1. law, govt and politics

How to Handle Tough Choices in Your Legal Career and Be Successful
BCG Attorney Search’s Recruiters Answer Commonly Asked Questions About the Legal Field
How to Handle Tough Choices in Your Legal Career and Be Successful
BCG Attorney Search
202 S Lake Ave, Unit 250, Pasadena, CA 91101
Phone:213-895-7300
Fax:213-895-7306
Toll-free:800-298-6440
[email protected] (email)
Visit our website at www.bcgsearch.com for more information on our services and products.
No portion of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without the express written
consent of the publisher.
While the publisher has endeavored to provide accurate and up-to-date information, it makes
no representations or warranties with respect to the contents of this book. BCG Attorney
Search may not be held liable for any loss or damage resulting from use of the information
herein.
Preface
At BCG Attorney Search, we specialize in placing attorneys with law firms across the country.
We have been in this business since 2000 and our recruiters have seen the industry through its
ups and downs. They have placed over a thousand candidates across the country and in
various practice areas. While doing this, they have come across various issues that many
attorneys face in their careers.
In this book, we have complied 80 Q&As that they have answered over the years. Most of
these are questions relating to making a lateral move, work-life balance, interview tips,
careers moves for recent graduates and other common questions.
We believe that most attorneys will face some of the questions raised in this book sooner or
later in their careers and hope that this book will help them guide through it.
To your success,
Harrison Barnes, Esq.
Table of Contents
Chapter 1
Law students and recent graduates…first steps in the legal industry
Chapter 2
How to make a successful lateral move
Chapter 3
Everything you ever wanted to know about law firm interviews, references, resumes and the
job hunt
Chapter 4
What to expect from legal recruiters
Chapter 5
Do grades matter? And for how long?
Chapter 6
What you need to know about relocation
Chapter 7
Unable to become a partner, what are your options
Chapter 8
How to handle work-life balance, difficult working conditions and layoffs
Chapter 1
Law students and recent graduates…first steps in the legal industry
When to start your job hunt: summer or fall?
Question: Is the summer a good time to apply for a job or should I wait for the fall hiring
season to begin? If so, when does that begin? I'm concerned that I'm not being active
enough with my job search during the summer months, but I don't want to submit my
resume to a dead market.
Answer: Traditionally, the summer season (May through the 2nd or 3rd week of August) is the
slowest hiring season of the year. Such slow down is typically the result of hiring managers at
area firms focusing on summer associate hiring, placement, and acclimation and less on
lateral hiring. In addition, partners and associates, who typically handle all interviewing at
area firms, are much more difficult to nail down during the summer season due to vacations,
sabbaticals, and any number of other distractions which tear them away from their jobs.
Thus, even if one were to obtain an interview during these months, it will sometimes take a
week or two for the firm to organize an interview schedule as it must work around its people's
vacation plans and other firm absences. Thus, rather than submitting a resume during the
summer season, I typically suggest refraining from submitting your resume during these
months (unless, of course, a job is particularly ''hot'' and the firm at issue has requested
immediate resumes). Looking forward then, when should one submit their resume to a firm
during the summer season? The answer to that question rests in understanding the ''fall hiring
season.'' The fall hiring season is the busiest time of the year. It typically opens up the 2nd or
3rd week of August (once the summer associates depart) and lasts until the 2nd week of
December (just prior to holiday season beginning). Thus, in order to take advantage of this
uptick in hiring, candidates should focus on submitting their resumes around the 1st or 2nd
week of August.
This will ensure that you are right on target - timing-wise - for the fall hiring period. It will
also ensure that your resume is fresh on the hiring managers' desk — and not sitting there
since June. Also, submitting your resume during this time period will mean that your resume
is being reviewed at the same time that area firms are listing a host of new job openings. So,
your timing for one or more opening(s) may be perfect. Thus, again, unless a job is particular
''active'' or ''hot'' which requires you to submit now (and there are, in fact, a few such
openings), I would spend the summer getting your resume, deal sheet or representative case
list, and law school transcript together and updated and focus on making submissions the 1st/
2nd week of August. Such approach will give you the best advantage in today's market.
Newly minted lawyer unsure about non-associate position being offered
Question: I just graduated from law school and sat for the NY/NJ bars. I have an offer
from a large firm for a non-associate position and am unsure as to whether it is a good
career move or if I should temp instead while looking for an associate position at a small
firm. The position is called ''corporate analyst'' and is mainly due diligence work in the
M&A group of the firm.
I am interested in transitioning to a small or mid-size corporate firm in a few years and
am concerned that this position will not make me marketable to such employers. The
position will mainly involve reviewing and summarizing contracts, leases, bylaws,
charters, and other documents in possession of any given company being acquired by the
firm's client.
I did not go to a Top 20 school (Brooklyn Law) and am not at the top of my class, and if I
turned this position down, I would ideally find an associate position at a small corporate
firm. I would greatly appreciate any advice you can give me.
Answer: Ordinarily when I get an inquiry like this, the lawyer asking the question wants to
know if taking such a position is a good stepping stone to a permanent position at a large
firm. The answer to that question is decidedly "no." But in your case, you are looking for a
position at a smaller firm. While I don't actually have direct experience with this (I tend to
work more frequently with larger firms), I have a hunch that taking such a position is probably
a good idea in your case.
It is generally easier to find a job when you have a job. This is true for a number of reasons.
For starters, your self-confidence is likely to be higher if you are earning a living. Second,
unemployment holds a stigma (even though it shouldn't.) But you also have to weigh against
this the fact that it may take a little longer to find a permanent job if you take this
assignment. If you are working, you will have less time for job hunting. You may also find that
the work you are doing is not that challenging or interesting.
Overall, I think smaller firms will give you "credit" for doing something law-related while you
are trying to land your first position. I believe that you will be a more attractive candidate
than a candidate who is simply unemployed and looking for his or her first break. I don't think
smaller firms will look down on the paralegal-type work that you will be doing. Larger firms
would.
Student from 4th tier law school plans LL.M. to better prospects
Question: I am graduating from law school this May. I did not go to a very good law school
(fourth-tier) and do not yet have a job. My friends and I think it's our school's reputation,
and a few of my classmates are talking about getting an LL.M. from a school with a better
reputation. Will an LL.M. from a much better school make me more marketable?
Answer: This is what some people call "buying up" your education. (The term "buy up" refers
to paying extra money to gain a degree from a more prestigious law school.) In my opinion,
this is usually a bad idea—unless you have an unlimited supply of money, have no debt, and
don't mind attending school for another year.
I feel that an LL.M. makes sense if you intend to specialize in a particular area of law and the
LL.M. will provide you with unique knowledge that you could not gain elsewhere (or as quickly
elsewhere).
I want to acknowledge that there are certainly numerous very good LL.M. programs that can
help your career. (For example, an LL.M. in Tax is a prerequisite for many top tax practices.)
Also, LL.M. programs can be very good options for experienced attorneys who want to further
hone their education in a particular area of law. However, an LL.M. should not be used simply
to buy up your education to a more prestigious school if you are not sure how relevant the
LL.M. will be once you graduate.
I can tell you that employers focus much more on performance in law school than they do on
performance in an LL.M. program. While an LL.M. diploma from a prestigious law school will
certainly look nice on your wall, it is not the same as a J.D. diploma from a prestigious law
school. Employers are not as impressed with LL.M.s since it is widely understood that LL.M.
programs are generally easier to get into and not as competitive as law school.
In short, think carefully about investing additional money in an LL.M., because it in no way
guarantees employment upon graduation. If you do decide to seriously consider an LL.M., be
sure to speak to attorneys who (1) graduated from your (or a similarly situated) law school
and (2) also earned LL.M.s from the same program you are considering. Ask if they are glad
that they got their LL.M.s and whether, if they knew when they enrolled in the program what
they know now, they would do it again. This should give you the best perspective.
Good luck, and thanks for the question (which many people have).
3L wonders which practice area to specialize in
Question: I am currently a third year law student. I have accepted a position with a firm
beginning in the fall. The firm has sent me a letter asking which practice areas I am
interested in working in. I was wondering if you have any suggestions on how to respond. I
am concerned about the possibility that if the economy does not improve, the firm might
determine it over hired entering associates and if that happens, my offer could be
rescinded depending on how I reply about practice groups.
Answer: The conventional wisdom is that regulatory work including environmental, energy,
food & drug, securities, health care, etc.; ip/technology; and bankruptcy are likely to pick up
and recover more quickly than some of the other practices.
Since we are always better at what we like, I suggest that you identify two or three areas of
practice from the aforementioned list. You might also say something along the lines of ''My
primary interests are in food & drug, energy, and environmental law. However I am flexible
and believe practicing in any area of the firm where there is a need for associates is an
opportunity to learn.'' This is a great attitude to have and one any firm will appreciate in a
first year associate.
Law firms are pretty savvy and I think that for the most part they took a more reserved
approach in the numbers of offers that were extended to third years and former summer
associates this past year. But you are very insightful to recognize that you are setting the
tone for your relationship with your new employer and to approach that with care. Best of
luck to you! - Lisa Pavia, Senior Recruiter, Washington, DC.
Worked as a summer associate, but didn't get an offer. Your options?
Question: Unfortunately, I did not receive an offer from the firm where I worked as a
summer associate. Do you have any suggestions on what I can do as a 3L to improve my
chances in finding a permanent associate position after graduation?
Answer: There’s actually a lot you can do, but you can be proactive and you have to start
now. I wrote an article published in the Texas Lawyer in 2009 with some good suggestions. I
hope you find it helpful.
In the past, most summer associates working at large firms felt that if they showed up at a
decent hour, acted respectably and did a reasonably good job on their assignments, they
were all but guaranteed an offer of permanent employment. Barring any major gaffes,
summer associates were likely to snag an offer or two by the end of their second summer in
law school.
That probably won't be the case as this summer winds to a close. Summer associates likely
have been walking on eggshells, trying to provide the best possible work product and to make
themselves indispensable. The days of almost automatic entitlement to a permanent offer
surely are over.
Given the economy and state of the legal market, many third-year law students may find
themselves without an offer at the end of this summer. Firms have fewer positions to offer,
and they will have to be more discriminating in their choices than in years past.
Unfortunately, 3Ls left without an offer at the end of the summer may find that additional
job prospects are bleak in this down economy in which firms are laying off attorneys. If a
summer associate does not receive an offer, one can only assume he will have a steep uphill
battle ahead of him this coming school year. Without a significant upturn in the economy, 3Ls
without offers will compete with a large mass of laid-off junior and midlevel associates, and
they will find themselves at a distinct disadvantage, since new graduates will lack the
practical skills that these associates have had time to cultivate.
So, what is a 3L without an offer to do?
• Participate in OCIs: Third-year law students should participate in on-campus interviews this
fall through their law school career services office; there always are a few firms looking to
hire 3L students for permanent positions through the fall interview program.
• Consider small and midsized firms: Law students who had their hearts set on big-firm jobs
after graduation but failed to net an offer would be well-served to consider alternative firms,
namely smaller or midsize law firms. Due to competitive billing rates, many of these firms are
seeing an increase in business and need warm bodies to do the work. And an associate could
lateral to a large firm later once she gained practical experience.
• Look into different practice areas: Reflecting current trends, students should consider
applying for positions in practice areas that are countercyclical and in higher demand. These
practices include litigation, bankruptcy, white-collar crime, and labor and employment.
• Clerk for a judge: In this economy, 3Ls without offers should put a lot of time and effort
into trying to secure a judicial clerkship after graduation. Not only will it give a new graduate
time to ride out the storm and gain another year to find a job (hopefully in an improved legal
job market), but a clerkship is an optimal way for new lawyers to enhance their resumes,
regardless of their intended practice areas.
• Apply for a government job: Law students should consider applying for federal and state
government positions in practice areas expected to be in demand in the coming years under
the new administration, such as securities litigation, environmental law, and labor and
employment. Consider seeking environmental attorney positions at the state and local level,
positions at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and positions at the U.S.
Department of Labor, among others. Firms often cherry-pick lawyers out of these agencies for
associate positions due to the expertise they gain inside.
Students interested in litigation or white-collar crime litigation should consider applying for
positions as a prosecutor or public defender or applying for a spot in the U.S. Department of
Justice's Attorney General's Honors Program. Early courtroom experience can enhance the
career of a future litigator, since this experience typically is difficult to attain as a junior
associate.
• Pump up your resume: Third-year students should boost their resumes by finding a part-time
law clerk or intern position while completing their studies. Many firms with extra work look
for cheap labor in these economic conditions, and these positions may lead to full-time
opportunities upon graduation.
If paid positions are few and far between, law students should offer to volunteer as an intern
at a firm that interests them. One strategy is to volunteer for a firm's pro bono projects.
That's a win-win situation for the firm and it enhances a student's resume, as well as provides
an excellent opportunity to network.
• Start networking: It is never too early to start networking. Many state bar associations allow
law students to join sections of the bar in areas that interest them, as well as to take
continuing legal education courses. These arenas provide an opportunity to meet and network
with existing practitioners in a law student's preferred practice area.
• Be geographically flexible: One important way in which students should be flexible is with
respect to geography. Job seekers may find success in geographical areas that are not flooded
with applicants, such as smaller cities. Firms, governmental entities and judges in smaller
municipalities are less likely to receive as many resumes as their counterparts in New York,
Los Angeles and Houston.
In sum, 2010's crop of law students will need to be more flexible than any graduating class in
distant memory. It's rough out there.
This article was originally published on the Texas Lawyer website on September 2, 2009.
Chapter 2
How to make a successful lateral move
Contemplating a Lateral Move: Will I Get a Promotion?
Question: I am contemplating making a lateral move and want some guarantees regarding
my progression prospects (i.e., promotion to partnership) if I am going to switch law
firms. Is this something I can reasonably expect from law firms and should I try to get a
commitment from a law firm regarding my progression prospects?
Answer: This is a great question. In truth, it is almost impossible for a firm to predict the
future by guaranteeing that progression will happen, even where associates perform at the
highest level. No firm can realistically or accurately tell you today what your progression
prospects are years from now, especially if you have not yet begun working for the firm.
There are simply too many factors that must be considered and too many unknowns. Factors
that impact progression prospects include, for example: the practice group’s future
profitability; the firm’s overall financial condition and related ability to promote additional
associates; the home office’s “sign off” on a particular progression prospect; your
performance over the years; the overall state of the economy; the future “class year spread”
in your group; and a host of other considerations.
Of course, there are certain things you can do to increase your odds of progression including,
for example, working with as many partners as possible (even across offices), putting in the
hours when needed, helping to develop business and producing consistently high quality work
product. It is also a good idea, where possible, to develop expertise in a niche sub-specialty,
as this is a great way to make yourself indispensable to your firm and its clients.
Because it is so difficult to accurately predict what things will look like in a particular
practice group years down the road (or even to guarantee what the state of the economy will
be), I would suggest focusing on alternate, but related, criteria when contemplating a lateral
move. Since no firm can guarantee you today of your progression prospects years from now,
instead focus on the following:
How busy is the practice group today?
What is the group doing to grow its presence and further develop its client base?
Does the practice group have a clear strategy for the future?
Is this a positive and nurturing work environment?
Have other associates successfully progressed through the ranks?
Do the practice group leaders have a history of going to bat for their associates and helping
them achieve progression?
Do the practice group leaders work with their associates to ensure that they are checking all
of the boxes they need to check in order to progress, including, for example, making sure
associates work with a wide range of partners and have some exposure to the home office?
Does the firm host firm-wide events and/or encourage associates to travel to other offices,
including the home office, in order to meet other members of the firm?
