Salary Wars in Light of the Recession: Bridging the Associate / Partner Divide

Every day, we talk to both partners and associates at firms across the country, in every major legal marketplace. Because we are a recruiting company, these conversations often concern why a lawyer is dissatisfied with their current firm, or what kind of lawyer a firm seeks to hire. We have discovered that the salary increases that have taken place over the past several years have actually had the effect of straining professional relationships between partners and associates. This article will explore the division between partners and associates from three angles. First, we will discuss the complaints we have heard from and about today’s young associates. Second, we will discuss the impact this divide has had on the legal marketplace. Third, we will suggest how to handle dynamics at the interview stage, and how to position oneself as a lawyer who can contribute to a more collegial environment.

A little over two years ago, the associate salary wars began to affect most major legal markets. Although these raises came as good news to many associates, the long-term effect has been mixed. Certainly, we have not heard any lawyer tell us that having more money is bad. However, in some firms, there has been a backlash against those who enjoyed the salary increases, making life more difficult for some young associates. The dynamics are fairly simple. Many firms raised associate salaries to compete with other firms. Not all firms who raised their compensation did so willingly, and we have spoken with some partners at law firms who felt railroaded into the decision to raise those salaries. It’s not hard to imagine why: an increase in associate salaries may mean less compensation to the firm’s partners. Although every firm that raised associate salaries handled the expense in different ways, the more difficulty a firm had internally in making the adjustments, the more likely the salary issue created or magnified a division between associates and the owners of the firm.

Associates are Getting Richer. What’s the Problem?

Ultimately, it’s not important to decide the merits of who is right or wrong. What is important is to understand these conflicts, and to minimize the discord.

The complaint we have heard most often from partners at law firms is that junior associates have a sense of entitlement to both top compensation and an appropriate quality of life offered by a reduced workload. This may be because many current partners began as associates working longer hours for less money. At some firms, the perception is that associates simply do not work the kind of hours, on average, that associates worked 10 or 15 years ago. This may or may not be true, depending on the firm or the individual. What is true is that the attention to ‘quality of life’ among associates at large firms is relatively new. The fact that many associates started using the term quality of life at the same time the greedy associate boards popped up, is a difficult coincidence for the management at some firms. We certainly suggest that attorneys stay aware of the differences between firms’ lifestyle, compensation, or prestige. However, an associate who frequently compares his or her firm to other firms may create the perception of being ungrateful for the opportunities ‘at home.’ To demand that one’s firm pay a top salary while pushing quality of life issues, such as reasonable hours, may appear inconsistent.

Many associates do not understand why the partners at their firm are so unreceptive to talking about compensation and quality of life, when the associates are often the top billers, and generate significant income for the firm. “If I work big firm hours, I should get paid big firm salary,” is one of the complaints we heard from a lawyer working at a mid-sized Washington, DC firm. Younger associates want the management of their firm to realize that the marketplace isn’t the same as it was when the partners graduated from law school. Indeed, the demographic of young lawyers has changed considerably, and the shifts in the economy in the past decade have been unprecedented.

There is no right or wrong side to these arguments, but the problem of this division must be resolved. This tension was created in large part by the associate salary wars. We recommend that attorneys try to put themselves in each other’s shoes. Remember that partners are owners of the firm. They have the responsibility for keeping business with the firm, and increasing associate salaries did seriously affect the bottom line at many firms. On the other hand, partners need to realize that well qualified associates are necessary to any good practice, and keeping those associates by ensuring that they are well respected, valued, and paid should remain an on-going concern.

How the Salary Increases Affected the Marketplace.

The short-term effect of the salary wars was, obviously, to put more money into the pockets of associates. For virtually every firm, the next effect was more subtle: hourly billable rates for associates were raised in some cases, while some firms decided to take the money out of the partners’ share of the pie. Some firms raised associate salaries without a peep, while others did so only after being directly petitioned by their associates. Associates began ranking firms in their city by how much and how quickly salaries went up.

We are certainly not suggesting that firms all react the same as a result of salary increases. Quite to the contrary, each firm handle the salary increases (or in some cases, ignored them) in its own way. However, there were trends that emerged as the firms reacted to the salary wars. In the best circumstances, firms were happy to raise salaries to control their attrition rate and to reward their associates. Some firms, however, took a harder line, and required more from their associates in exchange for more money, such as increasing billable hour requirements.

Several problems emerged. One was compression of salaries. So, while a first year got a raise and started making perhaps $125,000, often an 8th year associate in the same department got only a small raise, or no raise at all. Obviously, there is great potential for resentment in such a case.

As the economy regains a more certain footing, what can associates and partners take away from the lessons of the past three years? In the same way that the economic slowdown of the early 90′s affected the hiring (and firing!) practices of firms, the latest recession will be a learning tool for both law firms and lawyers alike.

For some associates, the lesson learned was that following the money is not necessarily a good long-term strategy. Several of the firms who lead the pack in terms of raising associate salaries, and who consistently outmatched starting salaries, have had some of the most dramatic lay-offs. For a handful of lawyers, the lure of 5 or 10 thousand more dollars per year was enough to convince them to change firms, only to be looking at a mass layoff 18 months later. Therefore, we believe that the single most important lesson learned is that salary distinctions of several thousand dollars should not be the principal reason for changing jobs. Although there is certainly prestige in being associated with the highest paying firm in your area, top compensation does not insure long term stability, or even job satisfaction.

When a firm’s dialogue turns entirely to billable hours and base salary, everyone involved is missing the bigger picture of what associates and partners have to offer to each other. It would surprise you how frequently we hear from lawyers that they want to look for new opportunities – and how infrequently we hear that a lawyer wants to find a new job to make more money. Although it’s easy to get caught up in money issues, we do not find that making the most money on the block is what defines success or satisfaction for the overwhelming majority of lawyers.

On the law firm side, we believe that the salary wars and the recession that followed were a lesson for firms that the quality of their relationship with associates can quickly become widely known. The Internet has the capability of disseminating private firm information to virtually every other young lawyer in a matter of seconds. In some cases, internal memos to associates regarding salary increases were immediately posted to the Internet.

Law firms and the lawyers within them will continue to make adjustments with respect to the salary raises, the economy, and their ongoing client demands. Going forward, we believe that it’s important that each firm review the effects of the salary wars have had on internal relations, and seek to address any divide that may have occurred.

I’m in the market for a new job. What does that mean to me?

In some instances, we’ve been approached by lawyers who are interested in opportunities with a new firm because of the tension within their own. In many instances though, lawyers who are unhappy with the divide between associates and partners should look for solutions within their own firm. There have been significant changes in compensation and hiring over the past several years, and it may take many firms some time to work out the issues that arise from the associate salaries, as well as from the depressed economy. In the event that a lawyer has made a decision to move, he or she should keep in mind that how they are perceived at the interview has been affected by these difficulties.

The single most important way to overcome whatever remaining tension may exist is to be enthusiastic. The “what’s in it for me?” attitude, which may have worked two years ago, is generally unacceptable in this hiring climate. Interviewing for a position should be a dialogue about what contributions the interviewing lawyer can make to the firm, and not simply what he or she can take out.

On the law firm side, it’s important to note that many lawyers’ agendas have changed. Stability and profitability is an increasing concern for lawyers, and an interviewing attorney should provide enough information for an interviewing lawyer to understand the firm’s environment. Firms who believe they may have gotten a bad reputation throughout the salary wars should work to correct this.

