How Do I Increase My Marketability After a Layoff?

As I currently approach my 4th month of unemployment after being laid off from a major firm, I am wondering if there is anything I can do to increase my marketability to law firms? I cannot change my past work experience or my law school credentials, obviously, but is there something else I could do that I am overlooking?

Being out of work is frustrating, for sure, and the feeling that there is nothing you can do to change your current situation probably increases your stress level exponentially. As you said, what’s done is done, and you have to focus on the future. We have seen far too many attorneys literally give up on the practice of law entirely after getting laid off during their first few months of practice. In the past several months we have seen attorneys who graduated from Top 25 law schools and worked for a few months at AmLaw 100 law firms before getting laid off become (1) a restaurant hostess, (2) a garbage man, (3) a salesperson in a men’s boutique clothing store and (4) a trainee assistant manager of a Pizza store. Nothing is wrong with any of these occupations; however, if these choices were motivated by the perception that no attorney jobs were available, these occupational choices were wrong. More often than not, the attorneys who give up are those coming from the largest and most prestigious firms. Their thoughts run something like “If I cannot practice at a very high level, I do not want to practice at all.” We believe this thinking is severely flawed because, as this article will demonstrate, you can find another job if you approach your search in the right manner.

First, you need to think geographically. You are currently living in the worst market in the country. Barring circumstances that tie you to the Seattle region indefinitely, a move to a healthier marketplace will provide you with more available opportunities, which will give you more opportunities for success. One of the strangest phenomena we have ever witnessed is talented attorneys who give up on the practice of law because they refuse to move. Detroit, Michigan used to be one of the largest legal markets in the United States several decades ago and, by today’s standards, there are fewer than 10 large law firms there. If attorneys continued to stay there instead of following the jobs, their chances for employment would be significantly reduced. While the change from an industrial-based to an information-based economy is certainly beyond the scope of this article, the fact of the matter is that certain legal markets simply contract at various points in time. Many of these markets never return to their former glory. Who knows if Silicon Valley or Seattle, for that matter, will ever be what they once were. The point is you should not let geography influence your future. You went to law school for a reason and your current geographic location should not be something that you let influence the next 25-plus years of your life.

There are tens of thousands of law firms throughout the United States and the idea that one of them does not have a job waiting for you is an absurd thought. Unfortunately, far too many attorneys accept this thought. Does this really make sense to you? If you have been practicing long enough for a legal recruiter to represent you (usually one year), then you should contact one and let them help you in your search. If not, you should find a way to apply to as many of these law firms as quickly as possible in order to increase your chances of getting hired. While job boards do not traditionally have advertisements for entry level attorneys, you should review as many potential openings as possible. In addition, you should investigate using a service such as Legal Authority to try to apply for positions in your existing market or other markets that interest you. It is extremely unlikely that you will not find a position with an aggressive approach.

Second, if you are just considering the largest, most prestigious firms, you may have to aim a little lower. While we most likely would not have said this in the heyday of the economic boom, at a time when many large firms are severely restricting their hiring, it may make sense for you to consider taking a position at a less prestigious firm. You may come across a smaller firm that might actually be in “growth mode,” unlike larger firms in the area that are experiencing financial troubles. While we are not advocating working somewhere that you regard as beneath you, giving smaller-to-midsize firms a chance should not necessarily be considered settling. When the economy does recover, your resume will look a lot better for having worked somewhere than if you were to be unemployed for a few years. It is possible that you will like the different atmosphere of a smaller firm, and perhaps your experience and know-how can even help that firm grow.

Third, you may be able to find immediate employment with the government. Clerkships, often seen as the domain of newly-minted attorneys, can increase any attorney’s marketability. More law students are likely to search for a clerkship as first-year associate hiring dwindles, so the competition may be tough, but your experience may impress a judge enough to take you on. Not only will you be working, but you will be learning more about the justice system which can only help when the clerkship ends and you want to seek out a law firm opportunity. In addition, you may be able to locate an opportunity in a local prosecutor’s office. In any of these jobs, you will begin to develop the skills of an attorney that you do not necessarily learn during law school.

Fourth, your law school record may be etched in stone, but there is always the opportunity to go back to school and further your education. While LL.M degrees are not for everyone, they have proven to be an asset to some attorneys who can get them in the right areas and at the right schools, especially for those with somewhat unimpressive law school records. Similarly, for intellectual property attorneys, getting an advanced degree in engineering or even one of the natural sciences could help your cause.

In conclusion, while none of these methods are guaranteed to get you a job, anything is worth a shot in dire times. The economy will recover, as it always does, and when that happens, it will be better to have built up some experience and improved your resume than to have sat back and ridden it out. The holy grail of many firm lawyers is partnership at a large firm, and the best way to obtain that is by proving yourself consistently throughout your career, no matter what roadblocks stand in your way.

Should you talk about other interviews in your interview?

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.

Long Term Success in With a Single Employer

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.

Handling References: A Basic Guideline

• Assure that you told the truth about yourself.
• Get a feeling for how you work with others.
• Pick up otherwise undisclosed information, either positive or negative.

Today, many law firms and companies are very careful about sharing information regarding their former attorneys to avoid potential lawsuits. Often, a law firm will have a policy regarding references that only allow them to provide a job title and dates of employment.One of the key aspects of references is selecting appropriate references. Ideally, you should choose people who know you in a work setting – former employers, partners, judges, clients and peers. They are your best references. You should also consider well-known political, community or business leaders, educators or members of your professional associations. Unless you have already informed your current firm about your intent to leave, do not use current clients, partners or peers as references, as they may jeopardize the confidentiality of your job search.

Typically, you will be asked for three references. However, you will need to have several more references just in case. You should prepare a reference list to give a prospective employer using the following format:

• Your name at the top of the page
• Names of each reference
• Their phone number
• Their current titles
• Their address
• Their relationship to you
• Their current company

Prior to preparing your reference list, you should take steps to ensure that your references will in fact be helpful to you. Remember to:

1. Ask first.
   • Always ask a person to act as a reference before you provide his or her name to a prospective employer.
   • Meet or speak with the person to verify information for your reference sheet and ensure that you will get positive references.
2. Prepare your reference.
   • Provide a copy of your resume to the person.
   • Develop a one-page summary about your career objective, practice, reasons for leaving, strengths, weaknesses, work style, and then review it with him or her.
3. Contact your references when you give his or her name to an employer.
   • Provide details about the prospective position and what you have to offer.
   • Share your excitement and enthusiasm.
4. Ask for feedback after your reference has been contacted.
   • What types of questions were asked?
   • What topics were covered?
   • What concerns were raised?
   • Make sure to thank your reference.

