
(i)  They are likely to assist the candidate in applying to the majority of the places the candidate is likely to work;

The Cougar is likely to expose its candidates to majority of real and potential openings in the market at one time.  Through their in-depth understanding of the market, the Cougar develops a level of market insight and intelligence that surpasses what most candidates could ever know.

When working the a Market Penetrator, most candidates do not need to do much work for themselves in their search. They can rest assured that their recruiter knows where openings are and are most likely to be. Using a Market Penetrator largely eliminates the need for a candidate to use multiple recruiters.

(ii) They are constantly turning up new jobs as firms they may  not approach (i.e., firms with inactive jobs or no jobs at all) express interest in their candidates (a Market Penetrator may sometimes get a new fee contract from a law firm every week), and

The idea that a recruiter may approach firms without specific openings on a candidate’s behalf is something that is quite alarming to individuals who are not recruiters (and even some recruiters).  Nevertheless, a good Market Penetrator approaches firms only after a very careful study and an educated opinion that their candidate may be a good fit for the firm.

You need to keep in mind that the Market Penetrator believes the market is massive.  The Market Penetrator also believes that no amount of intelligence can ever provide it with all of the openings in the market.  The Market Penetrator believes the best way to learn of new openings beyond those they already have is to be constantly taking the pulse of the market.  For this reason, as firms interview their candidates they develop new openings for candidates who they work with later.  Ironically, Market Penetrator’s typically have the most real openings.
(iii) They are giving the candidate the broadest possible  choice of opportunities to make an educated decision about where they might work; and,

The Market Penetrator is able to give their candidate a broad range of choices of where to work.  In a given city, there may be over 25 places where a candidate could potentially work.  Each hiring organization is different and some candidates are likely to be more comfortable in some hiring organizations than others.  By giving their candidates so many potential options and choices, the candidate the Market Penetrator represents may actually have a more fulfilling career.

(iv) The Market Penetrator approaches firms that other recruiters are not approaching and therefore their candidates have a better opportunity of employment due to less competition

Because the Market Penetrator is approaching firms that other recruiters may not, there may be less competition for these jobs.  Accordingly, the Market Penetrator’s candidates may be more likely to be hired.
2. The Disadvantages.

The disadvantages of the Market Penetraror’s method of recruiting and placement are:

(i) It takes a lot of work in terms of research and this comes
at the expense (most often) of forming strong relationships with employers and candidates;

A Market Penetrator must spend a great deal of time doing research.  In fact, the Market Penetrator’s whole method of recruiting is based upon doing a great deal of research.  While this may not seem like that bad of a thing, most recruiters are “social animals” who go into recruiting because they enjoy interacting with people on a very frequent basis.  Accordingly, this recruiting method is not something that all recruiters are comfortable with.

The research a Market Penetrator does is often consuming enough that they cannot spend a great deal of time getting to know their candidates and clients personally.  This lack of in-depth personal attention can be somewhat detrimental in that the recruiter cannot understand the complexities of various personality types at work in making a good match possible.

(ii) It generally results in a lower percentage of interviews
vis a vis submissions than other methods; and,

Because a large portion of the Market Penetrator’s work is exploratory, their candidates may often be introduced to employers that are not the most ideal fits for the candidates.  Accordingly, while some recruiting methods are very likely to result in a high percentage of interviews, the Market Penetrator will likely get its candidates a lower percentage of interviews when compared to the number of submissions it makes.

(iv) firms may become annoyed because they are receiving
“unsolicited” resumes.

An unsolicited resume is one the firm does not request and does not come in response to a specific opening.  If a recruiter sends too many unsolicited resumes to a given firm, the firm will become annoyed and may request the recruiter does not send them any more candidates.  If this occurs, future candidates will be prejudiced by not having actual opportunities available to them when the firm does have openings.

II
THE COUGAR

A Typical Cougar Placement.  ACougar calls up a law firm and asks to meet with the law firm.  The recruiter visits the law firm and spends time meeting with the hiring partner, recruiting coordinator and other attorneys in the firm.  In the meeting the recruiter “hits it off” with the law firm and the firm gives the recruiter their openings.  The recruiter also establishes a strong bond of trust with the law firm and both understand each other very well.  Over months or years the recruiter and law firm establish a very strong bond of trust. The recruiter has a very good sense of the types of candidates the law firm is likely to interview and hire. The Cougar may visit with the law firm several times per year.

When the recruiter is in the market, they are very focused upon this law firm’s hiring criteria.  They primarily ignore candidates who do not fit the law firm’s needs.  They spend time calling “ideal candidates” and running a limited amount of advertising.  Many attorneys may not actually know the name of the recruiting firm the Cougar works for and, quite often, the Cougar may even work alone out of their home.  The Cougar spots the ideal candidate and meets with them.  The Cougar says many good things about the law firm and the candidate meets with the law firm and is hired.  The Cougar has made a placement.

It is a little known fact that recruiting is among the world’s oldest professions.  For as long as human beings have worked for compensation, there have been others who have recruited others to do work for others and been compensated for finding others to do this work.  The Cougar’s recruiting style has literally been around for thousands of years and is among the most traditional types of recruiting.  Long before databases, computers and even classified advertising, the Cougar was plying their trade.

As the name suggests, the Cougar lies in wait for the ideal candidate (or hunts them by calling) and knows the exact jobs to submit the candidate to and the best candidates likely to fill that job.  The Cougar’s method of recruiting and placement is based upon the idea that (1) they know the jobs very well where the candidate is likely to get a job, and (2) by having a very highly developed sense of the market and good understanding of their clients they are likely to get their candidates the best interviews.

Under the Cougar’s method of recruiting and placement, the recruiter spends a great deal of time thinking about the firms and potential candidates for those firms.  Very few candidates may be represented at one time; however, each candidate represented is likely to get interviews.  A candidate may be submitted to as little as one or two firms.  In addition, the recruiter tends to form very close relationships with a limited number of firms.  This, in turn, results in the recruiter’s candidate being looked at quite closely.  The recruiter also forms an excellent and very close, trusting relationship with each candidate they represent.

In situations where there are as many as ten potential opportunities in the market for the candidate (i.e., active jobs) the recruiter may submit the candidate to as little as two or three jobs under the belief that the candidate is most likely to be a “fit” at these firms.  The Cougar knows their market and is highly selective with their candidates and the firms they submit them to.

It bears noting that this is the most typical method of recruiting and placement among recruiters nationally.  The reason for this is due to the fact that it works.

B.  Cougar Recruiting Examined

The Cougar’s method of recruiting and placement is based upon having a very strong focus.  This focus has both its advantages and disadvantages.

1. The Advantages.

The advantages of the Cougar’s method of recruiting and placement are:

(i) They make placements other recruiters would likely not make (and learn about jobs first);

A Cougar forms a very strong relationship with hiring authorities.  This is the nature of the Cougar and in most cases the Cougar is simply not comfortable working for hiring organizations it does not have a very close relationship with.  As a consequence, the openings that a Cougar has are all real openings where the hiring organization has a definite need.

In addition, because the Cougar’s relationship with the hiring organization is so close, the hiring organization may not provide these openings to other recruiters for fear of upsetting the Cougar.  Therefore, the Cougar is more likely to make placements with these hiring organizations and have access to opportunities other recruiters may not.

(ii)  They have a very good understanding of the types of candidates firms are likely to hire; and,

When a candidate is approached by a Cougar (or finds a Cougar via an advertisement), the candidate’s time is not being wasted if the Cougar decides they are a good fit.  If a Cougar is working with a particular candidate, the odds are very high that the candidate has a strong likelihood of being interviewed and hired by the particular hiring organization.

This level of understanding is beneficial for everyone.  The candidate has access to “inside information” about a particular hiring organization and can make educated decisions about whether they want to interview with the hiring organization or not.

(iii)  They form very close trusting relationships with their candidates.

Because the Cougar is most often not working with many candidates at one time, they can take the time to really understand the people they are working with.  In addition, because the Cougar is so concerned about its candidates being a good fit for each hiring organization it is doing work on behalf of, it will ask its candidates numerous questions and get an in-depth understanding of its candidate to ensure that it is making as good a fit as possible with its clients.  The Cougar is typically very concerned with what their clients think of them.

While a Cougar is compensated by the hiring organization, its recruiting style is also very conducive to representing candidates for a very long time until the “perfect fit” comes along.  A Cougar may work with a candidate for months or even years until it finds the perfect opportunity for them.  This is the way Cougar’s like to operate.  Accordingly, a candidate may be well served when an excellent opportunity does come along.

2. The Disadvantages

The disadvantages of the Cougar’s method of recruiting and placement are:

(i) By taking on so few candidates they miss numerous
opportunities to make placements;

The Cougar is extremely focused.  Their focus is upon having strong relationships with a limited number of law firms at one time.  Because of this focus, a Cougar will miss numerous good candidates in the market and numerous places where they could make placements.  The Cougar does not care, though.

(ii) They develop fewer new jobs and an in-depth understanding of their markets through proactive marketing of candidates; and,

The Cougar does not seek to develop a high number of jobs.  They only care about the jobs their clients have.  Accordingly, the Cougar can offer their candidates only a limited number of opportunities at one time.  If a candidate is seriously seeking a new job, they may not be well served using a Cougar who will only introduce them to a limited number of openings.
III
THE DATABASE LOVER

A Typical Database Lover Placement.  The Database Lover spends a great deal of their time studying active openings in the database of their recruiting firm. Since most Database Lover’s work at large recruiting firms, they have the benefit of a large stable of potential candidates to work with.  The Database Lover will examine openings that the recruiting firm gets each day and reach a decision about the sort of openings they would prefer to recruit for.  Whether through an advertisement, a cold call, or an existing relationship, the Database Lover gets a particular candidate they would like to work with.  The candidate is submitted to active openings matching the candidate’s profile in the database.  A certain number of these employers interview the candidate and offers are extended.  The candidate accepts one of the offers.  The Database Lover makes another placement.

The Database Lover’s method of recruiting and placement relies principally on the use of a database to make placements.  Very few recruiters utilize this method of recruiting and placement and those that do are typically at large recruiting firms with sophisticated databases.

Under the Database Lover’s method of recruiting, candidates are sent to firms with “active” openings in the recruiting firm’s database.  This recruiting method is based upon the belief that (1) if there is a real job, the candidate should be marketed to it, (2) the most likely source of a placement is with a real job, and (3) firms should be treated with respect and only shown candidates when they have made us aware they have a specific opening.

Under the Database Lover’s method of recruiting and placement, the recruiter will monitor active jobs closely and watch for candidates matching these jobs.  Here, the recruiter will typically submit candidates to the active jobs they can find.