Conclusions

Many associates have changed their focus from associate raises to lay-offs, bonuses, and workload, given the recent downturn in the economy. However, it is important to remember that the associate salary boom of the late 1990′s may still have an effect on inter-firm relationships, and how partners and associates view each other as a whole. Where those tensions exist, lawyers should be aware of how they view each other and themselves in the sometimes strained relationships within the firm and the firm’s economy. If there is any good to be found in the recent recession, it may be that it provided a little perspective on how we view each other, and how lawyers define security and success within a firm.

Seven Years Without Making Partner: What Now?

Suppose you spend 7 years at a law firm and don’t make partner. I know that not making partner does not always mean that you did crappy work, especially if they kept you there for 7 years. But where can a person take their career at that point. Do you leave? Are your chances of making partner anywhere greatly  diminished? Suppose you don’t want to be an in house counsel for a corporation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it Too Late to Switch Practice Areas?

Q: I was wondering if it is too late for me to switch practice areas. I currently am a senior tax associate (8th year) at one of the largest firms in Chicago. It appears my prospects of partnership are very slim. Over the last couple of years, I have taken on some trusts and estates work and have enjoyed it very much. I guess this leaves me with a few questions: Will I be able to find a position in trusts and estates at a comparable firm? If so, how much of a hit will I have to take in class year? Also, at this point in my career, I am amenable to moving to a smaller firm, but how much of a difference in compensation should I expect?

A: The partnership issue you present is one that a number of senior-level associates are faced with, particularly in the current legal market, where competition for partnership slots is fiercely competitive. Many firms have changed their partnership requirements midstream, and many senior-level associates find themselves playing “catch up” or being passed over altogether.

I believe it is quite realistic for you to transition to a trusts and estates (T&E) practice at a comparable firm, assuming the T&E practice at your current firm is highly regarded in the marketplace and mirrors the T&E practice at the firm you are pursuing. Although T&E practices often stand alone, they are often slotted as subgroups under the tax umbrellas in many law firms. T&E attorneys generally need to be well schooled in tax matters, as they are required to provide expert tax advice to high-net worth individuals with very complicated estate plans, which most often require sophisticated tax planning. You have six solid years of training in tax and two years focused in T&E. This argues for any T&E group to take a very strong look at you and argues that you would be able to immediately and significantly contribute to a T&E practice in another law firm. (You will, of course, need to be able to convince a firm of your strong desire to refocus on T&E and be able to effectively answer any questions about why you are deciding to do this eight years into your career.)

Your question about class level is a good one and tells me that you are thinking clearly and realistically about effectively making this transition. As I indicated above, I believe you bring a wealth of experience that naturally translates to a T&E practice. Because it does not sound like you have portable business and you have not yet made partner at your current firm, you need to be flexible about the class level at which you would join another firm and remain open to either a mid-level or senior-associate position with a reasonable track for partnership.

If you are concerned about moving to a smaller firm and the effect it will have on your compensation, you should be. If when you say “smaller,” you are referring to a mid-sized firm, a sophisticated trusts and estates boutique, or a spin-off group from a larger firm, it is unlikely you will be able to match your current compensation level. You will have to be open to taking a significant cut in pay and perhaps a marked change in the sophistication of practice and clients you will service. You will need to ask yourself why you are seeking to move to a smaller firm and have a clear sense of your long-term objectives. Compensation may not necessarily be the driving force behind your move. You may, for instance, be interested in transitioning to a small firm because you believe a small firm may provide a better lifestyle, a lower billing rate structure that may enable you to more effectively develop your own clients, and/or a more collegial environment. Because you are currently practicing at a prestigious large firm, you should seriously weigh the pros and cons of a move to a small firm and the potential effect it may have on your legal career over the long haul.

Choosing a strong professional reference

I recently spoke to one of my candidates about references.  She had told me that one of her partners had agreed to be a reference for her, but she was unsure as to whether this partner would give a positive, neutral, or negative reference.

Choosing a strong professional reference is an important component of your job search.  I believe that it is absolutely fair to ask your partners directly if they feel they can provide a solid, informative, and positive reference for you. In doing so, you are confirming that the references you choose feel totally comfortable talking about your work, professionalism, and personality.

Furthermore, by asking your references if they feel they know you well enough to provide a thorough and positive reference, you are essentially giving lukewarm references an ”out.” In other words, by phrasing your request in this way, certain references who don’t know you as well may feel more comfortable graciously declining your request.

Generally, most people feel bad saying no to the question of being someone’s reference. Thus, by specifically asking if your references feel that they know you well enough to act as an in-depth character and professional reference, you will be able to weed out any partners who may possibly give you a lukewarm or uninformed reference.  In this market, it is imperative to cover all your bases in your job search. You don’t want an offer to fall through simply because you chose the wrong references.

Laid off? Here’s what you should say about it…

Dealing with the fact that you were laid-off in a subsequent job search and/or interviews is always difficult. In many cases, it raises red flags to a potential employer because they inevitably question whether the lay-off was actually a performance-based firing. The one silver lining in today’s current market—lots of people are in the same position. With the number of lay-offs currently taking place across the country, most prospective employers will understand (and believe) that your situation was the result of the current economic downturn.

With this in mind, the last thing you want to do is give a prospective employer any reason at all to doubt the circumstances surrounding your lay-off. Thus, it is best to be straight-forward about your situation and, you should address it in your cover letter. In most cases, it is not necessary to go into great detail or to provide a lot of background information. You only need to state that you are looking for a new position because you were laid off as a result of the economic downturn. If you have strong references from the firm that laid you off, make sure to mention this fact as well. Offering references at the outset is a good way to let prospective employers know that your previous firm did not have concerns with your performance.

As for the interview process, the same guidelines apply. Be straight-forward about the fact that you were laid off and resist the urge to sound apologetic. In the interview setting, it may make sense to discuss some more of the details surrounding your firm’s lay-offs. For example, were a large number of people let go? Everyone in your specific practice area? Such pieces of information may help to alleviate any lingering doubts or concerns.

While being laid-off is never easy to handle, employers are encountering numerous well-qualified attorneys who have been laid off. Thus, your overall goal should be to focus on demonstrating to a prospective employer that the lay-off was related only to economic conditions and not connected in any way to performance-related concerns. Be ready to discuss facts in a straight-forward manner, have references ready to go, and let the manner in which you address the situation instill confidence in your qualifications.

The Importance of Fitting In

This little known observation is something that is lost on many legal professionals and can result in unhappy and unfulfilling careers. Conversely, being aware of this often results in very happy and fulfilling careers. The problem is that it is often the very best attorneys and those with the best academics and technical skills are the ones who end up not fitting in.

Having been raised to believe that the true measure of success can be measured purely by how well they perform academically, many attorneys enter the legal profession like a comet. They arrive at the very best firms and soon leave this firm for the next and then the next. If they are smart they learn the importance of fitting in. If they are not smart, their legal career is quickly over and they are left blaming a self-imposed set of circumstances and people for the problems in their careers.

I have been a legal recruiter for several years and am constantly speaking with firms that are hiring, laying off and firing attorneys, paralegals and legal secretaries. Obviously, in my job I am constantly seeing both good and bad things happen to people searching for jobs. The interesting thing about my work is that I often get a first-hand account of why people are getting hired and why people are losing their jobs. If there is one thing that sticks out for me, it is that the people who get hired and keep their jobs are generally those who fit in. The people who are losing their jobs, and having the most problems landing employment are those who are not fitting in.

