Monday’s Random Resume Tip

This is a short post, but one that will be immensely helpful for your legal resume.

Here it is: When describing your experience with an employer, never use more than 3 bullet points at once, unless they are broken up by subsections/subheadings.

It’s my opinion that people rarely read more than 3 bullet points before jumping to the next heading/employer on your resume. Some resumes have 5, 6, or even 10 bulleted sentences under each employer. Unless they are broken into subsections/subheadings, this can be very tedious because the reader needs to figure out exactly how the bullets fit into your overall experience (which usually covers a range of areas).

Imagine how annoyed you would be if you had to read a brief that had no headings. Same thing goes with your resume.

Ed Good, a writing instructor at my old law firm, used to always stress the importance of providing “context before detail” and providing a roadmap for the reader. By using subsections/subheadings under each employer, you will be helping the reader immensely. And for that, your potential employer (and your legal recruiter) will thank you.

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

10 Questions to Ask Your Headhunter

My name is Dan Binstock and I’m a legal recruiter in Washington, D.C. As my first post, I wanted to link to an article that appeared in the Legal Times in November 2006.

If you are thinking of using a legal recruiter, this is one of the most important decisions you can make regarding your career.

Legal recruiters (especially in large cities like Washington, D.C.) come in all shapes, sizes, experience levels, ethics, backgrounds, etc. It is always quite shocking how little most attorneys really know about how legal recruiters work, and how little effort is usually put into researching and vetting the potential recruiter.

And I am not casting judgment, as I speak from personal experience.

When I was practicing in a large firm, I received cold calls all the time. I remember receiving a phone call from a headhunter that happened to catch my attention regarding one position. I was under the mistaken impression that just because this recruiter cold called me that she was the only person working on the search (which, in truth, was hardly the case). This was just one of the many things I was in the dark about when it came to working with legal search firms.

This article will help shed some light on the mysterious world of legal recruiting, and will arm you with some questions to ask to ensure that you are able to choose the best person to assist you. Here’s the link: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1162548320507.

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

A quick way to tell if somebody is not telling the truth during an interview

I see the good in people and give everyone the benefit of the doubt, unless it is obvious that they are being deceptive. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending how you see it) I have become adept at noticing certain patterns of behavior that reveal when people are trying to shade the truth. This is not limited to candidates; partners in law firms do the same things. As a recruiter, part of the value I add is to do my best to find out the truth and cut through the bull - this way, candidates and law firms can make the best, most informed decisions and minimize the chances of making bad choices during the lateral hiring process.

When I first started recruiting, I used to beat around the bush regarding difficult questions. I was reluctant to ask somebody if they were laid off, so I’d circle around the question such as, “How were your reviews?” As I became more experienced and comfortable recruiting, I started being much more blunt (in the most respectful way) and figured out numerous interesting patterns.

Here’s one particular strategy you can use - it’s called narrow-pause (yes, I made that up). When you ask somebody a narrow question that requires a yes or no answer (for example, “Were you asked to leave your firm?”), if the person pauses right after you ask the question, this often indicates they are processing the question to determine whether the honest answer will help or hurt their goal. For example, if I ask a candidate, “Were you asked to leave your firm?” and they reply with, “Was I asked to leave?” or “What do you mean?” this is essentially a pause that buys them time to figure out how to answer the question. If they immediately answer a narrow question with a “yes” or “no”, this is most likely to be a truthful response. This can also be used by candidates with law firms: if you ask a partner a narrow question such as “Do you like practicing here?” and the partner responds with, “Wow, that’s a great question”, the partner is grasping for a pause to enable a second to process how to best answer the question in the most politically correct fashion.

If you think this type of stuff is interesting (especially litigators who do a lot of investigation-type of work), check out Janine Driver, an expert on deception techniques: http://www.lyintamer.com/.

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.

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.

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

A great tool to organize multi-step projects - MindManager

Almost every project you are going to work on involves multiple steps.  The better you can organize and manage these multi-step projects, the more efficient and effective you will be.  In this post, I want to share a very cool program I’ve been using for a number of years.

When I was practicing law, I used to work with a partner who organized all of his cases on one MS Word document.  Whether it was a client opinion letter or a huge litigation, each project had one document and he would go through and write all of the steps on a different line.  Once each step/task was completed, he would write a small “x” to the right of the task.

All of us who worked with this partner considered ourselves very fortunate to have the luxury of working with a partner who actually had a document that contained all of the steps.  Unlike working with other litigation partners–many who simply had the entire litigation process in their head and didn’t feel the need to reduce it to paper–the benefit of having a map of the case on a single document was tremendously helpful.

This was in 2003, and technology has come a long way since.

Over the past few years, I have been relying heavily on a fantastic software program called MindManager (made by MindJet), which allows you to “map” (similar to the process of diagramming/branching) multi-step projects onto a very user-friendly software program.  (If you’re interested in this type of thing, check out www.mindjet.com).