1. The Advantages.

The advantages of the Database Lover’s method of recruiting and placement are:

(i) They are able to provide firms with candidates matching their
openings on an on going basis (and not upset firms with  unsolicited resumes in the process);

The Database Lover submits candidates in response to actual openings that employers have.  As employers have openings, the Database Lover will provide them with candidates.  Employers know that the Database Lover only sends them candidates if they have an actual opening.  Accordingly, firms come to rely upon the Database Lover for a steady stream of applicants for their positions and most often are not annoyed with the Database Lover’s recruiting efforts.

(2) If they are aggressive, they can approach employers with
openings in odd areas (e.g., Maine, Sacramento, Indiana, Saudi Arabia) with appropriate candidates that are likely to be direct hits;

One advantage of the Database Lover’s method of recruiting is that it is quite literal.  Because their emphasis is not on knowing markets like the Market Penetrator, or knowing firms like the Cougar, the Database Lover can often be quite effective.  This is particularly so in areas “off the beaten path” where employers may have openings for an extended period of time and see few candidates.

For example, if there is a firm in rural Maine with an opening for a patent attorney and the Database Lover finds and excellent candidate willing to interview with that firm, their efforts may have a very high rate of success.

2. The Disadvantages.

The disadvantages of the Database Lover’s method of recruiting and placement are:

(i) They do not necessarily ever get a thorough market coverage
because they are responding to actual jobs for the most part;

The Database Lover’s method of recruiting is quite literal.  They look for actual openings and put their candidate’s into competition for those openings.  The method is not based on research or identifying “market trends” like the Market Penetrator’s method of recruiting.  Accordingly, the Database Lover may miss many potential openings for their candidates.

(ii) They may not take on candidates where they do not have
actual openings; and,

Because they are almost exclusively dependent upon a database, the Database Lover may fail to place many candidates whose skills and experience make them extremely marketable if they do not have actual openings to submit the candidate to.

(iii) Their candidates are competing with every other candidate in
the market being submitted by a recruiter to the same firms.
The Database Lover is not the most creative sort of recruiter.  Therefore, they could be said to be somewhat “masters of the obvious” in that their approach is quite cautious.  Because they do not rely on the sort of research a Market Penetrator does, or develop the strong relationships a Cougar does, the Database Lover will miss many openings other recruiters might locate.

IV
CONCLUSIONS

While there are certainly many different types of recruiters, I believe the following characterizations show most heavily the types of differing recruiters there are.  The above explanation could be dramatically expanded with more examples and insights; however, for the most part these are the three main types of recruiters.

Make no mistake about it: The Cougar thinks they do the best work, just as the Database Lover and the Market Penetrators believe they do the best work.  The fact that there is any tension between competing methods is a sign of a healthy organization and in any good recruiting firm you will find recruiters who gravitate towards one method of recruiting or another.  While I hesitate to say this, if your recruiter cannot explain their particular style of recruiting to you they may be doing something wrong.  You also may be more comfortable working with one type of recruiter or another.

No method is the wrong way.  Instead, I believe that a combination of each of these ways offers the best method.  When you are working with a legal recruiter it is important to understand what type of recruiter you have.  Your recruiter’s particular style will explain the results they are getting for you in your search.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

See Opportunities Where Others See Obstacles

If you are looking for a job then one of the most important things you can do is see opportunities where others see huge obstacles.  Most of the world sees huge obstacles to everything.  There are always obstacles to anyone and everyone doing the absolute best that can be done at something.  If you want to get the best possible job and go as far as possible in your career then you need to insure that you are not seeing obstacles and that every obstacle you see is, in fact, an opportunity.  When you look at the lives of people who have done exceptionally well in the law and in most fields you will generally find that they see opportunities where most of us see obstacles.

George McGovern was nominated by the Democratic convention in 1972 as a candidate to run against Richard Nixon.  In the midst of the convention, McGovern decided that he no longer wanted Senator Eagleton to be his vice-presidential running mate. At the time there were thousands of bumper stickers and pins that had been made up that said “McGovern-Eagleton”.  A young sixteen-year-old entrepreneur bought up approximately 5,000 of these buttons and stickers for around 5-cents each.  Within a short time the same entrepreneur sold individual buttons and stickers as historical memorabilia for as much as $25 each.  The person’s name?  Bill Gates.

People like Bill Gates have massive lessons to teach the world because they can see opportunities where others may simply see obstacles.  In order to do well in a job search you absolutely need to make sure you are looking out for where the opportunities are to succeed.

“I did not go to the right school”
This is ridiculous.  Most of the highest paid attorneys in the United States did not go to good schools either.  In fact, the very, very highest paid attorneys may have barely made it through law school.  What these attorneys did is they focused on their strengths and made the absolute most they could of them.

The law school you went to simply does not matter.  Yes, the law school you went to may hold some importance for the very highest paying law firms; however, for the most part your law school should be looked upon as a positive.

If you went to a terrible law school, find people who also went to this law school and connect with them.  Find the most successful attorneys and learn from them and ask them all sorts of questions about how they overcame the law school they went to.  Send them letters thanking them for the lessons they taught you.  Incorporate what they told you. Work hard to overcome what you may lack in an exceptional school pedigree by working on your personality, reading books about how to bring in business, making sure you work harder on your legal skills than someone else does.

Nothing is more common than people who go to a good law school and believe based on this that they can stop trying harder.  The best thing that ever happened to me personally was not getting into a certain ivy league school my father and a lot of my family went to.  This taught me right then and there that I could never rest on my laurels and needed to keep working and working.  Not getting into that school was probably the best thing that ever happened to me.  People who go to the best schools often believe they can simply rest on their laurels due to that one achievement.

If you did not go to the best school then realize that while those who may have gone to a better school may rest on their laurels you are going to keep working on yourself and getting better and better.  You will surpass them and when you do they will not even have seen you coming and you will not need to look back.

“I do not have the right experience”
Regardless of the experience you have, you have some experience doing something.  The experience excuse is crazy to me.  Everyone has experience!

Maybe you used to work in an oil field as a roughneck and put yourself through night law school.  You then could then use you knowledge and connection to oil workers to connect with people injured in accidents in oil fields and then represent them.

Regardless of your experience, there is some sort of experience you have that you can put to use to get the position you want.  You need to think of what you have done that is related to what you want to do. You need to connect with others in the law who have had similar experiences to you.

Perhaps, however, you truly do not have any experience which is relevant to what you want to do.  I doubt this-however, it is possible.  If this is the case then the way to look at this is to take the experience you do have as something that is a fantastic lesson that you need to find ways to get the experience you want to get the sort of position you want.  This may mean taking on a given responsibility in your current job, or seeking out new sorts of work.  Whatever you are seeking to do, you can get the experience.

For example, one of the most attractive things to potential employers is when someone is so serious about doing something that they have taken classes, volunteered, or done something extraordinary to the experience that they need in order to do a job.  People (naturally) want to assist those who are trying hard to advance.

“I live in the wrong part of the country”
Regardless of where you live in the United States there is tons of legal work to be done-and the sort of legal work you want to do.  The belief that you cannot get a job because of where you live is completely fallacious.

One of the most important abilities of anyone-in any profession—is the ability to create work.  Very good lawyers are experts at creating work for themselves and are constantly doing it and able to create this work.

Imagine, for example, you are in a small rural town and want to practice patent law.  You could find local inventors and get to know them and also ask them for referrals.  You could also put up a website.  You could write attorneys in other small law firms around the country for work.  The list of possibilities is endless.  In order to get the work you need you do need to find opportunities and you can find them wherever you are.

One of the secrets of selling anything is you need to put people in pain by identifying a need they may have that they did not know they had.  This is something you can do quite easily once you adopt the mindset of seeing the sorts of work people are likely to need done.  If you see an inventor discussing something he is working on you could go up to him and say “Are you crazy?  You need to patent this before you talk about it!”  A solid and good attorney is always creating demand and finding ways to get work no matter where they are.

In a small town this could be traveling to other towns and giving talks.  This could be speaking with local organization.  There are tons of ways that people can get business.  You simply need to insure that you are making the most of each opportunity you have to get the work you want.  It does not matter where you are-you can do anything if you try hard enough.

“I do not have the right personality to fit in”
Then change your personality-or better yet, do not change your personality.

I remember listening to a lawyer talk about business generation once and hearing him say that the biggest nerd in Los Angeles was also the biggest business generator.  That is to day: Just be who you are-it is probably good enough.

Everyone fits in wherever they are because there are a variety of people everywhere.  You need to look for reasons why you fit in.

“I have a learning disability”
Incredibly, I heard an attorney say this once and use this as a reason for not succeeding.  You know what this guy did?  He found a job representing foreigners who did not speak English and they never caught on that he was not the sharpest tack around.  This guy is having more fun and making more money than the majority of attorneys out there.  And while the work he is doing is not that difficult, he is charging a fair price for it and doing good work.

“My grades were not good enough in law school”
Who cares.  I know someone who got a “C-” average at a mediocre law school who got a clerkship with a Federal Appellate Judge and also got a job at a firm routinely ranked as one of the top 10 most prestigious firms in the United States.  The judge and firm never asked for her grades!  Then I placed the same girl at an AmLaw 20 firm and the firm that hired her never asked for her grades either.  To answer your suspicions, this girl was no “knockout”.  She just got lucky.  You can too.  Lots of attorneys do.  The secret is applying to as many jobs as possible and looking the part.  In this girl’s case she had written herself onto the law review at her school and was also elected managing editor.

“The Best Recruiters Will Not Work With Me” Who cares.  I do not have as an exciting life as a rock star.  There are lots of things you could have that you do not.  If the best recruiters will not work with you then find a job on your own.  There are some easy places you can find opportunities when you are seeking for a job regardless of whether or not you use a recruiter:

LawCrossing.  Yes, I am the founder of LawCrossing.  Yes, LawCrossing costs money each month.  Nevertheless, LawCrossing does have over 250 people working for it looking for jobs for you each day.  It has a multimillion dollar database that searches every legal employer’s website daily and the people at LawCrossing also do a ton of this work manually as well.  LawCrossing also searches literally thousands of newspapers around the United States each day in search of jobs.  LawCrossing is an excellent way to put hundreds of people to work for you finding opportunities.  The fact that many people do not want to pay the nominal amount this service charges is fine. Those are the same people who are not competing with LawCrossing members for jobs!

Legal Authority.  Yes, I am also the Founder of Legal Authority.  I happen to really believe in the service and am quite passionate about it.  Legal Authority is probably the most effective method of finding a position out there.  With Legal Authority you can literally apply to all of the firms of a size you choose and in a interested in practicing litigation in Aurora, Illinois with a firm of less than 10 attorneys you can apply to all of these firms at one time.  The benefit of practice area you choose in an area you specify.  For example, if you are using a service like this is huge because you will find firms with a need that might not even be advertising.  In addition, as part of the Legal Authority service you will have your resume and cover letter professionally done.  This can make a huge difference when you are applying for jobs

**
Regardless of how you are doing your job search, if you are looking for a position the very last thing you should do is limit the number of places you are applying to.  The more places you are applying to the more opportunities you are likely to get.  You need to look for a position in a comprehensive and far-reaching way.  The more places you apply to the better chance you will have of getting another position. In addition, the employer you are applying to may put you in touch with someone else who does have excellent opportunities.  Insure you are applying to many places at once.