A. The Importance of Academics and “Externalities” to Your Job Search

In order to get an interview at certain hiring legal hiring organizations, you do need (for the most part) to have certain qualifications. If a law firm is seeking someone with three years of experience, you are going to need to have something close to that. If a law firm hires people out of the top 1/3 of their class from only top 25 law schools, you are also going to need to have something close to these qualifications. With very, very rare exceptions though, once you get beyond these types of hiring criteria you are going to be competing with a large group of people. Who do you think is going to get the job?

I’ll tell you who is going to get the job: The person who meshes best with the hiring committee.

Most attorneys presume that the most important thing that employers are looking for in an interview is whether or not they have the skill set to do the job. Whatever the qualifications of the job, the fact of the matter is that the employer would not even be interviewing you if they did not think you could do the work. Whether you are a secretary, attorney, or paralegal, virtually every legal employer out there is smart enough to know that you can be trained to do the work they are interviewing you for if your skills are not immediately on target. Employers may use your skill set as an excuse NOT to hire you after the interview. More often than not, though, the person that gets hired is the person they feel would fit into their firm best.

A. What Is “Fitting In?”

The remarkable fact about fitting in is that it will vary depending upon the legal organization you join. Fitting in will mean something different if you want to work for the government than it will mean if you want to work for a law firm or a corporation. Fitting in simply means that you will be comfortable around your coworkers and they will be comfortable with you. Fitting in can also be akin to being part of a family-everyone may not be the same; however, they share a certain set of beliefs and philosophies about the world.

Being comfortable means different things to different people. This can be expressed as a set of positives or as a set of negatives. Your employers do not want to have to think they will be uncomfortable around you. Your employers do not want to have to think that you will be critical of them. Your employers want to think that you will embrace, on philosophical and moral levels, their approach towards business and the world. Your employers want to feel that you will get along with everyone in the office and will not be a source of tension. Your employers want to think that you will identify with them and be sympathetic towards them. Your employers want to think that you will support them and back them up. On yet another level, your employers want to see you as a “kindred spirit” and someone they can take a maternalistic and/or paternalistic approach towards.

The more an employer views you as a “kindred spirit” and someone they can take a maternalistic/paternalistic approach towards, the more likely you are to get hired and remain hired once you are with a particular legal organization.

While the analogy is far from perfect, a legal employer, in many respects, can be viewed as something akin to an immediate family. In any family, there are likely to be a variety of different personality types. Nevertheless, most families share a lot. They tend to share the same religion, they tend to share certain values among their members, they tend to have similar beliefs about the importance of education, and they may enjoy doing certain things together. They are also likely all of a similar economic background and know a lot of the same people as a group. These commonalities are something that bind them together on multiple levels despite all of their differences. It is because of these commonalities that most families, for the most part, are comfortable among one another.

In order to fit in with a legal employer, you need to be seen as a member of the family. In order to be a member of the family, you need to be bound to the employer by a set of commonalities. On its basest level, going to a good law school or getting good grades there may be enough to break the ice. This is not something that enables you to fit in over the long term, though. In fact, having a shared experience and an outlook towards the world is the one thing that is likely to help you the most. This is the essence of fitting in. The most successful attorneys and legal professionals are those who are able to fit in with their employers’ environments.

At the risk of being “non-pc” I will simply note a few things. If you examine most law firms closely and get inside of them you will almost always notice some very strong similarities in terms of the type of people that are most often hired. The people are never the same; however, their tolerance (or lack of tolerance) for certain types of behavior is often quite similar. In addition, many law firms are comprised of people with a very similar set of life experiences. Many law firms may be male dominated bastions made of groups of men with an affinity for football. Still other law firms may be comprised of a great deal of former military men. Other law firms may be dominated by people of a certain race, religion or even sexual orientation. Whether or not any of this is “correct” is not for me to say. What I will say, though, is that none of this is the least bit surprising. People want to be around others that they feel comfortable with and share a similar set of experiences with. If you share a similar set of experiences to any of these dominant groups, you are more likely to get interviewed, hired and promoted.

And this brings me to an important point that is significant enough, but that few legal professionals ever take the time to realize. You cannot fit in with every group of people. Certainly there are law firms and legal employers in every city of the United States that are considered the most prestigious. You may have the academic and other qualifications to go work at these places. The question that is important, though, is not whether you have these credentials, but whether you fit in. You are likely to experience the most success and longevity in the practice of law if you find an organization where you fit in. If you do not find an organization where you fit in, you are likely in for a rough ride.

The drive to succeed for certain lawyers dictates that they only go to the hiring organizations that are the most universally recognized as the best. The concept of “fitting in” is so often ignored when it is the most important aspect to consider, in my opinion. In their drive for success, attorneys ignore what is important for them and give more credence to what the dominant opinion says is the best and the most important.

B. Fitting In at Different Stages of Your Legal Career

I would like to walk you through a typical legal career from (1) being hired as an associate out of law school, (2) being hired as a lateral attorney following working in a legal environment for some time, to (3) making partner in a law firm. If you are not an attorney and work in the legal profession in another context, the same observations will likely apply.

1. The Importance of Fitting in When You Are Interviewing With Employers in Law School

In law school, certain firms and employers will generally only interview you if you (1) are coming from a certain level of law school, and (2) have a certain grade point average. Once you get the interview, though, it is all up to you. The most important factor determining whether or not you get a position will be your ability to fit in.

Many of the best minds in the legal profession never are able to get positions in prestigious law firms precisely because they cannot fit in. There are, of course, firms out there that will hire people because of their sheer academic prowess. Indeed, the better your law school and the better your academic performance, the more likely it is that employers will “look the other way” if you do not fit in perfectly. Nevertheless, on some level you are going to need to fit in. As you move down the food chain in terms of your law school and academic qualifications, the importance of fitting in continues to increase.

If you are currently practicing at a large, prestigious law firm, or if you worked there as a summer associate, take a few minutes to consider the following. The people with the worst academic qualifications are often the people who fit in the best. They act as lawyers from the firm are expected to act. They have the right level of professionalism. They get along the best with others. While this does not always hold true, it does more often than not because these people got into the law firm because they excelled on this fitting in/social level the best. The news is that these same people are often the ones who do best in the long term in the practice of law. The ability to fit in will only continue to increase throughout their careers.

I want to give you a couple of illustrations from my own law school experience.

In my second year of law school I was in an interview with the hiring partner of a law firm that-quite frankly-was at such a rarefied level that I did not think I deserved to be interviewing there. This high powered law firm came to my law school (a top 10 law school) and only interviewed five people for ½ hour each before jetting back to New York. Most other high powered law firms came to our school and interviewed all day. Some even interviewed for a couple of days straight. Suffice it is to say that this particular law firm is often considered the very best New York law firm and its interview schedule simply reflected the fact that it did not believe more than five people in the entire second and third year class of nearly 800 students merited interviews. While I am sure that not everyone in my class tried to get an interview with this firm, I am confident at least 100 or so students did. I had no idea why I had been selected to interview with this law firm. The other four people they were interviewing with were widely known to be at the very top of their law school class. While I was a good student, in contrast to those people I was not all that special.

I entered the interview cognizant that I did not belong in the particular interview based on my grades and was surprised to see that the partner was very welcoming and in the interview asked me when I could travel to New York. At the end of the interview I rose to shake the man’s hand and when he held his hand out he gave me my fraternity handshake! I realized right then and there that was the entire reason I had been interviewed. While I did not ultimately get this job (after a call back), I was the only student in my school that received an invite to visit this firm’s offices despite the fact that I did not believe I deserved the initial interview.

