What I Have Learned About Interviewing In Law Firms

What are the most important rules of thumb for attorneys to remember about job interviews?
- Dress for success.
- Give concise answers. Long rambling answers will always negatively affect your chances of landing the job. Let the interviewers draw their own conclusions.
- Don’t get into detail about previous work. Revealing too much about old jobs, clients, or cases will make you seem untrustworthy.
- Be aware of your body language. You can say a lot without opening your mouth, so remain conscious of it.
- Be honest. You’re not expected to be superhuman, so stretching the truth can only get you into trouble.
- Be prepared. Come into the interview knowing what you want to get across and ready to take on some tough questions. Know what’s on your resume. Getting caught off guard by something on your own resume reflects poorly on you.

What is the best way to develop a rapport with the interviewer?
- A job interview is like a blind date in that both sides are a feel a little nervous and forced.
- Standard blind date rules apply: nice handshake, maintain eye contact, smile when appropriate, and always listen!
- Listening is the most crucial part. It can be difficult for attorneys to get out of talking mode, but the interviewer should do about 80% of the talking.
- Paraphrase what the interviewer says back to him or her to show you are paying attention.

Is there a decent way to answer the dreaded question “Tell me a little about yourself”
- Most people are uncomfortable with it, but it’s really a great opportunity to make an impression.
- Treat it like an essay in school and think about it before hand.
- Draw a correlation between how you describe yourself and the job description, be subtle, but connect your personality with the firm’s work.

“What do you know about our firm?” How can this question be best handled?
- If you’re using a recruiter, they will do the necessary research and tell you everything you need to know before hand.
- If not, always do your research. Use the Internet.
- Learn about the firm’s philosophy, successes, and history.

Can you recommend any particular resources for doing research on a firm prior to the interview?
- Most firms now have their own web pages. Try finding the firm on Google.
- Judged.com has law firm profiles, salary information and reviews from the attorneys who work there

What if you’re asked to address your personal weaknesses?
- This can be turned into a positive as well; say you’re a workaholic, that you can’t let a problem go until it is resolved.
- It’s best to keep everything positive, that way you create a positive association in the interviewer’s mind.

How do you address inappropriate questions, like are you married, or questions about politics?
- If you’re uncomfortable answering a question, and it is indeed inappropriate, just ask how it is related to the job.
- Be polite even if you think it’s inappropriate.

The adversarial nature of lawyers, does it work against attorneys in a job interview situation?
- A job interview is not a test of wills, it’s an opportunity to demonstrate that you can think, listen, and articulate.
-Coming off as pushy or arrogant is a turn-off. Even if the job requires aggressiveness, you don’t want to seem like someone who is difficult to deal with.

What’s the best way to summarize your entire background? Even for law students and young attorneys it can be difficult to encapsulate their whole history in a few sentences. For experienced attorneys, it can be a nightmare.
- Stick to what’s relevant for the job you’re applying to.
- Refer to the resume; make it easier for the interviewer.
- Bring a list of representative casework.

What about underqualified attorneys? How can they address a question about their background?
- The interviewer may have already made up their mind about whether you’re over or under-qualified, but you can make up for a lack of experience by expressing a personality match with the firm.

How about after the interview… thank you letter or no thank you letter?
- The cons of the thank you letter outrank the potential benefits.
- Even the most gracious and classy thank you letters can backfire.
- They can make you seem desperate like you have no other options.
- Its best to leave on a high note and thank you notes give you an extra opportunity to screw up.

