Jenny Burg Davis and Brenda Sapino Jeffries of the Texas Lawyer had this interesting piece on dressing to impress during your summer associate programs. Four large firm partners (from Weil Gotshal, DLA Piper, Fulbright & Jaworski, and Godwin Pappas) weigh in with their thoughts.
The notion that a partner or associate must produce 2,000 or 2,400 hours of billable work yearly virtually assures that some clients will be overbilled.
…
Of course, almost all firms have stated policies that forbid…unethical and illegal billing practices. The extent to which these policies are actually followed depends on the firm culture, on unspoken messages that leaders of the firm send to its lawyers.
…
When money becomes the primary goal, a law firm may end up choosing to systematically inflate client bills and even to bill for expenses not actually incurred for those clients.
–Seth Rosner, American Bar Association Journal, May 1992
One of the most important aspects of your legal career-and almost among the most mysterious to young attorneys and others working both inside and outside of law firms-is law firm economics. The economics of your particular law firm will have profound significance in terms of what happens with your legal career. Many legal careers end up being quite successful in certain law firm economic environments where they might fail in other economic environments. Smart attorneys and law students should have a good understanding of law firm economics before joining any law firm.
The problem with law firm economics is that very little exists out there to explain it. Law firms certainly do not tell their associates how the economics of their firms work. Many law firms do not even tell their partners how the economics of law firms work. Certainly this is something that is rarely if ever be taught in law school. Different law firms are built and operated in different ways; however, to succeed in a law firm you must have a good understanding-or at least follow-many of the unspoken rules that govern law firm economics.
At the outset it is important to note that there are several different models that law firms follow. The purpose of this article is to explore the common economic model that governs large and midsized law firms at the law clerk, associate and partner level. The purpose of this article is not to explore how staffing of paralegals and legal secretaries works inside law firms-which is a separate topic entirely. I should note that this is not a pleasant article to write because much of what it says is a critique of the legal profession. Nevertheless, what is true cannot be ignored and you will have a difficult time succeeding at a high level inside a law firm unless you understand its economic model.
A. The Importance of the Billable Hour To Law Firm Economics
It is important to be ever cognizant of the fact that most large and midsized law firms are run to be profit centers and to make as much money as possible. In this regard, the way law firms make money through their arrangements with clients must be understood. There are many different sorts of billing arrangements from fixed fee, to contingency. Nevertheless, in almost all cases large to midsized law firms prefer the billable hour approach.
Historically, law firms simply billed clients by what they perceived as the “value” of the work they were doing-or quoted a fee up front. In many cases law firms would quote a fee upfront and that would be what they charged. In still other cases, at the conclusion of a case a partner in the law firm might even look at the size of the file they and their associates had worked on an tell their secretary something to the effect of: “That feels like about a $2,000 file. Send them a bill for that.”
There was a point in time when the billing done by attorneys was not based on the billable hour. At some point not too long ago (within the past 40 years) a gradual transition occurred to lawyers basing the value of their time on the billable hour.
In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, lawyers routinely billed their clients relatively standard fees based upon their experience performing a particular service. For example, a simple will might cost $50 at the turn of the century; an uncontested divorce, $200; and, a house closing, $100.
Some clients, however, complained that such fixed rates led to price fixing and extraordinarily high hourly rates for some lawyers. For their part, lawyers responded with the Br’er Rabbit defense. “Please, oh, please,” they pleaded, “don’t throw us into that briar patch of hourly rates. Oh noooo!” Citing the concern over price fixing charges, the agreed to hourly rates as a standard for the industry and touted it as a consumer-protection measure.
Donald E. deKieffer, How Lawyers Screw Their Clients, p.28
Because of this sweeping change, the legal landscape has been altered quite dramatically. Today, the economic engine inside most law firms is based on the billable hour.
As an aside, I can tell you that I am not sure if this was the best move. In my position as a legal recruiter and having spent the past several years talking to countless attorneys on a daily basis, I do not think I have ever encountered a single situation where an attorney was told they were billing too much-or that they worked too much time on a single project. Conversely, I have encountered episode upon episode of the reverse occurring. Compensation and even many hiring and firing decisions inside most law firms are now based more on production than value produced for the client.
Generally-and indeed almost always-the law firm as an institution is almost never guilty of padding its bills and the time its associates work on various matters. I have never personally encountered an episode of this occurring. However, law firms do as institutions push both their partners and associates to pad their bills. Since the client is being charged on the basis of the billable hour, the client will receive an accurate bill for the hours reported by the attorneys who worked on a given matter. Whether or not this bill accurately reflects the amount of time necessary to complete a given task is another story.
The point of this discussion is that once you are inside a law firm it is essential that you understand the importance of the billable hour in the law firm’s profitability as well as the law firm’s personal evaluation of you. As will be explained below, the significance of the billable hour will be different at each point in your legal career.
B. The Economic Significance of Various Seniority Levels Inside a Law Firm
The organization of most American law firms is as follows. First, the law firm generally will have a least a few law clerks who are law students or waiting for bar results. In large law firms, most law clerks are called summer associates. Second, the law firm will have junior, midlevel and senior associates. Third, the law firm will have attorneys at a counsel level and partners. At the partner level, there may also be levels of partners such as income partners and equity partners. At each stage of your seniority with a law firm, your value to the law firm will change and the expectations the law firm has of you from an economic perspective will change.
1. The Law Clerk
Most organized law firms have law clerks. Law clerks are typically called summer associates in larger law firms; however, many large law firms employ clerks who are in school during the school year. The law clerk typically makes anything from no salary, to an hourly salary ranging from $10 to $50 an hour, to a weekly salary that can be in excess of $2,000/week in some of the larger law firms.
The law clerk’s purpose from the law firm’s perspective is that it allows the law firm to do recruiting while simultaneously having the opportunity to “try before they buy”. Law firms will generally use law clerks for tasks which are not necessarily profitable for the law firm but helpful to the firm nevertheless. For example, a summer associate may be used for research the firm needs done on an important matter. Or, a law clerk may be used during the summer or school year for mundane tasks that the firm does not want its associates working on.
One of the largest points of the summer associate and law clerk program, though, may be somewhat unspoken. A large reason I would argue that these programs even exist is so that law firms can evaluate whether law students can play the economic game inside of a law firm.
A couple of years ago I received a telephone call from a summer associate inside a large Manhattan law firm who had just received their first review from their summer law firm. The law firm was unusually harsh on this summer associate and made several trivial comments about her attitude, “drive” and focus. In fact, the law firm said so many negative things I asked the summer associate to stop talking after 5 minutes or so. It was clear she would not get an offer to join the firm following the summer if she continued this way
“How many hours did you bill?” I asked.
“I have been billing about 35 hours per week,” she said.
In my position, I learn to recognize the warning signs and had some very brief advice for this summer associate. I asked the summer associate a few brief questions about how assignments were handed out and then offered the following advice:
“Get all the work assignment you can that are not billable to firm clients. The reason you want these is because you do not want to be unethical. Then, for every nonbillable assignment you get, work like there is no tomorrow. Bill at least 70 hours a week for the next 5 weeks of your summer. Work weekends and whenever you get a chance. That is all you need to do.”
At the end of the summer, out of the 18 summer associates in her class, she was one of 5 to get an offer. The firm’s praise of her at the end of the summer was glowing and very, very strong.
This is, of course, a very sad commentary on the status of the American legal profession. Nevertheless, in virtually every case where I have counseled an attorney in serious trouble with their law firm I have found that a large portion of the reason they are experiencing difficulty has to do with how hard they are perceived to be working, the number of hours they are billing and-by extension-the amount of money the law firm is making off them. This is something law firms take very seriously. In only one instance out of the 100+ placements I have personally made over the past three years has one of my candidates ever been fired. When I spoke to the law firm about why the associate was being fired, one of the first things they complained about was the fact that the associate frequently left to office before 5:30 pm. I did not need to hear much more.
Many associates inside law firms often find themselves in a position where they are claiming that they do not have enough work and that partners are not assigning work to them. When questioned closely, I often find that these same associates are often perceived as not working hard enough (i.e., billing enough hours) on the assignments they receive from partners. Because partners are individually and as a group compensated based on the amount of work the associates they assign work to do, many partners would rather assign work to an associate who is going to work extremely hard on something and bill many hours-rather than an associate who will figure out a way to get the work done quickly and just as effectively.