“My resume stinks”  Then make your resume better.  Buy a book about attorney resumes such as one I wrote (Attorney Resume Secrets Revealed available from my company Attorney Research Group (www.attorneyresearchgroup.com)) and make your resume perfect.  Better yet, hire a professional resume service such as Attorney Resume (www.attorneyresume.com) to do your resume (yes, this is also a company I founded).  Set professionals to work on your resume and make your resume outstanding.  You owe it to yourself to get a fantastic resume completed.

Regardless of whether you hire a company like Attorney Resume or work on your resume yourself, you need to get the most professional resume possible done.  A professional can help you bring out your strengths.

Conclusions
The best possible thing you can do with your career is start seeing opportunities where the rest of the world is seeing obstacles.  Even obstacles should be something that you see as actual opportunities.  Do not let the world get you down-take action and improve and go where you want to go.

I firmly believe that you can accomplish whatever you set out to do and to be.  I believe in you and have dedicated my life to providing you with the inspiration and career tools to get to where you want to go.  Take your career to the next level and become who you want to become. Never let any perceived obstacle hold you back.  You deserve better than that.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

It’s Not YOU, It’s the Economy

One of my favorite New Yorker cartoons goes like this.  A man and a woman are sitting across from each other in a cafe.  The woman says to the man, “It’s not YOU, it’s me.  I don’t like you.”

Given the harsh economy we’re all dealing with, I think of this cartoon on a regular basis, though in a slightly different context.  I’m the woman and my would-be candidates are the man; however, the difference is that I LIKE my would-be candidates and wish that I could work with them.  Alas, the deterioration of the market place prevents me from taking on most of the people that contact me.  This will change, of course, once the market improves, but I write today to console those of you who have been, or will be, rejected by a recruiter.  It’s not YOU, it’s the economy.

Like medicine, I believe that one of the first rules of recruiting is “to do no harm.”  As a recruiter, and a former practicing attorney, I know the market place and it’s my duty to be as honest with would-be candidates as possible.  Lately, this means turning down some terrific attorneys whom I would have gladly worked with at this same time last year.

Why so selective?

Because here in the Bay Area the talent pool is spilling over while the jobs are drying up.  And so, if you are a general litigator with no book of business, you are most likely competing with the hundreds of attorneys who have recently been laid off.  But you do have resources.

Here is a link to yesterday’s Legal Pad where an associate discusses the success a friend off hers has had using Legal Authority (a sister company of BCG): http://legalpad.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/02/advice-for-a-jobhunting-associate-considering-a-new-practice-area.html

Also, for those of you who are frustrated in your job search and feel that there must be some AMLAW firm out there who will hire you, here is a webiste to LawShuck’s lay-off tracker:  http://lawshucks.com/layoff-tracker/.  The intent of providing this site is not to scare the beejesus out of you but to help you make informed decisions.

For example, maybe you will decide to stay in your current job and hang on tight for as long as possible.  Or, if you have been laid off, maybe you will be open to exploring the smaller markets that haven’t been as impacted as the large cities.  If you have specific questions about the Bay Area market, I am happy to help.  But if I’m unable to work with you in finding a job, please remember, it’s not YOU, it’s the economy.

-Erin

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Should you talk about other interviews in your interview?

One of the questions I receive quite often from attorneys I am working with is whether or not they should talk about other interviews while they are interviewing with a law firm.  Let me emphasize one thing: This is one of the more important questions you will ever be asked in an interview.  Regardless of your qualifications, how you respond to this question will have a direct bearing on whether or not you receive an offer from the law firm asking you this question.  Be very careful as to how you answer this question.

At the outset, it is important to point out that you do not have to answer this question but should.  This question will also often not be asked.  Indeed, it is my opinion that this question is entirely inappropriate.  In no instance should you even volunteer this information unless you are asked. The problem is that if you are asked this question you will look bad if you refuse to answer it.  Not answering the question gives the employer the impression that you will similarly “hide the ball” when you are working for them.  It also does not do much to assist you in establishing a bond of trust, empathy and understanding with potential new employer.  Therefore, it is my opinion that his question must be answered. There are two important rules you must keep in mind when answering this question.

First, you need to understand that most firms are unlikely to give you offers unless they think you are their first choice firm.  There are certainly exceptions when firms make offers to people who they do not think are their first choice law firms.  As a general rule, though, if a firm believes you are their first choice you will be better off.  Because I am a legal recruiter, I see instances all the time when attorneys go to work for law firms that initially were not their first choice.  Many firms are very good at recruiting and can convince most people to join their firm when they extend offers-even in the face of competing offers.  Nevertheless, for the most part a firm wants to believe you are their first choice and this will have a direct bearing the substantial majority of time on whether an offer is extended.

Second, how you justify why you are interviewing with the firms you are interviewing with will also have a direct bearing on whether or not the firm makes you an offer.  In addition to knowing that you are their first choice, law firms also want to know that you are likely to remain with them after joining.  They also want to know why they are the best fit among potentially competing offers.  Furthermore, the law firm wants assurances that it is not making a mistake making an offer to you.  How you justify where else you are interviewing will have a direct impact on your potential success in terms of getting an offer.
1. Before You Ever Tell An Employer Who Else You Are Interviewing With The Firm Must Believe You Are Their First Choice

I have a quick story from personal experience that is related to law firm interviewing-albeit, indirectly.  I am an Area Chair for the admissions office of a major American university in Los Angeles.  In this position, I am largely responsible for ensuring applicants to the University in my area are interviewed.  While I am not the one making the ultimate decisions as to whom the school admits, I do put together reports on everyone I speak with and express my enthusiasm (or lack thereof) for each applicant.  I would have a hard time believing that my reviews do not carry at least some weight in the admissions process.  This year I probably interviewed 50 students for the school.  This school is generally ranked a “Top 10″ American college; however, in some years it is slightly lower.

As is typical of most interviews, I speak with the high school students about their dreams and aspirations for college and ask them why they are interested in attending the University.  Because I also attended the school, I have a decent understanding of the sorts of students that are likely to be happy and fit in well at the school.  This experience is derived largely from personal experience of having attended the school myself.  In my experience, the sorts of students I believe would be a good fit for the school are also the same sorts of students who seem the most enthusiastic to me and give me the most compelling reasons for wanting to attend.

One challenge of these interviews is trying to decide who among a great number of highly qualified individuals really wants to go to the school. If someone is not qualified for the school, my job is easy because I know they will be rejected.  Because the University is a highly ranked school, the majority of students I speak with inevitably are applying to schools like Princeton, Yale and other similarly situated schools.  Accordingly, one of the first questions on my mind is this: Why my school and not another highly ranked one?

This situation is compounded by an obvious fact: While I certainly believe the school I am interviewing with is the top university in the United States (and could argue convincingly about this all day) it is not the number one ranked university and probably has never been.  Now if I was interviewing for a university consistently ranked number one in the United States, I would think that the university was every student’s top choice.  Because it is not the top university, I know that several people I am speaking with would probably rather go to a more prestigious university.

Now if you think about this, this rationale is very similar to what goes on when law students and attorneys are interviewing with law firms.  In an extreme, if you are interviewing with Skadden Arps Slate Meager & Flom (”Skadden”) and a small 15 person law firm in New Jersey that pays less than half of what Skadden does, most rationale observers would presume that you would rather go to Skadden than the small 15 person law firm.

Imagine for a moment what the 15 person law firm is thinking if you tell them that you are interviewing with Skadden.  Do you think that you would really want to go there?  Now imagine what Skadden is going to think if you tell them you are interviewing with the small 15 person law firm.  They are likely going to think that you are not that marketable, for one.  Or they might think that Skadden is a reach for you and want to help you advance.  You need to put yourself in the shoes of the person making hiring decisions because what they think will determine whether or not you are ultimately hired.

Why do I ask myself if the student really wants to attend the university I am interviewing for? I ask myself this question because I want to make sure that if I put a strong recommendation behind the person they are likely to attend the school.  Do not get me wrong: If you are a stellar applicant you will still get a stellar recommendation.  But someone who really wants what you are offering is always going to be far more attractive than someone who does not.

What the University does with this information is their business.  However, I do like to be able to say “the University is this person’s first choice and I am confident they will come if they are admitted.  I believe the person that the school is their first choice because of X, Y and Z.  Furthermore, they are the sort of person I imagine would do quite well there because they share so much in common with others students I knew while there.”

When a law firm is interviewing you, the same sort of logic applies.  Law firms receive numerous applications from highly qualified individuals constantly.  If a law firm thinks you will never take an offer from them, they are not going to be interested in speaking with you.  In the event you do get an interview, if the law firm thinks you are just looking to go to the most prestigious law firm (and they are not that prestigious) then the law firm is not likely to make you an offer.

As an aside, I should note that I see this sort of phenomenon all the time.  I deal with attorneys at some of the top law firms in the world on a daily basis.  Many of these attorneys want to go to smaller firms that pay far less.  While most of these attorneys are under the impression that the smaller firm would “die” to have them, the opposite is most often true.  If the attorney is coming from a far superior law firm, the smaller law firm and its attorneys might be intimidated by hiring the attorney because they never worked in such a smaller law firm.  People do not like to spend time with those they think (or others think) are superior to them.

You can draw on personal experience in this analogy.  One example would probably be a lot of your high school friends if you went to a public school and now practice law.  A lot of these people probably have not done much with their lives.  You are not the same people anymore and they are not as comfortable around you anymore.  They are uncomfortable because they perceive inequality.  Surely this does not apply to all your past friends, however, I am confident it applies to many of them.  Regardless of how you may feel with this continued association, they are not like as likely to be as comfortable.  This is also one reason people do not tend to marry outside their social class, for example.  It creates too many difficulties due to a perceived superior and inferior role.  No one likes to be around others that remind them of their potential inadequacies.  Law firms are the exact same.

I am an expert in getting attorneys jobs inside law firms.  I know nothing about in-house placements, or other sorts of legal-related placements.  Law firms, by their nature, are strange and unique creatures.  Law firms want to save face.  Having someone take another offer over them makes the law firm look bad in their eyes.  It makes them feel inferior.  This sort of event makes it seem to the attorneys that interviewed the candidate that the other law firm is a more attractive alternative.  It is also a negative vote of confidence from you if you do not take an offer if one is extended.

