Don’t Panic Over Law Firm Silence

I am currently working with a candidate who specializes in a very unusual area of law and who is quite unhappy in her current position. She came to me looking for a new position in the same of the law but at a firm with a better culture. Finding such a job was not easy, especially in this market, where the need for associates in general is not particularly high.

After about 6 weeks of working together, I was able to obtain an interview for this candidate at one of Chicago’s premier law firms with a strong practice that matched her experience. She had a fantastic interview, loved everyone she met with and walked out of the interview believing that she had just found the perfect firm for her.

As I always do, I warned this candidate that firms tend to move much slower in this economy, and that it may take a few weeks to hear back as to whether the firm was going to extend her an offer. She appeared to be fine with that, although she admitted that she was anxious about it.

A week passed, during which I had followed up with the firm to see where they were in the process. I learned very little in terms of details, other than the firm was still considering my candidate. I reported this to candidate, who was becoming increasingly anxious about the job. She kept asking me what was taking so long and suggesting that if the group really liked her, they would move faster.

Another week passed with no updates from the firm, despite my efforts to follow up. With the passage of this time, my candidate began to rethink the firm and her opinion of the people she met. “Maybe they weren’t as nice as I thought.” “Maybe they don’t do quite the type of work I want to do.” “Maybe they aren’t as great of a firm as I originally thought.”

By the time I heard back from the firm three weeks later, my candidate had convinced herself that she hated the firm, did not want to work there and was not going to accept an offer if given to her. As she put it, the fact that the firm took so long to get back to her was a “clear indication” that they didn’t really like her and she therefore did not want to join them. Of course when she learned from the firm that they were, in fact, extending her an offer, she didn’t know what to feel. After all, she has initially loved the firm but spent the last month talking herself into hating it. Now what?

Talk about mentally sabotaging a possible job opportunity!

Remember that firms spend significant time collecting and reviewing resumes, eliminating those they aren’t interested in, and narrowing it down to a reasonable number of candidates to interview, they have to schedule and actually interview the candidates. Finding a single day that 5 or 6 busy attorneys can interview a single candidate can take weeks. Scheduling multiple candidates to interview can be next to impossible. Furthermore, even after the firm interviews the candidates, each individual lawyer has to complete and return an evaluation form, and we all know that attorneys are notoriously terrible at doing these types of administrative things. Once the evaluations are collected, they must be reviewed, often by a committee of attorneys, and then a decision made. All of this can easily take weeks, especially when you factor in that attorneys would much prefer to service their clients than deal with recruiting and hiring.

So, remember this: Firm silence does not mean that the firm is not interested in you. Don’t torture yourself or talk yourself out of what could be a fantastic job opportunity simply because the firm’s attorneys do not move as fast as you would like.

After much discussion, my candidate took the job with the firm that sent a “clear indication” that it was not interested in her…. And you know what, she is back to loving the firm and the people with whom she works.

Unemployed? STAY BUSY.

A year ago, if someone had told me that the vast majority of associate-level candidates I would see during 2009 were going to be unemployed, I would have laughed (or cried). But it’s true. Unemployment is a reality for associates in all areas of law and at all levels. Lately, I have seen these associates fall into two categories: those who believe that staying busy in their substantive area of law will benefit their marketability to firms, and those who think now is the time to become one with the couch and rekindle their love affair with soap operas.

To most of you, I hope this is an obvious statement: the attorneys in the first category are going to get jobs long before those in the latter category. It feels almost ridiculous to have to say something that obvious. But I have my reasons. For example, I recently spoke to a candidate who called me about a new job posting on the BCG Attorney Search website. He has absolutely fantastic academic credentials and law firm experience, but in 2006 he left his last firm to obtain an additional graduate degree, and while doing so the market crashed. Consequently, he has been out of the law firm world for almost three years (two while in school and a year since graduation). Naturally, one of the first questions I asked him was to explain what he had been doing since earning his graduate degree a year ago. Imagine my surprise when he replied “not much.” I followed that up with “Have you been keeping up with the ever-changing rules and regulations of your practice area?” “Ah, not really,” he mumbled. “What about attending CLE classes?” I asked. “Um, that’s a good idea. Hadn’t thought about that.” (Really? Is that possible?) “Volunteering or doing contract work?” His reply: “nope.” You get my point. The guy had been doing nothing to help explain the growing gap on his resume (other than search the web for a permanent job).