If you think about what was going on there, I am sure that something similar to this has happened to you in your own career or job search at some point. If I did not have the academic qualifications to be interviewing with this law firm, why did I get the interview? The reason was because the partner had also been involved in the fraternity I was in. The fraternity was a small national fraternity with not too many chapters throughout the United States. He knew that I had endured some of the same hazing experiences he had when he was younger. He also know that we had sung the same songs and been indoctrinated into many of the same philosophies. He probably took an affinity to me because he saw me as somewhat like himself.

Many people who do not have a good understanding of the political nature of legal environments often presume that the purpose of an interview is for the employer to gauge their skills and technical acumen in the practice of law. This is wrong. People who succeed in interviews are people who the law firm perceives will fit in the best. Every single job I have ever gotten I have gotten because of these sorts of factors. I could go on and on with this list but will not. However, the single largest reason you are likely to get and keep a job is because of your ability to fit in.

If you are or were a summer associate in a law firm during law school, the test there was fitting in as well. Beyond your work ability and the economics of the firm being able to afford to hire you, your ability to fit is ultimately what will determine whether or not you get an offer at the end of the summer. The barrage of lunches, firm events, dinners and other group activities are all a test of whether or not you can fit in with the group.

The people that do not fit in with the group are always easy to recognize. They tend to be critical of the group. They tend to create problems with fitting in. The issue here is that most summer associates realize that it is all about fitting in. That is one of the main reasons that stories circulate each year about summer associates who do not fit in. These stories become widely circulated because they are so unusual. Here is one of the more notable stories I have ever heard. This particular story is told by Tucker Max, an individual who was a summer associate at Fenwick & West in Palo Alto, California in the summer of 2000:

—–Original Message—–
From: [Suppressed]
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 2:51 PM
To: [Suppressed]
Subject: The Now Infamous [] Charity Auction Debacle…Here is the story of what happened to me this weekend at my firm’s retreat. That’s the last time I ever drink before an auction:Aaron and I decide to leave for the Silverado Ranch by car instead of taking the bus at 2 pm. You have not lived until you’ve ridden through three hours of Bay Area traffic with Aaron at the wheel. By the time we got to Silverado, he was madder than fire.

The first reception starts at like 6pm. There are finger foods, etc., and lots and lots of wine and beer. Not really liking any of the food, I start drinking. Heavily. By the time I know what’s going on, I’m talking to the name partner, Bill Fenwick, in a redneck accent. Of course, he is from Kentucky, so we talked about basketball for an hour. It was great.

About 9pm the charity auction began. There were lots of “Fenwick” type items, like a dinner cooked by the managing partner, etc. One of the items was an entire night chauffeured by the hiring partner, [John]. In my inebriated stupor, I thought that if I won this, then they would have no choice but to give me an offer. The bidding starts at $50. People are bidding here and there, but I get tired of all the slow bidding, so I stand on my chair, and hold up my bidding card. Without getting down. So the auctioneer takes this as a cue to just start yelling price increases, without even identifying other bidders.

When the price hits about $800, [John] says that he will pay half if a summer associate wins. The bidding automatically doubles (John is a litigator). As the price gets to $2000, I think I have the thing won. I get the “going once” call, and then this other summer, Aparna, goaded on by some partners, decides that she has to beat me. So the bidding hits $2600, and before I know it, I’m on stage, taking the mike from the auctioneer, and yelling at Aparna to stop bidding. My exact quote, “Aparna, seriously, stop. I have to win, this is the only way I’m getting an offer.”

So that just inspires more partners/attorneys/recruiting staff to contribute to Aparna’s pool. When the bidding hits $3400, I start yelling, on the mike, about how this isn’t fair, because she has partners bankrolling her, but I only have a “few scrubby summers in my corner.” I keep trying to bid only like $5 more than her, but the auctioneer gets all mad at me, and is making me bid in hundred dollar increments. When her bid hits $3800, I get back on stage. After some banter, the auctioneer asks me if I want to bid $3900.

I ponder this for a second, and in front of the whole firm and spouses/significant others, with the mike in my face, say, “Fuck it–go ahead.”

I won the auction.

This particular email was rapidly circulated among most summer associates in large law firms around the United States after it was written. From a social standpoint, the reason this email was so widely circulated because it shows the antithesis of fitting in and highlights the importance of doing so.

Whether your legal career is in house, or with a law firm, chances are that you will be working in close proximity to a relatively small group of people. For example, if you are a litigation attorney, you will be practicing with other litigators in your firm. Even with these litigators, you are likely to practice closely with a small group of partners or associates. Since you spend so much time at work, these people are going to become quite aware of your style of work, your personality and, like it or not, a lot of details of your personal life. In all of this, these people are going to want to feel comfortable around you. In addition, these people are going to want to be able to feel that they can develop a relationship with you over time. In all respects, you are going to need to fit in.

2. The Importance of Fitting in When Being Hired as a Lateral Attorney

Fitting in is important to being hired as a summer associate and then given a permanent offer once you are a summer associate. However, after you have been practicing for a few years and want to transition into a new law firm, the importance of fitting in will arguably be further amplified.

When employers hire people at the lateral level, they are generally asking themselves a couple of things. The first thing they are asking is whether or not you can do the work. In almost all instances, your resume will answer this question. If you get into the interview, chances are the law firms will then be trying to decide whether or not you fit in.

Shared experiences take on a different form when someone is trying to move laterally to a law firm. As a legal recruiter, my job is made easier by knowing the sorts of shared experiences that are likely to get people in the door in different sorts of law firms. For example, if someone is in Los Angeles and worked for the Los Angeles office of a major New York law firm, I know that other New York based law firms in Los Angeles are more likely to be interested in that attorney than Los Angeles based law firms of a similar prestige level. The perception is that these attorneys will share a certain “New York outlook.” In fact, who knows why this occurs. The same can be held true if one is moving in Palo Alto from one major law firm to another. They are most likely to be hired by another major Palo Alto firm.

All of these similarities are based on shared experiences and the perception that these people will fit in. Certain firms will simply not hire from certain firms (even firms that are generally considered better than them) because they believe that people from these law firms will not fit in. Most often, these firms say things like “these attorneys are all too arrogant” or something of the sort. The same analogy holds true for firms when they are making decisions about the types of paralegals and legal secretaries to hire as well.

When attorneys are in the job market, an exceptional legal recruiter will instinctively know what types of attorneys are likely to get interviews with certain firms and which ones are not. This calculation is based first on externalities such as the school and firm the person is coming from; however, it is ultimately based on other factors in the attorney’s backgrounds that are often less evident.

Recently I have seen attorneys ultimately hired over many other applicants for what I believe were the following reasons:

a. I believe one attorney was hired for a $200,000+ a year job over more qualified candidates because he, like the partner who hired him, enjoyed surfing;b. I believe one attorney was hired because she attended the same religious group as the hiring partner;c. I believe one attorney was hired because she had formerly followed the Grateful Dead like a partner in the firm;

d. I believe one attorney was hired because of his military background; and,

e. I believe one attorney was hired because of her ongoing participation in a controversial protest organization.

I could continue this list indefinitely and give you countless examples. People always talk about stuff like “you have to know someone there to get a job” and so forth. I too believe it helps get a job at certain hiring organizations if you know someone. The reason is because you have already proven that you can get along with someone who fits in with that firm, which means you, too, will be more likely to fit in there.