Practicing Law in California

Thinking about moving to California, eh? I don’t blame you. I love it here! I grew up in Southern California, went to college in Southern California and law school in Northern California, practiced in Northern California, and am now the Managing Director of BCG Attorney Search’s L.A. office.

BCG works with a number of candidates seeking to relocate from another region (typically the East Coast) to California. Part of my job is to explain what to expect during the job search and the realities of living and practicing in California. This article surveys the process of finding a position in California and life as a California attorney.

What California Firms Look for in a Candidate

1. Compelling reasons for the move

Many firms tell us they have had great success with relocation candidates who moved to be with their significant other or are originally from the area or lived there before. I often hear this about candidates who are coming from the East Coast (New York in particular). A firm wants to be assured that a candidate who moves to California to join that firm will stay.

While having some ties to California is great, not everyone does; and that’s okay. Other reasons people move here are purely for professional development (perhaps a particular practice area is hotter in a particular city and will offer more opportunities for a candidate to shape his/her practice) or the candidate had visited the area and fell in love with it. Larger markets like Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Silicon Valley certainly like to see ties to the area; but as long as you have the right experience, you will likely get an interview. Relocation candidates who come from the East Coast thrive in these cities. California firms know East Coasters (particularly New Yorkers) generally have strong work ethics and have had exposure to high-level work. In fact, some firms have practices that are more “East Coast” and specifically want a candidate from New York (I hear this often from corporate practices).

San Diego and Orange County are smaller markets and less receptive to relocation candidates unless there is a very good reason for the move. That being said, I have seen candidates with no ties to the area get hired quickly because they had the exact experience a law firm was seeking.

Sacramento, Fresno, Bakersfield, and Santa Barbara are even smaller markets; but they are fairly receptive to relocation candidates as long as the candidate is already admitted to the California Bar.

If you are moving to California because of the laid-back lifestyle, think again. There is a misconception that attorneys in California do not work as hard, and that is just not true. While it’s a fair generalization to say California lawyers do not work as hard as New York lawyers, we do work as hard (and in some cases harder) than associates in D.C. or Boston. Few firms expect attorneys to bill 1,800 or lower, and the majority expect their associates to bill at least 2,000. I have heard some attorneys billing as many as 4,000 hours!!!

Further, you cannot make any generalizations about practicing in a specific city. For instance, many outsiders think San Diego or Orange County would offer a better “lifestyle” (i.e., “a less demanding practice”). That simply is not true and should not be your motivation for moving. Many large firms have branch offices in these areas, and these offices need to compete with offices in larger cities; sometimes these branch offices expect more of their attorneys. It is not unheard of to be billing 2,400 hours in San Diego, Sacramento, Orange County, or Santa Barbara.

Firms in Fresno; Bakersfield; and other small, less “sexy” markets generally do have lower billable hour expectations and do offer attorneys a very good lifestyle. If you are seeking to relocate to California for its laid-back culture, I would suggest moving to one of these areas.

2. Membership to the California Bar

California firms are more likely to hire someone who is already a member of the Bar, has recently passed it, or is awaiting results. That being said, some of the larger firms place more emphasis on the quality of a candidate’s experience rather than membership to the Bar. In other words, there are some large firms where the lack of California Bar membership is not an issue. And there are some firms (including large ones) that have a strict policy of never hiring attorneys who aren’t already members of the California Bar. Generally, smaller and mid-sized firms require membership to the California Bar.

Large firms in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Silicon Valley are more receptive to relocation candidates who are not already admitted to the California Bar. Orange County and San Diego are less receptive; and Sacramento, Santa Barbara, Fresno, and Bakersfield are even less receptive. In fact, several large firms in Sacramento will flat out not consider a candidate–no matter how strong the resume–until that person is admitted to the Bar.

The reason firms place such an emphasis on the California Bar is because should the candidate join the firm, that person needs to be “up and running” as soon as possible. It is essential for a litigator to be able to go to court and sign off on motions and various documents. Further, it is difficult for a firm to hire someone and then have him/her leave for a few weeks to prepare for and take the exam. Lastly, the firm has to wait six months before getting the results. If a relocation candidate does not pass the exam the first time, many firms may ask that candidate to leave the firm. Firms would rather not deal with this; that is why they tend to hire those who are already members. It’s another way to weed out candidates.

If you have lack compelling reasons for moving to California, sign up to take the next Bar exam (offered in late February and July). Firms will assume you are committed to moving if you take the time to prepare for and take the exam.

3. Stability in a resume

California firms look for candidates who are not “firm hoppers” or who move from city to city. If there are moves on a resume, firms will want to know a valid explanation for each one; otherwise, it will be very difficult to move there.

Unlike those in New York, firms in California are more receptive to candidates who are not “cookie cutter” (i.e., have graduated law school in the last five years and have been practicing at the same firm). If a candidate has experience in a specialized practice–trusts and estates, corporate, structured or corporate finance, labor and employment, real estate, tax, investment management (’40 Act), or intellectual property, to name a few–but has taken a few years off from practicing law or transitioned into another practice area, firms will consider these candidates assuming the candidate is flexible regarding class year. However, these candidates must be ready to take a potentially significant hit in class year. For instance, lets say you graduated law school six years ago and worked for four years as an associate in a strong real estate practice before deciding to become a mortgage broker. After two years of working as a broker, you realize how much you miss the intellectual challenge and stability that comes with practicing law. You miss working with lawyers and are eager to return to a law firm environment. You cannot expect to come into a firm right where you left off. While you may believe your brokerage experience has made you more well rounded and even a better attorney, I guarantee you the firm won’t. In fact, you may not realize it, but there will be a significant learning curve; and it will likely take you close to a year to get to the level you were when you left the firm. You will most likely come in as a second- or third-year associate. And if you are truly dedicated to returning to the practice, you would jump at this opportunity.