What’s the best way to handle a bad interview?
- Put it behind you.
- Don’t let it get you down because everybody has bad interviews.
- The most important thing is to always appear enthusiastic. After a bad interview, be sure not to let it show in the next interview. Lawyers need to be “up” when appearing in front of judges or clients, so it is crucial to show that you have an upbeat personality.
- Getting rejected after an interview is usually not your fault. Internal firm politics and issues of personal chemistry generally play a very heavy role in employment decision-making.
How can a qualified attorney screw up in the interview?
- Showing up late is a sign of disrespect.
- Criticizing your last job is a major red flag.
- Lack of preparation will always make you look bad.
- It’s important to be confident, but don’t be arrogant or act like loose cannon. Never appear as though the job isn’t important to you.
- Don’t lie! Getting caught in a lie is the worst way to spoil an interview.

“Why are you leaving your present position?” or “Why did you leave your present position?” — how do you address this? What if you parted on bad terms?
- You never want to say anything negative about your old firm.
- You don’t want to seem like a gossip. They will think you might badmouth them if they hire you.
- Turn it into a positive. Say that you want increased responsibility with a firm that offers growth or a firm that is a match with your personality and skills.

What about “How did you do in law school?” Can you honestly answer the question if you didn’t do well in law school or went to a bad school?
- Be honest. If you had good grades or went to a good school, it’s a plus.
- If you don’t want to mention the grades, steer the conversation to something worthwhile you did in law school (extracurriculars).
- Don’t be embarrassed of “ok” grades; grades aren’t everything especially if you’ve been out of school for a while.

How important are the clothes you wear?
- Clothes aren’t the most important factor, but they can’t be underestimated.
- No one ever got a job for dressing nicely, but people have lost out on jobs for not dressing nicely.
- Always go for a more conservative style of dress:
-  Men: suit, tie, leather shoes
-  Women: business skirt, low-heeled conservative shoes; avoid perfume and flashy jewelry.
- Even if the firm is more casual, dress conservative for the interview.

Any advice for the shy? How do you appear to be confident when nervous?
- Rehearse! Write up practice questions and answers.
- Do it in front of the mirror.
- Have a friend or relative ask you questions.
- Be thoroughly prepared for every possible question. Its better to be over-prepared than to be caught off guard.
- Be conscious of the telltale signs of nervous behavior, fidgeting, stammering, saying “you know”
- Try to relax, but don’t get too relaxed. Revealing too many personal details, taking off your shoes, or treating the interviewer like one of your pals can make you look like a crazy person.

What are the differences in interviewing with a big firm vs. a small or mid-sized firm?
- Many big firms have a set of procedures for interviews and things are more rigid. They will often have callback interviews, which is not a guarantee that you will get an offer.
- Smaller firm interviews can be less formal sometimes, but you should always appear conservative even if the interview is less formal.

What are the differences between interviews with associates and junior partners and interviews with senior associates and partners?
- Junior partners and associates are still “gunners” who are often in competition with the rest of the attorneys. Do not act too competitive or they might see you as a threat. Act friendly.
- Older partners aren’t usually caught up in competition with the rest of the staff. They will want to see a competitive edge. They will also be more concerned with things like grades. Act hard working and determined.

How should an attorney handle an interview in an unconventional situation? Law firms will often take you out to lunch or for drinks to get to know you.
- The worst mistake is to get drunk. If the interviewer is drinking, have the same thing and take it very easy.
- Eat at the same pace as the interviewer and only order the basics. Don’t order an appetizer or desert if the interviewer doesn’t, etc. This ties right into the whole notion of appearing conservative at all times.
- Mind your manners and always treat your servers with respect. The same goes for receptionists in the office. No one wants to work with a jerk, so always be courteous to everyone in the entire job interview process.
- Don’t let your guard down. Unconventional interviews like this test mainly your small talk skills, but you should approach them with the same level of respect and enthusiasm as any other interview.

What about videoconference interviews?
- Technology is advancing and videoconferencing is becoming more and more common.
- It’s a great way to look for a job during a lunch break without battling traffic, etc.
- Don’t forget that they can see you. No nose picking, yawning, looking around the room.

How important is it to ask questions?
- It shows you’re paying attention and capable of critical thinking.
- Ask for more details about job responsibilities, how work is assigned, possibilities for advancement, and possibilities for independent decision-making.

