The Boutique Alternative

Undoubtedly, most of my conversations with candidates involve whether or not they will be able to find a job in 2010 — and how today’s market compares to 2009/2008.  The going commentary is that the first 8 weeks of 2010 have been markedly more active than 2009 (which was essentially a flat-line on the associate hiring side of the coin).  While this bit of information should lift some eyebrows and produce chants of joy, I find more and more candidates have become disillusioned with the job market and disgruntled with New York Big Law in general — leading to feelings of “leaving the practice,” “moving away,” or “taking time off until Big Law starts hiring again.”

All of this confuses me and here is why:  Big Law is not the only game in town.  That’s a fact!  It’s a fact that bears repeating:  BIG LAW IS NOT THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN.

Big Law occupies only a small percentage of the overall law firm populace.  In fact, outside of that small percentage, you can find boutique firms, middle market firms, small firms, solo practitioners, virtual law practices, and any number of other “opportunities.”  However, people forget this fact, and we all need to be reminded of what truly exists out there.  Granted, it may not be where you saw yourself upon graduating from law school.  However, these often overlooked places offer real jobs, real opportunities, and real experience.

For anyone who grew up in small town America (that would be me) in the late 70s/early 80s when the steel mills were closing, we saw our parents and our friends’ parents lose their pensions and their livelihood when the steel mills shut down.  What else did we see?  We saw those same parents finding other jobs…anywhere they could.  Some left their professional jobs with corporations for solo practices as consultants.  Some left their career-inspired jobs to do free-lance writing or dedicate their 9 to 5 to other income-producing pursuits.  Others stayed in the professional world but in entirely different professional roles.  The bottom line here is that people did whatever they could to keep moving forward, and a little while later when the economy evened out and jobs were hopping again, some of them moved back into the roles they had originally but with different employers.  Some of them enjoyed their new work too much to make a change backward.  All of the above-referenced parents retired with professional accolades and a pension at the end of the day.  A friend of mine described this single-mindedness as follows (and as told to him by his father):  When you don’t know what to do, DO SOMETHING.

What does this mean for lawyers right now?  It means that Big Law isn’t the only game in town, and if Big Law is hiring selectively and slowly right now, that’s okay.  Other opportunities exist so be mindful of them, look for them, interview for them, stay connected, involved, committed to your career.  Be flexible, open-minded, and see yourself in the larger picture.  Hopefully, the legal job market will continue to make careful steps toward improvement and hiring, but, until then, you cannot put your life or career on hold.  As they say, the character of a man or woman is not measured by success, but by adversity.  I believe that to be true, and it also bears repeating.

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

What’s wrong with me?

I suppose it’s possible that I haven’t had enough caffeine today, and it’s making me cranky, but after I read this story about the e-mail flame sent by an NYU B-school professor, I found myself siding with the professor.

http://deadspin.com/5477230/nyu-business-school-professor-has-mastered-the-art-of-email-flaming

A student apparently complained to the professor by e-mail–upset that he wasn’t able to attend a class after arriving late–around an hour late.  But, since it was the first class of the semester, and he was visiting all of the course he was considering that met during that time slot, he should have been allowed to sit in on the balance of the first class.

The professor responded by e-mail.  “…get your s**t together.”  The professor challenged his assumptions about whether it was appropriate (even on the first day of classes) to walk in an hour late.  The professor suggested that just because the student couldn’t have known the professor’s policy regarding lateness, he was still expected to conduct himself according to certain standards.  The professor pointed out that though he has no stated policies with respect to urinating on desks, for instance, there is still no tolerance for it.

I sort of hate to admit I come out pro-professor on this one.  His response e-mail was a little harsh–but also right on, in my opinion.  I hate to be such a stickler for decorum, but the professor is right–professionals should be responsible for their behavior and shouldn’t complain about the lack of consideration when they were–admittedly–terribly late.

I received 9 e-mails from lawyers on Saturday asking to be considered for jobs.  Well, 9 resumes attached to e-mails.  One included a brief cover letter that addressed me specifically.  That was nice.  Several just had sentence fragments.  Two had no text whatsoever.  I don’t need a fancy cover letter when potential candidates approach me.  Even so, it is nice to see a concise and pleasant greeting.  “Thank you for your consideration” goes a long way.  I don’t ignore resumes from any potential candidate, but the way a person introduces themselves to me does make a difference in my overall evaluation.  To paraphrase our NYU professor, there are lots of things that are hard to manage in a career.  Politeness and decorum isn’t one of them, so it’s important to get that right.

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

Is it Too Late to Switch Practice Areas?