If you can affirmatively answer most if not all of the above questions, then the progression
odds are in your favor, although it is never possible to guarantee such things years in advance.
But by drilling down on the above details, you can obtain a far more accurate sense of your
long-term progression prospects than could be gained by directly asking a question that
simply can’t be answered this early on.
Associate from a small law firm wants to make a lateral move as a partner
Question: Can a senior associate of a small to mid-size law firm, with a small book of
business ($150,000), make a lateral move to a new firm at partner level?
Answer: Most larger law firms are looking for books of business of $750,000 and upwards.
Several small to mid-size firms may be open to considering partner candidates with books of
business of a minimum of $400,000. Therefore, I do not think it is realistic for a senior
associate with less than this to expect to move to a new firm at partner level.
I would advise such a candidate to consider joining a firm where he/she may be on a
''partnership track''. I have worked with several candidates who have been able to prove
themselves by building up their practices, and consequently they have moved into a
partnership role within a year or two. One candidate in particular, had an existing
employment practice, which the firm he joined lacked at the time. This synergy created a
mutually beneficial lateral move for both the firm and the senior associate candidate, and he
was able to continue to develop his employment practice further with all of the support of his
new firm.
The long term benefits of the right platform may be great. Perhaps there is potential to
garner more business down the road due to cross-selling potential, as a result of the firm's
varied practice areas, and greater support staff. Additionally, there will be the opportunity to
work with and further develop relationships with existing clients. Rather than focusing on
title, I would suggest for this senior associate to put more weight on the following factors:
1) The firm's existing client base. How long-standing and solid are these relationships?
2) How much support staff is there, and how is the firm structured? How many partners to
associates? Are there plans for growth and in which particular practice areas?
3) Overhead expenses. If excessive they can greatly reduce the profit sharing of partners.
4) Payment structure. How partners are paid out can vary greatly from firm to firm.
Does 10 years of associate experience make a lawyer too old in NYC
Question: I am a 10th year practitioner in New York City, and, more recently, I've heard
people say that I am ''past my prime.'' What does that mean, exactly? Am I not marketable
anymore?
Answer: First, the New York City market is a beast of a very different color from other
markets around the country; thus, I want to confine my response to this question to
Manhattan. Second, traditionally, the sweet spot for hiring in New York City is 3rd through 5th
year, which just happens to be the time frame during which firms believe a candidate has
garnered enough knowledge to be valuable and helpful to their clients but not so much
knowledge/experience that there isn't additional room for growth. This range also happens to
be a fairly comfortable range for firms in terms of lock step compensation – namely, not too
high.
Having said that, the above statements do not mean that someone with experience above the
five (5) year mark fails to be marketable. In contrast, a 6th year plus attorney, for example,
is very marketable, but exactly how marketable will depend on the needs of a given firm.
Where a firm is seeking a candidate who can hit the ground running and tend to clients
directly, a candidate with at least six (6) years of experience will be immediately placementworthy. More so, where a firm is seeking an ''expert'' in a given area, traditionally, they will
ask for a 6+ year associate. Your question, however, relates to someone with even more
experience, namely, at the 10+ year level. In addition, I would imagine that your question is
colored by what is going on in the economy today, where a 10+ year lawyer is an awfully
expensive individual.
To that end, I will say that a 10th year practitioner in New York City is marketable, but they
will often be looked at by a firm more closely than other candidates because they, quite
simply, cost more --- and firms are watching costs very closely right now. Thus, firms will
often ask if such 10th year associate ''has portable business?'' If so, that lessens the risk for the
firm of bringing this person on. If not, they will ask ''whether such candidate fits into the
expert role within a given practice?'' If so, that helps. If not, or if the candidate needs to be
trained in a new practice area, that makes such hire more difficult to swallow. Firms may also
ask ''what such person requires going forward?'' This means --- is this candidate asking for fast
track to partnership, a Counsel role, or other incentive-producing plan/title? If so, such
candidate may require more of a commitment than a firm is willing to make right now.
These are all questions which start creeping into the mix as we gain more experience in our
roles as attorneys and then venture out into the marketplace. Simply put, the more
experience we gain, the more valuable we become, the more we cost, and, therefore, the
more closely firms look at other determining factors when making hires at the senior end of
the associate spectrum. So, in summary, you are still very marketable, but you need to hone
in on the group where your particular skills will have real value and where your own career
demands (title? compensation?) will match the firm's hiring goals for a given search. Although
this may seem like a lot of extra hoops to jump through, the truth is that where there is a
match, there is a hire.
How long does it take to make a lateral move?
Question: What is going on with law firm hiring these days? Several of my friends have
made lateral moves in the past couple of years and had multiple offers. My credentials
and experience are as good or better. I have not been laid off, and I am a strong
candidate. But I am not getting many interviews, and one firm I did meet with over a
month ago says I am ''under consideration'' but has not made a decision. It has been weeks
since I interviewed. What am I supposed to think? - Jim
Answer: A majority of candidates have experienced the same phenomenon this year at some
point in their process. To answer your question, it's a lot of things. Since the beginning of the
year, the response rate of our law firm clients has slowed markedly.
Law firm hiring isn't a quick process in general. A relatively smooth search can take several
months. Once a candidate has interviewed with an employer and there is mutual interest, it
can often be four to six weeks before an offer is formally extended. That is only if the planets
align and the firm has an efficient hiring process.
There are conflicts to clear and references to check. Depending on the size of the firm, an
independent hiring committee may need to meet and approve the offer. Usually meetings are
called when there are several candidates for various openings that are being recommended
for offers. If you happen to be the first candidate that is put before the recruiting committee,
sometimes the decision on your candidacy can get held up temporarily.
The previous paragraph describes my experience during the years I spent as a firm recruiting
manager and during the boom market of the past four years that I have spent on this side of
the industry. Unfortunately, to paraphrase from The Wizard of Oz, "I don't think we're in
Kansas anymore."
A handful of candidates have been blessed by recruiting serendipity and have had fast-track
hiring experiences. Far more attorneys who have entered the market since the beginning of
the year are dealing with prolonged searches. Most candidates have had their process stall or
get stuck at some point. There have been fewer invitations to interview with greater gaps
between rounds. It has taken longer for offers to be extended and finalized.
This is trying for the candidate and for the recruiter. A candidate who has done everything
necessary, has been presented well, and is a good fit for a firm may hear little or nothing in
response. The firms do not want to say "no" yet, but they aren't ready to say "yes" or set up an
interview. So you hear nothing — except for the deafening roar of silence.
I've borne witness to the fact that during the best of times, law firm hiring has some
disturbing similarities to sausage making. The end result may be good, but the less time one
spends analyzing the ingredients, the better. We are all adjusting to finding out we are in a
new land. Lateral hiring has even more variables impacting the timing and outcome for
candidates. So contrary to advising you not to look too closely, now is the time when having
more information may be useful. Here is a peek behind the gates:
The burden on practice group leaders to prove the necessity of every lateral hire has
increased tenfold. Most firms appear to be stable financially and to have had a profitable year
in 2007, but it only makes sense for firms to respond to the best of their ability to the
changes in the economy. That has caused them to be particularly careful in their recruiting,
to trim fat from all of their budgets, and to look with great scrutiny at each hire being
requested. There are more laterals in the market due to layoffs in several practice areas, and
there is more pressure than ever on partners to originate work, with firms letting go or
demoting partners that are not able to make rain.
It is easy to demonize the firms as some sort of evil entity. Yet having seen firsthand the
inner workings of law firms, I do not envy the partners and administrators tasked with
sustaining the success of the firms. It is their job to be sure there is adequate revenue to
compete with other firms and to cover the payroll and benefits of everyone from the
housekeeping staff to the chair of the firm. As painful as it is to be among the ranks of those
looking for work, there is little doubt that angst has been felt by those making the tough
calls.
Each component in staffing and hiring is interdependent and has bearing on the others.
Changes in NALP guidelines and on-campus hiring schedules are presenting some difficulty for
firms in assessing how many attorneys should be recruited for the coming year. The
integration of the entering associate class can temper lateral hiring. Firms routinely try to
shift work this time of year so that there are appropriate assignments for first-year associates
and to allow existing mid-levels to pick up more complicated assignments, thus reducing the
rush to hire laterals. All of these factors could be playing a role in your search.
It isn't easy to be a candidate playing the waiting game. Your level of tenacity needs to be
high. We are looking ahead and cautiously optimistic that as things sort out this fall, there
will be an uptick in the momentum of lateral hiring. Keep reminding yourself not to take it
personally. It isn't you. It's just a sign of the times.
Changing practice areas within law firm - a good move?
Question: I am an associate with a top firm in Manhattan. Work in my practice area at the
firm (M&A) has gotten very slow, and my partner mentor has asked me if I want to
transfer to another, busier group within the firm such as litigation. Should I do so even if I
have no interest in litigation and do not ever plan on practicing in this area of the law? —
James C., New York, NY
Answer: In today's market, which is volatile at best, this is a very common question. The up
and down of the stock market has taken its toll on a number of firm clients. It has, therefore,
taken its toll on a number of firms — and their influx of business from such clients. It's not
surprising to hear that several key areas of practice are slow this season, such as M&A,
structured finance, and any practice that relies on the credit markets.
In light of this slowdown, some associates are finding themselves without a great deal of work
to do this summer. When faced with low billables for weeks on end, an associate really only
has three choices: (1) sit it out and hope the market improves and business picks up; (2) move
to a busier practice group within the firm; or (3) switch firms. We are going to focus on option
number two.
Ideally, it is best to move to a busier practice group within your practice area. Thus, if you
are an M&A associate, when M&A is slow, try and jump to the securities/capital markets or
hedge fund practice groups. Although these are different legs of the corporate animal,
keeping a consistent resume is very important, and I would rather see you become a
corporate generalist than a jack-of-all-trades in a number of different or unrelated practice
areas.
Having said this, when switching to another leg of corporate practice is not possible at your
firm and your only option is moving to a practice group which is outside of your current
subject area (such as moving from corporate to litigation), this move requires a bit more
thought. It is a weighing of realities and priorities. If your firm is struggling or you are sensing
layoffs, a move to the litigation practice may not be ideal, but it will keep you employed,
busy, learning, and engaged.
For those of us with a mortgage and children on the brain, that biweekly paycheck cannot be
undervalued. Thus, if maintaining an income is important to you right now, move to litigation.
It is not an ideal scenario, but it will keep you employed, and your resume will continue to
feature the same employer. That is valuable.
There is also value in taking on corporate-related pro bono projects during this period so that
while you are doing litigation, you are also adding some new corporate matters to your
resume. They may not be client billable, but again, they add value. Finally, you should keep
your eye on the prize and switch back into corporate as soon as the market improves and your
partners allow.
If, on the other hand, a consistent income is not your top priority and you are more inclined
to take a risk, you may entertain the option of staying where you are in the M&A practice and
simply waiting things out. Keep in mind, however, that "waiting things out" can be risky. If,
for example, three more months pass without any work in M&A, you may be recast as the lowhanging fruit in the firm — and if your firm is looking to lay people off, that is not the type of
fruit you want to be. Thus, staying in a slow practice group during a down period has
attendant risks, which only you can consider and decide upon.
Finally, you may decide to cast off your slow practice and the partner's undesirable offer to
have you switch practice groups and move to another firm altogether. This is a very real
option, although finding a new firm can be a slow process during the summertime, which,
traditionally, is the sleepy time for lateral hiring.
Thus, when thinking about ways to keep yourself busy in a slow practice, I would recommend
not letting pride or a certain "vision" of yourself get in the way of keeping yourself valuable
within your firm. Law firms are businesses. When business gets slow and your goal is to stay
busy, weigh your personal priorities, compare them against your career priorities, and make
an informed decision.
When is the right time to make a lateral move?
Question: I am a third-year associate with a large law firm. I like what I do here, and I see
no reason to move to another firm. Recruiters have begun calling me more and more
since I became a third-year. They say this is the best time for a move to another firm
because my experience level is in the greatest demand and that I shouldn't wait until I am
too ''senior'' to make a move.
Do I stand a better chance for making partner at another firm, as some of the recruiters
seem to think? Things are going well here. Besides, how many associates ultimately make
it all the way through the ranks to partnership at any big firm? Each year I see associates
go up for partnership that have been here for years and not make it — some of them
highly respected. Why would moving give me better odds? It all seems so random.
Answer: That is a terrific question. There are several factors to take into account when
viewing an attorney's career in the big picture sense. Prior to becoming an attorney search
consultant, I was the manager in a recruiting office for a national law firm. Lateral attorney
hiring was an integral part of my responsibilities.
Looking back at the careers of attorneys we hired laterally versus the attorneys we "home
grew" — from summer associates or hired right out of law school — I have observed with
interest the fact that the laterals who were hired for a specific practice area frequently made
partner at a rate that was noticeably higher than that at which the "lifers" (attorneys who
came to us young and stayed all the way through to partnership consideration) did.
This trend has held true with the attorneys I have placed laterally into other firms in recent
years. It is harder to see from inside of a firm, but if we watch the careers of attorneys from
law school graduation to the partner level, without question attorneys who make one or two
well-timed lateral moves over the courses of their careers frequently attain impressive levels
of success.
That is not to say there are not exceptions. Some attorneys who spend their careers with a
single firm are quite successful. But more often, those who make a few educated and wellthought-out moves during the courses of their careers fare better. The explanation is simple:
it is through change and transition that human beings develop their potential. The distinction
is between being comfortable and stretching. And it is when we stretch that the steps can
become leaps in development.
This is not because the grass is always greener somewhere else; it is because along the path
to success we evolve in various ways. Staying in one place for an entire career can result in
satisfaction and accomplishments. It is gratifying to build lasting relationships and to be one
of the few within a firm culture that stayed at the first firm they were hired by and built
their careers. And this is the way it used to be in law firms for a long time — if you stayed
with a firm and did quality work, your prospects for partnership were pretty good. But the
nature of the profession has shifted.
Remaining with one firm and gradually assuming responsibility no longer is an assurance that
there will be room at the partnership table when the time comes. It can be a very healthy
choice to "start over" at a new stage in your career on a different playing field. Here's why:
An attorney beginning his or her career with a firm directly from law school or a clerkship is
building the foundation that will determine his or her future with that firm, but many
attorneys do not realize it at the time. Each relationship he or she develops and the role he
or she ultimately fits into within a practice group becomes part of his or her history within
that firm. Initially, perhaps, the attorney manages to project confidence on the outside, but
let's be honest: even the brightest person feels intimidated and uncertain when he or she is
the new kid on the block and everyone else seems to have far more experience.
There is a steep learning curve at the beginning of a legal career. In any field we learn as we
gain experience, whether it is in terms of tangible professional skills or interpersonal
relationships and social skills. Attorneys, like everyone, gain wisdom and knowledge that is
accrued over time. Much of that comes through trial (pardon the pun) and error. It is
important to periodically evaluate who we are and where we want to go.
As an associate's career goes on, the rate of development slows down and begins to level off.
Working relationships and the dynamics of interactions solidify. Perceptions are formed that
can be hard to shake, and shifting gears can get difficult. A huge part of development is
continuing to learn by seeing things from various perspectives. It is enriching to be exposed to
a broader array of legal approaches and philosophies. How much would any of us have learned
if he or she had the same teacher or handful of teachers for the entirety of his or her
education?
Walking through the door to a new venture can be the best place to show all that you have
learned and to find out some things you don't. It can be energizing, exciting, and a great
launching pad that invigorates a career. As a lateral associate you know more about legal
practice, and you know what kinds of relationships you want to have with your peers and
supervisors — and what makes or breaks them.
