Archive for May, 2009

Handling References: A Basic Guideline

You just had a good interview. In fact, it was great! You really connected with the people that you met with; you found the practice to be interesting and sophisticated, the setting collegial and the compensation package first-class. You are one step closer to getting the job of your dreams when you are asked to provide your references. How should you handle this very important step in you job search? The following is a basic guideline aiming to steer you through this sometime tricky and often overlooked aspect of the job search process.Usually after a successful interview, you will be asked to provide references. The key to handling this step successfully is to be prepared. One thing you should keep in mind is not to volunteer your references until asked. Therefore, you should not include references on your resume or cover letter unless specifically required by your prospective employer. What exactly are references used for? Reference checks are primarily made to:
  • Assure that you told the truth about yourself.
  • Get a feeling for how you work with others.
  • Pick up otherwise undisclosed information, either positive or negative.

Today, many law firms and companies are very careful about sharing information regarding their former attorneys to avoid potential lawsuits. Often, a law firm will have a policy regarding references that only allow them to provide a job title and dates of employment.One of the key aspects of references is selecting appropriate references. Ideally, you should choose people who know you in a work setting - former employers, partners, judges, clients and peers. They are your best references. You should also consider well-known political, community or business leaders, educators or members of your professional associations. Unless you have already informed your current firm about your intent to leave, do not use current clients, partners or peers as references, as they may jeopardize the confidentiality of your job search.

Typically, you will be asked for three references. However, you will need to have several more references just in case. You should prepare a reference list to give a prospective employer using the following format:

  • Your name at the top of the page
  • Names of each reference
  • Their phone number
  • Their current titles
  • Their address
  • Their relationship to you
  • Their current company

Prior to preparing your reference list, you should take steps to ensure that your references will in fact be helpful to you. Remember to:

  1. Ask first.
    • Always ask a person to act as a reference before you provide his or her name to a prospective employer.
    • Meet or speak with the person to verify information for your reference sheet and ensure that you will get positive references.
  2. Prepare your reference.
    • Provide a copy of your resume to the person.
    • Develop a one-page summary about your career objective, practice, reasons for leaving, strengths, weaknesses, work style, and then review it with him or her.
  3. Contact your references when you give his or her name to an employer.
    • Provide details about the prospective position and what you have to offer.
    • Share your excitement and enthusiasm.
  4. Ask for feedback after your reference has been contacted.
    • What types of questions were asked?
    • What topics were covered?
    • What concerns were raised?
    • Make sure to thank your reference.

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

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.

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

Me and Asquith Holle, Esq.

Sometimes, usually after a few drinks, I look back on my legal career and think that it really wasn’t so bad after all. But then one face appears before me that haunts me to this day. His name is Asquith Hole, Esq. (“Asq”). I always thought I would one day reflect on my days working with him with laughter. Perhaps when I’m old and senile and giggly about everything…

 

Asq Holle was a partner with whom I worked at one of my firms. Working with Asq can be most easily compared to having your car break down on a deserted highway—both create feelings of hostility, anxiety, and helplessness. For starters, there were his clients. I quickly realized that there are certain people in the world who will pursue dubious legal claims purely on principle. I learned equally quickly that there are lawyers eager to fight these people’s dubious battles tooth and nail. As my mom succinctly stated, crazy attracts crazy.

 

I understand that people feel genuinely aggrieved over matters that you or I might consider small. That’s human, and I get it. Heck, I’ve been there. However, when I’ve been deeply perturbed over an otherwise trifling matter, even I have some perspective. For instance, I wouldn’t knock on the door of one of the largest law firms in a huge city and find a corner-office partner to handle my $20,000 (at best) claim. Conversely, if I was a corner-office partner at one of the largest firms in a huge city, I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t take the case.

 

One of the other associates told me a funny story about his experience with Asq and one of his little cases. The case involved very non-complex issues and was worth less than $10,000. The associate traveled to some small town to depose one of the parties. When he arrived, he got to chatting with the opposing attorney. Looking puzzled, the attorney said in his small-town drawl, “Son, I looked you up on your firm’s website. You went to great schools and are working at a great firm. Why are you here?” Smart man. Even he could see what eluded Ivy League Law Review Asq.