It allows you to modify and change these maps in so many ways that make it easy to “see” what most people try to store in their heads.  The process of mind mapping is becoming extremely popular because it engages both the analytical side and visual side of the brain.  It’s hard to explain, but if you try it, you will quickly understand how it adds a completely new dimension to the way you view your projects.  I have tried many project management software programs, and MindJet is liberating in a way I have never experienced.  It

Had the partner I worked with a few years ago used something like this, our dinky case management documents would have been taken to a whole new level.  We would have been able to collaborate, highlight, add tasks, color code, delegate more easily, and have fun with a whole bunch of other features.

But it goes much beyond organizing multi-step projects.  You can also use it to brainstorm, give presentations, manage your to-do list in a visual manner, and simploy “dump” everything that is lingering in your head that you need to get down on paper.

Since I am no longer working in a law firm, I don’t know if this type of software has yet caught on.  But it’s only a matter of time before it does because it makes complex, multi-step projects much more manageable.  For lawyers that spend much of their days managing multi-step projects, this could truly be a lifesaver if you are the type of person who likes to see everything laid out in front of you.

I have only used MIndManager and recently learned that they have a number of other programs (such as online collaboration tools, which could be good for multi-office collaboration), which I hope to try soon.  But if this intrigues you, check it out - they have free trial downloads.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chicken scratch your signature

A few minutes ago, I just got off the phone with a candidate who shared an interesting story that I believe is worth passing on.

He had an interview yesterday. When he arrived at an interview, he went to the “sign-in” sheet at the building security desk. Like most curious people, he quickly glanced at the names on the list. And … surprise! One of his colleagues was listed on the sign-in sheet a few hours earlier. Odds are, his colleague was interviewing at that same firm for the same position.

Lesson: When signing in at the building’s security desk, do not make your name readable. Just a few loops and squiggles will be fine. You never know who will be looking.

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

How to answer the “what do you want to make?” question

A number of my partner-level and counsel-level candidates loathe the “What do you want to make?” question. Associates at large firms typically don’t have to worry about this issue because of the lockstep compensation.

Like many types of negotiation, I believe the best advice is to never throw out the first number.

So how do you handle that uncomfortable moment when the firm asks, “So, what are you hoping to make?” You can simply respond along the lines of, “Well, I’m actually hoping to take your lead here. I’m looking for fair compensation based on my market value, which I’m still in the process of figuring out [if relevant, add 'with a number of firms']. But with regard to your firm, I imagine you’re in the best position to determine how I would best fit into your compensation structure.”

And if you want to end with a joke to lighten the mood, say something like, “How’s that for a gentle deflection?”

Have a great 4th of July weekend!

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

“BAS” - Battered Attorney Syndrome

A few months after I became a legal recruiter in Washington, D.C., in early-2004, I wrote an article based on a tongue-in-cheek phrase some of my former colleagues and I used: “Battered Attorney Syndrome.” The article was published in the Legal Times in November 2004 and has sort of taken on a life of its own over the past few years.

Just yesterday, in fact, I cold called a candidate at a large firm in D.C. and this person said, “I recognize your name - did you write that ‘Battered Attorney Syndrome’ article? Somebody just forwarded it to me.” It was quite surreal, but it really made my day that this this article is still being read several years later.

This article resonated with so many associates (and partners) because almost every one us has at one time or another felt inferior, alone, stupid, incapable of possibly exceeding expectations, unsure of our future direction, and a failure (I’m hoping you’re not nodding your head affirmatively at every single one of these). But if you are … that’s … okay. (Sorry, couldn’t resist the Stuart Smalley reference.)

As a recruiter, it’s amazing how often assocaites and partners–many of whom are high-profile and recognized as leaders in their field in Washington, D.C.–confide, in private, that they can relate to these feelings. In many cases, the most successful attorneys are those who are most petrified of failure, which fuels the desire to be “successful” (however that is defined) at all costs. Fear of failure can be a tremendous motivator, but if not kept in check, it can make you a lunatic. (Think of that partner with the huge book of business that everybody–including other partners–hates working with.) Or, if it does not drive you to lunacy, it can just result in you being very unhappy with your career. As such, when attorneys feel like they are failing in any sense of their career (e.g., a client fires them, a partner does not like their work, etc.), it often hits home like a ton of bricks. Sometimes this stress is self-imposed, but sometimes it is imposed by other attorneys. But in either case, it ain’t fun and is particularly painful for type-A, over-achieving attorneys.

Ok, this is starting to seem like an unnecessarily long introduction to this article and is actually straying in a random direction, so I’ll stop myself here. Here’s a link to the article, and feel free to share any comments you might have. http://www.bcgsearch.com/crc/battered_attorney_syndrome_legal_times.pdf

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