In general, East Coast firms are more skeptical of lawyers who have done anything but the “standard law firm line.” So, people who have taken substantial time off, moved around a bit, or started their own businesses are not welcomed by East Coast firms.

Interviewing in California

If you are relocating, chances are you don’t know the California market well. I would highly recommend speaking with a BCG recruiter, who is not only an expert in his/her market, but also has established relationships with many law firms.

Having a strong resume and deal or case sheet where necessary is essential. Your recruiter can help you with this, as well. From the time the recruiter sends out your resume, you should not expect to hear anything for at least two weeks. First, firms usually request a “screening” interview with a candidate. Depending on the firm, this may be done over the phone, but there is a strong preference for meeting candidates in person. A screening interview typically lasts about an hour, and it involves a candidate speaking with one or two attorneys (typically partners). The purpose of the screening interview is to get a feel for the candidate’s background, reasons for moving, level of experience, and personality–to make sure the candidate is a potential “fit.” Firms in California for the most part do not pay to fly a candidate out for a screening interview–no matter how large or prestigious the firm. If you are serious about moving to California, you are better off scheduling a short trip (perhaps a long weekend) to California and designating these days for screening interviews.

If the screening interview goes well, you will be asked to come back for a full round of interviews, which typically last two to four hours and may include lunch. Do not be too anxious to hear back from a firm about a callback. Typically, it takes at least one to three weeks for law firms to fully evaluate your candidacy and determine whether they would like to have you return. Normally, law firms have weekly or bi-monthly hiring committee meetings, where they discuss which candidates to make offers to.

Many law firms will pay for your travel expenses (such as airfare and hotel). Some firms have travel agents who will take care of these expenses; other firms will reimburse the candidate. And some firms believe if you are serious about moving here, then you should be willing to pay for your travel expenses, as well. This certainly weeds out candidates who are just looking.

In attempting to relocate to California, the entire process can generally take anywhere from two to six months and sometimes even longer depending on the nature of a candidate’s practice and seniority. You will hear stories about candidates who obtained a position with a top firm in San Francisco or Los Angeles in less than two weeks, but I warn you that is rare. Candidates who have between one and five years of experience with a top East Coast firm and top academic credentials will quickly get interviews and offers, sometimes in less than a week.

Offers and Salaries

There is no general procedure for California firms to make offers. Generally, the law firm makes a verbal offer (either through a partner or recruiter) and follows up with an offer letter sent via mail and sometimes email. Some firms only make verbal offers, and some firms just send out a letter in the mail. Again, even if the callback went well, it can take several weeks before knowing whether you will be made an offer.

Salaries in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Silicon Valley are all roughly the same. They are on par with D.C. salaries and a little bit lower than New York salaries (first-year associates at large firms make $135,000). Salaries in Orange County and San Diego tend to be a bit lower depending on the firm, although many large firms have branch offices here and pay the same salary across all offices. Salaries in Sacramento, Santa Barbara, Fresno, and Bakersfield tend to be much lower (for instance, a starting salary for a first-year can be between $70,000 and 85,000).

Generally, firms do not offer signing bonuses, particularly where the candidate is relocating. In fact, some firms will be put off if you ask for one, and I have seen cases where an offer was even revoked.

If the firm sends a written offer letter, it will include some or all of the following: (1) class year, (2) base compensation, (3) relocation expenses, (4) benefits, (5) bar fees, (6) bonus system, (7) partnership track, (8) vacation, (9) parking, and (10) anything else the firms offers (such as attorney retreats or in-house lunches). Almost all law firms will have you fill out a conflicts form, and many firms will carry out a criminal background check and a credit check.

Relocation Expenses

Not every firm pays to relocate candidates, although many large firms do. Typically, law firms have caps on relocation expenses (anywhere from $2,000-$7,000), and others will either pay for or reimburse a candidate for his/her “reasonable moving expenses.” Some firms do not consider shipping a car or a piano to be “reasonable.” Each firm is different, and this is normally not something that can be negotiated.

California Bar

If a candidate is not already admitted to the California Bar, most firms will give time off (two to four weeks) to study for and take the exam. Some, but not all, firms will pay for your time off. Some firms will pay for a bar review course, as well as expenses and fees associated with the exam. Most firms will pay yearly bar membership dues and for Continuing Legal Education courses.

Parking

The standard in California is for firms not to pay for parking. If a firm offers to pay for parking, that is a perk others do not offer, even large firms.

Practicing Law in California

Typically, attorneys begin their days between 8-9 a.m. and leave between 6-9 p.m. You will also find many firms have an “open door” policy, meaning most attorneys work with their doors open. Having an open door shows your supervisors you are working and that you are approachable.

Some practice areas are not as sophisticated as those on the East Coast, particularly in New York. For instance, generally speaking, corporate law practices are not as sophisticated in California. However, there are many tech companies in California with sophisticated intellectual property needs or thriving start-up/emerging company practices. Of course, this is a generalization; and some California firms pride themselves on having a “New York” practice.

Cost of Living in California

Renting  and buying a home in California is expensive too. Gas is very expensive (more than the rest of the country). Before beginning your search, you should investigate real estate websites such as www.ziprealty.com and salary/cost-of-living calculators such as www.homefair.com.

California is a wonderful place to work and live. It has great weather and offers a variety of outdoor and cultural activities. It is better to investigate the realities of living and practicing in California before beginning your search. Because once you receive an offer, you will not have much time to make a decision (typically one to two weeks). If after reading this article, you are still interested in making the move, I would recommend speaking with a BCG recruiter as soon as possible.

What’s the Best Way to Develop Business?

When people are in law school and even in their first few years out of law school they come to believe that the most important components of a successful law firm career involve (1) billing lots of hours (i.e., working hard) and (2) doing quality work.  Very rapidly, however, young lawyers come to understand that just as important as doing first rate work is their ability to generate business for the firm that they work in.

The purpose of this article is to examine the most important methods attorneys can use for generating business.  In many respects, this may be one of the most important articles you ever read-your success in generating clients and business will in large part determine your eventual success as an attorney.  More important that your success as an attorney, however, will be your security as an attorney. Having a lot of business is essential to having security as an attorney because you will always have work to do.  Moreover, having work to do and will provide you the platform to hire others to work for you, to build your organization and to further your career.  In my opinion the some of the greatest success (from a psychic and material aspect) you can have as an attorney comes from having a lot of work to do.