Whether one calls this a “conspiracy” or something else, the fact needs to be understood that in many law firms associates are expected to bill the maximum amount of time they can to given projects whether it is warranted or not. This is reinforced through bonuses that are given to the hardest working associates (those who bill the most hours) and in other more subtle ways (such as not assigning work to associates who get work done as quickly as possible). As an attorney working inside a law firm, you are choosing a career where a large portion of your [perceived] value to the firm comes through how many hours you bill and not necessarily your legal skill at all points in time.
2. The Junior Associate
One of the most basic rules of law firms is that nothing is often as it seems. This is especially true with the junior associate. Law firms love to tell their junior associates that they are unprofitable and that the law firm does not make money off of them. In some respects this is true. However, the real fact of the matter is that junior associates are profitable-but not as profitable as midlevel to senior associates.
Junior associates are one of the most important components of the law firm economic engine. There are several reasons for this; however, a great deal of the reason for this is simply that clients do not have a very good understanding of the law firm economic engine. No matter whether the client is a large or small one, they do look at the bills that law firms send out. Let me share with you the billing rates of a particular law firm that I am somewhat familiar with:
Law Clerk (Summer Associate) $140/hour
1st Year $170/hour
2nd Year $215/hour
3rd Year $265/hour
4th Year $310/hour
—-
Partner $400+/hour
The fact of the matter is that a partner, in almost any law firm, can do most legal type assignments for clients much, much faster than the junior associate. In fact, I dare to say that in many cases a junior associate could work on a certain matter for one or two days that a partner could figure out in 15 to 20 minutes. If you are an associate with more than one year of experience in a large law firm you should be aware of this. You have undoubtedly seen numerous associates in your own firm work several hours more than they would need to on an existing assignment.
In some respects, then, the employing of junior associates by law firms would not make a lot of sense, then. Every year large crops of junior associates are hired by law firms all over the United States to begin work on important legal matters for the firm’s clients. These associates need a great deal of training to become effective at their work. These junior associates are also an excellent source of profit for the law firm.
In considering the above billing rates you need to consider it from the point of view of the law firm and also the client. I personally hire attorneys all the time for the companies I work for. When you hire a law firm, you are generally working directly with a partner who will figure out the “most efficient way” to get the work done for you. Early on in your legal matter, there are usually a variety of legal matters that can be researched and analyzed. The partner may already understand these issues; however, he or she will generally say something like this to the client:
“Before we figure out what we are going to do, it would be best to get the answers to the following questions …. I could work on it but my billing rate is quite high. I would recommend me asking junior associate X to do the work. Their billing rate is almost ½ of what mine is and …”
The work is then handed off to a junior associate. The junior associate knows that they are valued by their firm based on their individual productivity (i.e., how many hours they bill) and they have every incentive to work just as hard as they can and as many hours as they can on the project. The partner then can do more interesting work and rest assured that as many hours as possible will be given to the task and the bill correspondingly increased. None of this is to say anything dishonest is occurring; however, on many levels it may be:
1. The junior associate may be asked to research questions which the partner does not really need to know the answers to;
2. The junior associate may not have highly developed research skills and will spend more time than necessary on the project;
3. The associate will be under the belief (in most law firms) that the memo they produce for the partner will need to be 100% flawless in its language and grammar and may spend 2-3 times longer just perfecting the memo’s syntax and so forth rather than simply giving the partner the answer;
4. Upon answering the question, the partner may think of new issues they want the associate to explore.
You should get the idea. Regardless whether it is legal research or another task, after a certain amount of work by the junior associate a bill is produced. When the bill is produced the partner may have the following conversation with the client:
“Well, I am certainly glad we used junior associate x to do this work. There turned out to be a lot more issues that we need to consider and which I was not aware of. I really wanted to ensure we did a good job here and I know it is a bit more than you wanted to spend, so I have reduced junior associate’s billable hours on this by 20 percent. I really appreciate you trusting us with this assignment.”
This sort of conversation repeats itself all over the United States probably thousands of times a day. The economics of the junior associate make a tremendous amount of sense from the law firm’s perspective-especially if the junior associate is playing the game (and if they have a steep learning curve with each assignment they are, almost by definition going to be playing the game). The amount of work the junior associate may do on a given project is nothing short of extraordinary. The junior associate can make the partner look like the “good one”; however, because their billing rate is so much lower. In addition, the junior associate will spend far more time than necessary on most projects and therefore actually end up making the law firm more money. In the process, the law firm is able to train the junior associate on the client’s dime.
I want to assure you that there are many law firms out there that do not necessarily follow this model or approve of it. Nevertheless, this is the norm at most law firms and the ability to marshal large platoons of junior associates on various projects can be quite profitable to law firms.
3. The MidLevel Associate
After getting between 2 and 3 years of experience, an associate becomes a midlevel associate. If you speak with junior associates from top law schools working in major law firms throughout the United States, they will often say things like “I am just doing this for a year or two.” One reason for this statement is that they see so many of their fellow associates leaving for careers outside of the law once they become midlevel associates. The reason many of these attorneys leave is that once they are midlevel associates they are under the firm’s microscope and have entered a world where they are actually beginning to be expected do the work of competent lawyers. The midlevel associate is also at a level where they cannot fool either the client or the law firm with their legal skills developed during their time as junior associates. By this point the midlevel associate is expected to be a highly developed billing machine, relate to clients and do good legal work.
The midlevel associate is someone who can be quite profitable to a law firm. The midlevel associate is someone who fills a very good niche for the law firm. First, the midlevel associate can be given assignments by partners and then even delegate a lot of this work to junior associates. Partners enjoy not having to deal with junior associates because they do not for the most part know what they are doing. If a midlevel associate is good, they will have the ability to gauge how much work the partner expects to occur by both them and the junior associate(s) on a given matter. Second, the midlevel associate is usually competent enough to get most of the work done-or figure out how to get it done without asking a lot of questions. Third, the midlevel associate’s billing rate is not as outrageous as a senior associate or a partner’s billing rate. Therefore, they are also a good candidate for giving clients the appearance of being available to do work at a low cost (albeit, work more complicated than that typically given to junior associates).
Most law firms have a party line that the most profitable type of associate is the midlevel associate. Midlevel associates are almost always the best candidates for legal recruiters because they offer several advantages that other types of candidates do not offer law firms. First, midlevel associates are trained and know what they are doing. Second, midlevel associates can be assigned work without being threatening to partners (most of the time). Third, midlevel associates can be hired without being threatening to senior associates and upsetting the balance of power and appearance of upward mobility inside a law firm.
Consider again these hypothetical billing rates:
Law Clerk (Summer Associate) $140/hour
1st Year $170/hour
2nd Year $195/hour
3rd Year $235/hour
4th Year $265/hour
5th Year $295/hour
6th Year $325/hour
7th Year+ $345/hour
Counsel $365+/hour
—-
Partner $400+/hour
As you should be able to see above, the billing cluster for the midlevel associate (3rd through 5th year) does not appear nearly as threatening to the client as does the billing rates for the senior associate (6 year +) or the partner. Paradoxically, the midlevel associate is also quite effective and, in many cases, almost as effective as the partner.
Consider a hypothetical $100,000 matter a partner of the firm brings in. Here is one scenario regarding how the billings may be divided up:
$100,000 Matter Distribution
$15,000 15% Percent of Billings Of Matter Generated
$30,000 30% Percent of Partner’s Individual Billings (What the partner works on themselves)
$55,000 55% goes to Firm Overhead and Partnership Distributions
Under this economic model (and every firm’s economic model is different for partners, but each has some similarities to the model above) the partner is compensated most highly for the matters they work on themselves. They are compensated individually less for the work that others do on their matters. Here, the partner has more incentive to work on matters themselves and bill at a higher rate than they do to have others within the firm work on a matter.
Every type of work assignment a partner gets will be different. For example, some projects may require a partner do all of the work themselves. For the most part, though, in order to hold onto clients a partner will need to give others within the firm work. Partners inside law firms are all running little individual businesses. If partners price their services too high then clients will go elsewhere. If the partner does not price their service high enough then the partner will lose money. The goal is to find a balance.
The utilization of midlevel associates is something that is actually beneficial to clients in many cases because the work will be done more efficiently than by a junior associate and also quite effectively. Because of the effectiveness of the midlevel associate, firms utilize them quite often and in most law firms very little of their work needs to be written off or justified to clients because it is well done.
