Things are looking up…

I’ve noticed recently that the West Coast job market has gotten better in the past few months, in relation to law firm hiring.  Law firms are cautiously dipping their toes back in the associate hiring waters.  For example, I recently got a job order from a firm in LA for a junior litigation associate- and have also received job orders for mid-level corporate associates, as well.

This is a good sign.  Many firms are becoming more optimistic that the economy is improving and that there will be a need for associate hiring in areas like general corporate, litigation, and real estate law.  Keep in mind that firms are still pretty selective in regards to granting associate interviews.  Overall though, this increase in associate hiring is great news for many in our legal community.

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

The cover-up is worse than the crime

One reason people pay litigators is because litigators are experts at spinning facts and hiding the ball.   In every case in every courthouse, both sides have unfavorable and favorable facts, and the attorney who is more skilled at maximizing the favorable facts and minimizing the unfavorable one tends to, at first blush, have an advantage.

Very aggressive litigators almost always try to omit their client’s unfavorable facts.  They take a certain pride in the ability to spin a story in the most favorable light to their client, and this often involves completely omitting or dramatically minimizing the unfavorable facts.  You may be thinking, “Of course, this is the game of litigation - what kind of idiot would include unfavorable facts voluntarily?”

But if you speak with extremely successful litigators, some will tell you that the best litigators are those who voluntarily disclose the unfavorable facts.  Up front.  Before the other side highlights them.  No hiding the ball.  No hoping and praying that the other side “will not think to bring it up.”  They disclose the unfavorable facts and then do their best to explain away their importance.  This establishes an incredible level of trust and credibility with the judge or jury, which can often bestow huge advantages later on in the case.

I don’t want to get into an analysis of litigation strategies, but this is very relevant to job searching, especially in this economy.

Right now, I am seeing a tendency for many laid off attorneys–especially litigators–to try to spin the facts regarding their layoff, as they naturally see this as nothing more than “good advocacy.”  They may be tempted to omit unfavorable details regarding their impending departure.

Some attorneys are so used to omitting unfavorable facts when advocating for their clients that they use these same strategies when job searching.

Don’t.

You may think that it makes better strategic sense to omit unfavorable facts completely (for example, the fact that you were asked to leave), but this is unwise.  Determining how to best tell your story is not a one-size-fits-all type of analysis, but please remember one thing - the cover-up is worse than the crime.  If you lie or omit something that an employer would find relevant to their hiring decision, the cover-up itself (assuming it’s found out, which it usually always is) will damage your candidacy more than the crime itself.   This is not litigation.  This is a job search.  You are evaluated on your integrity and skills, not on your ability to spin a strong story by omitting the negative facts.

Your credibility is everything.  It is is damaged, your chance at getting the job will vanish.

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

Leaving Employers off your resume

There seems to be some difference of opinion about whether its appropriate to leave an employer off your resume.  I’ve seen two resumes this week where I noticed a gap in the “work experience” chronology.  On further follow-up, I learned that the lawyer left off an employer from their resume.  In one case, the lawyer omitted that part of their legal experience at the advice of a professional resume writing company.

I am really surprised that anyone is advising lawyers to do this.

In my opinion, your resume should always identify every place where you’ve worked–in the case of lawyers–every single employer since you’ve graduated.  “I don’t want it to look like I’ve worked for too many firms” isn’t an excuse, unfortunately.  Your resume should put your experience in the best possible light, but you have to be totally accurate about what that experience is and when it occurred.

There are lawyers who believe that omitting an employer is nothing short of lying on your resume.  I’m not this militant about it.  I don’t think that most people are trying to be deceitful when they do it–but it’s still a bad idea.  There is no tricking a potential employer into thinking you’ve worked at fewer firms than you actually have–best just to deal with the issue head on.

I look at resumes all day–I can pick out a gap in employment in an instant.  Hiring partners and other hiring professionals inside firms can too.  Instead of obscuring how many times you’ve changed jobs, omitting your tenure at a firm may actually shine a brighter light on the issue.  You don’t want your candidacy for a job to be obscured by a discussion about whether you’ve withheld relevant employment information.

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

Marketability and bar membership

In this challenging market, it definitely helps your marketability if you are licensed in the state you are seeking employment in. If you are not currently licensed in that state, firms will take you more seriously if you at least register to sit for the relevant state’s bar exam or begin the process of waiving into that state’s bar via reciprocity (if this is applicable).

In less competitive geographic areas, bar membership may not be as big of an issue, especially if you have a strong academic background and solid law firm experience. Similarly, if you are an attorney with expertise in a stable or growing practice area, you may find that you are able to get interviews without being currently licensed in that state. For example, in California, most firms are now requiring applicants to be licensed with the State Bar of California. I have seen some firms, however, make an exception to this general rule if they come across a stellar candidate in a growing practice area like bankruptcy or patent prosecution.

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