So how does the question of whom you are interviewing with fit into the equation?  First, you need to answer this question.  This question will rarely be asked at the beginning of the interview, though.  This is a very important question to answer and it must be answered correctly.  Before you ever answer this question, though, the law firm you are interviewing with must-and I mean must-know that they are your first choice.  If the firm thinks this then telling them everywhere you are interviewing can help you.

Back to the situation with the 15 person New Jersey firm.  You could still very easily get an offer from this firm if you play your cards right.  First, you need to walk into this interview and convince the firm that you really want to work there.  Maybe you know someone at the firm that has said good things about it.  Maybe they practice in an area of law you have been interested in since high school.  Maybe their office is right across the street from your house.  Maybe you want to work in a smaller firm so you can make partner.  You need an arsenal at your disposal to give the law firm compelling reasons for hiring you.  If you give the firm enough reasons that you are a good fit, they will look upon the fact that Skadden is interviewing you as something that verifies your worth in the market.  The firm needs to think that you will be their first choice over Skadden.  You taking an offer from them over Skadden will be a major vote of confidence in the small firm that is something the firm will use to impress upon its attorneys as to what a great place they are.

When I am interviewing candidates for the University, I can answer the question of whether or not the candidate is really interested in my opportunity in several ways.  For example, if the student has 1580 on their SATs, is Captain of the football team, student counsel president and first in their class and my school is the only top school they are applying to then my job is easy. The student most likely is most interested in what my school offers.

Even if the student is applying to several more prestigious schools, I can still judge whether or not this same applicant really wants to attend the University by several methods: (1) If their parents went to the University and they have always wanted to go there, (2) If they attended the University for summer school, (3)  If they worked for a professor of the University during high school, and (4)  If their life has been profoundly influenced by the work of some professor they want to study under.  You should get the idea.  Even without this a stellar applicant will still get serious consideration.  The point is your interviewer wants to say “this school is their first choice and I believe it.”

A law firm wants the same assurances that they are your first choice.  These assurances need to be given at the interview stage and they need to be given early on. This is not an article about interviewing and I cannot tell you how to interview.  I can tell you, though, that when a law firm believes you are their first choice you will have a better chance of getting an offer with the firm.

In an improving market (which this is) you are likely to get more than one interview and may very well end up with several offers. Accordingly, you may often be asked in interviews who else you are speaking with and so forth. How you address this question will actually have a strong bearing on whether or not an employer hires you.

2.                 How You Justify Why You Are Interviewing With Other Firms Will Have A Direct Bearing On Whether Or Not The Employer Hires You

There are several scenarios that you should be aware of and each one merits a separate response.  If you have prepared the interviewer properly, you will do very well when asked where else you are interviewing.  The potential scenarios are: (a) you are not interviewing with any other employers, (b) you are interviewing entirely will less prestigious firms, (c) you are interviewing with a mix of firms, corporations and other types of employers, (d) you are interviewing with a mix of more prestigious and less prestigious firms, and (e) you are interviewing with all more prestigious firms.  Given the importance of each of these hypotheticals, they will all be discussed below.

a.                  You are not interviewing with any other employers

If you are not interviewing with any other employers then you should tell the firm so.  If you are in law school and this is occurring, the firm should be under the impression that you are just starting the interview process if this is the only interview you have so far.  Employers do not want to feel as if you are the black sheep and someone without a lot of options.

If you are interviewing laterally, it is perfectly acceptable to tell the employer that you are not interviewing with any other employers.  In this situation, the rationale for having only one interview should be that (1) you are not interested in a new job for the sake of a new job, and (2) the only reason you are speaking with this firm is because they are a perfect fit for your interests.  The firm needs to think they are a perfect match for you.  There are several additional reasons firms like to hear you are interviewing only with them:

?It makes you look loyal to your current employer-by stating that you are interviewing with only one employer, it makes it seem as if you are not doing an “all out” search to find new positions.  You are only interested in this one interview because the firm matches what you are seeking so closely.

?It puts the firm in a position where they know if they make you an offer you are likely to take it-By having only one interview, the firm can give itself more assurances that if an offer is made to you that you will likely take it.

?It puts the firm in a position where they know if they make you an offer you will not choose one of their competitors over them-If you inform the firm that you have only one interview, the firm will have the assurance that they will not look “lose face” if you take an offer from one of their competitors.

b. You are interviewing entirely with less prestigious employers

There are some potential positives to this admission.  The positives are:

?Since we are the best firm, if we make the candidate an offer they will most likely come here.

?If the firm is more prestigious than the one you are currently at, the employer will think that you are trying to “move up”.  It is almost axiomatic in American culture that we respect individuals who are trying to move up and improve their lot in life.  After all, most of our ancestors were immigrants at some point and moved up the ladder.  Indeed, some of their offspring are now even lawyers!

If you tell your interviewer that your other interviews are will less prestigious employers, you may have a problem.  Here, the firm will certainly think to itself: “Can’t this attorney get an interview with better firms?  Is there something wrong with them that we are missing?”

In this situation, you need to be very careful.  One way to approach this is to state that you only are applying to places with openings and these are the only firms you are aware of with openings.  In this way, the firm will believe that you are applying to these other firms and them simply in response to what you know.  While in all likelihood you probably applied to more prestigious firms and have not heard back or were rejected, if the former is true you need to make the firm aware of it.

The most important thing you can do in this situation is to make it clear to the firm that you are qualified to work for them.  For example, if you are interviewing with less prestigious firms that pays far less then tell the more prestigious firm that money is not a concern for you.  Here, you can tell the firm you are most concerned with finding the “right fit” and that the less prestigious firms have a lot of attributes that might not be immediately transparent.  In this instance, you put yourself in the position of someone who is more concerned with practicing law in the right environment than someone who is concerned with making as much money as possible.  This sort of characterization can only help you.

There are many ways to get creative with this response.  In sum, the most important thing you can do in a situation where all of your interviews are with less prestigious firms is to make the firm aware that (1) you are very interested in them, (2) seeking to move up, and (3) most concerned about finding a good fit.

c.       You are interviewing with a mix of different classes of employers such as law firms, government offices and corporations

This is also a potential problem for you.  If you are interviewing with different classes of employers beyond law firms then you also need to be extremely careful.  The problem with this is that law firms are unique institutions.  Most law firms have a billable hour requirement, have a division between partners and associates, encourage you to develop business and so forth.  While I have written extensively on this topic before, the point is that law firms are unique institutions that have great respect for their own way of practicing law but look down on those who do not practice law under their methodology.  For example, many law firm attorneys consider government attorneys lazy bureaucrats and look upon going in-house as a way to escape the pressure of law firm life.  While these generalizations are not necessarily true, what is important to realize is that law firms think this way and believe that individuals that do not want to practice inside a law firm are not cut out for law firm life.  Accordingly, telling a law firm you are interviewing with the government or and in-house employer is not necessarily in your best interest.

How you address this question is up to you.  You must tell people where you are interviewing.  If you are asked what other law firms you are interviewing with, then tell them what other law firms.  You need to be honest with employers and not doing so is not only ethically wrong but will come back to haunt you.

If you are interviewing with an employer that is different than a law firm and are asked about this, you are going to need to let the employer know why you are going out on these interviews.  There can be many potential explanations.  Perhaps a friend asked you to interview with an in-house employer, you are interested in environmental law and interviewing with the environmental branch of the United States Department of Justice so you can get more experience doing environmental trials.  Whatever the explanation you give for these other interviews, though, it is essential that you let the firm know that (1) a law firm is your first choice and (2) the other employer represents an opportunity for you to get significant experience and “move up” in terms of your skill level and so forth with a law firm.

In any law firm interview you go on, one of the most important things you can do for yourself is leave the firm with the impression that your actions in seeking to leave your current employer are motivated to “move up” and become a better attorney.  However you phrase the fact that you are interviewing with other types of employers than law firms, this point needs to be made.  Law firms want to hire winners.  The fact that you are interviewing with non law firms interviews a lot of potential doubt in the law firms mind that you are not committed to practicing law in a law firm.  Make them think the alternatives you are exploring to this are just as demanding.
d.      You are interviewing with a mix of more prestigious and less prestigious firms

The issue in this situation is about the most normal occurrence for attorneys interviewing with law firms.  Most attorneys that are interviewing are speaking with more prestigious and less prestigious firms.  Here, your case does not need to be as compelling.  Like in all the situations discussed above, the employer still must be left with the impression that they are your first choice.  In addition, the employer must have a basis for understanding why you are interviewing with more than one firm.

Assuming that you have done your job of giving the employer the impression they are your first choice., the employer should also understand why you are speaking with so many different sorts of law firms.  Here, the employer needs to be aware of why you are doing such a broad search.  Accordingly, the employer needs to be aware of why something is seriously wrong with your current employment situation.

This is again a delicate topic.  In all interviews you never want to leave the employer with the impression that you harbor any sort of ill will towards your current employer.  Employers typically do not like attorneys who say bad things about those they work for because they believe that they could one day be on the opposite side of this.  This simply makes you look bad.  What you do need to do in the interview, though, is convince the employer that your current employment situation is preventing you from reaching your full potential.  You need to project that you are leaving your current employer because you are trying to grow.

By upward momentum, I mean that your desire is to be better at you job, get more business, get better work and so forth.  In sum, you should always try and portray yourself and your job search as follows:

While your decision to join your current employer was a good one, you have continued a pattern of “growth” that has characterized you from the very beginning and is evident in everything you have ever done.  While it is unfortunate, your current firm is limiting your growth potential.  The environment of the firm you are interviewing with offers this growth potential and that is why you are speaking with them.  In fact, the growth potential of the firm you are interviewing with offers is “hands down” the best of the bunch in terms of the employers you are speaking with because of X and Y and Z …

If you were someone in charge of determining who you were going to hire, which candidate would you want to hire (1) someone without compelling reasons for being interested in your firm, (2) or someone who needs the environment your firm offers to grow?  I am sure you can see the logic of this.

It is a fundamental human characteristic that we want to feel good about ourselves.  Finding someone who needs an organization like ours to thrive and letting them work with such an organization is something that makes hiring authorities feel good about themselves.  You need to give employers compelling reasons for hiring you.

Moreover, giving yourself “upward mobility” makes you sound like a winner and not a loser.  People want to associate with winners and not losers.  Firms want to hire winners and not losers.  Give yourself upward mobility.

e. You are interviewing entirely with more prestigious firms

Given what has been said above, this section should not require a great deal of analysis. Here, you want to make the law firm believe that they are your first choice and that you will accept an offer from them if extended.  The firm needs to feel special and understand your reasons for choosing them over competing opportunities.
3. Conclusions

You need to understand that how you address where else you are interviewing will have a major impact on whether or not you are hired.  This, in fact, is one of the more important secrets to interviewing effectively.  If there is one thing you take from this article it should be this: Always make the firm you are interviewing with feel like you are their first choice.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

To Temp or Not to Temp

It is an inescapable reality these days that many firms are laying off lawyers at all levels, from junior associates fresh out of law school to partners with 25 years of experience. Many of these newly unemployed lawyers – even those with stellar credentials – may be finding it more difficult than expected to find a new job as quickly as they had hoped. With bills to pay, unemployed lawyers are increasingly turning to contract or “temp” agencies for short-term projects that bring in some income, albeit not BigLaw income. Several candidates have asked me recently if there are any downsides to working as a contract lawyer while job hunting. There are – but there are also many potentially upsides.