What questions should be avoided?
- Don’t ask about salary, vacation time, working hours, start date.
- Don’t appear overanxious to get the job.
- Don’t express reservations about taking the job. If you have reservations, deal with them later. During the interview, your goal is to make a positive impression.

Should You Work With Recruiters Who Offer You Bribes or Kickbacks to Take Jobs?

At BCG Attorney Search we do not bribe candidates to take jobs and we cannot possibly understand why anyone would possibly offer a kick back to a candidate for taking a job. We do not do this. Working with a recruiting firm that offers kickbacks is one of the most harmful possible things you could do for your career. Notwithstanding, we can understand both points of view in terms of why people would want to get kickbacks from recruiters and why recruiters would offer them.

You should understand that there are business and other implications of recruiting firms that do this and also, candidates that take these kickbacks. Finally, you should be aware of some of the ultimate penalties and benefits to your career that could come about from your taking kickbacks from recruiters.

We can understand why a candidate would want to use a recruiting firm that gives them $10,000.00 or whatever it is when they place them. That’s a lot of money anywhere. It would be a lot of money to me. When you get that $10,000.00 it’s almost like a justification for moving. It’s a bonus of sorts from the firm that is hiring you. It makes you feel important. It does all sorts of positive things. So I understand why people would want to work with a recruiting firm that does that.

Likewise, I understand why recruiting firms would want to offer it. It is a great way to drum up business; especially if you advertise it. You can advertise that you pay money to people when they are placed. That’s something that certainly will draw in lots and lots and lots of candidates. People are attracted to money – even if the prospect of taking this money means they are taking a huge risk with the course of their lives. For example, people become actresses in pornography movies and prostitutes – most often for money. They do not realize that this one simple decision to do either of these things could have devastating implications for them for the rest of their lives.

There are essentially two issues with taking kickbacks from recruiters if they place you. One of them is a business issue. The other one is an ethical issue–sort of a baggage that you are going to have to carry with you when you walk into a law firm and the partners and everybody there will know what you did. Also, the firms that are interviewing you may base part of what they know about you on the fact that you work with a recruiting firm that pays kickbacks.

The first thing is from a business standpoint. I really think you need to understand that running a solid, research-oriented recruiting firm, for example like BCG Attorney Search, takes an incredible amount of money. It’s more than a significant portion of the placement fee. It’s a heck of a lot of money.

We have costs of research. We have programmers. We have data bases monitoring firm openings. We have researchers monitoring firm openings. We have proofreaders going over letters from us making sure we are making a good impression on our clients. We are going to conferences. We’re holding meetings and conferences with each other to talk about the legal recruiting industry. We’re doing lots and lots of things. We’re entertaining law firms consistently and on an ongoing basis. We have managers that are managing the process and overseeing. We’re providing reviews. We’re screening recruiters.

It’s probably not millions, but thousands of things that are done to run a recruiting firm–a solid recruiting firm that endures. The issue is that running a recruiting firm that endures takes a lot more than a small amount of money. It takes a lot of money. It takes a lot of money to subscribe to all the legal publications and to make sure we are on top of the jobs that are advertised in there and on top of the news that is happening with law firms. That is a significant, significant thing when you are working with a recruiting firm; all that work that is done behind the scenes.

If you take a $40,000.00 placement fee, and out of that placement fee $10,000.00 goes to the candidate that doesn’t leave the recruiting firm with a lot of money to pay its recruiters. More importantly, it hardly leaves it any profit margin if it is operating itself effectively. If it’s a fly-by-night operation or an operation that is not emphasizing those things then it doesn’t matter. For the most part, 10% is 25% of $40,000.00. Very few businesses in this world have 25% profit margins; hardly any of them do. Maybe some software businesses do but very few that involve humans doing research and work have 25% profit margins.