4. The Senior Associate
The senior associate represents a very dangerous beast to most law firms. A senior associate generally has at least 6 years of experience. At the senior associate level, most attorneys know exactly what they are doing on various projects. Their legal knowledge may be as good or quite comparable to partners. However, there is very little demand in the marketplace for senior associates and this is largely true due to the operation of firm economics.
The reason that senior associates often represent a problem for law firms is that the billing rate of a senior associate will approach that of a partner. If partners are required by their law firms to bill a certain number of hours, they will be unlikely to give work to senior associates because it will cut into the partner’s individual productivity. Unless a firm has a great deal of work coming from clients that are ready to pay large hourly rates, partners would rather do the work themselves than give it to a senior associate.
In the law firm environment, the senior associates must get as many billable hours as possible in order to survive. In order for there to be a great deal of work for these senior associates, the law firm must have a lot of work that can be billed out at high rates to senior associates. Even if the law firm does not, the presence of a senior associate creates pressure on partners to generate work to give to these senior associates. The senior associates that are the best at getting work will have the highest billable hours and be the most likely to survive inside the law firm.
It is also because of their high billing rate that senior associates in most large law firms begin feeling pressure to generate their own clients. The senior associate who is able to generate massive amounts of work-whether on their own or by being given work from partners in the firm-will be the one who is seriously considered for partner or a counsel position. If the senior associate cannot generate this work, they will be asked to leave at some point because they will not make sense to the firm from an economic standpoint.
5. The Partner and Counsel Level Attorneys
Many partners will tell you that they wished they were associates again. The most successful partners will not. At the partner level, the responsibility will be to perform good legal work and continue to generate work whether it be from other partners or outside clients. In addition to being self-sustaining, the partner is also expected to feed the economic engine of junior to senior associates with work (at the largest firms).
C. What The Economics of Law Clerks, Associates and Partners Means to Your Legal Career
Your success in a law firm based upon the billable hour will be based-at every single point in your legal career-upon the ability to generate revenue through the billable hour. This is much harder than it may first appear.
As a law clerk and summer associate, you will be evaluated based upon your work product and how much other people like you. You will also be evaluated whether or not you show promise to work under the law firm’s economic paradigm. The summer associates and law clerks I have seen not get offers in my career for the most part were the associates who did not fit in under the law firm’s economic model. They told partners certain work did not need to be done or did various projects for the firm with little enthusiasm.
At the junior associate level, your responsibility will be to do the work you are asked to do and to work as hard as you can on the work you get. In most large law firms, the junior associate working ridiculous hours is something that is certainly romanticized. The reason this is seen as such a good thing and that the culture of most law firms portrays it as such is because this is something that is quite profitable to law firms. Law firms make a great deal of money from junior associates toiling long hours. In order to succeed in a large or midsized law firm, you are going to need to work hard for the most part if you are going to succeed.
Midlevel associates are actually given work because (1) they are efficient and (2) can do the work competently in most cases. While midlevel associates may be profitable to most law firms, their real value is to the client who can get their work done competently at a reasonable price. In order to succeed as a midlevel associate you are going to need to be competent and you are also going to need to work hard.
Senior associates must ensure they get as much work as possible to survive. The ability to get work will determine their success. Whether it comes through other lawyers in the firm, or the work is generated on their own, the need is the same. The same holds true for parters.
Depending upon the size of the law firm, the importance of the economic model remains the same: To work as much as possible. When an attorney chooses which law firm they want to go to work for the most important thing they should be considering is whether they can realistically move up the given law firm’s food chain with their given set of skills and work ability. Given the economics of most law firms, this will not be possible.
From most law student and a lateral associate’s perspective, the very best firms to go to work for are the largest and best law firms. These are also the firms, coincidentally, that have the highest salaries and the most flushed out economic models. This may be the best choice for you, or it may not.
For any lawyer, the key to survival is to generate work. The work can only be generated if there is work to give. In large law firms with massive clients, they will at most points in time have a limited amount of work to give out at the partner, counsel and senior associate level. The amount of work available to give out will increase dramatically at the midlevel an junior associate level. In order to succeed under this economic model, by definition you need to work hard at the junior associate level. You then need to become competent at the midlevel and get as much work as possible.
The senior associate to partner and counsel level involves the ability to continue working. Because this is so difficult, it is at this point that many attorneys go in house or to smaller firms. The lure of an in house position is an escape from the competition to get work. The lure of a smaller firm is most often lower billing rates which means that clients are more willing to give the firm’s attorneys work that would otherwise go to larger law firms and thus can be worked on by senior associate level attorneys with much lower billing rates. Another lure of the smaller law firm for senior associates is that they can attract their own clients with lower billing rates. At a large law firm that does work for large clients, the billing rates may be so high as to all but foreclose bringing in all but the largest clients.
At the end of the day, you need to understand that surviving under the law firm economic model is almost entirely dependent upon your ability to continue working-and working as much as possible. How you achieve that is up to you. You are not going to get more work, though, unless you prove you will work hard, play the economic game and get the people with the work (whether they are other attorneys inside your firm or outside clients) to like you and give you work.
I have had the privilege of working with a number of labor and employment partners who are seeking to depart general practice firms for a variety of reasons. Some of the reasons partners are leaving include: demanding billing rate structures, conflicts and practice profitability pressures. Labor and employment boutiques offer excellent alternatives for partners seeking to leave general practice firms.
Rate Structures. Often labor and employment partners in the largest general practice firms not only feel the pressure to increase their rates for long-term clients, but also to dramatically increase their billable hours and books of business. In some cases, this is doable if the firm at which they are practicing has a strong (and busy) corporate client base, and provides excellent cross-selling opportunities internally. Unfortunately, not all firms are as successful in encouraging cross-selling as others and in a depressed economy where corporate departments may be suffering, cross-selling to corporate clients becomes a significant hurdle for many labor and employment partners. Since labor and employment boutiques can often be more accommodating to lower billing rate structures and alternative rate arrangements, they are excellent alternatives to general practice firms.
Conflicts. As general practice firms continue to grow and expand, conflicts become more and more prominent for partners who may be interested in bringing in new clients with labor and employment needs. It is unlikely that a labor and employment partner will face the same types of conflicts situations in a boutique environment.
Profitability Pressures. With increased billing rate pressures and firms focusing on the bottom line, many labor and employment partners with slightly lower billing rate structures are under tremendous pressure at general practice firms which typically don’t view labor and employment practices as huge profit centers. Thus, the national labor and employment boutique environment can present a very healthy alternative for a partner experiencing these pressures.
If you’re a labor and employment partner facing these obstacles at a general practice firm, think about the boutique environment as an alternative. Even in this challenging economic environment, opportunities abound!
One of the questions I receive quite often from attorneys I am working with is whether or not they should talk about other interviews while they are interviewing with a law firm. Let me emphasize one thing: This is one of the more important questions you will ever be asked in an interview. Regardless of your qualifications, how you respond to this question will have a direct bearing on whether or not you receive an offer from the law firm asking you this question. Be very careful as to how you answer this question.
At the outset, it is important to point out that you do not have to answer this question but should. This question will also often not be asked. Indeed, it is my opinion that this question is entirely inappropriate. In no instance should you even volunteer this information unless you are asked. The problem is that if you are asked this question you will look bad if you refuse to answer it. Not answering the question gives the employer the impression that you will similarly “hide the ball” when you are working for them. It also does not do much to assist you in establishing a bond of trust, empathy and understanding with potential new employer. Therefore, it is my opinion that his question must be answered. There are two important rules you must keep in mind when answering this question.
First, you need to understand that most firms are unlikely to give you offers unless they think you are their first choice firm. There are certainly exceptions when firms make offers to people who they do not think are their first choice law firms. As a general rule, though, if a firm believes you are their first choice you will be better off. Because I am a legal recruiter, I see instances all the time when attorneys go to work for law firms that initially were not their first choice. Many firms are very good at recruiting and can convince most people to join their firm when they extend offers-even in the face of competing offers. Nevertheless, for the most part a firm wants to believe you are their first choice and this will have a direct bearing the substantial majority of time on whether an offer is extended.