As a recruiter, this makes my job infinitely more difficult. The first question a firm is going to ask me when I submit this candidate’s resume is to explain what he has been doing for the last year. Make no mistake, the majority of firms I work with are not turned off by a candidate who has been laid off from his firm, but they do want to know that the candidate is motivated to keep up with his legal knowledge and skills. Think about it. If you were the hiring partner at a firm, wouldn’t you prefer to interview the candidate who has been taking CLE classes, volunteering at a legal aid clinic, seeking out contract work where available and networking with former colleagues and friends all while contemporaneously looking for a permanent job over the candidate that has just been looking for work for the last year? Firms are not stupid. They know that while a job search is very time consuming, it does leave time for other activities. And in this economy, no matter your credentials, if you are not out there doing extracurricular activities, the guy sitting next to you (who has equally impressive credentials) is– and he is going to get the job over you.

So, get out there. I guarantee that it will help you land a solid job.

Consider both the specific legal market and the cost of living when making a geographic move

Many of you probably read the title of this post, rolled your eyes into the back of your head and thought “wow, this woman is a real genius.  Who woulda thought cost of living mattered?”

Yes, I get it.  Everything thinks about cost of living when they contemplate a geographic move, but apparently not everyone believes that it will apply to them or thinks that each specific legal market differs in terms of compensation.  For example, I recently worked with a delightful corporate associate who wanted to move from the East Coast to Milwaukee, Wisconsin.  He had about two years of solid, sophisticated corporate experience from a firm that paid him a base salary of $170K a year.  When we began the search for a new job in Milwaukee, I explained to him that firms pay much less there than they do in Washington, D.C., partly because of the difference in cost of living, but also because the market simply supports lower salaries.   I even went so far as to say that the major firms in the area start their first year associates at $110K to $115K.  My candidate responded to this by saying that he understood this and was prepared for a significant decrease in compensation.  However, when an offered rolled in at $119K, this candidate was less than impressed.

Let’s just say that I was confused, to say the least.  After all, I had warned him of the market and the cost of living change, and he claimed to be prepared.  When I asked him for an explanation, he said that he had gone to a website that calculates the difference in cost of living between specific cities, and according to that calculator, my candidate’s $170K salary on the East Coast should translate to $125K or more in Milwaukee.

Now, I am a big proponent of due diligence, and I have no problem with the various cost of living calculators out there on the internet (although none of the websites that I have visited provide even remotely similar calculations to one another), but a generic cost of living calculator is not going to take into account the specific legal market and what types of salaries it supports.

My candidate was right– according to a number of cost of living calculators in the internet, someone making $170K in Washington, D.C. should make around $125K in Milwaukee.  But for the most part, Milwaukee law firms do not care what the equivalent salaries are in various cities.  They care about their competition in the market and what the other firms are paying their attorneys.  For whatever reason, the large firms in Milwaukee generally pay a little less than their equivalents in Washington, D.C., and it is a candidate’s job to understand this before undertaking a job search.

Frustrating as it might be, a law firm is not going to pay an associate more than it pays everyone else because s/he is coming from a market that pays more, even after adjusting for cost of living, so if you want to move to a city in which this is the case, you must be prepared.  If not, you are bound to be disappointed at whatever offer(s) you receive.

I bet that most of you reading this think you know how things turned out for my candidate in Washington, D.C.  Sadly, most of you are wrong.  Even after I explained the differences in the legal markets, my candidate still felt under-compensated at $119K, and he ultimately turned down the offer, admitting that Milwaukee might not be the best place for him after all.   And you know what?  I think he is right.