First, the downsides.

• The Stigma: The truth is that some firms simply will not consider hiring a lawyer if her resume reflects one or more stints as a contract lawyer. Whether this is fair or not is beside the point. Some firms and lawyers have this bias. The good news is that – given the sheer number of lawyers out of work and the increase in those turning to contract lawyering as a stop-gap – this view is likely to become less prevalent, at least with respect to the current crop of downsized lawyers. Also, with the rise (and success) of new, more respectable “hybrid” contract lawyer firms (such as Axiom), the traditional stigma that some firms have associated with contract lawyers is likely to diminish as firms evolve.
• The Distraction: Some believe that working as a contract attorney will prevent you from dedicating yourself to what should be your primary focus – finding a new job. The thought is that time “wasted” shuffling papers around in a dark basement for low pay would be better spent making calls and sending out resumes for “real jobs.” While it is true that a contract position may require your full attention for a period of weeks or months, it shouldn’t stop you from continuing your job search. No matter how resourceful you are, you can’t really spend your entire day, every day, searching for a job. Most of your job search can be conducted after hours and on weekends. And contract agencies (and employers) typically are understanding if you need to skip a morning of work for an interview for a permanent job.
• The Boredom: With rare exceptions, contract work is boring. And tedious. And mind numbing. And possibly humiliating. My advice: get over yourself. You are still getting paid more than most skilled laborers on an hourly basis. Further, keep reminding yourself that every hour, every day, every week, gives you some additional financial stability so that you can support yourself in finding a new position.

Now, some of the positives.

• The Income: I already mentioned the fact that contract work can help you pay some of your bills, but you may be pleasantly surprised at just how much money you take home. Sure your firm was billing you out at $350/hour, but how much of that did you actually keep? Sadly, probably not a lot more than you’ll receive from your temp job.
• The Brain Activity: Being out of work is not fun. Even if you have a financial cushion, day after day of Oprah re-runs, Mario Kart and Halo marathons, sleeping past noon and trying to find stuff to do will rot your brain. Although contract jobs may not always be the most fascinating legal work, at least they keep your mind in the game.
• The Resume: While some firms disdain contract work on your resume, all firms will question large, unexplained gaps. At a minimum, taking a contract position will ensure that you do not have significant gaps of unemployment. It also shows firms that you are ready, willing and eager to work.
• The Leads: Working a contract job means that you are around lawyers all day. Take advantage and be social, friendly and interactive. Let everyone know that you are looking for a permanent position. Do good work. When one of these lawyers hears about a new job – at his firm or somewhere else – he just might tell you about it!
• The Experience: Contract lawyers typically are hired to fill a desperate and immediate need. Prior subject matter experience usually is not required. Take advantage of the opportunity to beef up your knowledge base and improve your resume by learning as much as you can about the subject matter of the transaction or litigation you are assigned to. It may come in handy for your next position.

Conclusion

While contract work may carry a historical stigma with some firms, there are many potential advantages – in addition to garnering some immediate cash flow – that make it an attractive option for those waiting out the current fiscal crisis. Be sure to seek out a reputable contract agency and use the experience to your benefit. It may even lead you directly to your next (permanent) legal position!

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Long Term Success in With a Single Employer

If you go into any firm that has been around more than twenty or thirty years you will inevitably find a handful of attorneys who have been there from the very beginning of their careers.  These well adjusted souls will typically report to work each day at a similar time and have managed to be the only ones presumably left in the law firm after generation upon generation of attorney coming and going.

Many attorneys do last for decades in the same firm and there are characteristics which uniformly seem to characterize these sorts of attorneys.  While I am a legal recruiter, I do have a great deal of respect for attorneys who in this day and age are able to “stay put” at the same firm for a long period of time and remain at single firms throughout their careers.  None of this is to say there are not really good and solid reasons for leaving a law firm or other legal environment if the going gets impossible.  I am the first to admit that there are legal employment environments that can be intolerable for many.  Nevertheless, you need to keep in mind that if a legal employer has been around for 30+ years there is a chance the employer is doing something right.  Before leaving it is often wise to take inventory of yourself.

There are certain characteristics that tend to characterize attorneys who stick with the same legal employer for long lengths of time and also certain characteristics of this sort of employment situation.  These characteristics are discussed below:

1. Attorneys Who Remain With the Same Firm for Long Lengths of Time Are Generally Very Committed to Their Jobs

Many people were raised with the idea (or have the idea) that fidelity to an employer is something that is simply expected.  The unwritten rule is that if you are not treated horribly then there is really no reason you should ever end up leaving a job.

One of the saddest but also the most refreshing things I have seen as a legal recruiter is when I interview and meet with attorneys who have been with the same firm for 20 years or more and whose firms are going under-or who are in a position of being forced to look for other opportunities.  When attorneys like this look for a new position their rationale is most often that something profound has happened at the firm that is making their separation necessary.  These attorneys appear as if they are going through a divorce or have just had a death of someone they are very close to.  For these sorts of attorneys, leaving a position is something that would be unthinkable and only in the event of a massive trauma.

This sort of fidelity between employers and employees reminds me often of people who have been married 50 years or more.  There is a mutual respect that comes out of this and a thinking that both need one another.  I believe that this sort of thinking is really missing in this day and age.  While this may not seem related to careers, a statistic I once saw in a social science class showed that as divorce rates went up in society so did rates of drug abuse, suicide and other associated societal ills.  The bond between an employer and an employee is a powerful force that in its best form is much like the bond between a husband and wife with a very committed relationship.  Both sides respect and accept one another with certain conditions but for the most part unconditionally.

The attorney who is committed to their job is in many respects similar to someone who is committed to anything-there may be something else out there but they have decided to remain loyal.  This sort of attitude is a very healthy one I believe and can also make these sorts of attorneys very settled.  I know an attorney that was called by a rival firm and offered over $1,000,000 a year by this firm when he was making just barely above half of that.  He was not interested in the money and was more concerned with the bond he had with his current firm.  This is how it works when there is commitment on both ends.

2. Attorneys Who Remain With the Same Firm Are Not Interested in Office Gossip or Reasons Not to Succeed

In every organization there are typically people who are not succeeding at their jobs.  These people generally are not doing their work in a competent manner and are also often looking for ways to cut corners with their work.  Most organizations will generally call out this behavior and then speak with the employee. Some employees correct their behavior and others simply get mad at the organization.  Some employees may be mad at their organizations for no particular reason at all-or may be angry with a previous organization and simply transfer their anger to their most recent organization.  I remember a recruiter once telling me never to hire someone who had been fired from their last job.  People who have been fired from their last job will typically take out their anger on their next organization he told me.

With anger a part of every legal employment organization, you need to understand that there are always going to be people in the organization who have a lot of anger towards their employers.  These angry employees will start rumors, attempt to share their anger with others in the organization and often subtly (or not so subtly) forecast “gloom and doom” for their employer.  This is how rumor mills get started and these sorts of rumor mills are prevalent in every legal organization there is for the most part.

Attorney who remain with their employers generally do not participate in these rumor mills or even pay attention to them.  At certain times in an employer’s history there are likely to be calls of “crisis” of seemingly epidemic proportions as lots of people leave, for example.  At other times there will be other issues.  The overwhelming characteristic of attorneys who remain at firms for long periods of time is that they generally pay no attention to these rumor mills whatsoever.
3. Attorneys Who Remain With the Same Firm for Long Periods of Time Generally Are Not Interested in Being Grandstanders-They Are There to Do Their Jobs and Do Them Well

I once heard someone say that the most successful people are often the most screwed up.  I am not sure if this is true, but there is some wisdom in every saying like this.  Attorneys who are able to remain with the same employer for long periods of time are generally not concerned with “getting ahead” to the same extent as many other attorneys are.  Many attorneys who are extremely concerned with getting ahead will often leave saying they are looking for better opportunities because they are interested in immediate advancement.  In other cases attorneys will try and show up various attorneys in their firm.

Attorneys who remain at their firms for long periods of times are generally most interested in just doing their jobs.  They have faith in their organizations and that things will work out for them.  They are not loud and do not go out of their way to attract attention to themselves.  Their main concern is to simply do the best job possible.

What ends up happening to attorneys who remain focused on their work and not grandstanding is they end up getting ahead while other attorneys end up putting their foot in their mouth.  I remember when I first started practicing an attorney who was first in his class from a major law school and the Editor in Chief of his school’s law review.  Everyone thought this particular attorney was really on his toes and someone likely to have major success at the firm.  This attorney wrote articles on his spare time, argued with firm partners about the finer points of law (and was right when he argued).  While this attorney was very smart he thought he was so good that he ended up sabotaging his career in the long run when he called a newspaper to discuss a case he was working on and ended up being quoted on the front page of the Los Angeles Daily Journal.  The fallout from this incredible incident that the attorney left the law firm a month or two later and never worked for a large law firm again.

These sort of incidents aside, it is important to keep a moderately low profile in order to have long-term success in a law firm.  It is never wise to raise your swords and capture the limelight.  While someone can win a sword match for some time, they will eventually lose-and in a sword match (which your legal career could be compared to)-the loss is usually permanent.

4. Attorney Who Remain With Their Firms for Long Periods of Time Are Typically Do Good (But Not Necessarily ‘Brilliant’ Work)

An attorney who remains at their firm for long periods of time typically has learned to “pace themselves” and manages to do work on a day-to-day basis that is good but not necessarily extraordinary.  This does not matter.  I would estimate that the majority of the battle of being an excellent attorney is simply showing up.  Sure some people can do extraordinary work; however, the brightest flame is not always the longest burning flame.  The ability to consistently show up and do the work is the most important aspect of being a long-term performer in a law firm.

The smartest attorneys out there are often the ones who end up having the most problems in the practice of law.  Attorneys who can consistently show up for work and do an excellent job send the message to colleagues, clients and others that they have the ability to get the job done.  In the end it is all about getting the job done.

5. An Understanding of ‘Insiders’ and ‘Outsiders’ Typically Develops Between Attorneys Who Remain At Their Firms For Long Periods of Time

After an attorney has been with a law firm for an extended period of time and understanding develops between that attorney and others who have been at the firm a long period of time.  An institutional understanding also develops.  This understanding seems to say something to the effect of “people may come and go but we are the ones who are committed to this organization and we are the heart and soul of this place.”  A similar sort of understanding that develops is that “we owe each other because we have each demonstrated a commitment.”