I know of dozens of instances at various firms throughout the United States where laterally hired attorneys with, frankly, horrible academic qualifications are practicing at major firms alongside people with first-rate academic qualifications and were hired at the lateral level for these positions. Why do you think this is so? In many cases these people with horrible academic qualifications may have some unusual and highly-valued legal skill. Still, more often than not, I have discovered these people knew someone.

This is how things work in the world. If you fit in, you are more likely to succeed in an organization and get a job there. I could also tell you that there are firms out there that I believe are somewhat racist and hire people that are likely to fit that mold. My purpose here is not to be judgmental. There are certainly other factors that firms consider when making hiring decisions. Nevertheless, when all is said and done, many of these hiring decisions are the product of people “fitting in.”

3. The Importance of Fitting In To Becoming a Partner in a Law Firm

This discussion could continue indefinitely, so I will not go into all that much detail here. In order to survive in a law firm, you will need people higher up than you in your corner. You can get people in your corner by working hard. Nevertheless, there will always be people working hard and in large law firms many-if not most-of these people will be asked to look for another job before they reach their eighth or ninth year of practice. The people that most often get higher-ups in their corner are the ones that are able to establish bonds. These bonds will make people go to bat for them and help them. These bonds will also humanize them to their employer and make it much harder to let them go, or not make them partner.

Another factor that is also of great importance to making partner in a law firm is getting clients. Without going into a lot of detail, the attorneys that are most often successful in getting clients also tend to have very good social skills outside of the office. A lot of people like them, trust them and identify them and, consequently, give them business.

C. Conclusions

Most of the conclusions that can be derived from this article you can derive on your own. You need to understand, however, that fitting in is probably the most neglected topic in what it takes to succeed in the practice of law if you are working with a group of individuals. Fitting in can be done on several levels and oftentimes you may not even be able to articulate why you do or do not fit in with a particular group. Fitting in is also something you cannot fake. You can often get a job without fitting in but will have a very difficult time keeping it and advancing if you do not fit in.

When you were in elementary school, junior high school, high school and then college, there was probably a group you fit into. Think back about the reasons you fit in with those groups. Certainly, you have changed over time and will continue to change. The most important aspect of why you have fit in with various groups in the past, though, was based on how comfortable you felt with that particular group of people and how comfortable they felt with you. Your happiness and the success of your career depend on the ability to recognize when you fit in and when you do not.

How to Select the Best Legal Recruiter and Maximize the Effectiveness of Working with One

INTRODUCTION

One of the most misunderstood facets of the legal recruiting industry is the following: You have many options when choosing a legal recruiter (not just the one that cold-called you), and how well you work with your legal recruiter will directly influence how successful the legal recruiter is in working with you.

If you have ever spent any serious time in Hollywood, you have undoubtedly come across numerous people with agents. When you speak to some people with agents, they often talk about things they told their agents:

“I told my agent I do not like this kind of part because of X.”
“My agent says that if I wait about six months, a part with X may open up.”
“My agent knows my personal obligations and is not going to allow me to work with X director because he is too demanding.”

Similarly, the more time you spend with someone with an agent, the more you realize that he or she is communicating with that agent all the time. Frankly, if any of these people with agents are your friends, it can get pretty annoying. Their cell phones are ringing during lunch with calls from the agents. They need to call their agents during a night out–and so on. If you go to any social function with your friends who have agents, the agents are very likely to be there talking to their clients.

The reason we tell you all of this is that in the entertainment industry, the people with agents have figured out that the more they communicate with their agents, the more likely they will find their perfect match to advance their careers. But it is not all work. The client and agent also establish a working and friendly relationship where the agents constantly know about what is going on with their clients, both personally and professionally.

In the legal industry, there are a few select attorneys (less than 1%) whose skills are so good that they need agents–just like famous actors and actresses do. Admittedly, the legal recruiting industry is much different from Hollywood; however, in both cases the agents and legal recruiters are working with people who, if they are not stars, have a tremendous amount of potential. The job of a legal recruiter is to sell your potential to law firms.

If you have worked with a recruiter in the past, you likely have a pretty good idea of how the process works. If you haven’t yet worked with a recruiter, the idea of “placing your career in somebody’s hands” may seem rather daunting and scary. Regardless of which category you fall into, it is important to know that if you are able to use a legal recruiter, our goals are the same -to help you get a job where you and the firm will both be happy. In this regard, here are some ways you can ensure that you choose the best recruiter and ensure that you maximize the effectiveness of working with your recruiter.

1. HOW TO SELECT THE BEST LEGAL RECRUITER FOR YOUR NEEDS

You do not need to use the first recruiter who calls you. There are a plethora of recruiters to choose from regarding your search for a better opportunity. And all are not created equal. We are amazed by how often attorneys decide to place their careers in a virtually unknown recruiter’s hands just because a particular recruiter was the first to cold call them about an opportunity. Often, when we ask attorneys the names of their former recruiters, they frequently respond to the effect of, “I don’t even remember the person’s name” or “I only spoke to the person once, and they forwarded my resume to a bunch of places, and I never heard back from them.”

It is important to realize that just because a particular recruiter calls you, it does not mean that he or she is the only person working on the search for a law firm. Unless the recruiter has an “exclusive” on the search, it is likely that numerous recruiters are working on the search, and you definitely have a choice as to whom you want to work with. Similar to buying a house, you do not need to work with the first real estate agent whom you come in contact with. And feel free to “interview” multiple recruiters as well.

How do you determine the best legal recruiter for you? Now that you understand that there are numerous options when choosing a recruiter, here are some things you should consider.

First, do you feel comfortable speaking to the recruiter about your ideal job and career dreams? Do you feel that the recruiter is interested in getting to know you and your most important priorities, or is the recruiter merely trying to “sell” you on the particular job he or she is calling about?

Second, is the recruiter reputable? Is the recruiter with an established company that you can easily research? Can you research the individual recruiter’s educational and professional background?

Third, does the recruiter spend a significant amount of his or her practice “cold calling?” This is an important consideration for the following reason. If a recruiter cold calls attorneys all day, this recruiter must have certain firms that he or she “places in” and some that he or she “calls into.” Firms will not work with recruiters that cold call into them because this is considered “double dipping” and is highly frowned upon. Thus, if a recruiter calls into half of the firms in a city (and these firms are obviously not firms that the recruiter can make placements in), the recruiter has access to only half of the opportunities in the given city. On the other hand, if the recruiter does not spend much time cold calling and works off of referrals or candidates initiating contact, this recruiter will have access to many more opportunities.

Fourth, if you are searching in a particular region of the country, be sure to confirm that the recruiter has experience working in this region. For example, if you are moving from New York to Charlotte, most likely the New York recruiter is focused on the tri-state region, while the recruiter who is based in the southeast region will have a much better idea of what jobs are available in the specific market. Indeed, law firms seem to have preferences working with recruiters that are either based in their geographic region or have a lot of experience working with attorneys in their particular regions. This is because law firms appreciate developing long-term, productive relationships with recruiters. Given the significant amount of time it takes to monitor opportunities and develop relationships with law firms, it is literally impossible for a single recruiter to be able to cover the entire nation. If a recruiter suggests that he or she can cover the entire nation, don’t walk, RUN, for the hills.