Second, how you justify why you are interviewing with the firms you are interviewing with will also have a direct bearing on whether or not the firm makes you an offer. In addition to knowing that you are their first choice, law firms also want to know that you are likely to remain with them after joining. They also want to know why they are the best fit among potentially competing offers. Furthermore, the law firm wants assurances that it is not making a mistake making an offer to you. How you justify where else you are interviewing will have a direct impact on your potential success in terms of getting an offer.
1. Before You Ever Tell An Employer Who Else You Are Interviewing With The Firm Must Believe You Are Their First Choice
I have a quick story from personal experience that is related to law firm interviewing-albeit, indirectly. I am an Area Chair for the admissions office of a major American university in Los Angeles. In this position, I am largely responsible for ensuring applicants to the University in my area are interviewed. While I am not the one making the ultimate decisions as to whom the school admits, I do put together reports on everyone I speak with and express my enthusiasm (or lack thereof) for each applicant. I would have a hard time believing that my reviews do not carry at least some weight in the admissions process. This year I probably interviewed 50 students for the school. This school is generally ranked a “Top 10″ American college; however, in some years it is slightly lower.
As is typical of most interviews, I speak with the high school students about their dreams and aspirations for college and ask them why they are interested in attending the University. Because I also attended the school, I have a decent understanding of the sorts of students that are likely to be happy and fit in well at the school. This experience is derived largely from personal experience of having attended the school myself. In my experience, the sorts of students I believe would be a good fit for the school are also the same sorts of students who seem the most enthusiastic to me and give me the most compelling reasons for wanting to attend.
One challenge of these interviews is trying to decide who among a great number of highly qualified individuals really wants to go to the school. If someone is not qualified for the school, my job is easy because I know they will be rejected. Because the University is a highly ranked school, the majority of students I speak with inevitably are applying to schools like Princeton, Yale and other similarly situated schools. Accordingly, one of the first questions on my mind is this: Why my school and not another highly ranked one?
This situation is compounded by an obvious fact: While I certainly believe the school I am interviewing with is the top university in the United States (and could argue convincingly about this all day) it is not the number one ranked university and probably has never been. Now if I was interviewing for a university consistently ranked number one in the United States, I would think that the university was every student’s top choice. Because it is not the top university, I know that several people I am speaking with would probably rather go to a more prestigious university.
Now if you think about this, this rationale is very similar to what goes on when law students and attorneys are interviewing with law firms. In an extreme, if you are interviewing with Skadden Arps Slate Meager & Flom (“Skadden”) and a small 15 person law firm in New Jersey that pays less than half of what Skadden does, most rationale observers would presume that you would rather go to Skadden than the small 15 person law firm.
Imagine for a moment what the 15 person law firm is thinking if you tell them that you are interviewing with Skadden. Do you think that you would really want to go there? Now imagine what Skadden is going to think if you tell them you are interviewing with the small 15 person law firm. They are likely going to think that you are not that marketable, for one. Or they might think that Skadden is a reach for you and want to help you advance. You need to put yourself in the shoes of the person making hiring decisions because what they think will determine whether or not you are ultimately hired.
Why do I ask myself if the student really wants to attend the university I am interviewing for? I ask myself this question because I want to make sure that if I put a strong recommendation behind the person they are likely to attend the school. Do not get me wrong: If you are a stellar applicant you will still get a stellar recommendation. But someone who really wants what you are offering is always going to be far more attractive than someone who does not.
What the University does with this information is their business. However, I do like to be able to say “the University is this person’s first choice and I am confident they will come if they are admitted. I believe the person that the school is their first choice because of X, Y and Z. Furthermore, they are the sort of person I imagine would do quite well there because they share so much in common with others students I knew while there.”
When a law firm is interviewing you, the same sort of logic applies. Law firms receive numerous applications from highly qualified individuals constantly. If a law firm thinks you will never take an offer from them, they are not going to be interested in speaking with you. In the event you do get an interview, if the law firm thinks you are just looking to go to the most prestigious law firm (and they are not that prestigious) then the law firm is not likely to make you an offer.
As an aside, I should note that I see this sort of phenomenon all the time. I deal with attorneys at some of the top law firms in the world on a daily basis. Many of these attorneys want to go to smaller firms that pay far less. While most of these attorneys are under the impression that the smaller firm would “die” to have them, the opposite is most often true. If the attorney is coming from a far superior law firm, the smaller law firm and its attorneys might be intimidated by hiring the attorney because they never worked in such a smaller law firm. People do not like to spend time with those they think (or others think) are superior to them.
You can draw on personal experience in this analogy. One example would probably be a lot of your high school friends if you went to a public school and now practice law. A lot of these people probably have not done much with their lives. You are not the same people anymore and they are not as comfortable around you anymore. They are uncomfortable because they perceive inequality. Surely this does not apply to all your past friends, however, I am confident it applies to many of them. Regardless of how you may feel with this continued association, they are not like as likely to be as comfortable. This is also one reason people do not tend to marry outside their social class, for example. It creates too many difficulties due to a perceived superior and inferior role. No one likes to be around others that remind them of their potential inadequacies. Law firms are the exact same.
I am an expert in getting attorneys jobs inside law firms. I know nothing about in-house placements, or other sorts of legal-related placements. Law firms, by their nature, are strange and unique creatures. Law firms want to save face. Having someone take another offer over them makes the law firm look bad in their eyes. It makes them feel inferior. This sort of event makes it seem to the attorneys that interviewed the candidate that the other law firm is a more attractive alternative. It is also a negative vote of confidence from you if you do not take an offer if one is extended.
So how does the question of whom you are interviewing with fit into the equation? First, you need to answer this question. This question will rarely be asked at the beginning of the interview, though. This is a very important question to answer and it must be answered correctly. Before you ever answer this question, though, the law firm you are interviewing with must-and I mean must-know that they are your first choice. If the firm thinks this then telling them everywhere you are interviewing can help you.
Back to the situation with the 15 person New Jersey firm. You could still very easily get an offer from this firm if you play your cards right. First, you need to walk into this interview and convince the firm that you really want to work there. Maybe you know someone at the firm that has said good things about it. Maybe they practice in an area of law you have been interested in since high school. Maybe their office is right across the street from your house. Maybe you want to work in a smaller firm so you can make partner. You need an arsenal at your disposal to give the law firm compelling reasons for hiring you. If you give the firm enough reasons that you are a good fit, they will look upon the fact that Skadden is interviewing you as something that verifies your worth in the market. The firm needs to think that you will be their first choice over Skadden. You taking an offer from them over Skadden will be a major vote of confidence in the small firm that is something the firm will use to impress upon its attorneys as to what a great place they are.
When I am interviewing candidates for the University, I can answer the question of whether or not the candidate is really interested in my opportunity in several ways. For example, if the student has 1580 on their SATs, is Captain of the football team, student counsel president and first in their class and my school is the only top school they are applying to then my job is easy. The student most likely is most interested in what my school offers.
Even if the student is applying to several more prestigious schools, I can still judge whether or not this same applicant really wants to attend the University by several methods: (1) If their parents went to the University and they have always wanted to go there, (2) If they attended the University for summer school, (3) If they worked for a professor of the University during high school, and (4) If their life has been profoundly influenced by the work of some professor they want to study under. You should get the idea. Even without this a stellar applicant will still get serious consideration. The point is your interviewer wants to say “this school is their first choice and I believe it.”
A law firm wants the same assurances that they are your first choice. These assurances need to be given at the interview stage and they need to be given early on. This is not an article about interviewing and I cannot tell you how to interview. I can tell you, though, that when a law firm believes you are their first choice you will have a better chance of getting an offer with the firm.
In an improving market (which this is) you are likely to get more than one interview and may very well end up with several offers. Accordingly, you may often be asked in interviews who else you are speaking with and so forth. How you address this question will actually have a strong bearing on whether or not an employer hires you.
2. How You Justify Why You Are Interviewing With Other Firms Will Have A Direct Bearing On Whether Or Not The Employer Hires You
There are several scenarios that you should be aware of and each one merits a separate response. If you have prepared the interviewer properly, you will do very well when asked where else you are interviewing. The potential scenarios are: (a) you are not interviewing with any other employers, (b) you are interviewing entirely will less prestigious firms, (c) you are interviewing with a mix of firms, corporations and other types of employers, (d) you are interviewing with a mix of more prestigious and less prestigious firms, and (e) you are interviewing with all more prestigious firms. Given the importance of each of these hypotheticals, they will all be discussed below.
a. You are not interviewing with any other employers
If you are not interviewing with any other employers then you should tell the firm so. If you are in law school and this is occurring, the firm should be under the impression that you are just starting the interview process if this is the only interview you have so far. Employers do not want to feel as if you are the black sheep and someone without a lot of options.