Bonds form between people who have been part of the same organization for long periods of time.  These bonds are often invisible-but they are real bonds.  These bonds are powerful and make the organization and forces within it come to the defense of those who are committed to the organization during times of organizational change and reorganization.  These sorts of bonds are something that get stronger over time as an organization changes.  After some time attorney who have been with the firm for decades are simply treated as part of the very fabric of the firm and virtually unquestioned.

Conclusions

While it may seem odd for a recruiter to write a story in defense of attorneys who remain at their firms for long periods of time, remaining with a firm for a long period of time is something that is meaningful in this day and age. There are many characteristics that of attorneys who remain at their firms for long periods of time and these characteristics in my experience are usually found in most attorneys who demonstrate this level of stability.

A final factor is that in my experience attorneys who remain with firms for long periods of time are often less tormented than the average attorney.  By looking for reasons to like and respect their organization rather than find fault, they find themselves in organizations which ultimately welcome them.

Finally, it is always important to remember that if a law firm or other legal organization has been around for 20 years or more the chances are it is doing some things very right.  There will always be people who succeed in these organizations and, of course, always those who leave or fail.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

The Importance of Law Firm Economics to Your Legal Career

The notion that a partner or associate must produce 2,000 or 2,400 hours of billable work yearly virtually assures that some clients will be overbilled.
…
Of course, almost all firms have stated policies that forbid…unethical and illegal billing practices.  The extent to which these policies are actually followed depends on the firm culture, on unspoken messages that leaders of the firm send to its lawyers.
…
When money becomes the primary goal, a law firm may end up choosing to systematically inflate client bills and even to bill for expenses not actually incurred for those clients.
–Seth Rosner, American Bar Association Journal, May 1992

One of the most important aspects of your legal career-and almost among the most mysterious to young attorneys and others working both inside and outside of law firms-is law firm economics.  The economics of your particular law firm will have profound significance in terms of what happens with your legal career.  Many legal careers end up being quite successful in certain law firm economic environments where they might fail in other economic environments.  Smart attorneys and law students should have a good understanding of law firm economics before joining any law firm.

The problem with law firm economics is that very little exists out there to explain it.  Law firms certainly do not tell their associates how the economics of their firms work.  Many law firms do not even tell their partners how the economics of law firms work.  Certainly this is something that is rarely if ever be taught in law school.  Different law firms are built and operated in different ways; however, to succeed in a law firm you must have a good understanding-or at least follow-many of the unspoken rules that govern law firm economics.

At the outset it is important to note that there are several different models that law firms follow.  The purpose of this article is to explore the common economic model that governs large and midsized law firms at the law clerk, associate and partner level.  The purpose of this article is not to explore how staffing of paralegals and legal secretaries works inside law firms-which is a separate topic entirely.  I should note that this is not a pleasant article to write because much of what it says is a critique of the legal profession.  Nevertheless, what is true cannot be ignored and you will have a difficult time succeeding at a high level inside a law firm unless you understand its economic model.

A. The Importance of the Billable Hour To Law Firm Economics

It is important to be ever cognizant of the fact that most large and midsized law firms are run to be profit centers and to make as much money as possible.  In this regard, the way law firms make money through their arrangements with clients must be understood.  There are many different sorts of billing arrangements from fixed fee, to contingency.  Nevertheless, in almost all cases large to midsized law firms prefer the billable hour approach.

Historically, law firms simply billed clients by what they perceived as the “value” of the work they were doing-or quoted a fee up front.  In many cases law firms would quote a fee upfront and that would be what they charged.  In still other cases, at the conclusion of a case a partner in the law firm might even look at the size of the file they and their associates had worked on an tell their secretary something to the effect of: “That feels like about a $2,000 file.  Send them a bill for that.”

There was a point in time when the billing done by attorneys was not based on the billable hour.  At some point not too long ago (within the past 40 years) a gradual transition occurred to lawyers basing the value of their time on the billable hour.

In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, lawyers routinely billed their clients relatively standard fees based upon their experience performing a particular service.  For example, a simple will might cost $50 at the turn of the century; an uncontested divorce, $200; and, a house closing, $100.

Some clients, however, complained that such fixed rates led to price fixing and extraordinarily high hourly rates for some lawyers.  For their part, lawyers responded with the Br’er Rabbit defense.  “Please, oh, please,” they pleaded, “don’t throw us into that briar patch of hourly rates. Oh noooo!”  Citing the concern over price fixing charges, the agreed to hourly rates as a standard for the industry and touted it as a consumer-protection measure.
Donald E. deKieffer, How Lawyers Screw Their Clients, p.28
Because of this sweeping change, the legal landscape has been altered quite dramatically.  Today, the economic engine inside most law firms is based on the billable hour.

As an aside, I can tell you that I am not sure if this was the best move.  In my position as a legal recruiter and having spent the past several years talking to countless attorneys on a daily basis, I do not think I have ever encountered a single situation where an attorney was told they were billing too much-or that they worked too much time on a single project.  Conversely, I have encountered episode upon episode of the reverse occurring.  Compensation and even many hiring and firing decisions inside most law firms are now based more on production than value produced for the client.

Generally-and indeed almost always-the law firm as an institution is almost never guilty of padding its bills and the time its associates work on various matters.  I have never personally encountered an episode of this occurring.  However, law firms do as institutions push both their partners and associates to pad their bills. Since the client is being charged on the basis of the billable hour, the client will receive an accurate bill for the hours reported by the attorneys who worked on a given matter.  Whether or not this bill accurately reflects the amount of time necessary to complete a given task is another story.

The point of this discussion is that once you are inside a law firm it is essential that you understand the importance of the billable hour in the law firm’s profitability as well as the law firm’s personal evaluation of you. As will be explained below, the significance of the billable hour will be different at each point in your legal career.
B. The Economic Significance of Various Seniority Levels Inside a Law Firm

The organization of most American law firms is as follows.  First, the law firm generally will have a least a few law clerks who are law students or waiting for bar results.  In large law firms, most law clerks are called summer associates.  Second, the law firm will have junior, midlevel and senior associates.  Third, the law firm will have attorneys at a counsel level and partners.  At the partner level, there may also be levels of partners such as income partners and equity partners.  At each stage of your seniority with a law firm, your value to the law firm will change and the expectations the law firm has of you from an economic perspective will change.

1. The Law Clerk

Most organized law firms have law clerks.  Law clerks are typically called summer associates in larger law firms; however, many large law firms employ clerks who are in school during the school year.  The law clerk typically makes anything from no salary, to an hourly salary ranging from $10 to $50 an hour, to a weekly salary that can be in excess of $2,000/week in some of the larger law firms.

The law clerk’s purpose from the law firm’s perspective is that it allows the law firm to do recruiting while simultaneously having the opportunity to “try before they buy”.  Law firms will generally use law clerks for tasks which are not necessarily profitable for the law firm but helpful to the firm nevertheless.  For example, a summer associate may be used for research the firm needs done on an important matter.  Or, a law clerk may be used during the summer or school year for mundane tasks that the firm does not want its associates working on.

One of the largest points of the summer associate and law clerk program, though, may be somewhat unspoken.  A large reason I would argue that these programs even exist is so that law firms can evaluate whether law students can play the economic game inside of a law firm.

A couple of years ago I received a telephone call from a summer associate inside a large Manhattan law firm who had just received their first review from their summer law firm.  The law firm was unusually harsh on this summer associate and made several trivial comments about her attitude, “drive” and focus.  In fact, the law firm said so many negative things I asked the summer associate to stop talking after 5 minutes or so.  It was clear she would not get an offer to join the firm following the summer if she continued this way

“How many hours did you bill?” I asked.

“I have been billing about 35 hours per week,” she said.

In my position, I learn to recognize the warning signs and had some very brief advice for this summer associate.  I asked the summer associate a few brief questions about how assignments were handed out and then offered the following advice:

“Get all the work assignment you can that are not billable to firm clients.  The reason you want these is because you do not want to be unethical.  Then, for every nonbillable assignment you get, work like there is no tomorrow.  Bill at least 70 hours a week for the next 5 weeks of your summer.  Work weekends and whenever you get a chance.  That is all you need to do.”

At the end of the summer, out of the 18 summer associates in her class, she was one of 5 to get an offer.  The firm’s praise of her at the end of the summer was glowing and very, very strong.

This is, of course, a very sad commentary on the status of the American legal profession.  Nevertheless, in virtually every case where I have counseled an attorney in serious trouble with their law firm I have found that a large portion of the reason they are experiencing difficulty has to do with how hard they are perceived to be working, the number of hours they are billing and-by extension-the amount of money the law firm is making off them.  This is something law firms take very seriously.  In only one instance out of the 100+ placements I have personally made over the past three years has one of my candidates ever been fired.  When I spoke to the law firm about why the associate was being fired, one of the first things they complained about was the fact that the associate frequently left to office before 5:30 pm.  I did not need to hear much more.

Many associates inside law firms often find themselves in a position where they are claiming that they do not have enough work and that partners are not assigning work to them.  When questioned closely, I often find that these same associates are often perceived as not working hard enough (i.e., billing enough hours) on the assignments they receive from partners.  Because partners are individually and as a group compensated based on the amount of work the associates they assign work to do, many partners would rather assign work to an associate who is going to work extremely hard on something and bill many hours-rather than an associate who will figure out a way to get the work done quickly and just as effectively.

Whether one calls this a “conspiracy” or something else, the fact needs to be understood that in many law firms associates are expected to bill the maximum amount of time they can to given projects whether it is warranted or not.  This is reinforced through bonuses that are given to the hardest working associates (those who bill the most hours) and in other more subtle ways (such as not assigning work to associates who get work done as quickly as possible).  As an attorney working inside a law firm, you are choosing a career where a large portion of your [perceived] value to the firm comes through how many hours you bill and not necessarily your legal skill at all points in time.

2. The Junior Associate

One of the most basic rules of law firms is that nothing is often as it seems.  This is especially true with the junior associate.  Law firms love to tell their junior associates that they are unprofitable and that the law firm does not make money off of them.  In some respects this is true.  However, the real fact of the matter is that junior associates are profitable-but not as profitable as midlevel to senior associates.

Junior associates are one of the most important components of the law firm economic engine.  There are several reasons for this; however, a great deal of the reason for this is simply that clients do not have a very good understanding of the law firm economic engine.  No matter whether the client is a large or small one, they do look at the bills that law firms send out.  Let me share with you the billing rates of a particular law firm that I am somewhat familiar with:

Law Clerk (Summer Associate)  $140/hour
1st Year     $170/hour
2nd Year     $215/hour
3rd Year     $265/hour
4th Year     $310/hour
—-
Partner      $400+/hour

The fact of the matter is that a partner, in almost any law firm, can do most legal type assignments for clients much, much faster than the junior associate.  In fact, I dare to say that in many cases a junior associate could work on a certain matter for one or two days that a partner could figure out in 15 to 20 minutes.  If you are an associate with more than one year of experience in a large law firm you should be aware of this.  You have undoubtedly seen numerous associates in your own firm work several hours more than they would need to on an existing assignment.