Q: I was wondering if it is too late for me to switch practice areas. I currently am a senior tax associate (8th year) at one of the largest firms in Chicago. It appears my prospects of partnership are very slim. Over the last couple of years, I have taken on some trusts and estates work and have enjoyed it very much. I guess this leaves me with a few questions: Will I be able to find a position in trusts and estates at a comparable firm? If so, how much of a hit will I have to take in class year? Also, at this point in my career, I am amenable to moving to a smaller firm, but how much of a difference in compensation should I expect?

A: The partnership issue you present is one that a number of senior-level associates are faced with, particularly in the current legal market, where competition for partnership slots is fiercely competitive. Many firms have changed their partnership requirements midstream, and many senior-level associates find themselves playing “catch up” or being passed over altogether.

I believe it is quite realistic for you to transition to a trusts and estates (T&E) practice at a comparable firm, assuming the T&E practice at your current firm is highly regarded in the marketplace and mirrors the T&E practice at the firm you are pursuing. Although T&E practices often stand alone, they are often slotted as subgroups under the tax umbrellas in many law firms. T&E attorneys generally need to be well schooled in tax matters, as they are required to provide expert tax advice to high-net worth individuals with very complicated estate plans, which most often require sophisticated tax planning. You have six solid years of training in tax and two years focused in T&E. This argues for any T&E group to take a very strong look at you and argues that you would be able to immediately and significantly contribute to a T&E practice in another law firm. (You will, of course, need to be able to convince a firm of your strong desire to refocus on T&E and be able to effectively answer any questions about why you are deciding to do this eight years into your career.)

Your question about class level is a good one and tells me that you are thinking clearly and realistically about effectively making this transition. As I indicated above, I believe you bring a wealth of experience that naturally translates to a T&E practice. Because it does not sound like you have portable business and you have not yet made partner at your current firm, you need to be flexible about the class level at which you would join another firm and remain open to either a mid-level or senior-associate position with a reasonable track for partnership.

If you are concerned about moving to a smaller firm and the effect it will have on your compensation, you should be. If when you say “smaller,” you are referring to a mid-sized firm, a sophisticated trusts and estates boutique, or a spin-off group from a larger firm, it is unlikely you will be able to match your current compensation level. You will have to be open to taking a significant cut in pay and perhaps a marked change in the sophistication of practice and clients you will service. You will need to ask yourself why you are seeking to move to a smaller firm and have a clear sense of your long-term objectives. Compensation may not necessarily be the driving force behind your move. You may, for instance, be interested in transitioning to a small firm because you believe a small firm may provide a better lifestyle, a lower billing rate structure that may enable you to more effectively develop your own clients, and/or a more collegial environment. Because you are currently practicing at a prestigious large firm, you should seriously weigh the pros and cons of a move to a small firm and the potential effect it may have on your legal career over the long haul.

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

Me and Asquith Holle, Esq.

Sometimes, usually after a few drinks, I look back on my legal career and think that it really wasn’t so bad after all. But then one face appears before me that haunts me to this day. His name is Asquith Hole, Esq. (“Asq”). I always thought I would one day reflect on my days working with him with laughter. Perhaps when I’m old and senile and giggly about everything…

Asq Holle was a partner with whom I worked at one of my firms. Working with Asq can be most easily compared to having your car break down on a deserted highway—both create feelings of hostility, anxiety, and helplessness. For starters, there were his clients. I quickly realized that there are certain people in the world who will pursue dubious legal claims purely on principle. I learned equally quickly that there are lawyers eager to fight these people’s dubious battles tooth and nail. As my mom succinctly stated, crazy attracts crazy.

I understand that people feel genuinely aggrieved over matters that you or I might consider small. That’s human, and I get it. Heck, I’ve been there. However, when I’ve been deeply perturbed over an otherwise trifling matter, even I have some perspective. For instance, I wouldn’t knock on the door of one of the largest law firms in a huge city and find a corner-office partner to handle my $20,000 (at best) claim. Conversely, if I was a corner-office partner at one of the largest firms in a huge city, I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t take the case.

One of the other associates told me a funny story about his experience with Asq and one of his little cases. The case involved very non-complex issues and was worth less than $10,000. The associate traveled to some small town to depose one of the parties. When he arrived, he got to chatting with the opposing attorney. Looking puzzled, the attorney said in his small-town drawl, “Son, I looked you up on your firm’s website. You went to great schools and are working at a great firm. Why are you here?” Smart man. Even he could see what eluded Ivy League Law Review Asq.