A. Remember Every Person You Meet is Someone Who Will Potentially be in a Position to be a Future Client

One of the largest mistakes attorneys (and even law students!) make is not realizing that every single person you ever meet is someone who is in or will be in a position to one day be your client-or even be your client right now.  Many attorneys believe that they are often being “smart” sizing up people that they meet and trying to understand whether or not they are people who could potentially one day be their client.  They may assume, for example, that the janitor in their building could never be their client.  They may assume that the person who sells them auto insurance could never be their client.  They may assume that someone who was once their biggest enemy could never be their client.

How about if the janitor’s son went to Harvard Law School and he was now the General Counsel of a major publicly traded computer software company in California?  What if the auto insurance salesman was the 21 year old son of the CEO of a major American insurance company?  What if the biggest enemy of the person was the owner of a major company that does work for companies in the pre-IPO stage?

When I was practicing law I received hundreds of thousands of dollars in business from one of these types of clients and heard stories about people getting business from two other similar types of stories.  Each of these clients if properly served could have made the career of the attorney involved.  Millions of dollars in fees could have been made.  Each of these clients above went to high paying ultra-prestigious law firms for their work.

Whatever you are doing and whomever you meet you need to realize they are potential business for you and/or your firm.  It does not matter if you are at a ultra expensive and prestigious law firm or if you are at a smaller law firm—or even if you are just practicing on your own.  Every time you meet someone they are a potential client of yours.  How you act towards others will also determine whether or not they are likely to be your client in the future.  Take no one for granted.
1. Do not take any vendors you deal with for granted
Your dry cleaner, the person who mows your lawn, the mechanic who fixes your car—whomever you can imagine-is someone who is a potential source of business for you.  Stay in

2. Do not take your peers or subordinates for granted
One of the best sources of future business for most attorneys is generally the people they worked with early in their career.  This includes your peers in college, law school and your employers.  Make sure you treat everyone you come into contact with as if they could be a future client.

3. Do not take your relatives for granted
Relatives can often be a great source of business.  Relatives love to tell people you are a lawyer-or even use you for legal work.  Treat them will too.

4. Do not take your former employers for granted
Your former employers (and all of the people within them) will move to other employers and potentially be in a position to give you business.  Your former employers may also have cases and other work they do not want to do but which you can do.  Whatever the case-you need to realize that your former employers are people who are in a position to give you a great deal of work.  DO NOT burn bridges wherever you go and make sure your former employers are always your advocates.  Your former employers will be in a position to give you work and talk about you to others who can also give you work.

5. Do not take your superiors for granted
If you do a good enough job impressing your superiors they can be a great source of future business for the same reasons your former employers can. Always go above and beyond the call of duty.

There is no one you should ever be taking for granted. Whomever you encounter is someone who is always a good potential source of business and work for you in the future.  Remember this and treat the world and everyone you encounter-both inside and outside of work-as a good source of work.
B. Talk About Your Work

About 10 years ago I was in Charlottesville, Virginia in a hotel ball room watching an attorney from a very prestigious large Southern law firm give a three hour power point presentation entitled “Developments in Franchising Law”.  Every local owner of a Burger King, McDonalds, Subway and other franchise had apparently turned out for this bizarre event.    I had been required to go to this for a class on Franchising Law I just happened to be taking.

I call the event bizarre because it was very funny.  The speaker was mid-60s old southern gentleman type of lawyer in a bow tie who spoke for some 3 hours about franchising law and was so boring and his material so dry and irrelevant to anything that I could scarcely believe that I was alive throughout the 3 hours.  The lawyer also seemed very bored by the subject matter he was delivering. In fact, there were several points where I had to hold myself back from laughing I was so bored.  Other members of my class were reached a point where they were afraid to make eye contact with one another for fear they would also break into hysterics.

Incredibly, all of the local owners of the franchises who had been invited to this monumentous event seemed to keep sitting up at attention the who time and were the only ones (besides the law students) who made the effort to appear to really be interested in this.  Over hore d’evors at the break I spoke with the owner of the local JaniClean franchise and another franchise there and realized no one seemed to have any idea what this old lawyer was talking about.  They all agreed , though, that he must really be on top of this material.

When the event ended, however, I watched as one audience member after another went up to the lawyer and told him they “enjoyed” his talk, asked him for a business card and told them they wanted to discuss one issue or another with their particular franchise with him.  The lawyer must have picked up 10+ clients that day.  Right then and there I realized that something very significant had occurred: Just because the lawyer had spoken so much about his work everyone presumed he was good at what he did and was eager to hire them as their own attorney.

If you want to get business you need to talk about your work.  People need to see you as an expert and believe you are very good at what you do.  People need to believe they can turn to you for advice about what they are doing and also need to believe that you are enthusiastic about what you are doing.

When you think about it-the people you want to go to for assistance and turn to when you need help are most likely to be the people who seem most enthusiastic about what they are doing.  You need to realize that sounding enthusiastic and being enthusiastic is likely to get attract people to you.  Writing articles is an example. Giving public talks is another example.

Talking about your work goes deeper than simply writing articles or giving talks, however.  Talking about your work means getting enthusiastic about your work with everyone you encounter.  Talk about your work with people in your office.  Talk about your work with your clients-just keep talking!

The reason talking about your work is so important is that people remember those with enthusiasm about their work.  This also goes for your peers.  You want to be remembered by everyone you come into contact with as someone who talks about their work.

Remember the example of the boring attorney I saw talk about franchising law a decade or more ago.  Think about what would have happened with this attorney had he really been interesting!  Here, he simply talked and got a lot of business.  You need to speak to get business too and I urge you to speak a lot about what you do.

One of the most effective marketing lines I ever heard was “You can build a better mousetrap but if the world does not know about it they will beat a path right around your door.”  People need to know you do what you do and they need to think you are enthusiastic about what you do. That is why restaurants and others put giant bill boards on the highway-and some even put more billboards saying things like “Only 4 more exits until the best green pea soup in Ohio!!” then “Last exit before the best green pea soup in Ohio!!”  People get enthusiastic about something as mundane as green pea soup because the restaurant talks about it!  So too should you talk about your work.