So that is something for you to think about when you are using a recruiting firm that is paying you a kickback–the money to run the firm is coming from you. You are paying for the work that normally would be done by not having the work done because you are really sacrificing something. That is a very, very important thing. Every candidate wants to know what is in the market. There are small firms that pay huge salaries and there are big firms that pay huge salaries. But you need access to every single one of them and that’s extremely important. Being on top of that information is extremely important. Having quality control in a placement firm is extremely important. All of this stuff iswhat makes a solid recruiting firm. That’s why our firm has made thousands and thousands of placements. That’s why it endures as an institution is because the work that we do is very, very good.

The average placement fee that a recruiter charges is typically 25% of your annual salary. However, in some cases law firms that are not as selective with candidates will negotiate this fee downward. If the law firm negotiates enough and if a recruiting firm is offering you a $10,000 kickback, there may be nothing left at the end of the day (or hardly anything left) for the placement firm. This means, essentially, that the firm offering you a kickback will not be able to get you a job at the firm because there will not be enough money involved.

There is another point we’d like to bring to your attention. That is the fact that when you are taking these kickbacks from firms, think about the fact that the firm that is getting a resume from a placement firm that does that knows that if they hire you they are giving you a kickback in order to hire you. That raises serious, serious ethical concerns.

We are in the legal profession. The legal profession is very staid. It is changing certainly, and there are firms that aren’t staid like that. But for the most part it’s very staid. Because the legal profession is so staid, you have to understand that when a firm gets a resume from a recruiter that is giving a kickback to you, that makes a lot of them very, very uncomfortable. So uncomfortable that they may not be willing to hire you or they might not be willing to interview you. That’s a major thing. I would say that more than half of the firms know that and are uncomfortable with it; almost all of them know it.

Think about the fact that when you are going to work in a new firm or trying to interview with a new firm, you may have a harder time getting an interview if you are working with a recruiter that doesn’t necessarily have resources to go out and spend time with the firm, or who is paying you a portion of the placement fee because the firm may not like the fact that you are getting that. So you may get fewer interviews; think about that.

On the BCG Attorney Search website we have hundreds if not thousands of law firms that we made placements at. That placement number iswhat it is for a reason. The placement number is as high as it is because we go out and do a lot of work; we develop relationships. When a firm is seeing our candidates, they are seeing someone that they know is coming to them because they have chosen their firm. They know that our firm has provided them research and done lots and lots of work. So, that is just another thing.

Just think about that when you’re in the firm, you’ve probably gotten a kickback. That’s something that is going to raise serious concerns. That may actually lose you the interview. Frankly, I don’t care how good the market is; even if the market is on fire, you are still not going to get a lot of interviews in places you should or could. If the market is poor, that is going to hurt you even more. Many of the best attorneys out there may want to work at one or two firms. If those one or two firms aren’t going to use you because they view what you are doing as an ethical problem, you have a serious concern..

Now, there is another issue that we need to bring up that is very important: When you take these kickbacks from the recruiters, you are putting yourself in a situation where you’ll go into a firm and they may think, “Well, this person will leave for a little bit of money, $10,000 or $15,000.00. This person will take this amount of money in order to leave.”

That’s a lot of money. Don’t think that isn’t, and don’t believe the firms don’t think it is. That raises serious concerns too. It raises concerns about your loyalty.. It raises concerns about your judgment. Those kinds of concerns are the ones that prevent you, in a lot of cases from making partner or may foreclose that altogether if firms have loyalty concerns. If you can be prodded away for $10,000.00, or whatever the amount is, that is a major, major concern..

So, in summary, we do not believe it is a good idea for anyone to take kickbacks from recruiters and especially recruiters that go out there and advertise the fact that they are doing it. You are short changing yourself. You are making a deal with the devil. You are probably going to get interviews with fewer firms than you possibly could because a lot of firms will think it is unethical and won’t interview you or hire you.