Your new colleagues see you in a different way than your old colleagues did. No one
remembers you as the nervous new kid — the one you were on your first day of your career
"after JD." You have cultivated valuable skills that were needed by a particular practice group
and are now better able to navigate and respond to the many personalities that are found in
law firms.
It is gratifying professionally to be in a position where your skills were sought out and are
therefore greatly appreciated. And you have learned from that tough partner in your last firm
the value of thorough research and remaining calm while articulating your conclusions. That
tough partner will probably turn out to be one of your greatest teachers — because he or she
taught you to know your stuff before talking about it and to stand your ground because you
are sure of the work you did.
For many associates (and partners) a new beginning is the turning point when a good career
becomes a great career, and they really take off.
Leaving a firm where you started out can be bittersweet. It is like leaving home and venturing
out into the world on your own. It is through these rites of passage that we can sometimes be
propelled forward more rapidly and can more fully realize our goals. Thank you for the
excellent question, and much success to you in your legal career.
BigLaw associate thinking of changing practice areas
Question: I am a second year BigLaw associate. I am not sure that I have chosen the
correct practice area and think that I might like to switch practice areas. What should I
do?
Answer: When you graduate and join a large firm, firms generally hire you for a specific
practice area (e.g., litigation or corporate). There is a business need that justifies placing you
in a particular group, and the firm is expecting that you will be able to help service specific
clients in that particular group.
Practice groups within a firm often operate like separate and independent firms, and many
have little or no cross-pollination among practice groups. Many junior associates have the
misconception that, because a firm has numerous practice groups, they have the ability to
freely switch between practice groups because they all work for the same firm. It is
important to keep in mind that the firm is a business and a firm views its associates as
investments. For each junior associate, a great amount of money is invested by the practice
group - through both recruiting and training - and it takes a good deal of time before the firm
reaps financial gains from this investment. Certainly the best time to experiment with
practice areas is as a summer associate when the firm has invested less money in training
you. There is more at stake (because the firms has continued its investment in your career)
when you are an associate.
To make a practice switch either within your current firm or to another firm, you will need to
demonstrate that this is a well-thought out decision and the new group will need to have a
business need for an additional associate. In an interview, to demonstrate a well-thought out
decision, you'll need to explain with clarity:
— Why you want to move to a new practice area.
— What you know about the new practice area.
— Why you will like this new practice area.
To be able to answer these questions definitively and convincingly, consider the following
approaches:
1. Focus on the potential to move, gain transferable skills in your current department.
2. Befriend partners and senior associates in that new department. Speak to them about their
work. If possible, ask for work in that area.
3. Make sure that you are getting exposure to that practice - even tangentially.
4. Undertake some pro bono work in the area in which you have an interest to gain some
experience.
5. Research, research, research!
Please do not wait too long to make this determination. It will become infinitely more
difficult for you to switch practice groups as you become more senior! Good luck!
Is it possible to change practice areas in big law firms?
Question: I am currently a second-year associate and have decided I want to switch my
practice from litigation to corporate law. My current firm does not have a strong
corporate practice, so I am thinking of accepting an offer to join the litigation practice of
another firm that has a really strong corporate practice. While I did not say this on the
interview, of course, my goal is to make a practice-group switch from litigation to
corporate after I join this new firm. My question is this: Assuming I accept my offer at this
new firm, how long should I wait before I disclose to the litigation partners that I plan to
switch to the firm's corporate group? (R.J., New York City)
Answer:
Dear R.J.,
I selected this particular question this week because it speaks directly to a common
misconception that a number of junior associates have regarding practice-area switches.
One particular comment in your question caught my attention: "...how long should I wait
before I disclose to the litigation partners that I plan to switch to the firm's corporate group."
This comment stuck out because your use of the words "disclose" and "plan to switch" implies
that you are expecting that your request will be automatically granted.
Practice-group switches certainly do occur, but junior associates in firms (typically larger
firms) too often believe that a practice-group switch is simply a matter of making a wish and
having it granted. Why? Because in many firms with summer associate programs, summer
associates are allowed—and encouraged—to chose their specific practice areas. During law
school, students are encouraged to explore different fields of law and sample different areas.
A mindset that embraces exploring and changing is encouraged in law school.
When you graduate and join a large firm, it's different. With the exception of firms that
rotate associates during their first year or two, firms will generally hire you for a specific
practice area (e.g., litigation or corporate). There is a business need that justifies placing you
in a particular group, and the firm is expecting that you will be able to help service specific
clients in that particular group. Placing you in a particular practice group is usually a wellthought-out investment decision that has been justified on a number of levels.
It's also important to realize that practice groups within firms often operate like separate
subset firms, and many have little or no cross-pollination. Many junior associates have the
misconception that just because a firm has, for example, litigation and corporate practices,
they will have the luxury of freely switching practice groups since they all work for the same
firm. This is not true. It's important to keep in mind that firms view associates as investments.
For each junior associate, thousands and thousands of dollars are invested by the practice
group—through recruiting and training—and the firm does not reap financial gains
immediately.
With this background in mind, let's answer your question. As you will likely guess based on my
comments above, I think it's a very bad idea to lateral into the litigation practice of another
firm with the expectation that you can automatically switch to a corporate group. Is this a
possibility? Of course. But don't expect it.
If the firm has hired you for its litigation practice, it is expecting that your background and
experience will make you a good fit for its current needs. Based on the fact that you did not
disclose your interest in transitioning into corporate law, the attorneys there are very much
expecting—or at least very much hoping—that you will fit nicely within their litigation group
for a long time. They will be excited to have you join their team. If you unexpectedly spring
your interest in transitioning to their corporate practice on them, they will likely feel
deceived. They will wonder, "Why did we invest the time and effort into hiring somebody for
our litigation group who had no intention of staying with us?" Aside from their disappointment
in learning that you are not who they thought you were during interviews, you will lose a lot
of credibility in their eyes.
Second, let's assume that the attorneys in the litigation group have the personalities of robots
and don't mind your request to transition into the corporate group. How do you know that the
corporate group will have a need for somebody with your background? Unless the corporate
group specifically has a need for a lateral associate with no relevant experience (which is very
unlikely), this door will likely remain closed, even though you are working for the same firm.
Now—for the sake of argument—if you were coming from a practice area that provided you
with more transferable skills (let's say finance, for example), you might have an easier time
making the switch. Remember, when firms hire laterals, they expect to hire people who can
hit the ground running (apologies for the cliché phrase) or people who can get up to speed
quickly with minimal training. But as a litigator, you are essentially asking a firm to bring you
on as a lateral and train you from the ground floor on corporate/transactional matters, which
differ considerably from litigation. Assuming the firm has a lateral need, when given the
choice between a litigator who joined the firm a few months ago or an experienced corporate
attorney from another firm, wouldn't it make more business sense to hire somebody who
already has experience in corporate matters? (I should point out that if you have been with
the new firm for a while and have established a very good reputation, the goodwill you have
developed could make it easier for you to make an internal switch, assuming the firm's need
is for somebody with less experience.)
So where does this leave you? I'd recommend stepping back and seriously reconsidering your
strategy. My hunch is that somebody along the way gave you the false impression that it's very
easy to switch practice areas within a firm, which is simply not true. Again, it can and does
happen (I've successfully placed a number of people into new practice areas), but it requires
a detailed analysis and a very specific approach.
If you move forward with the strategy you proposed, I'm sure you'll be anxious to try to
initiate the practice-group switch sooner rather than later. I'm concerned that you could risk
hurting your reputation with the litigation group at your new firm, and your loss of credibility
could undermine your entire experience at your firm. And if your desire to switch practice
areas results in the firm asking you to leave (which I've seen happen before), you'll have a
much harder time explaining this to your next firm. The people there will be thinking, "If you
had decided that you wanted to practice corporate law, why did you join the litigation group
at your second firm? That makes no sense." And if your new practice area does not work out,
you'll have a tough time successfully explaining to a third employer why you are looking to
make yet another switch.
Making a practice-area switch can be exciting and very rewarding, but it's not something to be
taken lightly and definitely not something to be entered into carelessly. As mentioned above,
there are numerous complex strategies involved in making a successful practice-area switch
(which would be a good topic for another Q&A...hint, hint). Spend time now doing due
diligence and speak to people who have successfully made practice-group switches. You may
also want to consider the advice in the following article, which was written by a BCG Attorney
Search recruiter who has helped a number of attorneys with practice-area switches:
www.bcgsearch.com/crc/practice_area.html.
Good luck!
Is lack of work on joining a new firm common?
Question: I'm a third-year litigation associate and joined a new firm two weeks ago. I was
promised a lot of work and responsibility, which is why I joined this firm, but things have
been really slow since I joined. I keep asking for work, but I'm told to "hold tight" and that
work will be coming to me soon. Is this common, or did I make a mistake by joining this
new firm? - K.A., Boston
Answer:
Dear K.A.,
Yes, a temporary absence of work upon joining a new firm is actually quite common. And your
reaction ("Did I make a mistake by joining this new firm?") is also very normal.
It's important to realize that even when a firm has a hiring need and brings on a new
associate, it can take some time for the work to get to that associate's desk. There are a few
common reasons for this.
First, the initial few days of a new job are usually dedicated to getting up to speed on an
administrative level (learning to use the computers, training, etc.). Second, a delay in
receiving work commonly stems from the practice group being too busy. (I know this sounds
very counterintuitive since they hired you because they were too busy.)
Here's why I say this: Partners have certain "go-to associates" who routinely handle their work.
When a partner is extremely busy, giving work to a new person requires him or her to invest
some extra time to train and mentor the new person. When a partner is very busy, he or she
reverts to the "path of least resistance" and may not necessarily have enough time available
to fully train and mentor you, so it's easiest to just give the immediate work to another
associate who is a known commodity (even though the known commodity may be
overworked).
A useful analogy for this is when a law firm introduces a new piece of software (e.g., an
upgraded document-management system), which is intended to improve performance. While
this software will improve performance, there is a strong tendency for people to initially cling
to the old software because it is familiar. This same mindset applies to providing work to a
new lateral associate.
Third, it takes some time for the partners to figure out exactly where they can best use you.
Deciding how to staff you on certain cases is often a big decision. While it would have been
ideal for the partners to have made this decision before you started, the reality is that these
decisions are often made after one begins working for a firm because the partners simply
didn't have the time to fully consider the situation beforehand.
Fourth, sometimes firms will hire people based on identified and anticipated needs.
Sometimes a firm is about to receive several large cases and it needs to hire people who can
be on the ground and ready to go when the case begins. In these types of situations, there
may be an initial lull in the new associate's workload until the cases begin.
There are numerous other reasons you may be experiencing an initial lull in work, but it's
important not to overreact too quickly. It can take weeks (or even months) to ramp up to a
full plate of work, so keep that in mind. The fact that your workload is initially slow does not
mean you made a mistake. If you are still devoid of work in three or six months, that's a sign
of a bigger problem. At this point, you are still in the very initial ramp-up stage, so I wouldn't
be worried.
The best thing you can do is get to know the attorneys in your group (i.e., by chatting in their
offices casually, going out to lunch, etc.). Also, let them know that you are available to help.
But don't overdo it when asking for work.
What I mean by "don't overdo it" is that you should not constantly email the partners daily
with comments like "I have no work," even if you really have no work. Some associates make
too much "noise" because they think that it looks worse to sit in their offices doing nothing
and their anxiety forces them to try to remedy the situation by constantly asking for work.
This can actually be counterproductive because, while they have good intentions, they can
quickly become associated with annoyance and additional sources of stress for the partners.
Remember, once you let the other attorneys know you are available to help, they will give
you work as soon as they can. The very last thing they want to do is pay you a hefty salary
while you are sitting in your office twiddling your thumbs and not working on any billable
work. If nothing else, once they see your lower billables for your first month, they will realize
the urgency of getting you work as soon as possible.
In my experience as a legal recruiter, I've seen this situation occur numerous times, and
almost always, the concern vanishes within a few weeks. Oftentimes, these attorneys who did
not have enough work at first call me a few weeks later saying that they are currently trying
their best to stay on top of all the work they are getting. At this point—two weeks into your
new job—you are well within the zone of normalcy for having little work.
I know that having a lack of work can be much more stressful than being busy, but take
advantage of this opportunity to ease into your new position. Just relax and have faith that
things will pick up very soon, and before you know it, you will be busier than you can
remember ever being before. Good luck!
Chapter 3
Everything you ever wanted to know about law firm interviews,
references, resumes and the job hunt
Shy 4th year associate needs help in overcoming interview fear
Question: I'm a fourth-year associate who is looking to make a move to another firm. I am
not outgoing and have never felt comfortable talking about myself. I never know how to
answer when interviewers ask me to tell them about myself. Why don't they just look at
my resume?
Answer: This is an excellent question, and one I have heard many times. Many interviewers
begin an interview by saying, “Tell me about yourself.” Attorneys who are not particularly
talkative hate this question. Yes, they have your resume, but there are other reasons they
want you to answer this question. They want to hear how well you speak, how confidently you
conduct yourself. They want to see how comfortable you are when you are put in the
spotlight. If you trip over your words, if you can't think of anything to say, you not only betray
of lack of confidence, but you will also miss an opportunity to show that you are a selfassured, dynamic lawyer. This question is more about how you speak and behave than it is
about what you actually say. It is important to have in your mind a few activities that you can
discuss with passion and positive energy before you sit down for any interview.
When during the course of the interview this question is posed will determine the tone of your
answer. Many interviewers will lead off with this question. If they do, I recommend starting
with your resume and discussing your professional career, walking backwards, but
embellishing what's there. Unless the interviewer immediately begins pressing you to discuss
your professional experience, don't talk in detail about your substantive legal work when
answering this question. Instead, talk generally about other aspects of your career, and, if
you are junior, you can talk also about college. If you are coming from another law firm,
discuss why you chose that firm, that practice group, that city, and what you have enjoyed
about those choices. If you are moving cities, discuss why. If it feels right, you can discuss the
reasons you are looking to move firms. Mention law-related activities, such as working on the
summer associate committee, pro bono or community activities, or participating in firm's
softball team. The important thing is to speak enthusiastically. Also important is to keep
interviewer engaged; make sure she seems interested in what you are saying. If she doesn't,
move on to another topic or give her a chance to ask a different question.
If the question comes towards the end of the interview, you have probably already discussed
your legal skills and experience. What is interesting about you that is not on your resume?
What are your interests, aside from practicing law? This is the time to discuss activities that
are truly non-law-related. It is, however, very important to first assess your interviewer. If
you're sitting with a partner who has a reserved air, she may not relate to your recent helisnowboarding trip, or your weekend at Lollapallooza. She may want to hear, however, about
a great book you recently read, or a foreign language you're trying to learn. An animated
junior associate may jump on other types of experiences to bond with you. Travel is usually
an excellent topic for discussion. Even reading is a good choice because you can discuss books
that both you and the interviewer have recently read. I recommend avoiding discussing family
and children to the extent that you can; whether you are married or have children is
generally not an interviewer's concern.
In sum, don't be afraid to talk about the things that make you something more than just a
lawyer with a great professional resume. No one wants to work with someone who lacks
confidence or has little to say. Don't worry too much about whether the interviewer shares
your interests; remember that this question is largely about how you comport yourself. The
important thing is not what you say but how you say it. Be sure to speak with assurance and
enthusiasm about whatever your interests happen to be.
Associate with experience in different areas wonders how to market himself
Question: I am a fourth year associate in Big Law and started my career as a tax associate.
Due to the economy the past few years, I've also done a great deal of general litigation
work and even some general transactional work. How should I market myself to firms?