Fifth, a referral from a fellow attorney is a great way to find a recruiter. If somebody you know and trust has had a positive experience with a particular recruiter in the past, this fact should be given substantial weight.

Candidates who work with one recruiter typically have the most success and the least chance of getting “bounced” as a result of dual submissions. While you are certainly free to use as many recruiters as you want, and it may seem tempting to have several different recruiters “cover the market,” it is common knowledge in the industry that candidates who work with one recruiter have an overwhelmingly higher rate of success than those that use several recruiters.

There are some definite benefits of working with just one recruiter. As an initial matter, working with one recruiter eliminates the possibility of a “double submission.” More often than you’d like to think, attorneys who use multiple recruiters often do not keep the best notes or records of where they have applied in the past six months. (The six-month period is the industry standard for determining who has “priority.” In other words, if you or a recruiter submitted your materials to a firm on January 1st, another recruiter should not submit you to that same firm until, at the least, June 1st).

In these situations, there is a heightened risk that you may inadvertently authorize two recruiters to submit you to the same firm within a six-month period. If this happens, even if you have stellar credentials and your experience is right on target, a firm will reject you for two reasons. First, the firm will do anything to avoid getting into a fee dispute with two separate recruiting companies and will find it much easier to reject the candidate (remember, this same rationale applies if you apply to a firm directly on your own and then to the same firm through a recruiter within a six-month period). Also, if a submission is received from two different sources, it sends the signal that the candidate is either unorganized or somewhat desperate for a job.

Furthermore, working with one recruiter allows you to have a consistent coach, confidant, and cheerleader in your corner at all times and one who can help keep you “on track” in light of your stated goals and priorities. We have also found that you will likely feel more comfortable “opening up” and providing a greater deal of information if you have a solid relationship with one recruiter. We urge you not to underestimate this point as it is crucial to the process.

Here’s an important example: if a recruiter knows about all of your different interviews, he or she can often use the information to generate and maintain interest from various firms. Furthermore, firms are more likely to actively pursue a candidate when a recruiter appears to have thoroughly screened the candidate and is fully aware of the ins and outs of a candidate’s situation.

In short, like an agent, the more information a recruiter has, the better he or she is able to expertly “survey” your job landscape, keep you on track, and effectively manage and coordinate your search with you to make sure it is as smooth as possible and attains your career goals.

Once you have selected a recruiter, what should he/she be doing to assist with your search? The recruiter you work with should always write a detailed cover letter on your behalf to the firms. The cover letter should discuss, at a minimum:

• Why you are considering a move;
• Your interest in the specific firm;
• Your academic achievements;
• A highly detailed description of your work experience (which goes beyond what is merely in your resume);
• Why you have made certain job changes in the past, with provided explanations;
• Any special accolades or characteristics that may set you apart from your peers; and
• Any other relevant personal information.

We strongly believe that one of the biggest advantages of using a recruiter is that a recruiter can tell your story in a unique way, brag on your behalf (without you appearing conceited), and–most of all–answer any questions that somebody reviewing your resume might have at first blush (e.g., Why is the person looking? Why did he/she leave the last job after only one year? Why did he/she get two Cs during the last semester of law school?). In fact, we feel so strongly that a comprehensive cover letter is crucial to your candidacy that we do not present any candidate without at least a several-page cover letter.

Many recruiting coordinators have privately confessed that they routinely reject candidates when their submissions do not have explanations about certain potential “yellow flags.” Often, a mere explanation can make all the difference. In the words of one recruiting coordinator at a very well-regarded firm, “It is amazing how, when we have so many resumes and need to narrow our pile, we just reject flat-out those candidates that don’t have explanations for all our questions and interview those that do.”

Importantly, telling your story verbally does little to help your candidacy in the long run. Although the recruiting coordinator or one partner may have the explanation, odds are that the other 5 or 6 people reviewing your resume will not be privy to the same explanation and could easily draw adverse conclusions because of their lack of information.

Many recruiters, unfortunately, are focused primarily on sending out as many submissions as possible to increase their individual chances of making just one placement and, therefore, spend a minimum amount of time on submissions. If a recruiter merely emails or faxes a resume to a firm with little or no background information, you are losing out on perhaps the biggest advantage of using a recruiter. In those cases, you would likely be better off just sending your resume yourself.

Lastly, your recruiter should ask you for a deal sheet or significant transactions sheet if you are a corporate, securities, real estate, or tax attorney. If you are a litigator, you should provide the recruiter with a couple of writing samples. The recruiter should have examples of deal sheets, depending on your practice area, to assist with your detailed transaction list. The writing sample should be something recent and almost entirely your own work product. After you have done a full read through on your writing samples, your recruiter should offer to read your writing sample before he/she submits you to the firm. We have found that about 90% of the candidates who submit writing samples have at least one typo. That grammatical error or spelling mistake can make or break your candidacy with a firm when you are competing against another attorney of equal qualifications, personality, and experience. It also helps to have a recruiter who either was a former attorney or has worked in a law firm review your writing sample or review your deal sheet. These individuals are most familiar with the work product that partners and associates are interested in reviewing and will understand, if applicable, how to make your deal sheet or writing sample better.

2. NOW THAT YOU HAVE THE RIGHT RECRUITER, HERE ARE SOME WAYS YOU CAN MAXIMIZE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THAT RECRUITER

Help us get to know you, not only as an attorney, but as a person. We strongly believe that the better we know you, the more effective we are in helping with your needs. As recruiters, we came into this profession because we love working with and helping people. Almost all of our recruiters are attorneys who left practicing law because they simply preferred talking to fellow attorneys about their careers and issues that were more personal in nature. Talking to people is our passion, and if it weren’t, we would not be able to spend hours upon hours speaking to and helping you with one of the most important transitions in your life. While we certainly need to know your “professional story” (e.g., why you are looking for a new position, your professional experience, etc.), we enjoy getting to know you as a person as well. For example, what do you like the most in your practice? The least? Why did you decided to practice law? Why are you continuing to practice law? Who is your inspiration? Were you the first person in your family to attend law school? What makes you unique? Is there anything else going on in your life that will affect your search? What is the biggest challenge you are facing in your career? This deeper level of communication is extremely helpful for us.

If possible, try to meet your recruiter in person. If you are in the same city as your recruiter, meeting face to face–whether for a cup of coffee or in the office for a more formal meeting–can only help the process. We find that meeting our candidates in person is much more conducive to developing a stronger, more trusting, and overall more successful relationship that yields more positive results.

Information that you think hurts you may not always be as bad as you think. Candidates are often surprised to learn that what they believe are “deal-breaking black marks” on their resumes may be more common than they think and can often be explained to the firm’s satisfaction once we are able to hear the story and learn the truth of the entire situation. The worst thing a candidate can do is try to withhold or omit important information because, in accordance with Murphy’s Law, the information will eventually be found out, and the damage caused from withholding of the information is often much greater than the damage that would have been caused by simply providing the information up front.

It is OK to brag about yourself. One of the significant advantages about using a recruiter is that a recruiter can showcase and brag about you in ways that you can’t. Although you may feel slightly uncomfortable if we ask you to highlight your achievements and all the positive things you’ve done, this type of information gives us the tools to highlight your key strengths to law firms. Tell us about all the positive praise and comments you’ve received, show us all of your letters of recommendation, tell us about all your achievements and all those other things that make you secretly so proud. Don’t worry, we won’t think you’re conceited, and the firms will appreciate having this information.