Then there was Asq Holle’s personality. Controlling, irritable, edgy, and pompous, Asq was a joy to work with. I can’t even relate to you how much I enjoyed receiving phone calls from his secretary asking me to come by his office immediately only to find, when I arrived, that he was on a long conference call. Once he was finally off of that call, he would take another, then another, while I waited, then waited some more. A conversation that would normally take fifteen minutes suddenly turned into 1 ½ hours with me thinking, “To whom the hell am I going to bill this time?” And believe me, it would not be a good idea to leave. Why would you anyhow? The next time you stopped by his office you were guaranteed to receive exactly the same treatment.

Then there was the yelling. Over nothing. All the time. I remember once he asked me to pull some cases for him. I did. I brought them by his office a day early, hoping that would appease the monster. I placed them on his desk, told him what they were, and was ready for my “thank you.” Instead, I got yelled at for not putting them in a binder, something he hadn’t asked for initially and that I had never done in the past.

Then there was the micromanagement. I was not allowed to send out a three-line enclosed-please-find letter without passing it by him first. To revise. And revise again. At least revising letters was not terribly time-consuming. What was troubling was Asq Holle’s tendency to excessively revise anything and everything. I would stay up long hours into the night revising five-page motions. I don’t even want to talk about the summary judgment briefs…

I was becoming quite irritated at all of this behavior when I had an epiphany. I noted that, more times than not, opposing attorneys would call me directly with issues instead of Asq Holle. That didn’t always happen with other partners, so I was somewhat baffled. One of these opposing attorneys clarified it for me. We were chatting pleasantly, and I guess the guy felt comfortable asking me: “So, is Asq Holle crazy? My partner and I were discussing it the other day, and we kind of think he might be.” I guess I hadn’t really thought about it until that point. Annoying, yes. Maddening, yes. Hostile, yes. Crazy? Well, now that you mention it, HELL YES.

For whatever reason, that attorney’s question resonated with me. I began to review some of Asq Holle’s conduct that made the hair on the back of my neck stand on end. His behavior wasn’t rational, but more importantly, it really didn’t serve any purpose. I mean, I bill for my time when I work all weekend revising and revising and revising documents, and someone will be paying the bill—the client. When the case is not that big to begin with and you are representing an individual, not a Fortune 50 company, why would anyone proceed that way? I began to ask the same question that my friend/associate was asked at the deposition: why am I here?

Once I had allowed myself to ask that question, life became easier. When Asq Holle yelled at me once again one day over nothing, I snapped back. Other associates had speculated that pushing back would be a good technique to use with him. I assume they thought that standing up to him would gain his respect. That turned out to be faulty reasoning. But what it did give me was freedom. We didn’t work together after that, and I could finally let the poison drain from my system.

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

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.

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

A Fast Way To Torpedo Your Career Backward or Move Forward

Birds of a feather flock together.
If you’re an eagle, don’t hang around chickens:
Chickens can’t fly.

 If there is one thing that can assist you in ruining your legal career in the most rapid way possible it is to make the mistake of choosing the wrong friends at work.  Far too many attorneys realize this crucial mistake and end up torpedoing their careers due to this.

On my spare time I spend several days per year interviewing students interested in attending the college I went to.  In these interviews I am continually reminded it seems of something that is profoundly true in many respects: the environment people spend their time in has a tremendous influence on who they will become.  In Los Angeles there are a few private schools where an astonishing 30% or more of the class ends up going to ivy league colleges.  When I meet kids from these schools there is often a real discernable edge to them that I pick up even before I get around to reviewing where they went to school.  The kids are polished, they speak with confidence, they are knowledgeable about the world in a sophisticated sort of way.  What these sorts of generalities have shown me is that the environment these kids are coming out of has a tremendous impact on who they eventually become.

There are attorneys inside law firms and other legal organizations who are clearly and unequivocally on the way up.  There are also attorneys who are clearly and unequivocally on the way down.  If you spend your time at work and outside of work with attorneys who are on the way up you too will be whisked towards achievement.  If you spend your time at work with attorneys who are on the way down you too will gravitate towards losing.

I have noticed a few trends which continually seem to repeat themselves over and over again in every organization I have been associated with.  This was also something I noticed when I was practicing law.  The scenario is this.  Try as any organization might-whether they are hiring graduates of the best law schools, the best firms, or the people with the best records or not - people are sometimes going to be hired who do not do their jobs all that well.  The people may be lazy and not value their jobs.  The people may have been fired from their last employer and have anger towards employers in general.  The people may be angry at the organization and the world that they are not making a $1,000,000 a year.  The people may be incompetent and unable to complete tasks.  The people may have interpersonal problems with other employees.  The person may not be able to receive direction from their superiors.  The person may have been treated unfairly by the organization.  All sorts of scenarios are possible.