Answer: This is a question I'm seeing a lot lately as many associates have scrambled to find
whatever work they could during the slow days of the past few years. Unfortunately, most
mid- to large-sized firms do not want someone who has done a little bit of everything because
they prefer to have an associate focus on a single area of law. In this case, I ask candidates to
make a specific resume for each practice area to which they've had exposure. I ask them to
think about every project they did for that practice area and make a representative work list
detailing each project. They can then use that information to make a fairly accurate guess as
to what percentage of their time has been spent on each practice area throughout their
career.
Using the above example, if it turns out that they spent 50% on litigation, 35% on tax matters
and 15% on corporate matters, I would likely suggest that we pursue both litigation and tax
positions, but not corporate positions. We can then use these focused resumes to put the
candidate in the best light for the positions they apply to and tailor their cover letter
accordingly. So, although it may sound appealing to market yourself as well-rounded and
exposed to multiple areas of law, you are best served to sell yourself as an expert in one
particular practice area.
If you need any help strategizing and marketing yourself, please contact one of the recruiters
at BCG Attorney Search and we'll help you think of your most compelling story that will help
you land your ideal job!
Be prepared for the most important question
Question: What is the most important question a candidate will need to be prepared to
answer in a law firm interview?
Answer: The most important question you will have to answer in an interview is “why are you
interested in our firm?” Although this seems like an obvious question, it's one that wasn't
necessarily asked in prior years. In 2012, however, law firms know that opportunities are few
and far between and that a large pool of candidates is vying for a small number of positions.
It's no longer enough to have a generic answer to this question, so do your research and really
get to know a firm before going in for an interview. Pay attention to such things as the size of
the firm's practice group, the number and location of the firm's offices, whether the firm has
an international, national or regional presence, associate development programs, the type of
work associates get to take on and anything else that will assist you in distinguishing one
particular firm from its competitors. The key is to be able to efficiently articulate to the
interviewee what you believe sets his or her law firm apart from the competition and why you
feel the firm is a strong fit for your experience and/or career goals.
Is asking firm partner for help in a job hunt a wise move?
Question: I am planning to look for a job here in Dallas. My partner is somewhat aware
that I've been unhappy with my hours. I think he would help me find another position
since he has so many connections here in town and is generally a nice guy. Should I let
him know I am looking for a new position and see if he will help me?
Answer: I wish I could be optimistic and encourage you here, but the answer is categorically
“no.” I can't tell you how many times I've seen this backfire, even when the partner does try
to help the associate. My golden rule is: You should never, ever tell your firm you are looking.
You should be as careful during a job search as possible. Until your conflicts are cleared at
your new firm, your old firm shouldn't know anything about your search.
Let's examine a few scenarios I have encountered:
You ask your partner to help you but he does so ineffectively
Several times, I have encountered associates who have asked their partners for their
assistance in helping them find another job, either as an active assistant in the search or as a
reference. What can happen is that time may go on and the associate doesn't find a job after
several months. Then her hours dwindle because the partner worries she may ditch him on a
project and leave. She then gets a bad review and gets laid off several months later.
Your partner asks you if you are looking for a new position and you confirm that you are
It feels unethical to lie especially when directly confronted about interviewing. However, I
recently worked with a finance candidate who missed work once a week for three weeks (he
was interviewing in New York). When the firm asked him if the absences were for interviews,
he said yes, and was let go on the spot. He felt it wrong to lie, but unfortunately he paid the
price and had six months with no salary and a family to support before he found a position.
You are not careful with your conversations, emails, and voicemails
It's important to be just as careful with office staff and other associates when conducting a
job search. Your job search should not be shared with your coworkers. I recently worked with
an associate whose secretaries gossiped that he was interviewing (discovered via a voicemail
that she had access to) and the firm happened to let him go two weeks later for a trumped up
reason. Another candidate asked an associate their opinion on a firm where they were
interviewing and the news got back to a partner.
Further, you should NOT use your work email to conduct a search. Always use a personal
email address. Also, it's best to use your cell number, not an office line.
Is it a good move to use my law firm contacts to get a position in the law firm?
Question: I am just beginning my job search and am planning on working with a recruiter,
but I was wondering: what is the best approach when I know someone who works at a law
firm that is of interest to me (or otherwise have a contact within the firm)?
Answer: This is a great question and it comes up often. While much depends on the
circumstance, as a general rule of thumb, candidates fare far better when they allow their
recruiter to submit their application and then have their contact “bolster” the candidate's
submission. This is the case for several reasons. First, if you are working with a good
recruiter, they will present a complete application to the firm (rather than just floating a
copy of your resume to someone). This will include a detailed cover letter prepared by your
recruiter, your resume and transcript, a writing sample, and any additional relevant details.
Second, your recruiter should know the appropriate contact person within the recruiting
department and can make sure that your application gets in front of the correct person.
Third, your recruiter has the expertise and can commit the time to continuously following up
on your submission and advocating for your candidacy as needed. Fourth, if you are granted
an interview, your recruiter can help you prepare for that interview. Finally, if you use this
consistent approach to applying to firms – rather than supplying your resume to multiple
people without accounting for where it's going – you will preserve the confidentiality of your
job search and will ensure that your resume does not get into more hands than necessary.
I have talked to many former colleagues and acquaintances who are at the management and
partner-level in law firms of all sizes. Almost all of them receive resumes from friends,
colleagues and associates on a regular basis and, in most cases, those resumes simply sit in
their email inboxes or on their desk. Why? They don't have the time or incentive to pass that
resume on to the appropriate department and to the firm's recruiting coordinator. They are
generally far too busy working on their own matters and do not have enough information
about a candidate (based on a one-page resume) to effectively advocate for them.
Additionally, keep in mind that – even though you may think the world of your friend who may
be an associate at a law firm of interest to you – it is never clear what that attorney's
standing or reputation is at their firm. If they don't have the clout, your resume may get
nowhere. Recruiters with strong submissions and a reputation for presenting firms with
excellent candidates will typically have a lot of clout within law firm recruiting departments
and can, thus, get their candidates before the firm.
Of course, this is not a hard and fast rule. There will certainly be circumstances where it
makes sense to directly present your resume to a law firm, but these circumstances will be
rare (for example, if you have a direct connection to the firm or practice group's hiring
partner). Absent that sort of high-level connection, we have seen that the most effective way
to get before a firm is to have a trusted recruiter submit your application and provide you
with the appropriate contact person within the firm's recruiting department so that you can
have your contact “bolster” your submission by acting as a reference. Wait for a couple of
days, following your recruiter's submission to the firm, so that your submission has time to be
processed by the firm's recruiting department. Finally,I would recommend that you do not
provide a copy of your resume to your friend/contact (but rather just have them contact the
firm's recruiting department to put in a good word for you). In the past, when candidates
have provided their friend's with resumes, the confidentiality of their search has been
breached and, more often than not, it has resulted in confusion and frustration within the law
firm, since the firm then has multiple copies of your resume).While it requires some forward
thinking and clear communication between you and your your recruiter, if done correctly, this
approach should be the most effective way to land an interview.
How much time does it take to land a job in an AmLaw 100 firm?
Question: I am a third year associate, currently working at a large, AmLaw 100 firm in
New York. Things are going well for me in my current position, but I would like to move to
another firm in New York that is comparable in size and prestige, but that offers more
mentorship and career development opportunities for young associates. How long should I
expect my job search to take from the time that I begin searching to the time when I am
ultimately placed at another law firm?
Answer: This is a great question. While there are a variety of factors that can impact the
duration of your job search, generally speaking, you should expect your search to take
between 4 and 6 months. Sometimes attorneys are placed more quickly, but it is important to
set realistic expectations, so that you can best navigate the process and so that you don't get
discouraged.
A number of factors can impact the duration of a job search. In some instances, a firm may
be looking to hire very quickly. For example, a firm may have just hired a new partner with a
book of business that needs to be staffed up, or the firm may have lost an associate that had
essential expertise for current matters, or the firm may have just taken on a new matter that
requires the firm to quickly obtain additional expertise on a particular subject matter or
practice area. In these instances, the hiring process may move more quickly, sometimes
taking less than two months from start to finish.
However, absent one of these scenarios, you can expect the search to take a bit longer. The
current market is extremely competitive. Law firms are being inundated with resumes from
qualified applicants and are often interviewing multiple candidates for one position. In some
instances, prospective candidates are being put through three or more rounds of interviews.
This is largely because firms recognize that candidates don't have as many options in 2011 as
may have existed in years past and, as a result, are more comfortable taking their time during
the hiring process to ensure that they hire the best possible candidate for their current
needs.
Finally, keep in mind that, even after the interview process is concluded, it can still take
time for a firm to make an offer. There are internal discussions to be had and references to
be checked. And, of course, an offer needs to be prepared and conflicts need to be checked.
All of these things add to the length of time it takes to secure a new position.
In summary, it is important to commit to your job search, but to do so with the understanding
that this is a process. The key will be to set realistic expectations and to be patient, and to
continue to perform at your highest level in your current job (so that you don't jeopardize
your standing at your present firm). If you stay focused on your search, stay positive and
optimistic and allow your recruiter to do his or her job to assist you and help create every
opportunity for you, I am confident that you will be successful. Best of luck to you in your job
search!
Had a great interview but have got no response to my thank-you emails.
Question: I'm a third-year litigator and it's been one week since I interviewed with a firm.
I think everything went very well; even the head of the group was telling me how
qualified I am. However, when I sent thank-you emails nobody responded. It's a week
later and I'm assuming the worst. My husband tells me I'm being a pessimist. What's your
thought?
Answer: It's absolutely understandable to assume the worst in this situation, but what you are
experiencing is not unusual at all right now. I've seen people in your exact situation end up
getting offers, so you should not assume the worst. Of course, it would have been nice if the
attorneys responded to your thank you emails but very often they don't. Why? They want to
be very careful not to say something (even if said casually) that could send the wrong signal.
There are so many ways to incorrectly interpret an otherwise innocent remark made by an
attorney when he/she responds to a thank you email. For example, if somebody responds
with, ''Nice meeting you, too - best of luck!'' you might assume the worst (''Uh oh, if they were
interested in seeing me again, they would not have said ‘best of luck', which is something you
say to somebody you don't expect to see again. Damn!''). On the other hand, if somebody
responded politely with, ''Nice meeting you, too – I hope to see you again soon!'' you might
throw your hands up in victory on the premature assumption that ''I hope to see you again''
must surely (and literally) mean ''I hope we hire you and I hope to actually see you in our
firm.'' (I'm only half-joking ... I've heard this rationale many times from distressed
candidates.)
As you can see, as a candidate in an understandably heightened state of anxiety, it's very easy
to quickly jump to conclusions that are not accurate. The attorneys at the interviewing firm
often know this, so rather than risk being the one person who sends the incorrect messageand getting in trouble later on for speaking out of turn-attorneys often just play it safe and
don't respond. The rules of social pressure actually encourage people at the interviewing
firm-especially those that are not critical to the decision making process-to simply sit tight
and not respond.
I've seen many people not get responses at all and end up subsequently receiving offers, and
I've also seen people get very nice and encouraging responses and end up not receiving an
offer. All things being equal, a response is obviously a better sign than no response at all, but
don't assume the worst just yet. Hang in there.
Is changing firms twice in four years considered job hopping?
Question: I have heard that firms are now looking at how many employers I've had since
law school. I've practiced for 4 years and moved twice. That's not a lot! Why would a firm
refuse to consider me for their associate position?
Answer: My law firm clients have been focusing more than ever on a candidate's work history.
Some of my law firms even go so far as to exclude from consideration those associate
candidates who have worked at more than one firm since law school. While not every firm has
such rigid requirements, it is almost always something that comes into consideration when a
firm is looking at a candidate's resume.
This causes a lot of job seekers a great deal of frustration, to say the least. Some folks want
to argue with me-they say that it is patently ridiculous to use number of legal employers as a
measure in reviewing candidates. In a tight associate hiring market-certainly a 'buyer's'
market - it may not really matter how justified firms are in that particular criteria. Until the
hiring market truly changes, firms may not have to relax their demands much.
It's useful though to understand the logic behind why firms are looking so closely at whether
and how many times you've changed jobs. First, a firm who is hiring you is generally
interested in someone they can count on to stay at the firm long-term. If your resume reflects
that you get restless after a year or two-it simply may not be worth the investment.
Indeed, one lawyer I recently talked to who was particularly upset about this issue told me
she left her last job for her current employer because she had been there two years, and had
gotten bored. “It was time for a change” she said. In my experience, this type of attitude is
simply not something law firm hiring professionals are interested in. Loyalty to an
organization is an important quality for a young lawyer-and avoiding job hopping is one way
to reflect that.
Certainly, for job seekers who have moved around a bit, it does help to explain the why's and
how's of the progression of your resume. If you moved firms because a partner for whom you
do a great deal of work asked you to come with him to a new employer, this is not viewed as
negatively as a transition you made for a nominal pay raise. What has motivated you in the
past to make a move to a new employer is relevant because it's the best indication a new law
firm has of what you'll do down the road. If you are sure that you are applying for a firm that
will be somewhere you can commit to other a long period of time, you have to be ready to
explain why.
There is also a generation gap. Simply stated, older generations moved from job to job far
less than the younger generations do. Law firms may have to shift their perceptions about
candidates who have changed employers to keep up with employment trends. Even so, I think
it's short sighted for any lawyer to disregard the impact changing jobs every few years has on
your resume and how you are perceived in the marketplace.
How to apply to law firms besides emailing them?
Question: I am applying to firms for a permanent position next Fall. I have applied to a lot
of firms in my area, but haven't gotten any interviews. I have been e-mailing my cover
letter and a resume to these firms, but this isn't working. What is another way to apply to
these firms outside of e-mail?
Answer: Generally, you are thinking about your job search correctly. Having not gotten any
results from your efforts so far, you should be asking yourself (and others) what you should be
doing differently to meet with more success in your job search. Even so, your question
assumes that the hurdle you are encountering has to do with how you are transmitting your
interest to the firms. I don't think that's a safe assumption.
Let's talk first about timing. You are looking for something that will start in the Fall of 2010.
One of the by-products of the recession has been that law firms are seriously reducing their
expectations for how many new associates they are prepared to take on. Though I don't
encourage people to spend too much time pouring over all of the bad news coming out of law
firms, it is important to know what is going on in the industry. For the last several months,
many law firms have been announcing that they are deferring start dates, both for incoming
class of 2009 and class of 2010 lawyers. Some law firms have cancelled their summer
programs, some of seriously reduced their summer classes. What does this mean for you? It
means that there is a great deal of uncertainty about future hiring needs. By applying now for
a position that will start in a year, you are essentially asking a law firm the question ''will you
need someone with my skill set this time next year?'' In today's economy, the answer is almost
certainly ''who knows?''
Here's the good news. Some firms are un-deferring entry level lawyers as they see that there
is some increase in work to go around. We are seeing the market incrementally improve. Still,
the recovery is not so vibrant that firms are willing to gamble on their needs so far in
advance. Law firms are conservatively evaluating whether to bring on associates. They are
making decisions to do so only when they see an acute need for new lawyers.
I think that your candidacy is simply too speculative for many firms at this point. I suspect you
will be far more successful with inquiries when you are closer to the date that you actually
are ready to make a move to a new position. I would suggest that you re-evaluate your efforts
in the Spring. We anticipate that the hiring landscape will be much brighter.
Regardless of the timing of your search, you are correct that how you send in your materials
to a prospective firm are important. I do think that many hiring partners and professionals
like electronic submissions, so long as the cover letter and resume are perfect. I think that
there is a tendency to be too casual and too sloppy via e-mail. If you can avoid this trap, you
should be ok. Having said that, do everything you can to find out what your target law firm's
preference is in terms of their preference, and conform your presentation accordingly.