The more we know about your entire job search–including where you have applied in the past–the better we will be able to help you. One of the first questions we ask our candidates is, “Where have you applied in the past six months?” There are several reasons we ask this important question. First, as noted above, we want to be absolutely sure to steer clear of any firms you have already contacted directly within the past six months.

We’ve seen candidates who feel hesitant to let us know that they may be looking for jobs in several cities at once or that they have already applied to several firms on their own or through another recruiter. Don’t worry about it. We know that there are many different options when it comes to a job search, and we have been in your shoes ourselves. Letting us know everywhere you have previously applied (for at least the past six months), however, will help ensure that we do not submit you to a firm where you have already applied. In short, the more information we have about your situation, the better we are able to help you through the process.

Take advantage of your expertise and be open and honest with us. We are experts in helping attorneys find jobs. We love to answer questions and provide guidance. While you are busy writing briefs, we are researching the market. Take advantage of what we know and what we can share with you. Don’t be afraid to ask questions you may think are obvious.

Also, if you have certain specific expectations that are important to you, let us know. And if we are not meeting your expectations in any way, please let us know that as well. Working with a recruiter is a two-way relationship. It requires open communication, honesty, and clearly defined expectations.

Stay in contact with your recruiter. Your job search is an extremely important time for you. When you are working with a legal recruiter, everything about what the legal recruiter is doing for you is about you. In addition, your job search is an important life event for you. Because you are in the midst of an important life event, it is important that you are communicating with your legal recruiter at all times.

Many candidates sit around and wait for their recruiters to contact them. While no one likes to be bothered unnecessarily, you need to realize that your legal recruiter works for you. Because your legal recruiter works for you, it is important that you provide your recruiters the direction they need in order to do their jobs as effectively as possible. In most cases, this will mean letting the recruiter know what you are feeling and thinking about your job search at all times.

Most of our recruiters work extremely hard. In fact, the substantial majority of our recruiters work between 10 and 12 hours a day. While our recruiters devote time to all of their candidates, candidates with more pronounced immediate needs are generally where the recruiters will put the majority of their time first. What this means, however, is that a recruiter must know the urgency of your particular job search.

As recruiters, we have worked with numerous types of candidates. Some candidates may decide they are not in a hurry to move but will consider a better offer if it comes along. Other candidates are in a hurry to move and want to get out of their present employment situation immediately. Some candidates are in between. For your recruiters to do their jobs as effectively as possible, it is important that you stay in touch with them and let them know precisely what is going on with your particular situation, such as your desire to pursue more firms, for example. Legal recruiters are not mind readers and may need to be prodded at times, especially if your job search increases in urgency.

Respect your legal recruiter. Attorneys have different views of legal recruiters. Some attorneys realize and understand that legal recruiting at its very highest level is something that merits a great deal of respect. Other attorneys have different views of legal recruiters based on prior bad experiences. While the point of this article is not to convince you that legal recruiting is a serious profession, you do need to understand that it is important that you respect your legal recruiter. Your legal recruiter is in an advisory role that will have an impact over the course of your career.

Throughout the years, we have seen numerous types of personalities of different attorneys. We would estimate that more than 95% of the attorneys we have worked with have been absolute pleasures to work with. However, occasionally, the rare personality comes along that will lie, withhold important information, or even be blatantly disrespectful. The same rules of decorum that govern your other professional relationships should also apply to your relationship with your legal recruiter, if for nothing else, because it works to your advantage. When you respect your legal recruiter, he/she will feel empowered to exert a great deal of effort on your behalf and enjoy doing so. No one likes to feel disrespected, and this includes your legal recruiter as well.

It is important to do what you say you are going to do and say what you mean. Every time a legal recruiter takes on a new candidate and submits a candidate to a law firm, the legal recruiter’s credibility is on the line with the law firm it is submitting you to.

Most of our legal recruiters are speaking with law firms in major cities on a daily basis. When the legal recruiter is representing you, his/her job is to assist firms along in making hiring decisions. Accordingly, positive information you may share with your legal recruiter about a given firm or interview will likely be passed along to the law firm. If you are not telling the truth about this sort of thing, you risk harming the credibility of your legal recruiter.

In addition, if you go into your job search with the objective of achieving a certain result and decide later that you no longer want that result, you should share this information with your recruiter so that your recruiter’s credibility is not unnecessarily harmed.

Conclusion
Now that you know how to choose the best legal recruiter for your needs and how to maximize the effectiveness of working with that recruiter, you should be confident that your chances of landing your next position will increase significantly. Good luck!

The Importance of Portable Business

If you are a senior associate, of counsel, or partner, how important is portable business when making a move to another law firm? Most junior to mid-level associates are told to concentrate on developing their skill sets so they can become great attorneys. So, you put your head down, do good work, learn from the senior associates and partners, get good year-end reviews, and you feel you are learning and growing as an attorney. Before you know it, you’re a senior associate, respected by your peers and performing well on all work given to you. From this point, there are three things that can happen if you want to stay in a law firm environment: (1) you leave your firm, (2) you are promoted to of counsel at your present firm, or (3) you become a partner at your present firm. We will analyze whether portable business is important in all three scenarios.

Senior Associates
Depending on the region of the country and the size of the firm, a senior associate can range from 6-12 years of experience in a particular practice area. If you are a senior associate, you are probably trying to make partner at your present firm. If partnership is important to you and you believe down the road you’re not going to make partner at your present firm, you should think about leaving your firm immediately. Depending on your practice area, you should still have some marketability and be able to move to another firm. For example, senior corporate M&A, commercial real estate, and finance associates are all in demand as of today. However, if you are a seventh-year litigation associate without business, it may be difficult for you to move firms depending on the region of the country. Most firms do not like taking older associates without business. Although you have more experience than your younger counterparts, there are a couple of reasons why the move may be a difficult one.

Generally speaking, firms do not like to hire senior-level associates because the firm’s current senior-level associates become a little uneasy. Some of the questions the senior-level associates start asking themselves and others are as follows: Why do we need another senior associate? Are they bringing this person in to replace me? Is this person going to make partner before I do? Am I even going to make partner?

This causes a strain on the current senior associates; and in some cases, they may leave their firms for other firms. The partners in the group get upset because the most trusted and relied upon associates in the group start to leave. The second reason is due to law firm economics. Firms would rather just give the work to a mid-level associate because they can bill the mid-level associate at a lower rate, thus making their clients happy. As a result, the firms are mainly looking for associates with 2-5 years of experience.

So what do you do if you are a senior-level associate without business in a slow practice area? You should start exploring your options. You can stay at your current firm for as long as you can and hope that you get promoted to the title of counsel, move to a smaller firm where your expertise and skill are valuable assets, or move to an in-house position.

Of Counsel
If you are an of counsel-level attorney at your present firm, you probably have a unique skill set that the firm values. If you do not have portable business and you want to relocate geographically or leave your firm for another, it will probably be very difficult to find a position unless you move to a firm that needs your specific skill set. In this case, the firm may have a lot of existing business in your particular practice area and would like someone with your expertise to assist with firm clients and their legal matters. However, in most cases, for economic reasons, most firms would rather hire a mid-level or senior-level associate rather than an of counsel. Although you may have an easier time in some cases than partners to move firms because your salary expectations are probably lower than those of partners, it still may be a difficult road.

Partners
A partner with significant portable business can usually move to any region of the country or any law firm of his/her choice. He/She is a commodity. And even if a firm is not looking for that partner’s particular practice area, if he/she can start a practice, in cases where there is synergy with the rest of the firm, the firm will welcome the partner and the business with open arms.