Make no mistake, I do not fault this candidate for turning the offer down based on a salary that was $6K less than he thought he deserved, and it is not my place to judge him for doing so.  In fact, I give him a lot of credit for recognizing that he would be unhappy at a lower salary, even if everything else about the job and firm was perfect for him.  Having said that, I can guarantee that I am not going to allow this to happen in the future, even if it requires me to drill into my candidates’ heads that cost of living is not the only thing to consider when moving geographic locations.  Each market is different and pays its associates what the market will support, and every candidate that contemplates a move needs to know this from the start.

Everyone Go Home And Be Nice

A few weeks ago, I had the great fortune of attending a grade-school reunion in the same cafeteria in which I ate soggy french fries and drank chocolate milk every day for six years back in the 1980s.   The four individuals who so graciously planned this reunion did not just work tirelessly to locate as many of our classmates as possible, but they reached out to all of our old teachers, and, get this– our old principal, Mr. Neilsen.  Much to my surprise, there were as many teachers as students at the reunion, and not five minutes after I arrived, in walked Mr. Neilsen, who I believe just celebrated his 80th birthday.

Mr. Neilsen was a fantastic elementary school principal.  Funny, outgoing and always kind.  In fact, at the end of each and every day (or at least that is how I remember it), Mr. Neilsen would stand at the very front door of the school, and as every child left the building, he would shout “Everyone go home and be nice.”  And man, did his voice carry.

How, you must be asking yourself, is this related to the legal field, practicing law and/or finding a new job?

Very simply, Mr. Neilsen was a brilliant man who gave simple-but-wise advice to us kids:  Be nice.  Sure, his advice focused on how we should act at home, but we all knew what he really meant: be nice to each other; hold the door open for another person; allow someone in a hurry to slide past you on the street; and treat all people with the same level of respect you would want to receive.

Sadly, in my observations of late, I am seeing more and more job seekers who do not abide by this rule and who do not think it is necessary to be nice to others.  By others, I mean anyone and everyone we encounter in our daily life, from the grocery clerk to the court clerk and everyone in between.  Being rude, inconsiderate and disrespectful to anyone is a dangerous way to operate, because sooner or later the individual you flipped the bird to for cutting you off on the sidewalk is going to turn up as a partner in the law firm you work in, or worse, an interviewer during your next job interview.  And make no mistake, he will not have forgotten about your seemingly anonymous hand gesture.

A great example of this recently happened to me.  For the first five years after law school, I practiced law as a commercial litigator, and like most associates, after two years I decided to see what else was out there.  At the time, the economy was in good shape and opportunities were plentiful, so it was not long before I secured an interview with a well-known firm in the area.  The interview started off very well, and I felt like I “clicked” with the first three people I met.  However, as soon as I walked into the office of the fourth individual, I knew the interview was doomed.  For whatever reason (to this day, I do not know what it is), even before I opened my mouth to say “hello,” this senior associate did not like me.  He spent the 20 minutes we had together treating me with disrespect and criticizing the responses I gave to every question he asked of me.  I remember it as if it was yesterday: those were the longest 20 minutes of my life.

Needless to say, I did not get that job, but I went on to practice at another firm for a few more years before becoming a legal recruiter.  Truth be told, I never really thought about that interview again.

That is, until last week, when I met with a new candidate that reached out to me for help after he had been passed up for partner twice in the last two years.   Imagine my surprise when I walked into the waiting area of my office, and there was the senior associate that treated me like garbage over five years ago.  At that instant, I had a quick decision to make: do I treat him like he treated me or do I remain professional and treat him like I would any other new candidate with whom I was meeting?

Make no mistake, I wanted to go with the former, but I ultimately went with the latter.  And the truth is, the guy turned out to be fairly nice, but he was now in need of my help, so I was not surprised by his change in demeanor (I did not get the impression that he remembered me).  Even so, that is not the point.