 

Then there was Asq Holle’s personality. Controlling, irritable, edgy, and pompous, Asq was a joy to work with. I can’t even relate to you how much I enjoyed receiving phone calls from his secretary asking me to come by his office immediately only to find, when I arrived, that he was on a long conference call. Once he was finally off of that call, he would take another, then another, while I waited, then waited some more. A conversation that would normally take fifteen minutes suddenly turned into 1 ½ hours with me thinking, “To whom the hell am I going to bill this time?” And believe me, it would not be a good idea to leave. Why would you anyhow? The next time you stopped by his office you were guaranteed to receive exactly the same treatment.

 

Then there was the yelling. Over nothing. All the time. I remember once he asked me to pull some cases for him. I did. I brought them by his office a day early, hoping that would appease the monster. I placed them on his desk, told him what they were, and was ready for my “thank you.” Instead, I got yelled at for not putting them in a binder, something he hadn’t asked for initially and that I had never done in the past.

 

Then there was the micromanagement. I was not allowed to send out a three-line enclosed-please-find letter without passing it by him first. To revise. And revise again. At least revising letters was not terribly time-consuming. What was troubling was Asq Holle’s tendency to excessively revise anything and everything. I would stay up long hours into the night revising five-page motions. I don’t even want to talk about the summary judgment briefs…

 

I was becoming quite irritated at all of this behavior when I had an epiphany. I noted that, more times than not, opposing attorneys would call me directly with issues instead of Asq Holle. That didn’t always happen with other partners, so I was somewhat baffled. One of these opposing attorneys clarified it for me. We were chatting pleasantly, and I guess the guy felt comfortable asking me: “So, is Asq Holle crazy? My partner and I were discussing it the other day, and we kind of think he might be.” I guess I hadn’t really thought about it until that point. Annoying, yes. Maddening, yes. Hostile, yes. Crazy? Well, now that you mention it, HELL YES.

 

For whatever reason, that attorney’s question resonated with me. I began to review some of Asq Holle’s conduct that made the hair on the back of my neck stand on end. His behavior wasn’t rational, but more importantly, it really didn’t serve any purpose. I mean, I bill for my time when I work all weekend revising and revising and revising documents, and someone will be paying the bill—the client. When the case is not that big to begin with and you are representing an individual, not a Fortune 50 company, why would anyone proceed that way? I began to ask the same question that my friend/associate was asked at the deposition: why am I here?

 

Once I had allowed myself to ask that question, life became easier. When Asq Holle yelled at me once again one day over nothing, I snapped back. Other associates had speculated that pushing back would be a good technique to use with him. I assume they thought that standing up to him would gain his respect. That turned out to be faulty reasoning. But what it did give me was freedom. We didn’t work together after that, and I could finally let the poison drain from my system.

 

 

 

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

Mind Your P’s and Q’s

This is the second recession I’ve navigated through as a recruiter, and I find that there are certain trends I see in attorneys during a downturn. One thing I’ve seen is that the work product (resumes, cover letters) that attorneys turn out in the context of their job search suffers.

I’m not sure why that is–although I do suspect that part of the problem is that there is a greater sense of urgency–maybe something approaching panic for some folks. I know that when I am approached by job-seekers, it is frustrating to see so many errors. These are great attorneys who simply didn’t take the time to make sure that the presentation of themselves into the market was the best it could be. If there is ever a time to make your resume shine the brightest, it’s now.

Once of the things that we drill into each other’s heads at BCG is always having the absolute best work product we can have representing our candidates and ourselves. Polishing and proofreading may very well make the difference between getting an interview or not getting it. Taking that aside–a letter that is carefully crafted–detailed and specific to the recipient shows your audience that you value research and that you are thorough. It also shows that you appreciate the time that the potential employer or recruiter is taking in carefully reviewing your resume. A letter or resume done in haste won’t ever receive the careful consideration you want and your background warrants. I have been told time and time again that the level of detail and professionalism in the letters we write here “makes all the difference.”

Make the quality of your work product a priority in your job search.

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