Is contacting your old boss a good idea when looking for a job?
Question: I am in the job market and have considered calling my former boss to ask if he
knows of anyone who is looking. I left my former firm on great terms but am hesitant to
call him because it has been some time since he and I last spoke. Am I being too cautious?
Answer: Before you pick up the phone, consider the following: (1) what exactly will you be
asking for; (2) just how long has it been since you last spoke to your former boss; and (3) will
you be placing the confidentiality of your search at risk?
Networking is an amazing tool and, in this market, it is one of the best approaches a job
seeker can (and should) take. However, you have to be smart and yes, cautious. First of all,
contacting former colleagues and even a former boss is a great idea. But, if you haven't
spoken to the person in years and have made no effort to keep in touch since you left the
firm, it can be quite awkward. The importance of maintaining a network of colleagues and
other professional contacts cannot be understated. But, for this tool to be effective, you have
to keep those contacts ''fresh''. In other words, if you have not spoken to your former boss in
years and suddenly contact him to ask about helping you get a job, that may be not be the
best route to pursue.
On the other hand, if you have maintained the relationship and don't feel like you'd be coming
out of left field, go for it. Again, in the current economic climate, networking may be the
best tool you have at your disposal. Also, consider what you hope to gain from making the
call. It may be unrealistic to expect your former boss to refer you to a specific opening. But if
you did leave on good terms, you may want to begin by asking your former boss to serve as a
reference for your job search. By doing so, you accomplish two things. First, you are able to
offer potential employers a reference ''up front'' and second, you alert your former boss that
you are looking for a new opportunity.
Finally, before you pick up the phone, you must assess whether you are risking a breach of
confidentially by doing so. You want to be careful about letting too many people know that
you are looking to leave your current employer. This is especially true if you practice in a
small town and/or in a practice area in which everyone seems to know everyone else. Be
selective about who you reach out to and make sure you specifically let them know that your
search is confidential.
Do firms expect or even care about thank you notes?
Question: I recently went through a full round of interviews with a mid-size law firm. I
met with around 8 attorneys on this callback- and I think things went pretty well. My
question relates to thank you notes (which I hate writing because I never know what to
say). Do firms expect or even care if I write a thank you note after an interview?
Answer:
Dear F.H.,
Your question does not surprise me at all. It seems to be a fact of life that many people,
including attorneys, hate writing thank-you notes. When you are conducting a job search, one
of the things that will bring you peace of mind is the knowledge that you have done
everything in your power to convey a favorable impression to your potential employer.
Unfortunately for you, this includes writing thank-you notes to each person you interview with
and meet throughout the interviewing process.
As an example, if you participate in a firm interview and meet a recruiting coordinator, two
partners, and five associates, you really should plan on sending out a personalized thank-you
note to every person you encounter at the interview. The good news is that thank-you notes
do not have to be long novels. In fact, a short and concise note that conveys appreciation for
the other person's time is really the best kind of thank-you note you should send. Ideally, it is
best to send a handwritten card that (1) reconfirms your interest in the firm and (2) thanks
the other person for taking the time to meet you.
You also want to make sure that if you are sending multiple thank-you cards to different
people at the same firm, each message differs slightly from the others. There is a large
possibility that your interviewers may literally ''compare notes'' regarding your thank-you
messages. It would also be wonderful if you could include a small detail or conversation piece
from your personal interactions with each person in his or her thank-you card. This small
gesture will show you were genuinely interested and listening during each interview and
create a stronger personal connection through your message.
When picking your thank-you cards, I recommend going as simple as possible. Try to avoid any
cards with graphics or pictures. The best cards to use in a professional setting are the plain
cards that say ''Thank You'' in elegant script on the front and are blank on the inside.
I think sending an actual thank-you card is a nicer and more thoughtful gesture than sending
an email message. I do think, though, that a thank-you message sent through email is
acceptable if you are either short on time or live overseas-in which case mail delivery would
take an extremely long time. Showing appreciation to your interviewers via your thank-you
messages, will hopefully cement the firm’s favorable impression of you. Good luck and I hope
all goes well with your search!
Will contract work hurt chances of landing a full-time job?
Question: I was recently laid off from my law firm due to the economic downturn. I am
working hard to find a new position but, in the meantime, I've had to take on contract
work in order to make ends meet. Should I put my contract positions on my resume?
Answer: The first thing you should know is that you are not alone—a lot of highly qualified
attorneys with otherwise perfectly stable employment histories are taking on contract work in
the current market. It's always important to keep in mind that employers do need to know
about all the positions you have held. If for no other reason, it is possible that even by
working on a matter for a temporary and/or brief period of time, you have created a possible
conflict situation of which your potential employer must be made aware. However, that does
not necessarily mean that your contract positions belong on your resume. Here are a few
instances in which I would recommend adding those positions to your resume:
The position has relevance to the position for which you are applying. For example, I recently
worked with an attorney who was laid off from a general litigation position. She decided that
as long as she was looking for a new position anyway, she would focus her search on
employment litigation position because it had always been her desire to practice in this area
of the law. Her pre-law work experience was all in human resources and her studies during
law school were specifically aimed at becoming an employment litigator. While she was laid
off, she took on several significant contract assignments in which she worked specifically on
employment litigation matters. Thus, it made sense for her to include those positions on her
resume because it helped establish some level of experience in the relevant practice area.
The position is significant in terms of length of time and/or involvement in the matter
handled. Typically, contract positions last for a very short period of time and involve
primarily document review or other such tasks. However, there are instances in which a
contract attorney will stay with a firm for several months and sometimes even for several
years. In turn, the level of that attorney's involvement in the matters assigned to him/her
becomes much more significant than simple document review. In such instances, the contract
position should be included on the resume.
The position establishes geographic desirability. During these economic times, a lot of
attorneys are considering moving to new regions as a means of bolstering their chances of
securing a new position. However, at the same time, law firms are being much more careful
about hiring attorneys who may have relocation costs attached to their resume (or even travel
expenses for purposes of interviewing!). In such an instance, if you have moved to the new
region and are working on a contract and/or temporary assignment in that region, you may
consider putting it on your resume in order to communicate to potential employers that you
are physically local and they will not need to pay for travel expenses and/or relocation costs.
In most other circumstances, putting your contract position on your resume may not be
necessary. But again, do keep in mind that if the position is not on your resume, you should at
least let the potential employer know that you have taken on contract work in the cover
letter that accompanies your resume. Also, do keep in mind that the perception of contract
work varies greatly from region to region. Thus, it is also a good idea to speak with an
experienced recruiter in your region who can assess your specific circumstances and provide
guidance on whether you should put the contract position on your resume.
How to address your layoff in cover letters and interviews
Question: I was recently laid off from my firm and am now starting on a search for a new
position. I am concerned about the effect that being laid–off will have on my ability to
obtain a new position. Should I address the fact that I was laid off in my cover letter? How
should I deal with the issue during interviews?
Answer: Dealing with the fact that you were laid-off in a subsequent job search and/or
interviews is always difficult. In many cases, it raises red flags to a potential employer
because they inevitably question whether the lay-off was actually a performance-based firing.
The one silver lining in today's current market—lots of people are in the same position. With
the number of lay-offs currently taking place across the country, most prospective employers
will understand (and believe) that your situation was the result of the current economic
downturn.
With this in mind, the last thing you want to do is give a prospective employer any reason at
all to doubt the circumstances surrounding your lay-off. Thus, it is best to be straight-forward
about your situation and, you should address it in your cover letter. In most cases, it is not
necessary to go into great detail or to provide a lot of background information. You only need
to state that you are looking for a new position because you were laid off as a result of the
economic downturn. If you have strong references from the firm that laid you off, make sure
to mention this fact as well. Offering references at the outset is a good way to let prospective
employers know that your previous firm did not have concerns with your performance.
As for the interview process, the same guidelines apply. Be straight-forward about the fact
that you were laid off and resist the urge to sound apologetic. In the interview setting, it may
make sense to discuss some more of the details surrounding your firm's lay-offs. For example,
were a large number of people let go? Everyone in your specific practice area? Such pieces of
information may help to alleviate any lingering doubts or concerns.
While being laid-off is never easy to handle, employers are encountering numerous wellqualified attorneys who have been laid off. Thus, your overall goal should be to focus on
demonstrating to a prospective employer that the lay-off was related only to economic
conditions and not connected in any way to performance-related concerns. Be ready to
discuss facts in a straight-forward manner, have references ready to go, and let the manner in
which you address the situation instill confidence in your qualifications.
Job hunt at new year's eve - yes or no
Question: It's the end of December (December 19, 2008, to be exact) and I would like to
start a job search. I've heard that I should wait until the new year, but I'm concerned that
everybody else is doing the same thing. When's the best time to apply? Now?
Answer: The short answer is that it probably won't make that big of a difference, but there
are some general pros and cons for applying at this time of the year (these are the pros and
cons for sending your resume to a firm that does not have a stated opening).
Pros: Less competition, as other people may be waiting until after the new year to apply. By
applying now, you could be getting a ''jump start'' on potential new positions that may open
up after the new year. Also, with less traffic in the recruiting offices over the next few
weeks, you could be noticed more easily.
Cons: Firms have put hiring on hold for now with the understanding that they'll revisit after
the new year. Many people are vacationing and are not focusing on lateral hiring, and you
may slip through the cracks during a very slow time. Also, some firms may not even be aware
of their hiring needs until after the new year.
Here's a caveat, though: if you hear about an active job opening (e.g., though a firm's
website, recruiter, etc.), apply now. Time is of the essence. Do not wait. In this market, new
job openings are getting filled quickly, so it does not make sense to wait, even if it's one or
two weeks. (The one exception is if a job has been open for a very long time—for example,
four to five months—and is ''stale.'' In this case, one or two weeks may not make much of a
difference, but I think it's better to be safe than sorry.)
Do law firms check their applicants social network profiles?
Question: A friend of mine recently told me that law schools were looking at the
Facebook and MySpace profiles of their applicants. As a third-year attorney thinking about
conducting a job search in 2009, it occurred to me that law firms may search these
websites to gain information about me when I apply. Are law firms looking at this
information online? And what should I do to keep this personal information private?
Answer: Social networking websites should have nothing to do with your professional career,
right? But it's not that simple. Anything you put out into the public domain could potentially
affect you professionally (especially if you make a routine habit of adding co-workers to your
Friends list on Facebook). Most firms, at the very least, will perform a routine Google search
on your full name and click on a few of the links. It's easy and free due diligence for a firm
wanting to make careful hiring decisions.
I recently wrote this article about ways to ensure that your online information doesn't come
back to bite you during the interview process.
What to wear to a lunch interview?
Question: I am scheduled to have a lunch meeting with a firm next Friday. This firm is
known for having a casual Friday dress code (e.g. jeans, polo tops, etc.). I don't want to
look overly dressed or stuffy at my interview; should I attend this interview in something
more casual as well? - H.D.
Answer:
Dear H.D.,
Thanks for your question. My general rule of thumb when it comes to dress codes for an
interview is that it is always better to be overdressed vs. underdressed. Thus, even though
your interviewers may be in very casual clothes, you should still probably attend your
interview wearing a formal suit. Even if a recruiting coordinator tells you it is okay to dress
less formally for an interview, it is always safer to go with a more formal outfit.
Remember, you are primarily the one who is being evaluated so it is important to look your
best. Dressing in a suit will also make you feel more professional and polished. It also shows
your interviewers that you are taking their meeting seriously and that you respect their time.
In choosing a suit, be sure to pick neutral colors. Navy blue or black are always solid choices.
You may have a fantastic fashion flare, but an interview is not the time to display it. For
men, simple yet elegant ties in traditional colors will be well-received. If you are choosing
between two potential looks for an interview, go for the more conservative one. In addition,
choose dress shoes that are more formal and would not be mistaken for a more casual shoe.
You want to make sure your visual presentation of yourself is as strong as the professional one
you will be making during your interview.
For women, there is a little bit more flexibility. If you are interviewing with a firm that has a
reputation for being more old-fashioned or stuffy, you may want to opt for a knee-length skirt
suit. Many firms, however, including most of the firms on the West Coast, view classic
pantsuits to be appropriate interview attire. Like men, I advise my female candidates to wear
suits that are more neutral in nature. Black or navy is always a good choice, along with a solid
collared shirt.
Please keep your jewelry to a minimum and your hair tidy. Make-up for women should also be
pretty minimal. In regards to shoes, a classic closed-toe pump is always a good bet. At times,
open-toed shoes can seem too informal or inappropriate for an interview, so do not go this
route. I also tell my female candidates to bring a briefcase instead of a purse, as I think this
looks a little bit more professional. It is also practical to bring a briefcase, as you can safely
and neatly store extra copies of your resume, transcripts, writing samples, and references in
it.
I would also recommend not wearing any cologne or perfume to an interview. Some people
are very sensitive to scents and not all people have the same tastes as to what smells good.
I hope these tips are helpful to you and that your interview goes well. Best of luck to you!
How to explain the employment gap in your resume?
Question: In 2007, I was laid off from an in-house position due to the sale of the
corporation. It was difficult for me to find a like position and I settled for a job that was
not a good fit. I now have a year and one-half gap in my resume (except for a four to five
month stint as a document review attorney) and the aforementioned four month
employment period that failed. I am interested in your advice on approaching this period
of employment instability with a prospective employer. Is there a manner to turn this
tumultuous period into a positive? I realize not knowing me individually that it is difficult
to individualize a succinct response to a my particular dilemma, but do you have any
general advice on how to approach the formulation of a sustainable response to what
appears as a weakness in my employment history?
Answer: I'm sorry to learn that you are having so much trouble getting your career back on
track. The only thing more stressful than looking for a new job is looking for a new job when
you are unemployed. If I can reassure you with anything, I do firmly believe that with
perseverance, you can change this situation.
It is not clear from your message what steps you have been taking to get yourself back on
track. Now that you have been out of the job market for some time, you have some
explaining to do before you even get to the question of whether you are a good fit for a
particular employer. You have the stigma of being unemployed and although this may have
absolutely nothing to do with your skills or your effort, potential employers will be more wary
about hiring you. The good news is that there are several ways to work around this stigma.
In particular, traditional methods of job hunting (i.e. responding to advertisements or
attending job fairs) are going to be extra challenging. While you can certainly explain the gap
in your résumé in a well-crafted cover letter, in all likelihood, networking is more likely to be
successful for you.
To get started with networking, make a list of all the potential legal employers that you
would like to meet and start asking people in your existing network if they know anyone who
works for any of these employers. They need not be lawyers themselves. Good candidates for
networking include former classmates or professors, family, friends or former workplace
colleagues. When you contact these individuals, mention the individual you both know and
ask if you can have a few minutes of their time to get their advice. Do not ask them if the
company is hiring.
At the same time, be on the lookout for temporary or part-time assignments; but if possible,
try to take positions that are logically related to the work you ultimately want to do. Look for
opportunities to do pro bono work in your practice area or write an article on a subject that is
relevant to your interests. Sign up for some CLE programs. If you take the time to do these
things, you will meet more people who may be in a position to hire you or refer you to
someone who can hire you; in addition, he will have more to talk about when you do go out
on informational interviews (i.e. it is better if you can talk about a pro bono matter then it is
to talk about waiting tables at a local pizza restaurant—though don't hesitate to do that kind
of work if you have bills to pay and can't find anything else.) Try to keep a positive attitude
and your luck will change.
Job hunting during the vacation season - a good move?
Question: I am seriously contemplating leaving my firm and am just beginning the search
process. Now we are into ''vacation season,'' and I don't know whether to take my
vacation as planned or use the time for potential interviews in the future. And how will it
look if I take a vacation and then give notice a few weeks later?