If you are interviewing laterally, it is perfectly acceptable to tell the employer that you are not interviewing with any other employers. In this situation, the rationale for having only one interview should be that (1) you are not interested in a new job for the sake of a new job, and (2) the only reason you are speaking with this firm is because they are a perfect fit for your interests. The firm needs to think they are a perfect match for you. There are several additional reasons firms like to hear you are interviewing only with them:
?It makes you look loyal to your current employer-by stating that you are interviewing with only one employer, it makes it seem as if you are not doing an “all out” search to find new positions. You are only interested in this one interview because the firm matches what you are seeking so closely.
?It puts the firm in a position where they know if they make you an offer you are likely to take it-By having only one interview, the firm can give itself more assurances that if an offer is made to you that you will likely take it.
?It puts the firm in a position where they know if they make you an offer you will not choose one of their competitors over them-If you inform the firm that you have only one interview, the firm will have the assurance that they will not look “lose face” if you take an offer from one of their competitors.
b. You are interviewing entirely with less prestigious employers
There are some potential positives to this admission. The positives are:
?Since we are the best firm, if we make the candidate an offer they will most likely come here.
?If the firm is more prestigious than the one you are currently at, the employer will think that you are trying to “move up”. It is almost axiomatic in American culture that we respect individuals who are trying to move up and improve their lot in life. After all, most of our ancestors were immigrants at some point and moved up the ladder. Indeed, some of their offspring are now even lawyers!
If you tell your interviewer that your other interviews are will less prestigious employers, you may have a problem. Here, the firm will certainly think to itself: “Can’t this attorney get an interview with better firms? Is there something wrong with them that we are missing?”
In this situation, you need to be very careful. One way to approach this is to state that you only are applying to places with openings and these are the only firms you are aware of with openings. In this way, the firm will believe that you are applying to these other firms and them simply in response to what you know. While in all likelihood you probably applied to more prestigious firms and have not heard back or were rejected, if the former is true you need to make the firm aware of it.
The most important thing you can do in this situation is to make it clear to the firm that you are qualified to work for them. For example, if you are interviewing with less prestigious firms that pays far less then tell the more prestigious firm that money is not a concern for you. Here, you can tell the firm you are most concerned with finding the “right fit” and that the less prestigious firms have a lot of attributes that might not be immediately transparent. In this instance, you put yourself in the position of someone who is more concerned with practicing law in the right environment than someone who is concerned with making as much money as possible. This sort of characterization can only help you.
There are many ways to get creative with this response. In sum, the most important thing you can do in a situation where all of your interviews are with less prestigious firms is to make the firm aware that (1) you are very interested in them, (2) seeking to move up, and (3) most concerned about finding a good fit.
c. You are interviewing with a mix of different classes of employers such as law firms, government offices and corporations
This is also a potential problem for you. If you are interviewing with different classes of employers beyond law firms then you also need to be extremely careful. The problem with this is that law firms are unique institutions. Most law firms have a billable hour requirement, have a division between partners and associates, encourage you to develop business and so forth. While I have written extensively on this topic before, the point is that law firms are unique institutions that have great respect for their own way of practicing law but look down on those who do not practice law under their methodology. For example, many law firm attorneys consider government attorneys lazy bureaucrats and look upon going in-house as a way to escape the pressure of law firm life. While these generalizations are not necessarily true, what is important to realize is that law firms think this way and believe that individuals that do not want to practice inside a law firm are not cut out for law firm life. Accordingly, telling a law firm you are interviewing with the government or and in-house employer is not necessarily in your best interest.
How you address this question is up to you. You must tell people where you are interviewing. If you are asked what other law firms you are interviewing with, then tell them what other law firms. You need to be honest with employers and not doing so is not only ethically wrong but will come back to haunt you.
If you are interviewing with an employer that is different than a law firm and are asked about this, you are going to need to let the employer know why you are going out on these interviews. There can be many potential explanations. Perhaps a friend asked you to interview with an in-house employer, you are interested in environmental law and interviewing with the environmental branch of the United States Department of Justice so you can get more experience doing environmental trials. Whatever the explanation you give for these other interviews, though, it is essential that you let the firm know that (1) a law firm is your first choice and (2) the other employer represents an opportunity for you to get significant experience and “move up” in terms of your skill level and so forth with a law firm.
In any law firm interview you go on, one of the most important things you can do for yourself is leave the firm with the impression that your actions in seeking to leave your current employer are motivated to “move up” and become a better attorney. However you phrase the fact that you are interviewing with other types of employers than law firms, this point needs to be made. Law firms want to hire winners. The fact that you are interviewing with non law firms interviews a lot of potential doubt in the law firms mind that you are not committed to practicing law in a law firm. Make them think the alternatives you are exploring to this are just as demanding.
d. You are interviewing with a mix of more prestigious and less prestigious firms
The issue in this situation is about the most normal occurrence for attorneys interviewing with law firms. Most attorneys that are interviewing are speaking with more prestigious and less prestigious firms. Here, your case does not need to be as compelling. Like in all the situations discussed above, the employer still must be left with the impression that they are your first choice. In addition, the employer must have a basis for understanding why you are interviewing with more than one firm.
Assuming that you have done your job of giving the employer the impression they are your first choice., the employer should also understand why you are speaking with so many different sorts of law firms. Here, the employer needs to be aware of why you are doing such a broad search. Accordingly, the employer needs to be aware of why something is seriously wrong with your current employment situation.
This is again a delicate topic. In all interviews you never want to leave the employer with the impression that you harbor any sort of ill will towards your current employer. Employers typically do not like attorneys who say bad things about those they work for because they believe that they could one day be on the opposite side of this. This simply makes you look bad. What you do need to do in the interview, though, is convince the employer that your current employment situation is preventing you from reaching your full potential. You need to project that you are leaving your current employer because you are trying to grow.
By upward momentum, I mean that your desire is to be better at you job, get more business, get better work and so forth. In sum, you should always try and portray yourself and your job search as follows:
While your decision to join your current employer was a good one, you have continued a pattern of “growth” that has characterized you from the very beginning and is evident in everything you have ever done. While it is unfortunate, your current firm is limiting your growth potential. The environment of the firm you are interviewing with offers this growth potential and that is why you are speaking with them. In fact, the growth potential of the firm you are interviewing with offers is “hands down” the best of the bunch in terms of the employers you are speaking with because of X and Y and Z …
If you were someone in charge of determining who you were going to hire, which candidate would you want to hire (1) someone without compelling reasons for being interested in your firm, (2) or someone who needs the environment your firm offers to grow? I am sure you can see the logic of this.
It is a fundamental human characteristic that we want to feel good about ourselves. Finding someone who needs an organization like ours to thrive and letting them work with such an organization is something that makes hiring authorities feel good about themselves. You need to give employers compelling reasons for hiring you.
Moreover, giving yourself “upward mobility” makes you sound like a winner and not a loser. People want to associate with winners and not losers. Firms want to hire winners and not losers. Give yourself upward mobility.
e. You are interviewing entirely with more prestigious firms
Given what has been said above, this section should not require a great deal of analysis. Here, you want to make the law firm believe that they are your first choice and that you will accept an offer from them if extended. The firm needs to feel special and understand your reasons for choosing them over competing opportunities.
3. Conclusions
You need to understand that how you address where else you are interviewing will have a major impact on whether or not you are hired. This, in fact, is one of the more important secrets to interviewing effectively. If there is one thing you take from this article it should be this: Always make the firm you are interviewing with feel like you are their first choice.
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.
If you go into any firm that has been around more than twenty or thirty years you will inevitably find a handful of attorneys who have been there from the very beginning of their careers. These well adjusted souls will typically report to work each day at a similar time and have managed to be the only ones presumably left in the law firm after generation upon generation of attorney coming and going.
Many attorneys do last for decades in the same firm and there are characteristics which uniformly seem to characterize these sorts of attorneys. While I am a legal recruiter, I do have a great deal of respect for attorneys who in this day and age are able to “stay put” at the same firm for a long period of time and remain at single firms throughout their careers. None of this is to say there are not really good and solid reasons for leaving a law firm or other legal environment if the going gets impossible. I am the first to admit that there are legal employment environments that can be intolerable for many. Nevertheless, you need to keep in mind that if a legal employer has been around for 30+ years there is a chance the employer is doing something right. Before leaving it is often wise to take inventory of yourself.