Here is my point: take my former elementary school principal’s advice and be nice.  To everyone.  Because the next person you mistreat or disrespect could turn out to be someone you need to impress.  And by the time you figure this out, it will certainly be too late.

So, thank you Mr. Neilsen for drilling a simple but invaluable rule into my brain: Be nice.  Not just to the people you love or the people you deem important, but to everyone.

If the opportunity is right, it is worth the wait.

At least once a week, I feel like I end up lecturing my candidates on being patient with respect to the firms with which they have interviewed.  Having  been a candidate myself, and therefore at the mercy of the law firms, I completely understand how painful the process can be, but I am surprised at the number of candidates that sour on a firm based on the time it takes for it to respond with an offer or rejection.  For example, I am working with a strong corporate candidate with a stellar background in M&A and securities.  Originally from Chicago, she moved to Colorado about four years ago for family reasons, and she has been working with a top firm in Denver since then.  She is now looking to return to Chicago, and based on her credentials, we had no problem getting her an interview with one of the best firms in town.  In fact, the firm was impressed enough with the candidate’s resume that it skipped the initial round of interviews and went straight to flying my candidate into town to meet the entire practice group.

The interview went well from the perspective of my candidate, and she returned to Colorado hopeful that she would receive an offer from the firm.  And that is when the painful portion of the process began.

A week passed.  She emailed me for updates.  I followed up with the firm and received some initial feedback that was very positive.  However, because the attorneys in the group were so busy (hence the need to bring on another associate), they had not yet been able to interview the other two candidates they wanted to meet before making a final decision.  I relayed this information to my candidate and promised to follow up the following week.

The following week came and went, and as promised, I followed up with the firm.  Nothing to report.  Same thing for the next week.  Finally, about three and a half weeks after the interview, the recruiter called me to apologize for taking so long to get back to me, and then informed me that the group still had no decision on my candidate’s interview.  I immediately informed my candidate that she would need to sit tight for another week or more, but by now she sounded a bit annoyed and said something like “when a firm delays likes this, it usually means they are not interested.”

Um, not true.  Not true at all.  I cannot tell you how many firms I work with that have taken weeks—make that months, to get back to me post-interview, and many of them have extended offers to the candidate.  The passage of time, especially when dealing with a large, busy law firm, means nothing other than the group has not yet made a decision regarding the candidate’s interview.

In the mind of the candidate (stereotypically speaking, of course), it should not be that hard for a firm to get its people together to decide whether to hire someone with whom it has interviewed.  Thanks to email, the group doesn’t even have to meet face to face—just circulate a couple of messages about who likes who, and then make a decision based on the majority vote.  Shouldn’t take more than a day, right?

Wrong.  The reality is that no matter how much a firm likes a candidate, client work comes before recruiting.  That means that if a client matter arises unexpectedly, recruiting decisions are placed on the back burner, and a candidate can be left waiting for weeks for an answer.  Likewise, if hiring decisions need to be approved by the Hiring Partner for the firm (or worse, a committee of attorneys in charge of hiring), additional delays may result if one or more of these attorneys is not available to provide approval.

This is precisely what happened to my corporate candidate in Colorado.  The firm gave some initial feedback that was positive, but before they could interview the other two candidates they planned to interview, the head of the group was pulled away on a serious client-related matter.  My candidate was left to wait.  And wait.  And wait.

Waiting is the worst.  I think we can all agree on that.  But just because a firm leaves a candidate waiting for weeks (or even months), that candidate does not get to jump to conclusions that the firm is not interested.  In the case of my Colorado candidate, not only did she start to assume there was no interest on the part of the firm, but she started to get angry with the delay and called the firm “rude” and “inconsiderate.”  I did what I could to counter this, but my candidate became more and more convinced that the firm was stringing her along, and with each passing day, no matter how hard I tried, her bitterness grew.