In some respects, then, the employing of junior associates by law firms would not make a lot of sense, then.  Every year large crops of junior associates are hired by law firms all over the United States to begin work on important legal matters for the firm’s clients.  These associates need a great deal of training to become effective at their work.  These junior associates are also an excellent source of profit for the law firm.

In considering the above billing rates you need to consider it from the point of view of the law firm and also the client.  I personally hire attorneys all the time for the companies I work for.  When you hire a law firm, you are generally working directly with a partner who will figure out the “most efficient way” to get the work done for you.  Early on in your legal matter, there are usually a variety of legal matters that can be researched and analyzed.  The partner may already understand these issues; however, he or she will generally say something like this to the client:

“Before we figure out what we are going to do, it would be best to get the answers to the following questions …. I could work on it but my billing rate is quite high.  I would recommend me asking junior associate X to do the work.  Their billing rate is almost ½ of what mine is and …”

The work is then handed off to a junior associate.  The junior associate knows that they are valued by their firm based on their individual productivity (i.e., how many hours they bill) and they have every incentive to work just as hard as they can and as many hours as they can on the project.  The partner then can do more interesting work and rest assured that as many hours as possible will be given to the task and the bill correspondingly increased.  None of this is to say anything dishonest is occurring; however, on many levels it may be:

1. The junior associate may be asked to research questions which the partner does not really need to know the answers to;
2. The junior associate may not have highly developed research skills and will spend more time than necessary on the project;
3. The associate will be under the belief (in most law firms) that the memo they produce for the partner will need to be 100% flawless in its language and grammar and may spend 2-3 times longer just perfecting the memo’s syntax and so forth rather than simply giving the partner the answer;
4. Upon answering the question, the partner may think of new issues they want the associate to explore.

You should get the idea.  Regardless whether it is legal research or another task, after a certain amount of work by the junior associate a bill is produced.  When the bill is produced the partner may have the following conversation with the client:

“Well, I am certainly glad we used junior associate x to do this work.  There turned out to be a lot more issues that we need to consider and which I was not aware of.  I really wanted to ensure we did a good job here and I know it is a bit more than you wanted to spend, so I have reduced junior associate’s billable hours on this by 20 percent.  I really appreciate you trusting us with this assignment.”

This sort of conversation repeats itself all over the United States probably thousands of times a day.  The economics of the junior associate make a tremendous amount of sense from the law firm’s perspective-especially if the junior associate is playing the game (and if they have a steep learning curve with each assignment they are, almost by definition going to be playing the game).  The amount of work the junior associate may do on a given project is nothing short of extraordinary.  The junior associate can make the partner look like the “good one”; however, because their billing rate is so much lower.  In addition, the junior associate will spend far more time than necessary on most projects and therefore actually end up making the law firm more money.  In the process, the law firm is able to train the junior associate on the client’s dime.

I want to assure you that there are many law firms out there that do not necessarily follow this model or approve of it.  Nevertheless, this is the norm at most law firms and the ability to marshal large platoons of junior associates on various projects can be quite profitable to law firms.

3. The MidLevel Associate

After getting between 2 and 3 years of experience, an associate becomes a midlevel associate.  If you speak with junior associates from top law schools working in major law firms throughout the United States, they will often say things like “I am just doing this for a year or two.”  One reason for this statement is that they see so many of their fellow associates leaving for careers outside of the law once they become midlevel associates.  The reason many of these attorneys leave is that once they are midlevel associates they are under the firm’s microscope and have entered a world where they are actually beginning to be expected do the work of competent lawyers.  The midlevel associate is also at a level where they cannot fool either the client or the law firm with their legal skills developed during their time as junior associates.  By this point the midlevel associate is expected to be a highly developed billing machine, relate to clients and do good legal work.

The midlevel associate is someone who can be quite profitable to a law firm. The midlevel associate is someone who fills a very good niche for the law firm.  First, the midlevel associate can be given assignments by partners and then even delegate a lot of this work to junior associates.  Partners enjoy not having to deal with junior associates because they do not for the most part know what they are doing.  If a midlevel associate is good, they will have the ability to gauge how much work the partner expects to occur by both them and the junior associate(s) on a given matter.  Second, the midlevel associate is usually competent enough to get most of the work done-or figure out how to get it done without asking a lot of questions.  Third, the midlevel associate’s billing rate is not as outrageous as a senior associate or a partner’s billing rate.  Therefore, they are also a good candidate for giving clients the appearance of being available to do work at a low cost (albeit, work more complicated than that typically given to junior associates).

Most law firms have a party line that the most profitable type of associate is the midlevel associate.  Midlevel associates are almost always the best candidates for legal recruiters because they offer several advantages that other types of candidates do not offer law firms.  First, midlevel associates are trained and know what they are doing.  Second, midlevel associates can be assigned work without being threatening to partners (most of the time).  Third, midlevel associates can be hired without being threatening to senior associates and upsetting the balance of power and appearance of upward mobility inside a law firm.

Consider again these hypothetical billing rates:

Law Clerk (Summer Associate)  $140/hour
1st Year     $170/hour
2nd Year     $195/hour
3rd Year     $235/hour
4th Year     $265/hour
5th Year     $295/hour
6th Year     $325/hour
7th Year+     $345/hour
Counsel     $365+/hour
—-
Partner      $400+/hour

As you should be able to see above, the billing cluster for the midlevel associate (3rd through 5th year) does not appear nearly as threatening to the client as does the billing rates for the senior associate (6 year +) or the partner.  Paradoxically, the midlevel associate is also quite effective and, in many cases, almost as effective as the partner.

Consider a hypothetical $100,000 matter a partner of the firm brings in.  Here is one scenario regarding how the billings may be divided up:

$100,000 Matter Distribution

$15,000 15% Percent of Billings Of Matter Generated
$30,000  30% Percent of Partner’s Individual Billings (What the partner works on themselves)
$55,000 55% goes to Firm Overhead and Partnership Distributions

Under this economic model (and every firm’s economic model is different for partners, but each has some similarities to the model above) the partner is compensated most highly for the matters they work on themselves.  They are compensated individually less for the work that others do on their matters.  Here, the partner has more incentive to work on matters themselves and bill at a higher rate than they do to have others within the firm work on a matter.

Every type of work assignment a partner gets will be different.  For example, some projects may require a partner do all of the work themselves.  For the most part, though, in order to hold onto clients a partner will need to give others within the firm work.  Partners inside law firms are all running little individual businesses.  If partners price their services too high then clients will go elsewhere.  If the partner does not price their service high enough then the partner will lose money.  The goal is to find a balance.

The utilization of midlevel associates is something that is actually beneficial to clients in many cases because the work will be done more efficiently than by a junior associate and also quite effectively.  Because of the effectiveness of the midlevel associate, firms utilize them quite often and in most law firms very little of their work needs to be written off or justified to clients because it is well done.

4. The Senior Associate

The senior associate represents a very dangerous beast to most law firms.  A senior associate generally has at least 6 years of experience.  At the senior associate level, most attorneys know exactly what they are doing on various projects.  Their legal knowledge may be as good or quite comparable to partners.  However, there is very little demand in the marketplace for senior associates and this is largely true due to the operation of firm economics.

The reason that senior associates often represent a problem for law firms is that the billing rate of a senior associate will approach that of a partner.  If partners are required by their law firms to bill a certain number of hours, they will be unlikely to give work to senior associates because it will cut into the partner’s individual productivity.  Unless a firm has a great deal of work coming from clients that are ready to pay large hourly rates, partners would rather do the work themselves than give it to a senior associate.

In the law firm environment, the senior associates must get as many billable hours as possible in order to survive.  In order for there to be a great deal of work for these senior associates, the law firm must have a lot of work that can be billed out at high rates to senior associates.  Even if the law firm does not, the presence of a senior associate creates pressure on partners to generate work to give to these senior associates.  The senior associates that are the best at getting work will have the highest billable hours and be the most likely to survive inside the law firm.

It is also because of their high billing rate that senior associates in most large law firms begin feeling pressure to generate their own clients.  The senior associate who is able to generate massive amounts of work-whether on their own or by being given work from partners in the firm-will be the one who is seriously considered for partner or a counsel position.  If the senior associate cannot generate this work, they will be asked to leave at some point because they will not make sense to the firm from an economic standpoint.

5. The Partner and Counsel Level Attorneys
Many partners will tell you that they wished they were associates again.  The most successful partners will not.  At the partner level, the responsibility will be to perform good legal work and continue to generate work whether it be from other partners or outside clients.  In addition to being self-sustaining, the partner is also expected to feed the economic engine of junior to senior associates with work (at the largest firms).

C. What The Economics of Law Clerks, Associates and Partners Means to Your Legal Career

Your success in a law firm based upon the billable hour will be based-at every single point in your legal career-upon the ability to generate revenue through the billable hour.  This is much harder than it may first appear.

As a law clerk and summer associate, you will be evaluated based upon your work product and how much other people like you.  You will also be evaluated whether or not you show promise to work under the law firm’s economic paradigm.  The summer associates and law clerks I have seen not get offers in my career for the most part were the associates who did not fit in under the law firm’s economic model.  They told partners certain work did not need to be done or did various projects for the firm with little enthusiasm.

At the junior associate level, your responsibility will be to do the work you are asked to do and to work as hard as you can on the work you get.  In most large law firms, the junior associate working ridiculous hours is something that is certainly romanticized.  The reason this is seen as such a good thing and that the culture of most law firms portrays it as such is because this is something that is quite profitable to law firms.  Law firms make a great deal of money from junior associates toiling long hours.  In order to succeed in a large or midsized law firm, you are going to need to work hard for the most part if you are going to succeed.

Midlevel associates are actually given work because (1) they are efficient and (2) can do the work competently in most cases.  While midlevel associates may be profitable to most law firms, their real value is to the client who can get their work done competently at a reasonable price.  In order to succeed as a midlevel associate you are going to need to be competent and you are also going to need to work hard.

Senior associates must ensure they get as much work as possible to survive.  The ability to get work will determine their success.  Whether it comes through other lawyers in the firm, or the work is generated on their own, the need is the same. The same holds true for parters.

Depending upon the size of the law firm, the importance of the economic model remains the same: To work as much as possible.  When an attorney chooses which law firm they want to go to work for the most important thing they should be considering is whether they can realistically move up the given law firm’s food chain with their given set of skills and work ability.  Given the economics of most law firms, this will not be possible.