C. Set a Good Example

Setting a good example means that you walk the walk and talk the talk of the sort of attorney others would want to be represented by.  This is exceptionally important and others need to believe you are the sort of attorney who could effectively represent them and would always looks out for their best interest.

At the outset I should note that I have the twin qualifications of writing this article of formerly having been an attorney with business and now being in a position where I am involved in hiring outside counsel for various companies here.  There are several issues clients are likely to be concerned about when hiring you.

One of the most important issues clients are likely to be concerned about is your perceived level of honesty.  I know that I would never want to hire an attorney who seemed the least be dishonest-at all.  The person that is writing down their hours on your behalf is someone you want to insure is telling the truth.

I know when I was practicing law I knew of at least a couple of attorneys who made up their hours—including a high ranking partner in a law firm I worked in (which will go unnamed).  I remember an associate working all weekend and completing an assignment at 7:00 am after being up since Friday night and then going to change and take a shower.  When he returned a few hours later and went into the office of a partner to discuss the assignment he had put on his chair that evening he saw a timesheet that indicated the partner had assisted with the brief all weekend and worked some 25 hours that weekend-the partner had not worked at all.   Now from my standpoint and others, I am sure not likely to ever want to use this partner for any work ever.

The issue goes much deeper than this, however.  If as an attorney you are dishonest at all in your personal (or work life) in the least then this will get out.  You are always being tested-whether it is in the store when the clerk gives you change, you name it.  People want to deal with those who are honest.  You want to be dealing with people who are honest as well.  Your clients will ask people who may refer others to you if you are honest-they will give their “honest” opinion on most occasions.

Another example which comes to mind is the “partying” attorney who goes out and will take their clients out for a wild substance packed evening.  No one wants an attorney who is out of control or does not handle themselves in a good way at all times.  Clients want people who are likely to do the best work possible at all times.

When you examine most organizations which are very successful and have been around a long time it is very easy to see that these organizations tend to look for “steady” people who are not particularly mercurial and seem very competent.  This is something that is needed at all companies and companies look for this because they need people like this to run successfully.

You need to act and behave at all times as you would want your attorney to act and behave at all times.

D. Be Interested in Others and Their Legal Issues

People want to be assisted by people they perceive as caring about their problems and issues.  You need to be interested in the work you are doing.  The more interested you are in the work you are doing the better you are likely to do at this work.

If you are interested in the work you are doing you will also have the tendency to seek out others and provide them advice.  People will also be more receptive to your advice because they will realize you are interested in what you are doing and care about what you are talking about.

When you are interested in others and their legal issues you will develop a mindset where you will do your best to speak with others when stuff comes up that you can assist with.  You will also do your best to listen and take the time to understand what other peoples’ problems are.

Understanding what other people problems are is something very few attorneys are good at-or even know how to do.  When you take the time to listen and insure that you understand where people are coming from they will be grateful. In addition, when you take the time to understand what others’ problems are they will feel invested in you.  When others feel invested in you they want to work with you more closely.

Allow your clients (or potential clients) to speak at length.  This is something that will pay huge dividends.

I remember a few years ago when I was speaking with a firm outside of the law (a branding firm) about doing some work for a Juriscape company.  At that point I had few bids and both were roughly the same price of $250,000.  I remember one of the companies that was going to be my first choice was invited to come by my office and meet with me.  I had several concerns I wanted to speak about.  I never really got the opportunity to speak, though.  What happened was the representative from this company spent all the time of our meeting speaking about what was important to them-the fact that they were a big company, the fact that they had done a lot of work for others in the past, the fact that they had good people working for them-and telling me what I needed, that they never gave me the opportunity to say a single thing about what was important to me.  Due to this I ended up not using the company.

When you think about it the people were are most interested in and like the most are the people who are most interested in us.  When you are interested in other people you make them feel acknowledged and understood.  Being interested in other people also makes them believe you are interesting (even if you are not!).  Being interested in other people is crucial to being a good business generator.

A final point is that attorneys are there to serve others.  The more you learn about your clients and potential clients the better you will be able to potentially serve them.  Learn everything you can about your clients and potential clients to serve them better.  The more you know the more you can assist them with (or offer your assistance with) and the more potential work and business you will have.

E. Get Out! And Form Relationships

If you do not start somewhere you will be nowhere.  In order to get business as an attorney you need to get out and meet people and push your comfort zones. You need to learn how to break down the boundaries of formality and form relationships with people outside your immediate influence.

If you are a young associate remember it will be very difficult to ever build a book of business (you still can, but it will be more difficult) if the only people you know are those you are meeting through work.  You must get out and meet people outside of work.  This means going to events where attorneys are likely to be present but it also means going to events where you are likely to stand out because you are an attorney.

There are millions of potential social situations you can inject yourself into.  It is important that you get involved in any many social situations outside of work as you possibly can.  These social situations will give you the ability to meet new people and connect.  These people may have the ability to refer relationships to you-or they may not.  If you do not start and form relationships, however, then you will not have be someone who can get business in the first place.  Get out and form relationships!
F. Specialize!

You need to specialize.  An attorney with a certain specialty is likely to get more work along the same specialty when it becomes available.  People will simply refer to you.

There are many ways to specialize.  If you specialize in litigation that is a start.  If you specialize in representing manufacturer of disposable lighters that are defective and injure people that is probably even better.

As an attorney you need to also put on your marketing hat.  Being a good marketer means being seen and being easily found for one thing or another when people need your service.  If you are good at what you do then and you are specialized then people will find you.

There was a period in around 1997 until roughly the middle of 2000 when seemingly anyone with a decent idea could make some money on the Internet.  This was called a period of Internet “land grabbing” and people were making great sums of money.  Notwithstanding, during this same period of time most people were “losing” great sums of money.  What is interesting to examine, however, is the few people who are making money.

The few people who were making money were setting up small businesses on the Internet selling simple specialized products.  They were selling bird cages, they were selling replacement batteries for cell phones, they were selling cases for Palm Pilots and other similar knick knacks.  The reason people selling these things were making money in these early days of the Internet is due to the fact that they were the ones being found when there was a need for a particular product.  Think about it: If you need a bird cage and searched for a bird cage person you would want to use the person who appeared to be an expert in bird cages.  In fact, this might be the only person you need.