There are certain characteristics that tend to characterize attorneys who stick with the same legal employer for long lengths of time and also certain characteristics of this sort of employment situation. These characteristics are discussed below:
1. Attorneys Who Remain With the Same Firm for Long Lengths of Time Are Generally Very Committed to Their Jobs
Many people were raised with the idea (or have the idea) that fidelity to an employer is something that is simply expected. The unwritten rule is that if you are not treated horribly then there is really no reason you should ever end up leaving a job.
One of the saddest but also the most refreshing things I have seen as a legal recruiter is when I interview and meet with attorneys who have been with the same firm for 20 years or more and whose firms are going under-or who are in a position of being forced to look for other opportunities. When attorneys like this look for a new position their rationale is most often that something profound has happened at the firm that is making their separation necessary. These attorneys appear as if they are going through a divorce or have just had a death of someone they are very close to. For these sorts of attorneys, leaving a position is something that would be unthinkable and only in the event of a massive trauma.
This sort of fidelity between employers and employees reminds me often of people who have been married 50 years or more. There is a mutual respect that comes out of this and a thinking that both need one another. I believe that this sort of thinking is really missing in this day and age. While this may not seem related to careers, a statistic I once saw in a social science class showed that as divorce rates went up in society so did rates of drug abuse, suicide and other associated societal ills. The bond between an employer and an employee is a powerful force that in its best form is much like the bond between a husband and wife with a very committed relationship. Both sides respect and accept one another with certain conditions but for the most part unconditionally.
The attorney who is committed to their job is in many respects similar to someone who is committed to anything-there may be something else out there but they have decided to remain loyal. This sort of attitude is a very healthy one I believe and can also make these sorts of attorneys very settled. I know an attorney that was called by a rival firm and offered over $1,000,000 a year by this firm when he was making just barely above half of that. He was not interested in the money and was more concerned with the bond he had with his current firm. This is how it works when there is commitment on both ends.
2. Attorneys Who Remain With the Same Firm Are Not Interested in Office Gossip or Reasons Not to Succeed
In every organization there are typically people who are not succeeding at their jobs. These people generally are not doing their work in a competent manner and are also often looking for ways to cut corners with their work. Most organizations will generally call out this behavior and then speak with the employee. Some employees correct their behavior and others simply get mad at the organization. Some employees may be mad at their organizations for no particular reason at all-or may be angry with a previous organization and simply transfer their anger to their most recent organization. I remember a recruiter once telling me never to hire someone who had been fired from their last job. People who have been fired from their last job will typically take out their anger on their next organization he told me.
With anger a part of every legal employment organization, you need to understand that there are always going to be people in the organization who have a lot of anger towards their employers. These angry employees will start rumors, attempt to share their anger with others in the organization and often subtly (or not so subtly) forecast “gloom and doom” for their employer. This is how rumor mills get started and these sorts of rumor mills are prevalent in every legal organization there is for the most part.
Attorney who remain with their employers generally do not participate in these rumor mills or even pay attention to them. At certain times in an employer’s history there are likely to be calls of “crisis” of seemingly epidemic proportions as lots of people leave, for example. At other times there will be other issues. The overwhelming characteristic of attorneys who remain at firms for long periods of time is that they generally pay no attention to these rumor mills whatsoever.
3. Attorneys Who Remain With the Same Firm for Long Periods of Time Generally Are Not Interested in Being Grandstanders-They Are There to Do Their Jobs and Do Them Well
I once heard someone say that the most successful people are often the most screwed up. I am not sure if this is true, but there is some wisdom in every saying like this. Attorneys who are able to remain with the same employer for long periods of time are generally not concerned with “getting ahead” to the same extent as many other attorneys are. Many attorneys who are extremely concerned with getting ahead will often leave saying they are looking for better opportunities because they are interested in immediate advancement. In other cases attorneys will try and show up various attorneys in their firm.
Attorneys who remain at their firms for long periods of times are generally most interested in just doing their jobs. They have faith in their organizations and that things will work out for them. They are not loud and do not go out of their way to attract attention to themselves. Their main concern is to simply do the best job possible.
What ends up happening to attorneys who remain focused on their work and not grandstanding is they end up getting ahead while other attorneys end up putting their foot in their mouth. I remember when I first started practicing an attorney who was first in his class from a major law school and the Editor in Chief of his school’s law review. Everyone thought this particular attorney was really on his toes and someone likely to have major success at the firm. This attorney wrote articles on his spare time, argued with firm partners about the finer points of law (and was right when he argued). While this attorney was very smart he thought he was so good that he ended up sabotaging his career in the long run when he called a newspaper to discuss a case he was working on and ended up being quoted on the front page of the Los Angeles Daily Journal. The fallout from this incredible incident that the attorney left the law firm a month or two later and never worked for a large law firm again.
These sort of incidents aside, it is important to keep a moderately low profile in order to have long-term success in a law firm. It is never wise to raise your swords and capture the limelight. While someone can win a sword match for some time, they will eventually lose-and in a sword match (which your legal career could be compared to)-the loss is usually permanent.
4. Attorney Who Remain With Their Firms for Long Periods of Time Are Typically Do Good (But Not Necessarily ‘Brilliant’ Work)
An attorney who remains at their firm for long periods of time typically has learned to “pace themselves” and manages to do work on a day-to-day basis that is good but not necessarily extraordinary. This does not matter. I would estimate that the majority of the battle of being an excellent attorney is simply showing up. Sure some people can do extraordinary work; however, the brightest flame is not always the longest burning flame. The ability to consistently show up and do the work is the most important aspect of being a long-term performer in a law firm.
The smartest attorneys out there are often the ones who end up having the most problems in the practice of law. Attorneys who can consistently show up for work and do an excellent job send the message to colleagues, clients and others that they have the ability to get the job done. In the end it is all about getting the job done.
5. An Understanding of ‘Insiders’ and ‘Outsiders’ Typically Develops Between Attorneys Who Remain At Their Firms For Long Periods of Time
After an attorney has been with a law firm for an extended period of time and understanding develops between that attorney and others who have been at the firm a long period of time. An institutional understanding also develops. This understanding seems to say something to the effect of “people may come and go but we are the ones who are committed to this organization and we are the heart and soul of this place.” A similar sort of understanding that develops is that “we owe each other because we have each demonstrated a commitment.”
Bonds form between people who have been part of the same organization for long periods of time. These bonds are often invisible-but they are real bonds. These bonds are powerful and make the organization and forces within it come to the defense of those who are committed to the organization during times of organizational change and reorganization. These sorts of bonds are something that get stronger over time as an organization changes. After some time attorney who have been with the firm for decades are simply treated as part of the very fabric of the firm and virtually unquestioned.
Conclusions
While it may seem odd for a recruiter to write a story in defense of attorneys who remain at their firms for long periods of time, remaining with a firm for a long period of time is something that is meaningful in this day and age. There are many characteristics that of attorneys who remain at their firms for long periods of time and these characteristics in my experience are usually found in most attorneys who demonstrate this level of stability.
A final factor is that in my experience attorneys who remain with firms for long periods of time are often less tormented than the average attorney. By looking for reasons to like and respect their organization rather than find fault, they find themselves in organizations which ultimately welcome them.
Finally, it is always important to remember that if a law firm or other legal organization has been around for 20 years or more the chances are it is doing some things very right. There will always be people who succeed in these organizations and, of course, always those who leave or fail.
Recently, I spoke with a senior associate that was working at a boutique firm. She had been there for less than a year and had previously worked for a number of years at an AmLaw 100 law firm. In speaking with her, I could hear the frustration in her voice about having made a move that she thought was definitely the wrong move for her career. She was obviously a very bright and accomplished attorney, but I got the sense that she felt like she had somehow failed for not having considered the significant differences that can exist between large firm practice and some boutique environments before she made the move. She was being far too hard on herself — but for the benefit of those considering such a move, below are some of the more significant differences we discussed which I think are worth noting.
