Form Over Function

Technically, this is resume writing advice, but I hope that you take this advice as something much deeper in terms of how lawyers view their skills and value.

The questions I get so often are whether someone’s formatting is right, whether they are using the right terms of art, whether their language is similar to the language other candidate’s use to describe their practice. Those are valid questions, to be sure, but it occurs to me that the fact that these are the most frequently asked questions indicates that there is a lot more form than substance.

The most important thing about your resume is what it SAYS. I’m a stickler for resumes that have perfect form–no misspellings, no distracting formatting, no unnecessary information. Having an impeccable LOOKING resume is vital. But it’s not the point of your resume. I get the question “what do I say about myself?” but I can’t answer that question on anyone’s behalf.

That’s where you should start with your resume. Write down all of those things that only you know about the extent of your background.

Every attorney should be thinking critically about what they do and every single transaction, deal, negotiation and case that has made up their experience. Obviously, it is never appropriate to inflate your experience, but if you are content to just touch on the major points of your experience, you are doing yourself a disservice. I recommend to my candidates that the first step is to ignore page lengths, font, and format. Simply get on paper all of those things that you do–all of those things that would be relevant to a potential employers.

Have you taken the lead on a transaction or file?
Have you originated clients?
Are you published?
Have you handled a novel issue?
What industries are your clients in?

These are just a few places to start.

Your resume not only reflects what you can do — it reflects your enthusiasm for what you do. Think about that carefully. Does “write and research memorandum regarding various issues” sound like someone who loves what they do? Have you proven that you can articulate sophisticated issues of law or define complex transactions? If you can’t soundly answer those questions with a yes, start over again.

Sit down in a moment when you can think and review your experience carefully. Bring energy to the project, and be detailed. Let the formatting and tightening go, just focus on your individual experience and what drives you professionally. It will be worth it.

Vetting Partner Candidates

The Wall Street Journal posted an article this week about the increased strictness with which corporations are vetting their new hires. While focusing on corporate environments, in particular, the messages set forth in this article are of particular importance in the law firm sector as law firms move away from their traditional “law firm business models” and toward a more “corporate business model.”
Simply put, we are seeing more and more firms adopting a strictly business, bottom-line approach to things. This includes hiring.

To that end, the message we are seeing is that a candidate’s materials (particularly candidates at the executive or partner level) are being looked at much more closely. There is no leeway in resumes for inaccuracies, inadvertent omissions, vagueness, or mistakes. Likewise, in business plans, there is no leeway for promises in lieuof proof of actual business and potential future business.

This is incredibly important for partner candidates who may rely, to their detriment, on old business plans or non-updated resumes during their job search. As firms direct a more focused eye on partner candidates’ materials to set candidates apart, it goes without saying that the most important weapon a partner can have in his or her arsenal right now is a stellar resume and business plan. Any partner that is aware of this fact and takes a few extra days before beginning their search to get their resume, deal sheet and business plan in top form will rise above the pack. For some this is par for the course, for others it’s not, and it warrants repeating.

The National Law Journal seconded The Wall Street Journal article referenced above with some careful words of their own on November 17th. The short message to a long story: The lateral vetting process has become tougher in the down economy as firms want to ensure that they are picking up attorneys at the top of the scale.

Be aware of this fact and respond accordingly. The rules of the game are changing at every level. It’s important to understand the nature of the field you are playing on in 2008 and going into 2009.

Oh did I say Greenpeace? I meant Federalist Society

There is some evidence that the Justice Department has been screening resumes for its prestigious recruitment program on the basis of political bias. An inspector general report (as detailed in the New York Times on June 25th, 2008, “Report Sees Illegal Hiring Practices at Justice Dept.”) concludes that during the Bush administration, the DOJ turned away qualified applicants with liberal leaning backgrounds and interests in favor of their more conservative (and sometimes less qualified) competition.

Left or right, I’ve not heard anyone condoning the government’s actions in this particular matter. Certainly, for the Department of Justice in particular, it should be about the most qualified lawyers getting these jobs without respect to their political point of view. Having said that, can we ever truly leave our bias at the door? A resume that is pointedly political will necessarily evoke a response from its audience. And, as a lawyer in the lateral market, it’s sometimes difficult to anticipate how your world view is going to be perceived by a potential employer.

I hate to tell a lawyer to sanitize their resume. Removing something you feel passionately about from the four corners of your resume feels a little like ’selling out’, doesn’t it? Obviously, if you spent a summer on the campaign trail it’s a part of your professional background and your work history, and you have to include it. But what if you volunteer at Planned Parenthood? Or lobby your school system to teach intelligent design?

It’s important to recognize that people will form perceptions of you based on your background and what causes you support. Reviewing a resume is a subjective analysis–the reviewer brings their own bias to the table. I suppose the magnitude of this bias depends in part on what you do and where you live. It makes me wonder whether it ever makes sense to temper one’s resume to keep the emphasis on skills and achievements and away from those activities that might reveal our place on the political spectrum. Has anyone removed something from their resume to minimize their political leanings?