Also, you are going to go into the firm with the idea that you could be prodded away shortly with a short amount of money and it’s going to raise questions about your loyalty. You have a career that is potentially worth millions and millions over the course of your career. Maybe even tens of millions of dollars if you do it right; probably tens of millions of dollars and that is a serious concern. All these things raise major concerns about using a recruiter that takes and gives kickbacks. You probably won’t even know there are jobs out there because they won’t have resources to do it.

We urge you. Use your head and think about these things. It’s not in your best interest and not being in your best interest, why would you risk your career and aspects of your career that are potentially worth tens of millions of dollars for a little short blip on the radar of 10 or 5 or whatever thousands it is? Don’t make that mistake. You could end up penalizing your career forever.

Look for Opportunities Where Others Do Not See Them

One of the most frustrating things for me in this current economy is the fact that so many attorneys do not see all of the opportunity that is out there. I want to be very, very clear with you: There are opportunities for all types of attorneys in the current market. Regardless of your practice group or experience level, there are numerous opportunities for you to find excellent positions in this market. Finding postitions for people in all markets is exactly what talented recruiters do.

You need to understand that even if you are in a legal practice group that is slow and there do not appear to be a lot of jobs in your market there is a very good chance that this is localized. The problems with your practice group are either localized to the type of market you are in or they are localized to the the region of the United States (or world you are in). The worst thing you can do is feel as if there are no opportunities.

I have recruited attorneys in the worst of economies and can assure you there are always opportunities. If you are at a small firm that is going under (or has laid you off) there is a very good chance there are opportunities for an attorney like you in a larger firm in your geographic area. Conversely, if you are at a large law firm the chances are very good there are opportunities for you at a small law firm. If you are in a small city there are opportunities in larger cities and if you are in a large city there are opportunities in a smaller city.

Anthony Robbins, the famous motivational guru, did not begin to get famous and gain serious traction in his career until he started doing something that sounds crazy to many people: He started giving 10% of every dollar he earned to charity. While this is something that certainly brought him a lot of positive energy, it is also something that he credits with teaching him to think in terms of abundance and not scarcity.

A good recruiter (and we are good recruiters at BCG Attorney Search) thinks in terms of abundance. You should think in terms of abundance as well. There is more than enough to go around and this opportunity is everywhere… You need to take it and go after it!

I read this morning in the National Law Journal about the fact that there is still a ton of business in places like Dubai and China and lots of American attorneys continue to get offers there. Sometimes you need to go elsewhere to find opportunity. Most Americans families at some point came to this country because they believed they could find opportunity here.

Opportunity exists here and it exists for all attorneys. You need to go after this opportunity and see this opportunity where others see obstacles.

Summer Interviewing in Law Firms

Ah, summer time: a season that evokes images of picnics, family vacations to the beach, and lounging by the pool. Although some associate summer with a decrease in work, our experience is that the summer can be the most jam-packed period for associates. In addition to the normal workload, summer associates are everywhere, begging for attention and lunch companions. And, if you are in the midst of the interview process during the summer months, you may find summer the most difficult season to get through the process.

What do I Wear?

On the surface, this is a fairly silly question. Certainly, there are more important issues one encounters during the recruiting process than what color shoes go with a navy suit. However, appearance at an interview should not be overly marginalized. The truth is that lawyers are in the customer service business, and being professional in your appearance and demeanor is one facet of your overall performance as a lawyer. So, while you are being evaluated on the basis of your substantive knowledge, record, and interest, you are also leaving an impression on your audience by the way you dress.