1. Resources/Technology. Often associates coming from large firm practice don’t realize just how accustomed they have become to the every day resources allotted them in large firms. These resources include such things as updated computer systems, having a lap top and blackberry, upgraded phone systems, the ability to work remotely and accessibility to a night staff. Associates often take these resources for granted and consider them to be standard in the industry. The reality is that some smaller firms don’t have the expanded resources of larger firms. There can be significant trade offs moving from a large firm environment to a smaller firm, and one of the trade offs may be fewer resources.
2. Billable Hours/Face Time. Working in a firm of 20 to 30 attorneys is dramatically different than coming to work and having the ability to “loose” oneself in a firm of 500 attorneys. In a smaller firm environment, irregardless of whether you might be working remotely, if you are not in the office everyone knows it – and it is often not looked upon favorably. For whatever reason, smaller firms tend to be harder on their associates regarding actually being in the office. Perhaps it is because these firms tend to be so leanly staffed and they need what few associates they may have to be immediately accessible at all times. Of course, this is not true of every small firm, but it is definitely something I hear from attorneys who have come from large firm practice and are accustomed to managing their day/billing time, whether they are physically in the office or not. In addition, associates who have transitioned to a smaller firm for fewer billable hours may find that because these firms tend to be so leanly staffed, the billable hour expectation can actually end up being much higher.
3. Culture. Although many smaller firms can provide excellent cultures, the size of some of these firms makes it impossible to “escape” the grip of a difficult partner. Whereas in a large firm, if an associate is having trouble with a partner in a particular group, he/she may be able to simply fill his/her plate with work from other partners, thus avoiding “combat, in a smaller firm it is virtually impossible to avoid anyone.
4. Sophisticated Clients and Work. Some boutique firms have very high profile clients that spin-off sophisticated work – and some don’t. An associate should ask for and evaluate a list of a firm’s Top 10 representative clients and matters which have been most recently serviced by the firm. Another consideration is the length of time these particular clients have been with the firm.
5. Viability of the Firm’s Practice Focus/Financial Stability of Firm. A boutique’s practice focus can have everything to do with its viability for the long-term, particularly in an economic downturn like the one we are currently experiencing. For example, a real estate boutique that has not expanded its practice capabilities may suffer tremendously in a down cycle. Depending on the size of the firm, its client base and financial stability may not survive a tough cycle. Thus, before joining a boutique focused in a particular specialty, associates should consider both the short- and long-term effects the economy would have on a firm’s viability.
6. Compensation. Many associates are willing to take a cut in pay for promised lower billable hour expectations. Although some smaller firms may actually live up to these promises, associates may find that they are billing at the same levels, but are receiving considerably less compensation.
7. Power in the Hands of a Few. It is fairly common for a few name partners in a small firm to have control over most if not all of the decisions being made about the firm. These partners often maintain control over all of the clients, the strategic growth of the firm and have the power to decide how particular associates will progress at the firm. Thus, exploring whether making partner is actually possible and the path for progression at the firm is very important for any associate transitioning from a large firm.
8. Mentorship. In large firms, mentoring relationships for associates often come about as a result of formal mentor assignments or naturally via consistent work with a particular partner. Because of the nature of how small firms generally manage their cases and time, and primarily because of lean staffing on cases, what often occurs in small firms is that associates are thrown into the pool to “sink or swim”. This is not necessarily intentional on the part of partners, but is often a result of a lack of real time to allocate toward practical training. Of course, some associates leave large firm practice to gain hands on experience, so this “sink or swim” opportunity may be just what they are looking for.
There are definitely many advantages to moving to a boutique which we have not discussed here, but being cognizant of some of the adjustments you may have to make may save you from regretting such a move down the road.
Business Week had a terrific article recently that posed this question: Why do inspiring leaders have a seemingly endless supply of energy? What quality is it that they possess while the rest of us navigate bleary-eyed, coffee-starved, and distractedly through our days?
According to Carmine Gallo, who analyzed the behavior of successful leaders like Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and top executives from Google, Starbucks, and Cisco, these inspiring individuals routinely and without fail do these three things:
1. Get consistent quality rest. The amount will vary from person-to-person. Some individuals may need 4 hours others may need 9 hours. (If only my two-year-old could appreciate my requirement of 8 hours).
2. Exercise. Arnold Schwarzenegger exercises 90 minutes a day, six days a week. As Mr. Gallo so effectively put it, “If Schwarzenegger could work out for 90 minutes a day and still find time to run the world’s fifth largest economy, what excuse do I have?” Enough said.
3. Maintain a relentlessly positive outlook. (See Oprah Winfrey, Eckhart Tolle, et al)
I’m signing off now to go running and get some good sleep (sorry, Tivo). And I will LOVE every minute of it! Or at least I’m going to give it a try.
I have a Ph.D. in molecular genetics with a specialization in population biology. I have been a post-doc for several years and I am interested in changing careers and moving into law. I have thought about law school but I am intimidated by the thought of acquiring more debt, at least for now. I have been told that patent law is in need of technical specialists in sciences and that this might lead to financial assistance later for law school. What is the reality of this and how much of a need is there for someone with my background in IP? My training is suitable for cases involving forensic evidence, as well. What are the opportunities there? How difficult might it be for someone who has spent most of their career in an academic setting to make the transition into law?
Your question is interesting and one that I encounter quite frequently as law firms continue to expand their Intellectual Property (“IP”) practices and Ph.D.’s look for options outside of the lab environment.
People holding doctorates in the biotech, biology, chemistry and the computer sciences areas are in high demand by law firms with strong IP practices. Over the past five to ten years, the biotech field has grown dramatically and, as a result, law firms, and particularly IP boutiques, have developed fairly sophisticated IP practices, successfully filling their ranks with attorneys with undergraduate and graduate degrees in computer science, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering and chemical engineering. Many (but certainly not all) firms have supplemented these practices with technical advisors and patent agents, scientists who typically hold Ph.D.’s but who don’t necessarily have law degrees. Sometimes, these advisors/specialists come on board with no legal training. With or without training, these specialists are employed by the firm to assist with the preparation of patent applications. Technical specialists will generally also prepare to take the patent bar exam, which allows them to prosecute patents before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Law firms usually require their specialists to take this exam within the first year or two of coming on board.
Most Ph.D.’s find the law firm environment extremely stimulating and quite challenging. Ph.D.’s often comment that they are very attracted to making the transition from the lab to the law firm environment because of the increased opportunities to write – and write more abundantly. Interestingly enough, we have found that after passing the patent bar, many patent agents decide to go on to law school for the career advancement and the increased compensation the law degree affords them. To assist them in their efforts, many law firms have in place both formal and informal law school reimbursement programs to enable these specialists to go on to obtain a law degree. In fact, some Ph.D.’s have successfully completed their law school degree at night while working full-time in the IP department of a law firm.
Transitioning from the academic setting to the law firm environment can be a challenge. Many agents are faced with billable hour requirements (which vary among law firms), something which even a first year associate in a law firm will tell you takes some getting used to. In addition, depending on how far along you are in your career (and it sounds like you have been a post-doc for several years), beginning a career as a patent agent or specialist in a law firm may require you to take a step back in compensation in order to achieve your long-term career goals. However, the earnings potential you would achieve as a patent attorney is most likely far greater than that which you could ever achieve as a Ph.D. In your role as patent agent or specialist, you will be required to deal with a wide range of individuals, from attorneys and paralegals within the law firm to clients and professionals outside of the law firm, so flexibility and good communication skills will be essential components for your success. Finally, law firms are extremely demanding environment, but also intellectually stimulating and rewarding. Most Ph.D.’s who contact us are already well-published in their fields and, thus, like the idea of “getting out of the lab,” being exposed to new ideas, and having the added plus of doing different types of writing and analysis.
We believe that as more scientists are exposed to the law firms and the career opportunities there, that these types of jobs will become increasingly competitive. However, for Ph.D.’s with chemistry (especially organic chemistry) and biochemistry backgrounds and strong academic records, we believe excellent opportunities are fairly abundant. This is especially true given the recent developments in the genetic area, namely stem cell research and cloning.
At least once during their careers, most attorneys think that they would be better off at another firm. This article will analyze (1) whether you should make a move and, if so, (2) when you should make a move to another firm.
WHETHER YOU SHOULD MAKE A MOVE.
Associates may be interested in a move for a number of reasons. You may want to leave your firm because of one or a combination of reasons. Often these reasons cluster into four major categories: Quality of Work, Professional Growth, Firm Culture, and Personal Choices. While these categories may overlap or you may perceive them differently, see whether any one point or some combination of the following points sound familiar. If so, you may find that the time is right to make a move.