Then, as luck would have it, the offer came.

And instead of just being excited to have the offer, this candidate had to work through her bitterness in order to get back to where she had been shortly after the interview.  At one point, she almost turned down the offer because she felt as if the firm did not want her “enough.”  Eventually, after much discussion, she realized what I knew all along:  firms are large institutions that often move at a snail’s pace, but this does not mean that the firm is not enthusiastic about a specific candidate.  It simply means that we need to learn to be a little more patient.  After all, if the opportunity is a good, long-term fit, it is worth the wait.

To contract or not to contract?

By no means is this post meant to raise a new issue.  In fact, I am sure the issue of whether to do contract work while searching for a permanent position has been blogged about before.  Even so, because I believe that the answer to this question changes as the economy changes, its worth a revisit.

I cannot recall a day in the last six months on which I was not asked by an unemployed law-firm associate whether it would hurt their chances of finding a permanent job if they did some contract work to bring in some money (yes, even though big-law firm attorneys make ridiculously large salaries, let’s face it, we are not exactly the best money managers).  I applaud anyone who asks me this question because it shows that he/she is thoughtful and aware that much of what you do can affect your chances of obtaining a new permanent job.

So, what is the answer?  Should you do contract work or will doing so make your resume less attractive to prospective employers?  While there is no “right” answer, in a strong economy, I recommend against contracting because it can make an associate look unfocused and/or uncommitted. However, in an economy like this one, all bets are off, meaning that contract work has become a necessity for many unemployed associates.  Think about it.  Countless attorneys have been laid off as a result of this recession, many of whom are the primary wage earners for their families or have other monetary obligations that do not simply disappear because the economy has gone down the toilet.  Contract work is a relatively easy way to keep some level of income while searching for a job.  And, from my experience (and only my experience) firms have changed their tunes about contract work as well.  In fact, when I inform firms that my candidate is doing contract work, the usual response is something like “that makes sense” or “of course, that’s no problem.”  After all, we are all experiencing the recession to come extent so those who have escaped the massive lay offs should empathize with those who have been cut.

So, while the economy is in the tank, contract away.  But remember, once the economy has recovered (which it will very soon) and permanent jobs are abundant, contracting may no longer be as acceptable.

Do NOT Pass Up an Interview Just Because the Firm is Not Footing the Bill

We all know this is a very tough job market for attorneys.  There have been countless law firm layoffs and fewer openings for lateral hires at the firms.  As such, the competition has gotten out of control.  In fact, it is not unusual for a firm to interview upwards of ten attorneys for a single position.  Gone are the days in which associates are confident that they “have it in the bag” if they are invited back to a firm for a second round of interviews.  Instead, I am seeing attorneys invited back for third rounds, asked for a writing sample and references, only to be turned down in favor of another candidate.

While the competition is tough, the only way to obtain a new job is to actually get before prospective employers in an interview setting.  And in this market, it may require you to shell out a few dollars to do so.  For example, a few weeks ago I submitted a fantastic candidate, currently practicing in New York, to a firm here in Chicago.  The firm responded by letting me know that they liked the candidate’s resume and asking if I knew whether this candidate had any plans to be in Chicago in the next month.  If so, the firm would like to interview her, but the firm was not willing to pay for the candidate to fly into Chicago for the interview.

Knowing that my candidate had no immediate plans to come to Chicago, I called her and told her to book the first flight out here to meet with the firm.  While she was excited at the prospect of doing so, she pushed back at my suggestion because, as she put it “my [current] firm pays me next to nothing, and I cannot afford to pay for my own flight.”

While I felt badly for this candidate, I spent the next few minutes explaining to her that in this market, firms have plenty of candidates to choose from, so if she didn’t fly in for the interview, the firm was going to find other candidates who would.  Thankfully, it clicked with my candidate, and $350 later, she was on her way to Chicago and ready to meet with the firm.