What happens when there is an angry person inside an organization that the organization is “down upon” is that some of these people improve, some leave, some do not improve and means get “sour grapes” and become angry with the organization.  The sour grapes response is most common because it is always far easier for many people to blame others for their shortcomings than take responsibility themselves.  This is the common response.  For some “sour grapes” people will begin attempting to infect others with their dislike of the organization and find fault with the organization and its people with about every chance possible. They literally create ”cancerous cells”.  The people who find themselves in the circle of friends with this person in the organization will generally become infected with this “bad attitude” as well and one by one the members of this group will generally either lose their jobs due to declining performance or they will leave the organization.

The reason that people close to negative people inside organizations also tend to become negative is because everyone all does things to cooperate or compete with people in their environments.  On one level this can be your circle of friends and on another level it can be the people within your firm.  This is the same reason I have noticed certain trends among the people from the best private high schools around Los Angeles, for example.

A. Drawbacks of Spending Time with Cancerous People in Your Organization

When you are inside a law firm or any other legal employer the most important thing you can possibly do is avoid “cancerous cells” and attempt to spend your time associating with people who are “winners” and likely to do well.  Let me briefly review some of the major drawbacks of spending time associating with cancerous people inside a legal organization or those on the way out:

1. By Associating with Cancerous People the Organization Will Assume that You Too Are a Cancerous Person against the Organization

When I was in high school I was best friends with a guy who got kicked out of school at the end of his junior year of high school for upsetting a particular math teacher in the school.  In my senior year of high school I asked this particular math teacher to write a recommendation to various colleges for me.  I also asked another math teacher to write a recommendation for me.  Despite what I thought had been a good relationship with the math teacher,  but this math teacher thought differently of me I believe after the incident with my friend.  In fact, his recommendation of me was so dire that when I was interviewing with one of the schools I had applied to the school itself told me they could not believe how bad the recommendation was and thought it “must be a joke”.

My own school later told me that this had prevented me from getting admitted to numerous colleges and one of my teachers subsequently told me that the reason the teacher had written since an awful recommendation was due to the fact that my friend had upset him so badly.  He said that the teacher believed there must be guilt through association.  Years later, I can see why he did this to me.

In every organization once the organization sees bad people they instinctively look for those around that person in order to identify other “bad people”.  In retrospect this makes perfect sense.  This reaction is almost “tribal” in nature and probably we are programmed like this on a genetic level so that we can avoid danger.  When you associate with negative and cancerous people they are likely to get you pegged in the same way.  This is not the wisest of career moves.

2. People Who Are Failing and Angry with Their Employer Are Having Issues with Their Organization Are Likely Doing Something to Cause This and Will Teach You to Do the Same

When people have tons of “sour grapes” they usually have these sour grapes for a reason-and it is generally because they are failing.  They may be failing because they are lazy, have tons of turmoil outside of work that makes concentration difficult, abuse substances at work to such an extent that they cannot do their job at work. Because they are in a job they cannot handle, they are upset and having issues; if you spend time with them they will teach you how to be just like them.

Once we get outside into the real world, the people who tend to be the most popular and liked the most by others are the people who have the brightest outlooks and make others feel good about themselves.  The people who are most alone are very good at doing the opposite.  Have you ever noticed that when you spend time around people who are happy you too feel happy?  Have you ever noticed that when you spend time around people who are gravely depressed you too feel depressed? The same goes for enthusiasm and other sorts of emotions.  I have known people who have become wildly famous and when I was around them before they became famous I too felt this enthusiasm.  I have known people who ended their lives and when I was around them I too felt their despair.  You become like the people you are around with.

In school if you spent your time with people who abused drugs you probably ended up doing this as well.  If you spent your time around athletes you too were probably an athlete.  The world works like this.  If you spend your time around people who are winning you too will end up winning.

B. Benefits of Spending Time with People on the Way Up in Your Organization

1. People Who Succeed Start and Finish Things

People who succeed do certain things and do them consistently.  People who succeed are the sorts of people who start things and then also finish them.  Anyone can start a project.  It is the people who start and finish projects who make the real difference.  People who achieve meaningful success know how to both start and finish things.  They will show you how to do this too.

In order to start and succeed things you need to exhibit a high level of self-discipline and a lot of people do not necessarily have self discipline.  People who discipline themselves know that success requires consistent follow through and always.  Follow through is something that will run off on you too if you hang around people with the ability to follow through.

2. People Who Succeed Over the Long Term Have Passion

You simply cannot succeed over the long term if you do not have a certain level of passion for what you are doing.  This passion is also contagious.  If you spend time with people who have passion then you will also pick up their passion.  Passion for your job is the rule among passionate people.