Answer: First, bravo for planning to take a vacation! In some big firms planning an absence
for more than four to five days can be perceived as disloyal or somewhat irresponsible. The
topic of how lawyers take or don't take vacations deserves an essay in itself.
Once, after practicing for three years with very little time off, I planned a 16-day vacation
out of the lower 48. I had a hard time with guilt and foreboding as I blocked the time out. As
the date approached to take off, my anxiety hit the red zone. It didn't help that the week
before my vacation, more than a few of my colleagues stopped by my office to express sorrow
that I was leaving the firm.
"I'm not leaving the firm," I said.
"But no one would go away for two weeks unless they planned to quit soon after their return."
"I don't plan to quit."
Their puzzled looks only heightened my fear that I might be shooting myself in the foot. My
primary supervising attorney wasn't thrilled. We had a few terse interchanges about deadlines
and my current billable-hours status, both of which were under control. By the time I left on
vacation, I had resolved that if this vacation cost me my job, it was a bridge I had to cross.
The result was unexpected. Two weeks in the wilderness really cleaned out the cobwebs. It
had been more than six years since I had last escaped civilization and seen the world through
a broader lens. That time away from the firm sowed seeds of doubt about how I was
balancing my time (or not). That overdue vacation actually started me down a path that led
to leaving my firm. But it didn't have anything to do with my firm's reaction, just mine.
Surprisingly, when I returned I was greeted with open arms and enthusiasm to "hear all about
it," and I was able to pick up fairly easily from where I left off. I smiled to myself when my
supervisor planned a vacation to the same spot the following year. And others began to block
out time.
One of the named partners used to give a talk once a year that included the importance of
taking vacations. We all wanted to believe him, but the competitive atmosphere and the
pivotal review periods created an internal culture that equated daily presence and access
with loyalty and sacrifice for the firm. Most of us didn't want to risk that impression.
So how do you add a job hunt to a scenario that might already be a little tricky? First, you do
what all the books tell you about basic planning. Plan your vacation way ahead of time. Put it
in all pertinent shared calendars. Work ahead on deadlines. Anticipate your plan for
coverage. You may need different people to cover different things. Have a backup system for
your backups. Communicate well with the colleagues and clients you work with on a frequent
basis. If you are a litigator and your work demands can suddenly materialize with little
notice, have some flexibility in your plans.
Most importantly, adopt the right attitude. While you are speaking to people about your plans
for coverage or working late to clear deadlines the weeks before, it doesn't hurt if you have a
goofy smile on your face and you communicate your excitement about what you have
planned. Guilt and fear and anxiety about taking a vacation can be a communicable disease.
Fortunately, a joyous attitude that reflects a balanced dedication to the firm and to taking
care of you can also spread from person to person. You are not only taking care of yourself,
you may be giving someone else permission by example to care for himself or herself as well.
Assuming you have a well-planned vacation on the books, unless there are exceptional
circumstances, I would advise you not to change your plans. A job search is inherently
unpredictable, especially in this market. There are no guarantees of interviews or offers. If
you do get a request for an interview, you may be able to fold it into your vacation time. Or if
a firm wants you to fly cross-country the week you return from vacation, most firms will work
to find a time on a Monday or Friday.
Recruiting staff understand schedules and the demands on attorneys. Do keep your recruiter
updated on your location. There is nothing more frustrating than to have netted the
extremely hard-to-get interview only to find the candidate is out of the country when the key
partner is available.
And if you are lucky enough to receive the perfect offer two weeks after you return from
vacation, show some sensitivity in negotiating a stop date. Err on the side of helping your old
firm even if you may be a bit compromised yourself for a few days. Treat people well,
including yourself, and it's more than possible to find a great new job, have a vacation, and
leave your old firm in their good graces.
Is waiting to get multiple offers a good idea?
Question: I have a job offer to join a firm. I would like to have more than one job offer so
I can compare and contrast before making a decision. Should I wait until I have more than
one option to choose from?
Answer: It is totally understandable to want to have all of one's options laid out at one time.
In fact, that's what lawyers were trained to rely upon during law school. Because law students
have all of their options laid out before them (thanks to a regimented on-campus interview
schedule), there is a tendency to want that same orderly decision making in the lateral
market.
It may be that your credentials are so good and that all of the planets align and you have
multiple offers at the same point in time. But for most lawyers in the lateral market,
especially when the economy is in or near a recession, this is not the case. Job offers
typically come in ones or twos, and most lawyers need to make a decision about a job offer
without having other active pending offers to sit side by side for comparison's sake.
One of the biggest mistakes a lawyer can make is to fail to appreciate the difference between
interviewing as a law student and interviewing in the lateral market. The single biggest
reason that most lawyers don't have multiple offers lined up at once is that not every firm is
looking for the same kind of lateral candidate at the same time.
Certainly, when the M&A market is going like gangbusters, there are many M&A opportunities.
But not all M&A groups are created equal, and not every group has the same needs. One firm
may be looking for more public M&A experience at the junior level, while the firm down the
street needs a mid-level who can run more middle-market deals. When the market is slow, as
it is now in New York, there are some firms that are just dialing down lateral hiring
altogether.
Especially in more niche practice areas, a lawyer looking for a new lateral position is likely
going to have to be prepared to evaluate each offer on its own merit as it's presented. Law
firms typically do not leave offers open for more than two or three weeks, forcing a lawyer to
decide on accepting or declining without the parachute of knowing that there will be another
offer in the pipeline.
I don't think that this is a terrible thing. Anyone in the lateral market is now an educated
consumer — and typically has the tools to know whether a prospective firm satisfies his or her
criteria. It certainly soothes our egos to have lots of employers vying for our attention, but it
doesn't necessarily make any one position more or less suitable. A lateral candidate has to
have the composure to critically evaluate an offer without letting his or her ego get in the
way, and the strength to reject the offer if it's not right for him or her, even without another
bird in the hand.
During a job search, when should you give out references?
Question: I am a third-year associate and have been working at the same firm since I first
started practicing law. I am currently conducting a job search, and I have a question
about giving references to a potential employer. When is the best time to do this, and are
there any pitfalls I should try to avoid? — T.S.
Answer:
Dear T.S.,
There are a few different things you will want to consider when choosing references and
giving them to a potential employer. I've outlined some steps below to help you navigate
through this sometimes-tricky portion of the interviewing process.
Sign on the Dotted Line.
When a job search is confidential, you will want to wait until the last possible moment before
handing over your references. Generally firms will ask to check references once an offer
letter is received and signed by the candidate. In the offer letter the firm will generally
include language stating that their offer is contingent upon checking a candidate's references.
If a firm asks you for references before they send you an offer letter and/or before you
formally decide to accept the offer, speak to the firm's recruiting representative and see if
you can negotiate the checking of references after the firm's offer has been accepted by you.
If you are currently employed and your firm does not know you are looking, you will want to
try to maintain the confidentiality of your job search for as long as possible.
If you give references from your current employer before you receive an offer, there is always
a slight chance that your confidentiality may somehow get breached. Thus, try to postpone
giving references until the very final stages of your job search.
Choose Wisely.
Law firms generally require around two to three partner references from candidates. You will
want to choose attorneys who have firsthand knowledge of both your work product and your
professionalism. Ideally, you also want your references to be people who are personally fond
of you and who will champion all of your assets to the interviewing firm.
If you are not able to secure all partner references, try to ask the next most senior-level
attorneys you have worked with to act as your references. Do not use associates who are
more junior than you for your references, as most firms will only want to speak to those
attorneys who have held a supervisory role over you.
Confirm, Confirm, Confirm.
After you have solidified which attorneys will act as your professional references, it is
important that you confirm how they will describe you to a potential employer. When asking
partners or attorneys to be your references, it is perfectly fair to ask them if they feel
comfortable providing positive references for you. If you get a lukewarm or ambiguous
response to this question, you are better off choosing someone else as a reference.
At the end of the day, you don't want that coveted offer rescinded due to someone's
lackluster representation of you and your abilities. Choose references who are enthusiastic
about you and happy to sing your praises to firms. If you have done so, you will be able to
hand over your list of references with complete confidence.
Be Complete.
When providing your references to the firm, remember to include complete information. You
will want to include the names, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses of your
references (if you confirmed with them in advance that it is okay to do so). If possible, also
indicate better dates or times to reach your references. You don't want your job search held
up by a game of "phone tag" between your references and the firm you are interviewing with.
It is also a good idea to send a confirmation email or to call your references right before you
provide their information to a potential employer, as it is nice to remind them that they may
be contacted in the near future. By doing so, you will prepare your references for their chat
with the interviewing firm, and they will hopefully be able to eloquently describe your
personality and professional strengths during that conversation.
Show Appreciation.
After someone has agreed to be your reference, remember to show appreciation to this
person for taking time out of his or her busy schedule to help you. Send a thank-you card or a
small gift to show your gratitude. Your job-search process may take longer than a few
months, so it is quite possible that this attorney will have to field multiple phone calls as your
reference.
A simple act of thoughtfulness on your part will help to recognize your references for their
kindness and professional courtesy. It is also the polite and proper thing to do, so don't forget
those thank-you cards.
I hope these tips are helpful to you and that all goes well in this final phase of your interview
process. Good luck to you in your job search, and may all your references be good ones!
How much time does it take for a firm to reach a hiring decision?
Question: I recently had two interviews with an NYC branch office of a large Midwestern
firm. There isn't an ''official'' (as much as I can tell) opening, but it seems to be along the
lines of ''we could definitely use another person.'' The interviews went very well, the
partner at my interview said she liked me, and when I met with another partner, she was
actually doing the ''selling'' of me to the other partner!
The partners have been very communicative (I got a status report a week after the second
interview as promised), but then I was told that the interview process will take "a while."
Judging from the very quick (second interview was a week after my first interview)
response and action, it makes me nervous that I've been told it will take a while. Can you
shed some light as to what you think is the situation? I am hoping (ideally) that they've
made a decision to make me an offer but are running into the bureaucratic troubles of
being a branch office.
Does this happen frequently, and do you know how long it may take (i.e., getting approval
for hiring an associate)? Of course, I'm aware that the firm could be interviewing more
candidates and I just happened to be the first one in line…but this uncertainty is killing
me! I know better than to hound the partner about my status, and I've tried to research
how and how often the firm and its committees make hiring decisions. Also, I had
originally emailed the partner out of the blue, unsolicited, and had gotten a favorable
response (wanting to meet), so I'm not sure what the whole situation may be.
I would sincerely appreciate your thoughts. Thanks for your time.
Answer: You have asked some very good questions, and it is understandable that you are
eager to get closure on the hiring process. Interviewing for a new job can be one of the most
stressful life events, particularly if you are unemployed. While you do have the ability to
control your own behavior during the process, there are many factors that are out of your
control. Realistically, the employer holds most of the cards.
For starters, it is not clear whether this firm will actually make a hire at this branch office.
Deciding to add to your head count is a very difficult decision for any business. If their
workload slows precipitously, the firm stands to lose profits. Similarly, if the firm decides not
to make a hire and work increases, the firm will also lose profits.
If the firm is in fact going to make a hire, there are many variables which can influence the
timing of the decision. By the time the firm commits to hiring, the key partners are probably
already very busy. (That is why they need to hire a new associate.) Maybe one of the key
partners is trying to go on vacation.
Another factor to consider is your own sense of time. When you are actively working, a month
can go by quickly. When you are unemployed, one day can seem like an eternity. Try not to
lose perspective while you are going through this difficult transition. Has it really been that
long? It can take two weeks just to schedule someone for an interview (e.g., because of
scheduling conflicts).
At reasonable intervals (i.e., not daily) it is okay to check in to say you are still interested in
the position. Try communicating through different media. (Use email, wait two weeks, leave
voicemail, wait again, and then leave a message with the partner's secretary.) If you have
new information to communicate (some new article you have written or new accomplishment
that you chalked up), let the employer know. It is good to have an "excuse" to contact the
firm.
Most importantly, keep up the momentum of your job search. Continue to reach out to other
prospective employers. Set up informational interviews and circle back to professional
contacts you have not spoken to in more than two months. Waiting for your preferred
employer to make a decision is a bad idea for a number of reasons. First of all, if they do not
hire you, you will have lost valuable time in your search. And if they do bring you back and
ultimately offer you a job, you will be able to negotiate the terms more confidently knowing
that you have other options.
Should you accept an on the spot offer?
Question: I am scheduled to interview for the final time with a firm that I really like. I
think they may make me an offer on the spot. Although this firm is at the top of my list, I
still have one more interview, and I'd like to conclude the interview process before
making a decision. Am I obligated in any way to accept an offer that is made on the spot
during an interview?
Answer: The short answer is "Absolutely not!"
First, firms generally understand that candidates are interviewing at multiple firms during the
lateral job-search process. Thus, firms understand that a candidate may have to see the
interview process through to completion before giving an answer on an offer.
Now, having said this, it is equally important to keep in mind that the firm with whom you are
interviewing is likely considering other candidates as well. In order to be fair to all parties
involved, while you do not have to give an answer on the spot, you should not let an offer sit
for so long that you prejudicing the firm's ability to consider other candidates. Absent
extraordinary circumstances, you should respond to the firm's offer within two weeks of the
date you receive the offer.
This brings up another point about offers made on the spot. A verbal offer is fantastic, and
you should definitely let the firm know that you are enthusiastic about the offer. However, it
is also important to take the opportunity to review all the important terms of the offer in
writing.
For example, will the firm prorate your hourly requirement based on the time of year that
you are joining? If you are relocating, will the firm pay for relocation expenses? What does the
firm offer in terms of medical and other non-salary benefits? These are all important
considerations that can have an impact on your decision. Therefore, while it may be tempting
to give an immediate response when you are thrilled to receive an offer, it is crucial that you
understand all of the terms of the offer before making a decision.
Finally, consider the huge importance of the decision you are about to make. There are many
factors that can make an "on-the-spot" offer enticing. For example, in tight markets it may be
hard to imagine that you'd turn an offer down. But even if you are thrilled and maybe even
consider yourself lucky to have received an offer, it is still a hugely important decision that
should not be made in haste.
Taking time to think about an offer is perfectly understandable, and in most cases it is
expected. As long as you convey enthusiasm and thank the law firm for the opportunity to
consider their offer, you should not think twice about asking for time to give careful
consideration to this very important decision.
One final word: just as there is not a "rule" that obligates you to accept on the spot, there is
also not a "rule" that precludes you from doing so. If during the interview process you feel
that all of your questions have been answered and you know the terms of the offer, there is
certainly not a "rule" against accepting it on the spot. In my experience, I have found that
once the excitement over receiving an offer calms, people almost always have some questions
that need to be answered before a decision is made. Thus, my general advice is to give
yourself the opportunity to identify and ask those questions before giving an answer.
In conclusion, if you receive an offer on the spot, you have obviously made a tremendous
impression on the firm. Don't be afraid to take time to think about the offer, especially if you
have any questions that you would like to have answered before making a decision. After all,
no one is going to blame you for taking the time to give serious consideration to such an
important decision.
How to conduct yourself during a lunch interview?
Question: I have a second interview with a large firm next week. My recruiter told me
that my interview will end with a lunch meeting with three other attorneys. Do you have
any pointers on how to properly conduct myself during a lunch interview? I just want to
make the best impression possible on this firm. Thanks in advance! — M.H.
Answer:
Dear M.H.,
Congratulations on getting a call-back interview with this firm! Your question is a good one,
as lunch interviews can indeed be treacherous. It's always a little difficult to balance being
professional in your demeanor with being sociable in a more casual luncheon setting. Below
you will find a couple of tips that I hope will be helpful to you in acing your lunch interview.