Thankfully, the interview went very well.  In fact, the partner with whom she met liked her so much that he invited her back on the spot for another round of interviews while she was in town.  This time, the firm would pay for her to change her return flight so that she could stay in town for the interview.

This full round of interview took place yesterday, and while we have not yet heard whether she is going to be given an offer from the firm, the point of the story is that she would never have found herself in this position if she hadn’t taken the chance and come out, on her own dime, for the interview.

Why I Love The Chambers and Partners Website

I am consistently surprised by the number of attorneys that have not heard of the Chambers and Partners website (www.chambersandpartners.com), since it is a website that I frequent multiple times each day. Since 1990, Chambers and Partners (“C&P”) has been providing independent rankings and commentary for the worlds’ top law firms. While I am in no way affiliated with C&P, nor am I am expert on navigating the website, I find the law firm information and rankings to be extremely useful, especially when trying to determine whether a particular law firm or practice within a firm would be a good fit for a specific candidate.
As anyone in the legal field knows, there are countless law firms in this country (and in the world), and trying to distinguish them from one another can be difficult, to say the least. Moreover, while many firms have terrific websites filled with detailed practice descriptions and biographies of the practicing attorneys, other websites leave a lot to be desired. This is where C&P comes in handy. In addition to providing contact information for the firm, the number of attorneys who practice in the firm, a summary of the major areas practiced by the law firm and the location of the various firm offices, for each major practice area in a particular state, C&P ranks the top law firms into various Bands (Band 1 being the top firms, Band 2 being the next best and so on). Moreover, it provides detailed summaries of the specific practice, the clients serviced by the department and the star attorneys in the group. All of the information provided by C&P is gathered by independent third parties, none of whom are affiliated with a particular law firm. As a result, unlike a law firm website, which is put together by the firm itself, C&P provides unbiased, objective information about the firm practice. It is for this reason that I recommend that all candidates review the law firm summaries as well as the practice area rankings for the firms the candidate is evaluating.
By no means does C&P provide all of the information an attorney needs to assess whether a firm may be a good fit. That is because C&P does not provide information on the personalities of the individual attorneys in the group, the way projects are distributed to attorneys, the culture of the firm, how attorneys are evaluated, or other anecdotal information, all of which is extremely important when determining whether a particular firm would be a good place to work. Even so, it provides a good starting point from which attorneys looking to make a lateral move can assess the major firms in a particular geographic area.
Take a look.

Don’t Torture Yourself Post-Interview

Last week, I prepared a very qualified candidate for an interview for her “dream job.” Sure, she was a little nervous about a few questions she might be asked about her resume. After all, about a year ago, after working at her law firm for a number of years, she up and quit her job to care for an ailing family member and do volunteer work. Plus, she felt “rusty” in terms of her interviewing skills, in large part because she had not interviewed for a job since before graduating from law school.

By the time we conducted the preparation session for the interview, this candidate had done her homework and practiced answers to many of the questions we anticipated she would be asked. As we spoke, she fine-tuned her answers and articulated them in the most concise way. Moreover, she had researched the individuals with whom she was going to meet and crafted some insightful questions for each of the interviewers. By the time she was finished preparing for the interview, she was confident, excited and ready to go. As I always do, I asked her to call me after the interview to provide me a summary of how she thought it went.

As the obedient candidate that she is, she called me as soon as she finished the interview. That is when the self-torture began. She began recounting each and every sentence she articulated to each interviewer and began tearing each response apart. Within two minutes of calling me, she was practically in tears, convinced that she had sounded like an uneducated, inarticulate, unqualified candidate who had no chance of receiving an offer.