It is for that reason that we absolutely recommend that attorneys interviewing wear suits, even when the firm with whom the attorney is interviewing is business casual. This is just as true during the summer months, when some firms allow considerably more casual attire than they would throughout the remainder of the year. Yes, we know, it is sometimes uncomfortable to be the only person in the room wearing a suit. However, the fact is that you do not know your audience. The partner with whom you are interviewing could be one of those lawyers who simply does not believe in business casual under any circumstances. Although his firm’s policy may not jive with his way of thinking, he or she may have a negative image of you based only on your appearance. While we don’t agree that “clothes make the lawyer,” why jeopardize an opportunity at a firm because you didn’t look the part? In short, no one will raise an eyebrow at a lawyer wearing a suit to an interview. Some may at a lawyer who does not. Why take the chance?

There’s an Exception. We’re Lawyers. There are always exceptions.

On occasions, lawyers are concerned that wearing a suit on their interview day, especially in the middle of a firm’s casual summer, will set off alarms indicating to those lawyers’ current firm that the lawyers are interviewing around. Although this is in no way a general rule, there are times when the interviewing firm will allow or encourage a lawyer to come in business casual attire. If this is the case, each lawyer should still be careful in deciding whether to go in anything more casual than a suit.

First, business casual attire may mean many things to different people. While golf shirts and open-toed shoes may be commonplace in a variety of firms, we do not believe that this is interview appropriate attire. Certainly, you may still see attorneys in the halls dressed way down, but only your most professional business casual attire will do, and only then with express permission from the firm. Appearing too casual may have the effect of causing your interviewer to believe that you are casual with respect to your attitude about them.

But it’s Hot Outside!

Yes, and this can lead to some funny, but disastrous results. We know of one man who, while waiting for his interview to begin, was reading the Wall Street Journal in the lobby. Simultaneously, he was wiping off beads of sweat from his face. Upon beginning the interview, the interviewer said, “you seem to be the type of guy who reads the paper every morning,” and then advised him to run to the bathroom. While wiping his face, the man had gotten newsprint from his hands all over his face. The interview never went anywhere after that.

To our knowledge, science has not yet invented anything that will prevent nervous sweat during an interview. However, if you are likely to manifest your stress by excessive perspiration, be prepared. Bring a handkerchief, leave yourself plenty of time to get to the interview so you won’t have to rush, bring a cold bottle of water. Your linen suit may be the favorite thing in your closet, but are you going to look like a rumpled mess after the first 10 minutes?

Margaritas are Not Your Friend

At least not the night before an interview. Even if you are only going in for a quick screening interview, and load up with coffee, you should still never appear tired or worn down for your visit to a potential new firm. Aside from the obvious issues an interviewer would have with a candidate who still smells like tequila, being tired or talking about a big night out the night before leaves the impression of someone who really doesn’t care whether they get the job for which they are interviewing. And, as stellar as you may look hung-over, and despite a good shower, we still know lawyers who have walked into interviews with the remainder of a bar’s hand stamp that couldn’t be washed off, who had to excuse themselves to get sick in the bathroom, and who arrived late after sleeping too late. None of these lawyers got the job.

You’re Getting the Point, Right?

It’s summer! Time to have fun and kick back – summer seems to bring out the silly and laid-back part in all of us. Casual is fine for everyday life, but not while interviewing at a firm. Even though the lawyer on the other side of the desk may be leaning back in his chair after a two hour lunch with a summer associate, his feet propped up on the desk, you must make sure that you remain as professional and engaged as you would in a stark conference room full of suits.

Q: Why do some recruiters say that summer is the best time to find a job while others disagree? Is there a definitive answer this year?

Q: Why do some recruiters say that summer is the best time to find a job while others disagree? Is there a definitive answer this year?

A: Generally speaking, summer is not the best time to look for a job. Actually, the first quarter of the year is the best time to start looking. The benefit of looking in the summer is that there tends to be less competition for positions, and firms would like to hire someone quickly rather than wait until the fall. I would say, however, that if you have a desire to leave your law firm in the summer and do not want to wait until the winter, you should start looking now. If you wait until fall, there will be far fewer opportunities because first-year associates shall have begun working and the current associates will be trying to meet their billable hour requirements.

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.

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!