1. Wear nice but comfortable shoes.
During interviews it is imperative to look your best. Keep in mind, though, that if your
interview includes a lunch meeting, you may find yourself walking several blocks or more to
the firm's restaurant of choice.
If you have a pair of shoes that look sharp yet are also comfortable, definitely pick this pair
for your interview. There is nothing worse than trying to act social and friendly when your
feet are killing you.
Try to also wear clothes that "breathe" and will allow for good ventilation. If it's a warm day,
you don't want to arrive at the restaurant looking like you just left the gym.
2. Give equal attention to all interviewers.
You mentioned in your question that you will be attending the lunch meeting with three other
attorneys. Try to ensure that you are giving equal attention to all interviewers present. This
can be a tricky predicament, especially if one of your interviewers tends to be more dominant
in the conversation. You can make everyone at the table feel equally important if you make
eye contact with all of your interviewers.
Even if one person is generally asking all of the questions, make sure that you acknowledge
and address everyone there so no one at the table feels snubbed by you. At most firms every
attorney who interviews you will generally have a say in whether or not you get an offer.
Thus, you don't want to ignore the more junior-level associates in your attempt to make a
great impression on the more senior-level attorneys at the lunch.
3. Order wisely.
Believe it or not, your interviewers will evaluate everything about you, including what you
order at lunch. A good rule of thumb is that you should never order a meal that is more
expensive than your interviewers' meals. Try to gauge what your interviewers are ordering
first, and then pick an item on the menu that is slightly less expensive than what they are
ordering. In addition, if none of your interviewers are ordering beverages, refrain from
ordering one for yourself and stick to water.
Also remember to order "neat" foods that are easier to eat and have minimal chances of
spilling or splattering. Foods that you can cut up with a fork and knife are generally a good
bet. Stay away from foods that require you to use your hands or that are liquid like soup, as
you want to avoid getting messy during the interview.
If possible, also try to order food that is more "elegant" in nature. Ordering a simple fish filet
or chicken breast plate will probably create a more sophisticated impression than ordering
something more "grubby" like a bacon cheeseburger.
Lastly, try to avoid eating food that may get stuck in your teeth. It will be difficult for your
interviewers to take you seriously if they are solely focused on that big piece of spinach stuck
in your teeth.
4. Don't drink alcohol.
Refrain from drinking any type of alcohol at your lunch. No good can come of it. Even if you
are at a lunch with a bunch of junior-level associates and they encourage you to order an
alcoholic drink, politely decline their offer. Your interviewers are free to get as tipsy as they
would like during the interview; you, however, are not. Keeping focused and sober will surely
help you succeed in making a good impression during the meal.
5. Don't get too comfortable.
If you are fortunate, you may encounter interviewers with whom you have an instant rapport.
This is a wonderful occurrence when it happens and something you should strive to create
with everyone you meet during the interview. But remember not to mistake having solid
rapport with your interviewers for an opportunity to get too comfortable with them.
You need to constantly remind yourself that you are being judged from the time you arrive for
your interview until the time you physically leave the firm. A lot of candidates make the error
of thinking that if they are having lunch with junior-level associates, they can be more
informal than they would be with a partner. Some of your interviewers may tempt you into
gossiping about other firms and "bad-mouthing" your current employer, but stay clear of this
type of behavior.
If you put yourself into a situation where you are seen as negative or gossipy, this can
seriously endanger your chances of getting an offer. Qualified candidates have been rejected
from interviews for exactly this reason. Thus, try to stay positive and upbeat in everything
you say during lunch. If your interviewers start gossiping, try to make neutral statements in
response or gently steer the conversation into a different topic.
Also remember to abstain from cursing or using slang during your interview. As tempting as it
is to let your guard down, you are not having lunch with friends or colleagues — you are
having lunch with people who are evaluating your every move. Don't bring up issues that are
highly personal or controversial in nature, and remain even-keeled throughout the
conversation.
6. Be ready to talk about your interests outside of practicing law.
During lunch, in addition to finding out more about your legal background and experience, the
interviewing attorneys may also try to gauge whether or not you are someone they would like
to work with at the firm on a personal level. Be prepared to discuss interests outside of
practicing law. If your interviewers feel that you are not a well-rounded person, they may be
more hesitant to provide a strong recommendation of your candidacy to the firm.
Before your interview, think about a couple of hobbies or interests that you would feel
comfortable discussing during lunch. Sports and travel are generally safe subjects to bring up
during your interview. Remember: being someone who has fascinating interests outside of the
law is something that many firms find very attractive in candidates.
7. Use your manners.
Bring your best manners to lunch, specifically with regard to dining etiquette and general
politeness. Also, don't forget to extend your appreciation for the meal by thanking everyone
both for their time and for buying you lunch. Being humble, gracious, and thoughtful during
your lunch interview will likely create a great impression on your interviewers, which will
hopefully result in getting you the offer you deserve. I wish you the best of luck at your
interview!
Is taking six months off a good idea before resuming a job search?
Question: I am now in Manhattan but have always known I would ultimately relocate to
the South. Now that the temperatures have dropped and the end of the year is
approaching, I am ready to get out—now! As a fifth-year corporate attorney with a top
firm, I know I will be in high demand, so I thought I would just take six months off, take a
break, and perhaps do some contract work before I start my job search. However,
someone recently warned me that the break would ultimately make my job search much
more difficult. Is that true?
Answer: Probably. With the little information you have provided, it sounds like you will be
very marketable and will likely land with a great firm. However, as I have told my candidates
time and time again, recruiting managers' and partners' first reactions will probably be to
raise their eyebrows and ask themselves if this was truly your choice.
You will have to counter the assumption that you were asked to leave the firm, and
oftentimes the partners will pass rather than take the chance. In addition, they worry about
individuals who feel they need a "break" and will question a lawyer's judgment if he or she has
left a job without having another one lined up. Unfortunately, contract work has a negative
stigma, and the majority of the time, the assumption will be that you couldn't find permanent
employment and had to resort to contract work to earn a living.
Again, no one is saying you won't find a suitable position, but you will be creating some
hurdles that you wouldn't otherwise have to jump, and it will probably take longer to secure
something.
Of course there is nothing wrong with taking a much-needed break after five years of hard
work. However, it is best to start interviewing with firms while you are employed and then let
the firms know you will not be able to start for a few months. That way, the firms will not
question the reason for your move, and you will have more control over the process.
You've worked hard to get where you are. Don't let the lure of a couple months' vacation
throw you completely off track—especially when it doesn't have to!
How to interview in a different city without risking your current job?
Question: I am an associate with a top firm on the West Coast. I am interested in moving
to a New York City firm; however, I don't know how to go about carrying out the
interview process. I know I need to take a few days off, or call in sick, in order to fly
across the country to interview. However, aren't I putting my current job at risk by taking
time off?
In other words, how can I interview for a job when I'm worried about risking my current
job? I'd like to just phone it in and schedule telephone conferences. Do firms do that?
Otherwise, can I schedule all of my interviews on the same day or two and limit my time
away from the office?
- Jenny, Los Angeles, CA.
Answer: I would be unbelievably wealthy if I had a nickel for every time a lateral candidate
said to me, "I'd like to attend the interview, but taking time off risks my current position, so I
really would rather do a phone interview or push the meeting off for a few weeks until we get
more responses from other firms and then schedule all the interviews at once."
In theory, this is a great idea. You know it. We, as your recruiters, know it. In reality,
however, lateral interviewing rarely plays out as neatly as the above comment would suggest.
Because BCG Attorney Search works with candidates across the nation and in the international
markets, we are regularly faced with the "travel dilemma" and the catch-22 encountered by
candidates interviewing in different states or countries. As such, it is our goal to get you as
many interviews as we can, utilizing the least amount of back-and-forth travel time. Of
course, this isn't always possible, but most of the time it is.
Having said that, there are a few things you should keep in mind:
1. Phone conferences and/or video conferences are rarely the best uses of your time.
While a phone or video conference seems like a travel-saving idea, the truth of the matter is
that such mediums rarely lend themselves well to effective interviewing. Problems such as
static sound, delayed video streams, fuzzy pictures, sound gaps in transatlantic or
transpacific phone lines, and other snags are regular occurrences. In fact, one candidate of
mine spent an hour talking to a headless partner as the camera was facing the partner's torso
and not his face. These are the tangible problems.
The intangible problem is that such mediums rarely allow for the "connection" which needs to
occur during the interview process between interviewee and interviewer. If a firm has
interviewed four people and three of those four were met in person with the fourth being a
"video candidate," guess who usually gets the callback? Guess who usually gets the offer? The
candidate who came to the interview in person. It's a sad fact but true. 95% of the time, it's
true. I have seen this play out again and again.
2. Pushing off an interview until "more are lined up" may affect your chances of landing a job.
This is a smart move...when undertaken carefully. Nothing is wrong with pushing out an
interview until more firms come to call. The risk here is that no one knows when all the firms
are going to "come a-calling." Thus, pushing a meeting out further than two weeks can be
dangerous.
Firms, especially Big Law, interview hundreds of candidates, and you must always keep in
mind your competition. If a firm wants to see candidates for a given position during a
particular week and you ask to schedule your interview two to three weeks later, they will
likely comply. However, it is very likely that you won't actually have that interview because
the spot will fill beforehand and/or they will already "commit to" or "click with" someone else
beforehand...and sometimes cancel the meeting altogether.
Very recently, a candidate of mine was offered an interview with a top NYC firm. Although in
town on business, he asked that I not schedule any meetings with the firm because he wasn't
"ready" to interview yet; he wanted to "get in the mode" and "get a few more firms lined up"
before he was ready. So he asked me to move the meeting to three weeks later. While this
sounds reasonable and I did ask to reschedule (although I knew the risk and told him about it),
the firm has yet to do so.
In effect, I don't know that we will ever get our chance with this firm again. He had his
chance and lost it, and the firm has moved on. That was a tough lesson to learn about
saturated and highly competitive markets such as New York City.
3. Hoping to schedule all of your interviews during the same week is another common goal of
candidates.
Again, sometimes this is possible (and that is our goal as well). Other times it simply is not.
Again, this is nothing against you, but firms have priorities—hiring priorities. They must deal
with those priorities, varying partners'/associates' schedules, and outside influences such as
OCI, which distract them from our hopeful focus on scheduling everything during the same
week.
Firms aren't trying to play hardball when they say they can't do something. It's simply that
they are very often juggling five people's schedules, one partner's hiring priority, and their
own work duties in order to create time to interview you.
Conclusions
There is no way to get around the fact that if you want a new job in a new state or foreign
city, you must commit to the interview process...even when it gets difficult. Travel can be
exhausting and difficult. I have seen candidates work all night, get on a flight to the U.S.
from Latin America, undertake a half-hour interview in New York, get back on their return
flight, and go back to work. It is this type of diligence and commitment to your goals that will
bring you success.
There is no other way around the "catch-22" of looking for a job while keeping your current
job. At the end of the day, your goal should be about limiting your travel time, but it can be
achieved by staying reasonable, staying flexible, and keeping in mind not only your priorities
but also your competition in the marketplace (what other people who are going after the
same job are doing) and the marketplace itself. Staying aware of all three factors that will
influence your success rate is critical.
So, in answer to your question, yes, you can "phone it in"! But unless you are on a major deal
or about to go to trial, I would not recommend it. Moreover, yes, you can line them all up at
once during the same week! But let's do it carefully and be fully aware of the risks of pushing
things out too far into the future.
As a rule, the job search for my candidates coming in from abroad or across the country is
very smooth when they understand how all of the above factors come into play in their
search. It's not always easy, but if everyone is realistic and reasonable and flexible, we can
achieve your career goals in a smooth fashion—with limited time away from the office.
You need to be aware of the fact that the interview you have been granted is a great
opportunity. A gift. Attend to that gift wisely. Your future should not be something you desire
to "phone in." Instead, give yourself every possible shot at success when these interview
opportunities land in your lap. In the competitive U.S. and foreign markets, such
opportunities may not come around again.
Thank-you notes - handwritten or by email?
Question: I have my first interview as a lateral associate coming up next week. Should I
send thank-you notes afterward, or is that something that is more appropriate for law
students? I've been practicing for five years. And if I do send a thank-you note, should I
send a handwritten note or an email? (T.J., Dallas)
Answer:
Dear T.J.,
Sending a well-written thank-you note to those who interviewed you is certainly a classy
gesture. It could potentially differentiate you from other candidates. And people generally
appreciate sincere thanks. Some surveys have shown that thank-you notes make an impact on
hiring decisions. However, you must be careful to proofread, check for misspellings, and keep
the content appropriate. Thank-you notes are a great idea when done well, but mistakes will
make interviewers question your work product.
Below, I will examine the issue of thank-you notes in greater detail:
Will sending a thank-you note help your chances of securing the position? According to
CareerBuilder, "Nearly 15 percent of hiring managers say they would not hire someone who
failed to send a thank-you letter after the interview. Thirty-two percent say they would still
consider the candidate but would think less of him or her." Think of thank-you notes as part of
your "campaign" to get the job. A failure to send them could actually hurt your chances!
A thank-you note can set you apart from other candidates. Let's say you're the head of the
corporate practice group at a large law firm, and you just interviewed two really stellar
candidates. Both had simply terrific interviews, but you only have one offer to give. The next
day, you receive a sincere note handwritten on beautiful stationery from one of the
candidates. This candidate, in her note, in essence has asked for the job and expressed her
extreme interest in the position. In this partner's experience, highly interested candidates
end up working very hard and doing tremendous work. At this point, the partner will likely
begin to lean toward this candidate and give her the offer.
A thank-you note can remind the firm of your candidacy. If you are one of 10 candidates who
interview for a position, then it will become difficult for the interviewers to clearly
remember you and the answers you gave during the interview. Sending a thank-you note is a
good opportunity to remind the firm of your candidacy and to make a stronger impression on
their minds.
A thank-you note gives you an opportunity to ask for the job. Now, I'm not saying you need to
be highly aggressive or pushy in your thank-you notes. But you should mention that you would
really like the position and why. When I help my candidates with interview preparation, I
often tell them to make sure that, as a closing note, they express their interest in actually
receiving an offer. Firms like to hear that you are interested as well. It's a two-way street!
And a thank-you note is another venue for you to get this point across. Furthermore, it is also
the very last chance you have to make an impression.
The email vs. handwritten note conundrum. I probably get this question the most these days.
Are emailed thank-you notes appropriate in this day and age? Various opinions abound,
leading many candidates to be confused. In short, either is fine.
I happen to think handwritten notes make a great impression and also show that the
candidate spent more time on the note's composition. But while a handwritten note will gain
you serious style points à la Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, it does lack speed. There is no doubt
that email is a much faster alternative. And if a firm indicates that it will be making a quick
decision, I actually suggest emailing thank-you notes. Furthermore, not everyone has a big
box of Crane's personalized stationery sitting in his or her desk. If you don't have thank-you
notes on hand, do not wait to send them until you've bought a box. Just send emails.
Further, if writing out handwritten notes is so daunting that you think your dread might
actually prohibit you from doing it, then you've got to go with emails. Also, ask yourself this:
"Do people often compare my handwriting to a prescribing physician's?" If the answer is "yes,"
then do the reader a favor and email your note.
Even if you don't receive the offer or even want one, sending a thank-you note can be a good
networking opportunity. It's very possible you may not end up working for the firm where you
interviewed for some reason, but an interview is a great way to make contacts and expand
your network. You never know where people will ultimately end up, and it's possible that a
partner could transition to your current firm and you could end up working for him or her
anyway. You would want that person to have a favorable opinion of you, right? Friendly
relationships can help you go a long way in the law. Furthermore, it just makes good business
sense to have strong contacts in a variety of firms and corporations. A thank-you note helps
continue and strengthen the relationship.