Now, don’t get me wrong, we are all human, and sometimes candidates say stupid things in interviews. But as this candidate recited the answers she provided to the questions asked, I thought she sounded fantastic. Sure, her answers were not “perfect,” and she may have said “ah” and “um” a few more times than she needed to, but overall, she relayed professional, concise answers that showed not only an interest in the job but a true expertise. However, in her mind, she had failed to explain in the best possible detail how and why she was the best candidate for the job. As our conversation continued, and her panic grew, I had to cut her off and begin my Post-Interview Lecture, which goes something like this:

DO NOT TORTURE YOURSELF AFTER AN INTERVIEW. Once it is over, there is absolutely nothing you can to do go back and re-answer the questions asked of you, so there is no use in obsessing about each and every word you said during the interview. Instead, take a deep breath, pat yourself on the back, and remind yourself that you prepared for the interview to the best of your ability and gave it your best shot.

Of course this lecture is completely inapplicable to the candidate who thinks he or she does not have to prepare for an interview, but I will save those individuals for another blog. If you have thoroughly prepared for an interview and given everything you have, then torturing yourself after the interview with the things you said (or failed to say) is completely counterproductive. Sure, there is always room for improvement and things that can be learned from an interview, and for those reasons, reflecting on the interview is very important. But reflecting on an interview is very different than obsessing about it and convincing yourself that you completely blew it.

After multiple calls to me, during which she relayed additional “stupid” things she said during her interview, I finally convinced my candidate to let it all go. Easier said than done, but I think she is starting to realize how destructive her behavior was. While she has not yet heard from the firm, and she is not confident that she will receive an offer for this job, she is no longer spending 90% of her time thinking about the “deficient” answers she gave and the “proper” answer she should have provided.

Or at least that is what she is telling me.

Don’t Rely on your Acting Skills

Here in the Midwest, the economy is improving (finally!) and we are seeing more and more opportunities.  This is great news, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that the job offers are going to start pouring in.  The competition for the jobs is brutal, and there are some pretty fantastic candidates out there competing for a relatively small number of positions.  Consequently, when interviewing for a job, you need to be fully prepared and engaged in the position, firm and process.  Without this focus, there is almost no chance that you will secure the position.  That is, unless you are a professionally trained actor.

The other day, I was preparing a candidate for an interview.  The firm with which he was interviewing was a great one:  strong reputation with solid work and a collegial atmosphere.  The position, on the other hand, was not a perfect fit for him.  This candidate began his career in commercial litigation, and after four years of practice moved into white collar crime before being laid off for economic reasons.  The current position was for a commercial litigation associate, and while my candidate had the requisite skills and experience (and expressed interest in applying to the job), I was having a hard time preparing him for the interview.  It seemed like he had a dull, almost apathetic response for every question I asked him, after which he’d say something like “in the interview, I’ll be more enthusiastic,” a statement I have learned not to trust.

After a few minutes of this painful question and answer session, I finally stopped and said something like “why are we wasting your time and mine on this interview if it’s clear that you don’t want the job?”  To which he replied “because I don’t have a job and I need one.”

I get it.  When unemployed, it is best to keep an open mind and apply for positions even if they do not appear to be the exact fit.  But, needing a job, without other reasons, does not qualify as a good enough reason for wanting the position.  If a candidate is going to bother with this process (especially if he is using a recruiter), he should be interested in enough to be able to sincerely state why he wants the job and why he would be the best choice for the position.  My candidate was expecting to rely on his acting skills for the interview and planned to throw out a couple of generic reasons for wanting the position.

Simply put, his plan was a recipe for failure.  In order to have any chance of getting a callback interview, my candidate needed to have some sincere reasons for wanting the job.  So, I spent the next half hour breaking apart the job, the firm and the opportunity in order to help him to see that there were things about the job that were very attractive to him.  There was tremendous opportunity for growth and business development, and the firm did a little white collar crime, so there was hope that in the future, my candidate might be able to partake in that work.  By the end of the prep session, my candidate could actually answer the questions I posed with a little bit of sincerity, energy and (almost) excitement.

It wasn’t an easy process, but I am pretty sure that it helped him secure the callback interview he has next week.