Quality of work
Let’s face it. You’ve worked hard, thought deeply about the law, and now find yourself in a firm wondering “All that to review documents? To prepare yet another memo?” This issue may make you laugh, but then again, it could make you cry. After all, the first years at a firm color how your career may go and the type of attorney you want to be. The quality of the work you do, drives your ability to move up at the firm or elsewhere. So you should evaluate the firm to see whether it is where you want it to be. Classic problems in this area include:
Professional Growth
Similar to quality of work, professional growth matters. The difference here is that you must push to obtain the feedback and mentorship necessary for any professional to succeed. In some cases, that feedback will be through the formal system the firm has in place. In others, you may have a partner who takes the time to guide you through the complexities of the firm’s culture, crazy clients, and simply coping with the realities of being a firm lawyer. In addition, when reflecting on this aspect of your career, you should examine whether you are developing the skills required to make partner. As such, consider whether:
Firm Culture
This one is easy. You spend time-too much time perhaps-at your firm. Unlike high school, college, or law school, at a firm you cannot choose the people with whom you associate. And despite your charming personality and dedication, you may not click with key people at the firm. Maybe you’ve discovered that firm hours or the belief that a Blackberry really should be waterproof so you can take it in the shower just doesn’t match up with how you view the world. Whatever the reason, you probably spend close to 50% of your life there; it should be a place you like. Signs of culture clash often include:
Personal Choices
On top of all these other concerns, you may have personal reasons to leave a firm. Pay, location, and career shifts could easily fuel a desire to leave your current firm, even if it’s not such a bad place. In other words, where you are may not float your boat, and you may find:
Add It Up
Quality of work, professional growth, firm culture, and personal choices-all of these areas hold great importance in your career and life path. And you could easily find that many of the issues above resonate with you. BUT, does that mean you should be looking out the door? It might, but it might not. Many of the above are subjective questions best answered by your own perspective.
Nonetheless, remember there are (or should be) some objective resources available to you. Hopefully, your firm has a review process. Think back to your last review and dissect what it seemed to say. That should guide you. But what if your last review was some time ago or your firm does not have a review process?
You can generate your own review as long as you are careful about how you do it. Be sure to approach the investigation in a positive: “I love the firm and want to be sure I am doing all I can to understand and improve my place within it manner.” Not: “This place is lame. What am I doing with my life? Now I know why lawyer jokes are so popular.”
Here’s the two-step: If you have a mentor in whom you can confide, definitely approach that person and ask him/her what other attorneys think of your work product, your progress at the firm, and if he/she thinks you are a long-term player. If you do not have a mentor, ask for more feedback on your work product from a senior associate or partner. This way you will at least be able to evaluate if people like your work and think you are doing a good job.
If there are negative comments or you do not get any feedback, you are probably right on the mark that things are not working out, and it may be time to make a move. Still, remember to take that information constructively. Do not grump about the office. Instead, see whether the comments are true and how they reflect on your overall assessment of your career.
If after all that analysis, you find you want to jump start your career at another firm, there is one more question to ask:
WHEN IS THE BEST TIME TO MAKE A MOVE?
In general, the best time for associates to move from one firm to another is after completion of their second year and before completion of their sixth year of practice. After your second year of practice you have a good amount of experience in your practice area and have learned the basics of being an attorney at a law firm. Firms hire lateral associates when they have work that needs to be done, the associates who are currently at the firm are swamped, and/or they do not have anyone else with that particular expertise at their firm.
Think about it from a firm’s point of view. Firms want to hire associates who can hit the ground running and immediately do the work. After your second year, you should have a skill set that is in high demand and allows firms to worry less about training you and more about feeding you work. Plus, this ratio improves through the years. Now, you might ask, if that is true, why is it difficult to get hired after completion of the sixth year of practice?
At this stage in your career, you are getting very close to partnership consideration. So, firms are concerned about the message hiring a lateral senior associate sends to associates who have been with the firm since their first year and are now in their fifth, sixth, or seventh years of practice. Most senior associates at the firm will think either they are being replaced and will not have an opportunity for partnership or there is now more competition for a partnership position. Although these concerns may not be valid, someone’s perception may determine whether they should start looking for partnership opportunities at another firm. Obviously, firms do not want to send a mixed message to their top-performing senior associates.
The two-to-six-year rule, however, is just a general one and does not cover all situations. You may have a unique practice area, and regardless of how many years of experience, firms will want to hire you. Also, if a firm is desperate for an attorney with any experience in a practice area or if the associate has stellar academic credentials, a firm may hire an associate with less than two years of experience.
What if you are of counsel or a partner at your current firm and you do not have a book of business? Unless you have a niche practice or a firm is willing to take a hit on profitability to expand a practice area, it is unlikely you are going to be able to make a transition to another firm. The harsh reality is that firms are businesses and they look at their bottom lines as far as revenue and expenses are concerned. If you are a partner or of counsel, you are going to demand a high salary and there is going to be substantial overhead for the firm. For example, if you are a partner with 15 years of experience, your salary is $250,000. Depending on the firm and the location of the office, the expense per partner is anywhere between $100,000 to $200,000. So, on the low end, the new firm would have an expense of $350,000 if they hired an of counsel or partner-level candidate without business. For the firm, the hire has to make financial sense, and it will be difficult for the partners to agree on such an expense. A track record of business will be taken into account, but most firms in this economy are more interested in what business you can transport with you today compared to what you could generate three years ago.
HOW LONG SINCE YOUR LAST MOVE?
When thinking about a move to another firm, you should always consider how many moves you have already made. If you have moved three times in five years, it will be difficult for you to move again. Firms do not like associates who move around often. They believe that you will be there for a year or two and then leave their firm as well. It costs more than $200,000 to replace an associate, so they look at you as an investment and do not like turnover. Now, if you moved cities three times because of very good reasons, you may have a better chance. In general, however, you shouldn’t move more than three times within a six-year period.
It is also important to take into account how long it’s been since your last move. If you just get to a firm and realize within the first month or two that it’s not for you, you should leave right away. A firm will understand if you made a mistake or if things were promised from the firm that were not occurring. However, after the two-month time period, you should try to stay at your firm for at least 18 months. This will allow you the time to try to make things work at your firm. If things don’t work out, at least when you are interviewing, you can explain that you tried everything in your power to make it work and, unfortunately, it is not a place where you can stay for the rest of your career. Again, firms do not hire “firm hoppers.”
WHAT IS THE BEST TIME OF YEAR TO MOVE?
In general, between January and June is the season for moving between firms. A few facts intersect to create this situation. First, firms usually put a strategic plan in place in December for the coming year. They have a budget allocated to hiring new associates which becomes effective January 1st. Second, associates start receiving their bonuses at the end of the year and into the first two months of the New Year. After associates receive their bonuses, they leave their firm. This churn creates a void at the firm which usually needs to be filled by hiring more associates.
The summer months are usually a slower time to get hired because summer associates are working at the firm. The partners try to keep the students busy and do not have time to train or hire new associates with two or fewer years of experience. Also, the recruiting coordinators and hiring partners are busy with the summer programs and do not have time to work on lateral hires. Even though most large firms have a coordinator for summer programs and one for lateral hires, even with these firms, summer tends to have less focus on lateral hiring.
Come September, late-year hiring needs are unclear because first-year law students start work. Again, partners and senior associates concentrate on getting the new associates up and running and do not have time for lateral hiring. October through December is a slightly better time to make a move if you are not expecting a bonus. As in most industries, however, the process is usually slow from Thanksgiving through New Year’s. Firms have holiday parties, partners try to close deals before the end of the year, and associates strive to either make their minimum-hour requirement or hit their bonus numbers.
Although this is all true, there are some exceptions. If you have three to six years of experience, you may be able to move at any time. It really just depends on the need of the firm or how well you are marketed to the firm. Also, if you are a partner with portable business, you can move at any time of the year.
Obviously, making a move to another firm is a very big decision and could be extremely stressful. You should take the time to evaluate all the pros and cons of a move to another firm before you start your search. A good legal recruiter can assist you with the evaluation process and present opportunities that may be a good fit for your long-term career goal.
If you enjoyed the post, make sure you subscribe to the RSS feed.
© 2008 TypeBased. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by WordPress. Design by 
