How Aggressively Should Firms Re-Hire?

JP Morgan recently announced plans to hire 1200 to staff up its real estate lending capabilities. This is as aggressive a hedge on the recovering market as I’ve seen, in an economy where we still see nothing but mixed signals.

Banks aren’t law firms, of course, but the two industries have a great many parallels. The bursting of the real estate bubble had marked effects on both banks and then law firms, and we’ve seen significant downsizing in both industries. JP Morgan’s bullish hiring makes me wonder: are there law firms who might aggressively start hiring in anticipation of a healthy economic rebound?

I suspect we will see a great deal more reluctance within law firms to over-hire than we might see in other industries. I do see firms trying to predict the perfect time to hire opportunistically before the hiring market becomes competitive again. When we look back, who will be the firms that timed the market right?

Litigators See Light

A couple of months ago, I suggested that the recession ‘skipped’ over the litigation uptick that usually occurs as more transactional practices struggle. The American Lawyer confirms that 2009 did not provide the wealth of litigation work that we expected to see.

http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2009/10/new-litigation-trends.html

Citing Fulbright & Jaworski’s litigation trend report, the American Lawyer notes that the forecast looks much more promising for litigation work. The good news is that patience will be rewarded, as the 2010 litigation budgets may very well be expanding.

Extreme Interviewing?

There’s setting yourself apart, and then there’s stalking. CNN is running an interesting story about the difference between a memorable candidate and a menacing one:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/worklife/10/05/cb.out.of.box.tactics/index.html

Of course, the law firm world isn’t necessarily quite so creative–I’m not sure I’d recommend to any of my candidates that they show up for an interview with musical accompaniment. It’s a good lesson, though. How do you stand out without freaking someone out?

Collecting Your Thoughts

I get a lot of calls from job seekers. For obvious reasons, there have been more calls from lawyers who are truly struggling with the market than I’m used to in a good economy. Though we are seeing the signs of recovery, no one who is in the market can afford to start getting sloppy in the way that they conduct themselves as they search for a job. Specifically, I get a lot of calls from folks who sound, well, panicked. You may *be* panicked, but take whatever time you need to collect your thoughts.

For example, I get voicemails where people forget to identify themselves. I get long rambling messages. I talk to people who sound out of breath because they saw a job they thought looked interesting and ran out of their office to call me from the street so they wouldn’t be found out. My personal pet peeve is a five minute message where someone talks a long stream of consciousness, and then speeds through their phone number so I have to listen to the message 3 more times to be able to decipher their contact information.

I’m not someone to stand on formality, but i do feel like more and more lawyers out there are sounding quite frenzied. A gentleman called me a couple of weeks ago and was very literally yelling about the fact that he had contacted other recruiters and they weren’t getting back to him. I understand why he’s frustrated, but yelling to a complete stranger isn’t really a job search strategy, is it?

I suggest that before you pick up the phone to pursue a job or a search, take 30 seconds to collect yourself and very briefly think through what it is you want to convey. It’s ok to feel desperate or frustrated or anxious about your job search, but don’t let that infect your presentation. I heard a judge give some amazing speech to lawyers recently. The gist of it was to be honest, be funny, and be brief. Amen.

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.

20 years for Marc Dreier?

Judge Rakoff (United States Federal District Court) in Manhattan sentenced Marc Dreier to 20 years in prison yesterday.  Marc Dreier, the sole equity and name partner of his now defunct law firm, plead guilty to a myriad of theft and fraud charges earlier this year.  Dreier’s own lawyer summed up his client’s behavior as a fraud “of epic proportions.”

While the judge didn’t appear to take pity on Dreier, he did note that Dreier’s wrongdoing did not rise nearly to the level of Bernard Madoff’s (who received 150 year sentence only recently).  It’s hard not to compare these two formerly wealthy, powerful New Yorkers whose fraud was uncovered only months apart.  However, does all punishment have to measured now on the Madoff scale?  Would Dreier have received a harsher sentence if he were not sentenced on the heels of Madoff?  I wonder whether the enormity of Madoff’s scheme paled Dreier’s crimes in comparison.  Does Marc Dreier owe Bernie Madoff a thank you note?

Did we skip the litigators?

Recessions are typically best for litigation and bankruptcy lawyers.  While we generally see a demand for high quality litigators, litigation attorneys used to prove somewhat recession proof.  As we near the end of this recession (that’s right, I’ve declared that it’s over.  I am willing it to be over.) I am seeing some differences in hiring trends.  While bankruptcy practices have been hiring, litigation practices have not.  The overall downward forces of the economy has been so strong that even usually resilient litigation practices have felt the pinch.

Here in New York, the early stirrings of the recovery are pointing to transactional lawyers being sought after.  Does this mean that the cycle ebbed and flowed without bringing in some litigation upswing?  Maybe.  When the economy recovers (see?  I said when, not if), there are certainly going to be ample opportunities for litigation practitioners.  Even so, I believe that this recession hasn’t followed in the steps of other downturns–we may very well see transactional practices rebound before it’s time to staff up other controversy practices.

The next few months should be interesting.  Who are the busiest lawyers in your firm?

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.

The Downturnaround

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

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

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

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

A Bird in the Hand?

As a result of the recession, a number of national firms have frozen salaries into 2009. Although it’s not terribly hard to understand why a firm would do that, I have heard one law firm suggest that freezing salaries would allow a firm to be in better position to offer bonuses at year end in 2009. Which I suppose begs the question or whether (as an associate) you’d rather get, say, $15K more in salary over the course of 2009 or have a better chance at getting a bonus, which could (in a market like New York) be significantly more than that amount.

Many of us are quite risk averse, so I’m not sure that a more concrete bonus a year from now softens the blow. Bonuses are usually quite discretionary, so it seems hard to drill down on what the exact benefit is in this situation. Having said that, maybe it’s wise to make sure to hold enough in reserve to reward those associates who go the extra mile in 2009. If you had to pick, which would you give up?