Some people receive inheritances.  Other people have powerful parents who get them the best jobs.  Other people get lucky.  However, over time the people who succeed are the ones who have passion.  Surround yourself with people who have passion-that makes all the difference.

3. People Who Succeed Share With You Their Insights

Different people cope with their work environments in different ways.  People who succeed and manage to find happiness in the work environments have a certain way.  When you spend time with successful people in your work environment the insights you get from them will rub off on you too.

4. When You Spend Time With Successful People You Too Become Associated With Success in the Eyes of Your Superiors

When you spend time with successful people you will also become associated with success in the eyes of your superiors - in most cases.  Your superiors will see you as someone interested in learning how to succeed at your work as well.  They will see you as someone who is part of the crowd of people on the side of the employer.

Conclusions

Select the people you spend time with both inside and outside of work carefully.  Some people and their careers are going up and others are on the way down.  This is something you can generally tell very quickly after spending time with people.  Once you learn to recognize those who make winning a way of life you too can succeed.  In order to grow you need to surround yourself with those who make growth a way of life.

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

Why I Believe BCG Attorney Search is the Greatest Legal Recruiting Firm in the World

BCG Attorney Search

“The Nation’s Standard in Attorney Search and Placement”

The very foundations of BCG Attorney Search are built upon the ever-present need to constantly improve. This is evident in several aspects of how this business is run. I personally feel that BCG Attorney Search is the greatest recruiting firm in the world. The reasons for this are described below.

First, we only do law firm placements and have not diluted this important fundamental by having several different and diverting focuses at any one time. This means that when an attorney approaches us, they are dealing with experts because we are dealing with and studying the same law firms day in and day out. Through geographically segmenting our efforts, we have assured that each recruiter in every area we serve has the best possible understanding of their law firm clients. We have made the decision not to do in-house placements because we know that in-house placements will only serve to widely disperse our efforts and never make us an expert in anything.

This strategy has also allowed us to emerge as the search firm with the most law firm positions in the world. This is something the market notices and attracts a great deal of candidates.

Second, we stress an extremely high work product here. No search firm produces a better work product than us. The quality of our work product communicates to the firms who review our submissions that we know what we are doing. It also allows us to consistently learn more about candidates—and the market in general—than our competitors do. In addition, by producing such an outstanding work product, the firms we are dealing with take our efforts seriously. Everyday, our recruiters are being pushed to produce a better and better work product.

Third, through our website, we communicate a great deal of information. This communication draws traffic to our site and establishes us as experts in our chosen field. Our website is probably the most widely viewed web site in the permanent law firm placement field in the world.

Fourth, we use technology in radical ways that are years ahead of our competition. Through mass email, the distribution of our jobs to thousands of subscribers each day, the personal response we provide to each submission we receive and more, we are consistently communicating with a greater and greater audience than our competitors. By building a substantial community of people who are aware of our abilities, we are reinforcing the message that we are better than our competition hundreds of times each day.

Fifth, we have a super group of people who are committed to our mission and communicate our mission to everyone in this organization and the outside world. By consistently communicating our mission and unique organization goals and differences, we are spreading the word that we are, in fact, much better than our competition.

Sixth, we make efforts geared towards improving the legal community as a whole. Through our annual publication, The BCG Attorney Search Guide to Class Ranking and Law Review at America’s Top Law Schools, we are driving home a message about our expertise as researchers and attorneys to a diverse audience that includes (1) law schools, (2) law students, (3) practicing attorneys, and (4) law firms. The levels we go to service the legal community through this and our other written efforts are unparalleled by any other American legal search firm.

Seventh, through aggressive advertising and a well conceived branding strategy, we are driving our name home to everyone in the legal community. In addition, we ensure that our advertising is as timely as possible. There are few practicing attorneys in the United States who have not heard of our firm. We probably do more advertising than any other permanent attorney placement firm in the United States.

Eighth, we have uniform standards for our work. Every recruiter who works in our firm is expected to do a similar amount of work each week and produce a consistently good work product. By ensuring that we are all operating at similar production levels, we can ensure the orderly growth of our company through consistent revenue generation.

Ninth, we are a team. Through our weekly teleconferences, our BCG College, our weekly goals and our constant exchange of information, we are the most formidable team in the American legal recruiting field. No group tries harder to achieve each others goals. No group wants more than anything to see its other members succeed. By lessening competition, ensuring that we are consistently helping one another, we experience market domination.

Each and every day we come to work we are thinking of how we intend to raise the bar that day. Every idea we have, every innovation we make, is something that raises the bar and takes us more into the realm of being much better than we were before.

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