If you need an attorney to help you with the regulations in Franchise Law then you are likely to use the one who appears to be an expert in franchising-especially if there is only one attorney in your area doing this.

The specialist usually gets the business.  If you want to get work then figure out how to make yourself and your practice seem as specialized as possible.

G. Be Familiar!

In order for people to do business with you and choose you as their attorney you are going to need to be familiar-very familiar.  This means phone calls on peoples’ birthdays.  This means frequent letter updates.  This means forwarding articles of interest. This means going out of your way to let people know you are there.

It does not take a ton of effort to let people know you are there.  In order to let people know you are there it is important to make contact with them as much as possible.

When I was a young attorney I was so eager to get clients and gain business that I sought out the motivational guru for attorneys looking to get business.  His entire process involved having people write down the names of everyone they know and consistently making contact with them.  Through this method it was believed that you could get lots of work.  Making sure people know who you are is essential.  Some years later I read a book called The Referral of a Lifetime which has a similar sort of system (this book is very good and I recommend it highly-it will help you get clients).

If you are going to get business you need to be familiar.  Once you get clients you also need to stay and be familiar.  Be familiar!

H. Study Marketing

Read articles and books about marketing.  Go to a marketing seminar.  Pick ones that interest you.  Get interested in this subject matter as much as you can.

I constantly recommend people study marketing in a way that suits them-only read the stuff about marketing you are interested in.  The more you study marketing the better you will become.  Every form of marketing can translate into the world of getting legal clients.  If you read about copyrighting this may assist you with writing letters to get clients.  Learn and study marketing.  The effort you put in studying marketing is likely to pay far more out than you put in.

I. Don’t Quit

One big client (or several) can change your life and your entire practice of law.  You need to implement a strategy where you are resilient and always looking for clients.  Just because you do not think you are not good at marketing does not mean you are not good at marketing.  Some of the attorneys with the most business out there are the biggest nerds and/or social misfits you ever met.  Some of the attorneys with the most business are also the most introverted.  In order to get business, however, you are going to need to do something because if you do not start somewhere you will be no where.  You are also going to need to not give up.  Some relationships can take years to develop.  If you try one strategy and it does not work then try another.

Conclusions

At its highest level, attorneys who are good business generators may hardly practice law at all.  The proverbial retired senator or judge may be used more for their name cache and business generating ability than their desire or ability to practice law.

I want to bring up a point that is pretty disturbing and one I hope will change your life.  When I first became a legal recruiter and became known as a very good one I started getting an inordinate amount of calls and requests for meeting with partners of law firms who wanted to move.  In order for a legal recruiter to place a partner the partner generally needs to have enough business to sustain them (generally around 3-4 times their anticipated salary) and a long history of having this much business.  Therefore, a partner making $300,000 a year will need to have $1,000,000 in business in most cases.  This is just the way it is.

A lot of the calls I received were from partners who had no or very little business.  Most of these partners had children in school and had been practicing for 25+ years.  In many cases I saw partner in major AmLaw 100 law firms who were being paid less than 1st year associates because they had no business.  Their houses were unkempt and these partners had a very hard time.  You would meet them and the lack of confidence on their faces and the demoralization they had was apparent.

Every day partners with no or very little business at law firms all over the United States are calling BCG Attorney Search looking for new jobs.  Privately, BCG Attorney Search recruiters could tell each other the names of partners with no business at firms throughout the cities they practice in.  In the majority of cases these partners are eventually told they need to be out of the firm in six months, a year-or whatever.  The consequences can be dramatic and painful.  Because I have seen the results of this and it is so sad it has affected me personally I actually started numerous other companies besides BCG Attorney Search to help attorneys like this and others get jobs.

The point I want to make that you need to understand is that if you do not work hard to generate great amounts of business you will be at the mercy of your firm for your entire career.  They can pay you what they want to and they can let you go if they want to. And when a firm lets go a partner with no business the partner often has no place to go because most firms only want to hire partners with business-going in house is not always easy either.

You might as well know that the most important thing you can do as an attorney for your career is to develop a lot of business.  Your life and happiness in your career will largely depend on this.  If you do not do this then you will eventually somewhere down the road find yourself in very serious trouble-or simply exploited and at the mercy of your employer into your retirement.

Get business.  Follow the advice in this article.  A successful career depends on this.

What I Have Learned About Interviewing In Law Firms

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Salary Wars in Light of the Recession: Bridging the Associate / Partner Divide

Every day, we talk to both partners and associates at firms across the country, in every major legal marketplace. Because we are a recruiting company, these conversations often concern why a lawyer is dissatisfied with their current firm, or what kind of lawyer a firm seeks to hire. We have discovered that the salary increases that have taken place over the past several years have actually had the effect of straining professional relationships between partners and associates. This article will explore the division between partners and associates from three angles. First, we will discuss the complaints we have heard from and about today’s young associates. Second, we will discuss the impact this divide has had on the legal marketplace. Third, we will suggest how to handle dynamics at the interview stage, and how to position oneself as a lawyer who can contribute to a more collegial environment.

A little over two years ago, the associate salary wars began to affect most major legal markets. Although these raises came as good news to many associates, the long-term effect has been mixed. Certainly, we have not heard any lawyer tell us that having more money is bad. However, in some firms, there has been a backlash against those who enjoyed the salary increases, making life more difficult for some young associates. The dynamics are fairly simple. Many firms raised associate salaries to compete with other firms. Not all firms who raised their compensation did so willingly, and we have spoken with some partners at law firms who felt railroaded into the decision to raise those salaries. It’s not hard to imagine why: an increase in associate salaries may mean less compensation to the firm’s partners. Although every firm that raised associate salaries handled the expense in different ways, the more difficulty a firm had internally in making the adjustments, the more likely the salary issue created or magnified a division between associates and the owners of the firm.

Associates are Getting Richer. What’s the Problem?

Ultimately, it’s not important to decide the merits of who is right or wrong. What is important is to understand these conflicts, and to minimize the discord.