From most law student and a lateral associate’s perspective, the very best firms to go to work for are the largest and best law firms.  These are also the firms, coincidentally, that have the highest salaries and the most flushed out economic models.   This may be the best choice for you, or it may not.

For any lawyer, the key to survival is to generate work.  The work can only be generated if there is work to give.  In large law firms with massive clients, they will at most points in time have a limited amount of work to give out at the partner, counsel and senior associate level.  The amount of work available to give out will increase dramatically at the midlevel an junior associate level.  In order to succeed under this economic model, by definition you need to work hard at the junior associate level.  You then need to become competent at the midlevel and get as much work as possible.

The senior associate to partner and counsel level involves the ability to continue working.  Because this is so difficult, it is at this point that many attorneys go in house or to smaller firms.  The lure of an in house position is an escape from the competition to get work.  The lure of a smaller firm is most often lower billing rates which means that clients are more willing to give the firm’s attorneys work that would otherwise go to larger law firms and thus can be worked on by senior associate level attorneys with much lower billing rates.  Another lure of the smaller law firm for senior associates is that they can attract their own clients with lower billing rates. At a large law firm that does work for large clients, the billing rates may be so high as to all but foreclose bringing in all but the largest clients.

At the end of the day, you need to understand that surviving under the law firm economic model is almost entirely dependent upon your ability to continue working-and working as much as possible.  How you achieve that is up to you.  You are not going to get more work, though, unless you prove you will work hard, play the economic game and get the people with the work (whether they are other attorneys inside your firm or outside clients) to like you and give you work.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

A Fast Way To Torpedo Your Career Backward or Move Forward

Birds of a feather flock together.
If you’re an eagle, don’t hang around chickens:
Chickens can’t fly.

 If there is one thing that can assist you in ruining your legal career in the most rapid way possible it is to make the mistake of choosing the wrong friends at work.  Far too many attorneys realize this crucial mistake and end up torpedoing their careers due to this.

On my spare time I spend several days per year interviewing students interested in attending the college I went to.  In these interviews I am continually reminded it seems of something that is profoundly true in many respects: the environment people spend their time in has a tremendous influence on who they will become.  In Los Angeles there are a few private schools where an astonishing 30% or more of the class ends up going to ivy league colleges.  When I meet kids from these schools there is often a real discernable edge to them that I pick up even before I get around to reviewing where they went to school.  The kids are polished, they speak with confidence, they are knowledgeable about the world in a sophisticated sort of way.  What these sorts of generalities have shown me is that the environment these kids are coming out of has a tremendous impact on who they eventually become.

There are attorneys inside law firms and other legal organizations who are clearly and unequivocally on the way up.  There are also attorneys who are clearly and unequivocally on the way down.  If you spend your time at work and outside of work with attorneys who are on the way up you too will be whisked towards achievement.  If you spend your time at work with attorneys who are on the way down you too will gravitate towards losing.

I have noticed a few trends which continually seem to repeat themselves over and over again in every organization I have been associated with.  This was also something I noticed when I was practicing law.  The scenario is this.  Try as any organization might-whether they are hiring graduates of the best law schools, the best firms, or the people with the best records or not - people are sometimes going to be hired who do not do their jobs all that well.  The people may be lazy and not value their jobs.  The people may have been fired from their last employer and have anger towards employers in general.  The people may be angry at the organization and the world that they are not making a $1,000,000 a year.  The people may be incompetent and unable to complete tasks.  The people may have interpersonal problems with other employees.  The person may not be able to receive direction from their superiors.  The person may have been treated unfairly by the organization.  All sorts of scenarios are possible.

What happens when there is an angry person inside an organization that the organization is “down upon” is that some of these people improve, some leave, some do not improve and means get “sour grapes” and become angry with the organization.  The sour grapes response is most common because it is always far easier for many people to blame others for their shortcomings than take responsibility themselves.  This is the common response.  For some “sour grapes” people will begin attempting to infect others with their dislike of the organization and find fault with the organization and its people with about every chance possible. They literally create ”cancerous cells”.  The people who find themselves in the circle of friends with this person in the organization will generally become infected with this “bad attitude” as well and one by one the members of this group will generally either lose their jobs due to declining performance or they will leave the organization.

The reason that people close to negative people inside organizations also tend to become negative is because everyone all does things to cooperate or compete with people in their environments.  On one level this can be your circle of friends and on another level it can be the people within your firm.  This is the same reason I have noticed certain trends among the people from the best private high schools around Los Angeles, for example.

A. Drawbacks of Spending Time with Cancerous People in Your Organization

When you are inside a law firm or any other legal employer the most important thing you can possibly do is avoid “cancerous cells” and attempt to spend your time associating with people who are “winners” and likely to do well.  Let me briefly review some of the major drawbacks of spending time associating with cancerous people inside a legal organization or those on the way out:

1. By Associating with Cancerous People the Organization Will Assume that You Too Are a Cancerous Person against the Organization

When I was in high school I was best friends with a guy who got kicked out of school at the end of his junior year of high school for upsetting a particular math teacher in the school.  In my senior year of high school I asked this particular math teacher to write a recommendation to various colleges for me.  I also asked another math teacher to write a recommendation for me.  Despite what I thought had been a good relationship with the math teacher,  but this math teacher thought differently of me I believe after the incident with my friend.  In fact, his recommendation of me was so dire that when I was interviewing with one of the schools I had applied to the school itself told me they could not believe how bad the recommendation was and thought it “must be a joke”.

My own school later told me that this had prevented me from getting admitted to numerous colleges and one of my teachers subsequently told me that the reason the teacher had written since an awful recommendation was due to the fact that my friend had upset him so badly.  He said that the teacher believed there must be guilt through association.  Years later, I can see why he did this to me.

In every organization once the organization sees bad people they instinctively look for those around that person in order to identify other “bad people”.  In retrospect this makes perfect sense.  This reaction is almost “tribal” in nature and probably we are programmed like this on a genetic level so that we can avoid danger.  When you associate with negative and cancerous people they are likely to get you pegged in the same way.  This is not the wisest of career moves.

2. People Who Are Failing and Angry with Their Employer Are Having Issues with Their Organization Are Likely Doing Something to Cause This and Will Teach You to Do the Same

When people have tons of “sour grapes” they usually have these sour grapes for a reason-and it is generally because they are failing.  They may be failing because they are lazy, have tons of turmoil outside of work that makes concentration difficult, abuse substances at work to such an extent that they cannot do their job at work. Because they are in a job they cannot handle, they are upset and having issues; if you spend time with them they will teach you how to be just like them.

Once we get outside into the real world, the people who tend to be the most popular and liked the most by others are the people who have the brightest outlooks and make others feel good about themselves.  The people who are most alone are very good at doing the opposite.  Have you ever noticed that when you spend time around people who are happy you too feel happy?  Have you ever noticed that when you spend time around people who are gravely depressed you too feel depressed? The same goes for enthusiasm and other sorts of emotions.  I have known people who have become wildly famous and when I was around them before they became famous I too felt this enthusiasm.  I have known people who ended their lives and when I was around them I too felt their despair.  You become like the people you are around with.

In school if you spent your time with people who abused drugs you probably ended up doing this as well.  If you spent your time around athletes you too were probably an athlete.  The world works like this.  If you spend your time around people who are winning you too will end up winning.

B. Benefits of Spending Time with People on the Way Up in Your Organization

1. People Who Succeed Start and Finish Things

People who succeed do certain things and do them consistently.  People who succeed are the sorts of people who start things and then also finish them.  Anyone can start a project.  It is the people who start and finish projects who make the real difference.  People who achieve meaningful success know how to both start and finish things.  They will show you how to do this too.

In order to start and succeed things you need to exhibit a high level of self-discipline and a lot of people do not necessarily have self discipline.  People who discipline themselves know that success requires consistent follow through and always.  Follow through is something that will run off on you too if you hang around people with the ability to follow through.

2. People Who Succeed Over the Long Term Have Passion

You simply cannot succeed over the long term if you do not have a certain level of passion for what you are doing.  This passion is also contagious.  If you spend time with people who have passion then you will also pick up their passion.  Passion for your job is the rule among passionate people.

Some people receive inheritances.  Other people have powerful parents who get them the best jobs.  Other people get lucky.  However, over time the people who succeed are the ones who have passion.  Surround yourself with people who have passion-that makes all the difference.

3. People Who Succeed Share With You Their Insights

Different people cope with their work environments in different ways.  People who succeed and manage to find happiness in the work environments have a certain way.  When you spend time with successful people in your work environment the insights you get from them will rub off on you too.

4. When You Spend Time With Successful People You Too Become Associated With Success in the Eyes of Your Superiors

When you spend time with successful people you will also become associated with success in the eyes of your superiors - in most cases.  Your superiors will see you as someone interested in learning how to succeed at your work as well.  They will see you as someone who is part of the crowd of people on the side of the employer.

Conclusions

Select the people you spend time with both inside and outside of work carefully.  Some people and their careers are going up and others are on the way down.  This is something you can generally tell very quickly after spending time with people.  Once you learn to recognize those who make winning a way of life you too can succeed.  In order to grow you need to surround yourself with those who make growth a way of life.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

“Virtual Law Partners” - Is This Firm Indicative of a New Trend?

I recently heard about a firm called Virtual Law Partners (VLP).  Check out: virtuallawpartners.com, which is a virtual law firm consisting of experienced attorneys (most former big firm refugees).

According to the website, “We work primarily with in-house legal departments of large and mid-sized companies to provide general corporate, licensing, contract, IP protection, securities regulation, financing, real estate, employment, merger and acquisition and other legal services.”

All of the attorneys are “partners”, and work from home.  Some of the touted benefits include better cost control/lower billing rates, more experience attorneys (all of the work is performed by the partners, not associates, and work typically assigned to junior associates is given to highly trained “legal specialists”).  Of interest, they highlight that they don’t have an “up or out” promotional system, which enables attorneys to stay with the company (and clients) for a longer time.

For the attorneys, some of the stated benefits include a better work/life balance, better technology for virtual collaboration, and the ability to keep a much higher percentage of collections (they state that over 85% of their revenue goes to compensation, versus the 33% usually given at large firms).

I think this is a very interesting company and we will see a rise in this type of business model given the number of very capable attorneys who are simply unable to remain in the large firm model.

My first reaction is that litigation is not within the practice areas at VLP, so litigators may be out of luck for these types of virtual practices, which makes sense given the face-to-face, collaborative, and document-intensive nature of litigation.  The focus seems to be transaction- and counseling-based.  My second reaction is that the website touts better compensation in terms of keeping a higher percentage of billings, but does not mention anything about salary.  As such, it appears that if you don’t have your own clients, this type of model could prove challenging.  For most associates, probably not a very workable business model to join.

Overall, this seems like a very cool and promising business model … for the right type of entrepreneur.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.