When a partner does not have portable business, there are a few situations where the partner can move firms: (1) the partner has been very successful over his/her career and has established an outstanding reputation in the legal community, and the firm would like to start a practice or would like a prestigious partner on its roster; (2) the partner has shown in the past that he/she has been able to build a book of business, but because of a host of reasons, he/she does not have much portable business at the moment, but still has potential to grow his/her business; or (3) the partner has a specific expertise or knowledge in an area of the law that the new law firm would like to acquire to assist with its existing client base. Generally speaking, beyond these situations, it is going to be very difficult for a partner to move without portable business. Today, most law firms are trying to stay lean and hire partners who are able to bring business.

If you are a good attorney and have portable business, you will be in the driver’s seat of your career. If you are a good attorney and do not develop business as a senior associate, of counsel, or partner, you still have some options. It’s just a matter of finding the right fit. In all cases, you should consult a legal recruiter to help you transition from your current firm. The legal recruiter may be able to present you to his/her clients in the best light possible and therefore open the door where normally it may be closed.

Partners and LPQs

If you are a partner who has interviewed with another firm, you have likely come across a “LPQ”, which stands for “Lateral Partner Questionnaire.”

This is a form that the interviewing firm gives to a partner-level candidate usually after the first or second interview. 

These LPQs come in many shapes and sizes.  Some are rather short, and some can be offensively honerous and in excess of 30 pages. 

Many partners don’t realize that they don’t have to share everything a firm asks for in an LPQ, especially during the earlier part of the courting process.  Of course, certain firms use their LPQs as a way to gather competitive intelligence.  This does not mean that you have to be paranoid about filling out an LPQ, as defensiveness about a LPQ can raise yellow flags.  

If you are working with an experienced recruiter, that recruiter should be able to guide you on the LPQ process and advise you on what is typical, what is out of the ordinary, and what is appropriate information to be sharing at a particular point in the process.  If you are not working with a recruiter, use your best judgment.  Realize that the lateral hiring process will require you to share lots of information about your practice, but how and when it is shared can be very important.

Uncertainty in the Interview Process

On many antiquarian maps, there is a simple, chilling statement scrawled at the edge of the known world: “Here be monsters.” This is the mapmaker’s rather dramatic way of saying, “No one is quite sure what lies here, but it is almost certainly bad.” But a hedge of this sort is not nearly as evocative, nor as indicative of human nature, as a miniature pictorial of ravening mythological beasts. From a psychological perspective, this three word warning symbolizes how humans have dealt with uncertainty from time immemorial: with a keen sense of dread. And returning from a law firm interview that was difficult to read can fill you with a similar sense of foreboding. With no quick feedback, this can rapidly deteriorate into worry, followed by full-blown panic, and finally, despair. Meanwhile, your recruiter could be negotiating a lavish salary package for you with the firm. Who knew?

The interviewing process is punctuated by uncertainty. Indeed, uncertainty is perhaps its defining feature for everyone involved. Let’s take one example. Particularly in the early stages of a recruiting cycle, interviewers often present a ‘poker face’ to everyone. Needless to say, this is unsettling — especially for their spouses — and even more so when you contrast it to the sometimes fawning (by comparison) courtship process that you may have encountered in law school. The normal cues that accompany friendly human interaction, such as body language, tone of voice, and facial expression are either intentionally obscured or altogether absent, as if you were meeting someone who missed the audition for Invasion of the Body Snatchers by several decades. Why is this?

To overcome the tendency to feed into the mythic nature of the interview, and to get a realistic grasp of the hiring process, the first thing that you need to do is try to understand the law firm’s position, however hard that may be. Try to get perspective. In the case of poker-faced partners, it is likely that they will be meeting with a number of candidates. Many will be unsuitable, for a variety of reasons. Others may be ideal, but uninterested in the firm. So the partners (and sometimes associates), realizing that a preliminary meeting is only that, choose not to ‘invest’ in the meeting to a great degree. It would simply be too frustrating to do so. Furthermore, no one likes to reject someone they truly like – it is too emotionally taxing – so they erect walls designed to limit any kind of rapport (at least initially). I have seen candidates walk out of a screening interview like this utterly mystified. The next day, they get a callback. I have also seen candidates blow the screening interview because they misunderstood that the frosty reception was not something they were supposed to try to overcome. Through a variety of antics, some taking place literally in front of the elevator doors, they try to ‘break through’ and light up their interviewer’s interest. This is almost guaranteed to backfire. The lesson is: don’t panic, and try to make peace with uncertainty, because that is where true confidence and competence lie.

If confident candidates often react in the same way to unwelcome news — or no news at all — by keeping their cool and taking things in stride, candidates who have a phobia of uncertainty react in a variety of self-destructive ways. They may pester the hiring partner with phone calls, faxes, or emails (beyond the obligatory thank you note), which is a bad thing to do. Or they start harassing their recruiter for feedback, which is really doing the same thing at one remove. Although ideally the recruiter will have the sense not to start harassing the hiring partner in turn, or other members of the hiring committee, there is a danger that they will. This is definitely a case of less is more. Put yourself in your recruiter’s shoes – in all likelihood, he wants you to get the job as badly as you do. The recruiter who does not care about finding a job for her candidates is a rare breed – and a non-existent one at BCG Attorney Search.

Furthermore, when a firm is still soliciting feedback from different interviewers, and possibly meeting with other candidates, they may not show their hand to the recruiter, no matter how close the relationship is. They may simply not know enough yet to take a position. If it is a definite ‘no,’ they will usually say so. But there are others who are maybes, and this is where the wait and the lack of information can get very frustrating very quickly. What to do?

First of all, keep a firm grasp of reality. If the firm wants to make you an offer, it will. If you’ve met with the firm, there is very little chance that you have slipped between the cracks – and if you did, they probably were not intent on hiring you. Much of the worry that accompanies the interview process is generated by an unhealthy focus on the self. It’s essential to strive to be your best -well-prepared, well-presented, punctual, and so forth. But even then, your ability to control other people and their reactions to you is limited. There are extraneous factors that you simply can’t control – perhaps the firm has just lost a major client and won’t be hiring anyone — and it is unhelpful to focus on them. This heightened focus on the self is often what leads you to imagine the worst. To imagine monsters where a simple question mark would do.

In fact, depending on current market conditions and your practice area, recruiting is almost always a time-consuming process for everyone involved. It is also heavily subject to Murphy’s law, as anyone who has been involved in it can attest. At any stage in the process, things can go wrong, sometimes in bizarre ways. The horror stories that you hear from your friends are shared by the firms themselves, only in reverse. The gal that everyone loved turns out to be a grifter who never went law school. The guy you just hired was caught in flagrante delicto with the hiring partner. And so on.

So, what to do? First, understand that even the most ideal interview process will have its moments of uncertainty. Second, do not use that uncertainty to construct elaborate, macabre fantasies that are the stuff of nightmares. Third, realize that no matter how much you want the job, this is partly a numbers game for you, too, and you must not despair. Work with your recruiter, be at your best, and use that feeling of uncertainty to give yourself a little extra juice to climb the next mountain, which is getting that ideal job you want with what Hemingway defined as courage – grace under pressure. And finally, most important of all: stay positive and keep focused on what you want – getting the job – not what you fear. The great explorers, after all, had those primordial fears too, but they were able to overcome them.

Or else those maps would have never been finished.