The complaint we have heard most often from partners at law firms is that junior associates have a sense of entitlement to both top compensation and an appropriate quality of life offered by a reduced workload. This may be because many current partners began as associates working longer hours for less money. At some firms, the perception is that associates simply do not work the kind of hours, on average, that associates worked 10 or 15 years ago. This may or may not be true, depending on the firm or the individual. What is true is that the attention to ‘quality of life’ among associates at large firms is relatively new. The fact that many associates started using the term quality of life at the same time the greedy associate boards popped up, is a difficult coincidence for the management at some firms. We certainly suggest that attorneys stay aware of the differences between firms’ lifestyle, compensation, or prestige. However, an associate who frequently compares his or her firm to other firms may create the perception of being ungrateful for the opportunities ‘at home.’ To demand that one’s firm pay a top salary while pushing quality of life issues, such as reasonable hours, may appear inconsistent.

Many associates do not understand why the partners at their firm are so unreceptive to talking about compensation and quality of life, when the associates are often the top billers, and generate significant income for the firm. “If I work big firm hours, I should get paid big firm salary,” is one of the complaints we heard from a lawyer working at a mid-sized Washington, DC firm. Younger associates want the management of their firm to realize that the marketplace isn’t the same as it was when the partners graduated from law school. Indeed, the demographic of young lawyers has changed considerably, and the shifts in the economy in the past decade have been unprecedented.

There is no right or wrong side to these arguments, but the problem of this division must be resolved. This tension was created in large part by the associate salary wars. We recommend that attorneys try to put themselves in each other’s shoes. Remember that partners are owners of the firm. They have the responsibility for keeping business with the firm, and increasing associate salaries did seriously affect the bottom line at many firms. On the other hand, partners need to realize that well qualified associates are necessary to any good practice, and keeping those associates by ensuring that they are well respected, valued, and paid should remain an on-going concern.

How the Salary Increases Affected the Marketplace.

The short-term effect of the salary wars was, obviously, to put more money into the pockets of associates. For virtually every firm, the next effect was more subtle: hourly billable rates for associates were raised in some cases, while some firms decided to take the money out of the partners’ share of the pie. Some firms raised associate salaries without a peep, while others did so only after being directly petitioned by their associates. Associates began ranking firms in their city by how much and how quickly salaries went up.

We are certainly not suggesting that firms all react the same as a result of salary increases. Quite to the contrary, each firm handle the salary increases (or in some cases, ignored them) in its own way. However, there were trends that emerged as the firms reacted to the salary wars. In the best circumstances, firms were happy to raise salaries to control their attrition rate and to reward their associates. Some firms, however, took a harder line, and required more from their associates in exchange for more money, such as increasing billable hour requirements.

Several problems emerged. One was compression of salaries. So, while a first year got a raise and started making perhaps $125,000, often an 8th year associate in the same department got only a small raise, or no raise at all. Obviously, there is great potential for resentment in such a case.

As the economy regains a more certain footing, what can associates and partners take away from the lessons of the past three years? In the same way that the economic slowdown of the early 90′s affected the hiring (and firing!) practices of firms, the latest recession will be a learning tool for both law firms and lawyers alike.

For some associates, the lesson learned was that following the money is not necessarily a good long-term strategy. Several of the firms who lead the pack in terms of raising associate salaries, and who consistently outmatched starting salaries, have had some of the most dramatic lay-offs. For a handful of lawyers, the lure of 5 or 10 thousand more dollars per year was enough to convince them to change firms, only to be looking at a mass layoff 18 months later. Therefore, we believe that the single most important lesson learned is that salary distinctions of several thousand dollars should not be the principal reason for changing jobs. Although there is certainly prestige in being associated with the highest paying firm in your area, top compensation does not insure long term stability, or even job satisfaction.

When a firm’s dialogue turns entirely to billable hours and base salary, everyone involved is missing the bigger picture of what associates and partners have to offer to each other. It would surprise you how frequently we hear from lawyers that they want to look for new opportunities – and how infrequently we hear that a lawyer wants to find a new job to make more money. Although it’s easy to get caught up in money issues, we do not find that making the most money on the block is what defines success or satisfaction for the overwhelming majority of lawyers.

On the law firm side, we believe that the salary wars and the recession that followed were a lesson for firms that the quality of their relationship with associates can quickly become widely known. The Internet has the capability of disseminating private firm information to virtually every other young lawyer in a matter of seconds. In some cases, internal memos to associates regarding salary increases were immediately posted to the Internet.

Law firms and the lawyers within them will continue to make adjustments with respect to the salary raises, the economy, and their ongoing client demands. Going forward, we believe that it’s important that each firm review the effects of the salary wars have had on internal relations, and seek to address any divide that may have occurred.

I’m in the market for a new job. What does that mean to me?

In some instances, we’ve been approached by lawyers who are interested in opportunities with a new firm because of the tension within their own. In many instances though, lawyers who are unhappy with the divide between associates and partners should look for solutions within their own firm. There have been significant changes in compensation and hiring over the past several years, and it may take many firms some time to work out the issues that arise from the associate salaries, as well as from the depressed economy. In the event that a lawyer has made a decision to move, he or she should keep in mind that how they are perceived at the interview has been affected by these difficulties.

The single most important way to overcome whatever remaining tension may exist is to be enthusiastic. The “what’s in it for me?” attitude, which may have worked two years ago, is generally unacceptable in this hiring climate. Interviewing for a position should be a dialogue about what contributions the interviewing lawyer can make to the firm, and not simply what he or she can take out.

On the law firm side, it’s important to note that many lawyers’ agendas have changed. Stability and profitability is an increasing concern for lawyers, and an interviewing attorney should provide enough information for an interviewing lawyer to understand the firm’s environment. Firms who believe they may have gotten a bad reputation throughout the salary wars should work to correct this.

Conclusions

Many associates have changed their focus from associate raises to lay-offs, bonuses, and workload, given the recent downturn in the economy. However, it is important to remember that the associate salary boom of the late 1990′s may still have an effect on inter-firm relationships, and how partners and associates view each other as a whole. Where those tensions exist, lawyers should be aware of how they view each other and themselves in the sometimes strained relationships within the firm and the firm’s economy. If there is any good to be found in the recent recession, it may be that it provided a little perspective on how we view each other, and how lawyers define security and success within a firm.

The Importance of Portable Business

If you are a senior associate, of counsel, or partner, how important is portable business when making a move to another law firm? Most junior to mid-level associates are told to concentrate on developing their skill sets so they can become great attorneys. So, you put your head down, do good work, learn from the senior associates and partners, get good year-end reviews, and you feel you are learning and growing as an attorney. Before you know it, you’re a senior associate, respected by your peers and performing well on all work given to you. From this point, there are three things that can happen if you want to stay in a law firm environment: (1) you leave your firm, (2) you are promoted to of counsel at your present firm, or (3) you become a partner at your present firm. We will analyze whether portable business is important in all three scenarios.

Senior Associates
Depending on the region of the country and the size of the firm, a senior associate can range from 6-12 years of experience in a particular practice area. If you are a senior associate, you are probably trying to make partner at your present firm. If partnership is important to you and you believe down the road you’re not going to make partner at your present firm, you should think about leaving your firm immediately. Depending on your practice area, you should still have some marketability and be able to move to another firm. For example, senior corporate M&A, commercial real estate, and finance associates are all in demand as of today. However, if you are a seventh-year litigation associate without business, it may be difficult for you to move firms depending on the region of the country. Most firms do not like taking older associates without business. Although you have more experience than your younger counterparts, there are a couple of reasons why the move may be a difficult one.

Generally speaking, firms do not like to hire senior-level associates because the firm’s current senior-level associates become a little uneasy. Some of the questions the senior-level associates start asking themselves and others are as follows: Why do we need another senior associate? Are they bringing this person in to replace me? Is this person going to make partner before I do? Am I even going to make partner?

This causes a strain on the current senior associates; and in some cases, they may leave their firms for other firms. The partners in the group get upset because the most trusted and relied upon associates in the group start to leave. The second reason is due to law firm economics. Firms would rather just give the work to a mid-level associate because they can bill the mid-level associate at a lower rate, thus making their clients happy. As a result, the firms are mainly looking for associates with 2-5 years of experience.

So what do you do if you are a senior-level associate without business in a slow practice area? You should start exploring your options. You can stay at your current firm for as long as you can and hope that you get promoted to the title of counsel, move to a smaller firm where your expertise and skill are valuable assets, or move to an in-house position.

Of Counsel
If you are an of counsel-level attorney at your present firm, you probably have a unique skill set that the firm values. If you do not have portable business and you want to relocate geographically or leave your firm for another, it will probably be very difficult to find a position unless you move to a firm that needs your specific skill set. In this case, the firm may have a lot of existing business in your particular practice area and would like someone with your expertise to assist with firm clients and their legal matters. However, in most cases, for economic reasons, most firms would rather hire a mid-level or senior-level associate rather than an of counsel. Although you may have an easier time in some cases than partners to move firms because your salary expectations are probably lower than those of partners, it still may be a difficult road.

Partners
A partner with significant portable business can usually move to any region of the country or any law firm of his/her choice. He/She is a commodity. And even if a firm is not looking for that partner’s particular practice area, if he/she can start a practice, in cases where there is synergy with the rest of the firm, the firm will welcome the partner and the business with open arms.

When a partner does not have portable business, there are a few situations where the partner can move firms: (1) the partner has been very successful over his/her career and has established an outstanding reputation in the legal community, and the firm would like to start a practice or would like a prestigious partner on its roster; (2) the partner has shown in the past that he/she has been able to build a book of business, but because of a host of reasons, he/she does not have much portable business at the moment, but still has potential to grow his/her business; or (3) the partner has a specific expertise or knowledge in an area of the law that the new law firm would like to acquire to assist with its existing client base. Generally speaking, beyond these situations, it is going to be very difficult for a partner to move without portable business. Today, most law firms are trying to stay lean and hire partners who are able to bring business.

If you are a good attorney and have portable business, you will be in the driver’s seat of your career. If you are a good attorney and do not develop business as a senior associate, of counsel, or partner, you still have some options. It’s just a matter of finding the right fit. In all cases, you should consult a legal recruiter to help you transition from your current firm. The legal recruiter may be able to present you to his/her clients in the best light possible and therefore open the door where normally it may be closed.

How Difficult Is It Right Now to Transition from a Government Position to Private Practice?

I am a fourth-year criminal prosecutor. How difficult is it right now to transition from a government position to private practice?

The path from public service to private practice actually occurs quite frequently. In fact, many senior partners at law firms have had some experience as a government attorney. Some of the issues that private firms will consider are the transferability of your skills and the current public position that you hold. Many times the skills that a government attorney has acquired from experience on important cases will be the determining factor for firms to consider him or her. For example, an experienced federal prosecutor will have an easier time finding a job in a large law firm than a first-year public defender. That is not to say that only those attorneys in the loftiest government positions can transfer to the private sector, but they will certainly have an advantage in getting into the prestigious private firms.

You must consider the transferability of the skills of your current position and determine if they can be reasonably applied to a private sector job. If your current position is as a district attorney or a federal prosecutor, then the switch to a civil litigation attorney would be a sensible one. The more applicable your current job skills are to your position of consideration, obviously the more favorable your chances are of making a switch. A move such as a trial attorney in the Department of Justice, environment and natural resources division to a position in the environmental defense practice of a firm would be more likely to occur than a move from public defender in the juvenile services program to corporate law.

Aside from your legal skills, job availability in different areas of private sector law should be considered. In the last few years, positions in litigation have risen, while corporate law jobs have diminished. Litigation positions in large firms also often depend on factors such as a top-notch law school, law review involvement, and the prestige of your current job. Additionally, job availability varies based on different locations in the country. Large cities on the coasts will have more jobs available than smaller cities and may be a safer bet if you are looking to make a switch. Thus, both the area of private practice law as well as the location of your potential move should be taken into account.

Finally, before making the decision to jump, general differences between public and private sectors should be regarded. In general, a private law firm will expect more hours out of their lawyers and require more intense job evaluations. Private sector positions also do not carry the almost guaranteed job security of government jobs. Government jobs also provide many lawyers with the additional emotional satisfaction of working on important and exciting cases. Your position as a government attorney also places you with a higher chance of moving up to a higher government post, such as a judicial position or a position in a federal or state cabinet. Of course what large private firms do offer in exchange for all these benefits is a higher salary and a chance to finally own that German roadster you’ve been eyeing.

If you are ready to make your move, a recruiting firm will most likely be unable to help you since law firms generally require law firm experience in dealing with candidates from recruiters. However, there are many options available to you, including job boards and targeted mailing services, that could help you find your next position.