So, what are the rules for sending thank-you notes?
Do not send the same note to every person. Vary your messages. I have heard many
attorneys say they compare notes with their colleagues to see if the candidate wrote the
same note for every person.
Try to send thank-you notes as soon as possible.
Thank the recruiting coordinator. A lot of attorneys forget this, and a good recruiting
coordinator can have a lot of power in hiring decisions.
If you are only going to send one thank-you note, then thank the hiring partner or the
partner with whom you spent the most time.
Don't say you're a "perfect fit" after a screening interview. You don't have enough
information at this point, and you will look foolish or naïve.
Be formal, but keep it brief.
If sending a handwritten note, use good paper. If you don't have good monogrammed paper
at this point in your career, then add this purchase to your to-do list. Style points can go a
long way when interviewing.
Spell check. Spell check. Spell check. If you are handwriting your notes, then you need to
be doubly sure that you aren't misspelling something. Consider typing out what you want to
say in Microsoft Word before transcribing it to your note. If you don't show attention to detail
in your thank-you notes, then how might your work product look?
Focus on content, and avoid too many adjectives. Tell the reader what you gained from the
interview instead and what appeals to you about his or her practice.
How to give notice once you get another job offer?
Question: I am a 4th year associate who has been confidentially conducting a job search
for the last two months. I recently received a fantastic offer from another firm and I can't
wait to give notice to my current employer. I wanted to get your advice on when is the
best time to give notice in this type of situation. - M.Z.
Answer:
Dear M.Z.,
Congratulations on your job offer, that is wonderful news! Although I am sure that you are
anxious to give notice at your current job and begin working at your new firm, there are some
steps you will want to take before officially informing your current employer that you are
quitting.
1. Details of your offer:
Generally when a firm gives an attorney an offer of employment, it will send an official offer
letter via mail. This letter will detail most of the components of the offer, including base
salary, discussion of bonuses, billable requirements, and any benefits package the firm offers.
Once you receive this formal letter, you will want to address any proposed changes or points
of negotiation, regarding the terms of your offer.
Don't forget to also note when the offer expires, as firms will usually include an expiration
date on the letter. In addition, if applicable, you will want to negotiate or make note of the
firm's relocation package and related bar reimbursements (cost of preparing and registering
for the bar exam). Lastly, you will want to establish with your next firm, an official start date
for your new position.
2. Conflicts Check:
In this stage of your job search, most potential employers will run a conflicts check on all of
the cases that you have worked on at your current position, against the new firm's roster of
cases and clients. Although it is uncommon, there have been instances where a firm has had
to retract an offer of employment because of a conflict that could not be cleared. The last
thing you want is to be in this position when you have already given notice at your current
firm. Thus, hold off on formally resigning until you are sure it is safe to do so.
3. References:
In addition to running a conflicts check, many firms will make employment offers contingent
on checking your professional references as well. Generally firms will want to speak to two
partners at your current firm, to confirm that you were a solid attorney and good employee.
It is common for firms to ask you for these references, once you have officially resigned.
When you are in the final stages of interviewing, it is a good idea to start thinking about
which partners you will list as your professional references. If you handle your resignation
with grace and professionalism, this step should not be a great obstacle for you.
In regards to when you should ask a partner to act as a reference for you, wait until you are
very close to either giving notice or formalizing your job offer. You don't want to act
prematurely and tip off members of your firm of your desire to leave before it is necessary.
Remember, a lot of things can occur during the time an offer is extended and accepted. Your
new firm has the ability to revoke its offer to you, at any time.
4. Etiquette:
Once you have determined that it is indeed time to finally and officially give notice to your
current employer, try to do so in a manner that is extremely professional and tactful. It is
also a good idea to first inform management or the partners that have supervised you of your
decision to leave, before you let other people in the firm know. Doing so shows your direct
partners, a certain level of respect. You don't want the people who mentored and trained
you, to learn of your departure from office gossip. Once you have notified all of the relevant
parties of your impending departure, you may also want to create a written notice of
resignation, including the date and your signature. Keep this written notice concise and to the
point, and give copies to your managing partner(s) and also your human resources
department.
I hope that you enjoy your new position and that your next firm will be a great fit for you.
Good luck to you in the next phase of your career!
How to choose writing samples for an interview
Question: I am a fifth-year litigator and recently got an interview at a law firm. They
asked me to bring a writing sample for my interview. I avoided sending one with my
resume because I had no idea which one to use, but now I need to bring one. Do you have
any advice on choosing writing samples? - A.G., Chicago
Answer:
Dear A.G.,
This is one of the questions I get most frequently from attorneys.
I'll start off by acknowledging that finding a writing sample can be slightly overwhelming at
first, especially if you are a supreme perfectionist. For some, there is something daunting
about finding and dusting off a previously written document, only to find that it is not as
"perfect" as you had remembered. If you're like most attorneys, I imagine this may be why you
initially avoided sending a writing sample with your resume and transcript.
Interestingly, the submission of a writing sample is seen by some attorneys as a mere afterthe-fact formality that warrants only minimal attention. This seems to be so for several
reasons. First, as mentioned above, many people find it draining to search for the best writing
sample, consider redactions/privilege issues, and review the sample with a fine-tooth comb
to eliminate any mistakes. The fear of finding errors and having to spend substantial time
reworking the sample is a cause of procrastination with regard to writing samples. Second,
because most interviewers typically don't focus on writing samples during the interviews
themselves (though some do—even more so when the candidate is in law school), people are
often under the false impression that writing samples are secondary to the contents of the
resume and how well they connect with the interviewers. What candidates don't see is how
writing samples are scrutinized after interviews. So I'm glad you asked this question because
it's very important.
To highlight how important writing samples are, I'll share an email that came from a
recruiting manager at a large firm:
"We are going to pass on this candidate; it was a tough call. Although everyone loved
[Candidate] and thought [Candidate's] personality and experience was by far the best of
everyone we have interviewed so far, the writing sample [Candidate] had given to us during
the interview had a few typos and fragmented sentences. This reflected negatively on
[Candidate's] attention to detail, a skill essential to our practice. Please keep the search on
for us!"
To answer your question (which is quite broad), here are some issues to consider when
choosing and preparing your writing sample. (These are based on frequently-asked-questions
that I receive.)
1. Proofreading Your Sample
"I looked over my sample on my computer screen, and it looks okay. Is this enough?"
I cannot emphasize the importance of proofreading your sample several times. Remember,
most of what you have worked on has likely been written under duress or with deadlines
looming. Thus, if you are thinking of using a winning brief that you finished at 2:30 a.m. the
night before it was due, you can assume that there may be a few typos, etc., and that you
can make it better if you spend a little more time polishing it up. Your writing sample should
show your writing at its best. Here are a few things to consider when reviewing your sample:
Check for typos and any extra spaces between words or sentences.
Check for any errors in your Bluebooking.
Are your citations and parentheticals substantive?
Are you sure that the cases you cite actually support the propositions you are making? (I
know law firms that have paralegals check the cases that are cited in the writing samples to
ensure that the candidate has accurately cited them.)
Make sure your formatting is consistent with regard to all the headings and that all the
indentations are consistent.
Make sure you have used the same size and style of font throughout the sample.
Check your spelling.
To ensure that you catch all of your errors, print out your sample and review the hard copy.
Proofreading is much more effective when you review the actual printed document as
opposed to the computer screen. Another helpful strategy is to read the document from the
end to the beginning, sentence by sentence. When you do this, your brain will be forced to
slow down a bit and will therefore catch more errors.
When you think you have caught all your errors, review your sample one more time. When you
catch that little typo you hadn't seen the previous two times, you will be glad you did.
Lastly, if you are going to email your sample, send it as a PDF. Word processing programs may
pick up false grammatical or spelling errors and highlight them with green or red squiggly
lines.
2. Corporate/Transactional Attorneys
"Do I really need a sample? I'm a deal person!"
I am addressing corporate/transactional attorneys upfront because their situations are
unique. Although most firms do not require corporate attorneys to provide traditional writing
samples (e.g., memoranda or persuasive writing samples), they do want to see
deal/transaction sheets. While deal/transaction sheets do not feature the persuasive-writing
component, they are still very important because, aside from showing your experience, they
reflect your writing style, attention to detail, organizational abilities, the manner in which
you present key information, and whether readers can easily understand the information you
are presenting.
3. Writing Sample Length
"Is five pages enough?"
Typically, I suggest that attorneys submit writing samples ranging in length from eight to 20
pages, as a submission of this length provides the firm with enough information to evaluate. If
you have a piece of writing that is very dense with analytical and persuasive writing (for
example, a persuasive memo that is filled with arguments and analysis), you could get away
with something shorter. However, if you are using a brief that you filed, anything shorter than
eight pages typically does not present enough substance to evaluate. However, if the
employer has a page limit, abide by that, of course.
4. Using an Introduction/Overview to Provide Your Reader with Context
"How will the reader know what I am writing about if I use 10 pages from the middle of the
brief?"
Because you will likely be using a selected portion of a written piece, I strongly recommend
writing an introduction for your writing sample, which will give the reader important context.
This introduction/overview can appear on the cover page and should provide a brief
explanation of the subject matter and context, whether you have redacted/changed any
confidential or privileged information, and whether the writing sample is all your work or a
collaborative effort. (If there were edits to your work, see item eight below.)
5. Making It Clear That You Are Providing a Sample
"What if they think that this is the actual final product?"
To make it clear that what you are submitting is just a sample, you should put a header or
footer on each page with the following: "[NAME] - WRITING SAMPLE." If you have
redacted/changed information, put "[NAME] - REDACTED WRITING SAMPLE."
6. Confidential/Privileged Information
"Can I use a brief that we filed in court?"
When in doubt as to whether something should be included in a writing sample, you should
always check your local rules and relevant statutes about what is considered
confidential/privileged. Also, seek out a trusted second opinion, such as that of a local bar
association's confidential ethics advisor. You will want to be extremely careful not to include
any otherwise confidential/privileged information, as doing so could cause harm on several
levels.
One common question is "Can a brief or another piece of material filed in public records be
used as a writing sample?" If you have filed a document that is available in public records (and
it was not filed under seal) or, for example, the document was intentionally sent to the other
party in a litigation (without a protective order), this material is likely not
confidential/privileged because steps were not taken to keep it confidential and anybody
could access the information. This means it is likely something you can use as a writing
sample. But to be sure, check your local rules.
7. Redacting Confidential/Privileged Information
"What do I do about confidential/privileged information that is in the sample?"
There are several options. Some people change company names to generic names such as
ACME or XYZ Corporation. However, depending on your preference, you can instead cover up
the confidential/privileged information using the highlighting tool on your word processing
program. Rather than highlighting in the default yellow, you can highlight in black, which will
cover up all the information.
If you do use the black-highlighting function and are emailing your sample, you should not
send it out as a Word document, because the highlighting can easily be removed. Also, even if
you send it as a PDF, the black-highlighting technique can be circumvented; somebody could
copy the text from the PDF and paste it into a Word document and remove the highlighting.
To be as safe as possible, the best thing to do is to highlight the information in black, print
the document out, and then scan it in as a PDF. Then, you can email the PDF, and there will
be no way that the information under the black highlighting can be seen. (Of course, you can
avoid these issues by using pseudonyms such as ACME or XYZ Corporation to make the
information generic, as discussed above.)
I recommend against using a black magic marker to redact information because it typically
looks a bit sloppy. But if you have no choice because the document is no longer in electronic
form, you should use a brand-new marker with straight edges, as well as a ruler.
8. Joint Author/Collaboration Issues
"I wrote most of the brief, but the partner made some final changes."
While the ideal sample would be 100% your writing, this is rarely the case, as most documents
involve other people's edits/changes. If the work is not entirely your own, be sure to clarify
this fact. You can specify this information in the introduction/overview (i.e., "I wrote sections
A and B, and the partner made some edits to section C"), or you can specify which parts have
been changed in the body of the sample itself. For example, via any variety of editing tools
on your word processing program (e.g., "strikethrough"), you can indicate the parts of the
sample that were written by the other person/partner.
Is this overkill? While it may seem that way at first, it shows unusually strong attention to
detail, brutal honesty, awareness of ethical issues, and very sound judgment.
Lastly, a number of people ask about using published articles as writing samples. I typically do
not recommend using published articles because there is an assumption that they have been
heavily edited before going to publication and that they, therefore, do not accurately
represent your writing. Plus, articles typically do not show heavy persuasive or analytical
writing. That being said, if a published article is your best sample and was not edited, you
should feel free to use it; however, be sure to specify that there was no editing prior to
publication. If there was editing, perhaps you can send an earlier draft of the article that is
comprised of only your writing. I recommend against sending an edited article with an
explanation that it has been edited.
9. What the Sample Should Contain
"Can my sample contain just the first 10 pages of a brief, nine of which are in the 'facts'
section?"
Ideal writing samples show your analytical and persuasive writing abilities. While "facts"
sections of briefs may show basic writing skills, they are rarely compelling and do not show
how well you can apply the facts to the analysis/arguments. Furthermore, you will want to
show your research skills and ability to apply your research to the matter at hand; thus, the
more citations you have (with detailed and thoughtful parentheticals), the better.
10. Alternatives to the Traditional Brief or Memorandum
"Can I use a persuasive letter I wrote to opposing counsel?"
If you have letters or other types of materials that highlight your persuasive and analytical
writing skills, there is nothing wrong with using them. I have received feedback from firms
that said they were very impressed with the "real world" writing samples.
11. Submitting a Recent Writing Sample
"I'm a fourth-year associate. Can I use a paper I wrote during law school?"
Your writing sample should be as recent as possible because your writing skills are constantly
improving. Although submitting an old writing sample may be convenient because the work is
already "done," doing this does not allow you to put your best foot forward and will
shortchange your candidacy. Spending a bit more time to prepare something more current is a
worthy investment of time.
12. Once Again, Proofread.
When I was preparing this article, I sent an email to all of the BCG recruiters asking if they
had any particular advice or other thoughts on this subject. Everybody who responded gave
the same advice: "Proofread!"
Preparing your writing sample is hardly a sexy and glamorous endeavor. But the goal is to
represent your skills in a manner that maximizes your chances of getting the job you want. If
you follow these tips, you will likely have an advantage in this important stage of the process.
Thanks again for your question.
Good luck!
Interviewing after a long time
Question: I haven't interviewed since law school and am about to have my first interview
as a lateral. What's the best advice you can give? - A.P., Phoenix, Arizona
Answer: That's a very broad question but a very good one. How about this: I'll share the
results of a survey I conducted to gather the opinions of law firm associates, partners, and
recruiting managers. I asked them to tell me their most brutally honest interview advice for
lateral attorneys who are interviewing. Below are their responses.
Pre-Interview Preparation:
"The most impressive interviewers are those who can clearly articulate why they are
interested in our firm, with specific reasons that are based on research."
"Have a good answer ready when asked why you are seeking to leave your current job."
"Before your interview, look at your resume and think of questions you would ask if you were
interviewing yourself. Then, have good answers ready for these questions."
"The best attorneys are good researchers. You should research each attorney you are
meeting. I will never forget a litigator who took the time to read a recent opinion on which I
was listed as the attorney of record. I wanted him on my team."
"Do not discount the importance of writing samples. Those that review them take them
seriously. Make sure you are providing your best possible work, and triple-check for typos and
Bluebooking."
"Make sure your writing sample does not contain confidential or privileged information. Also,
don't unnecessarily redact information that is not confidential or privileged, as this shows you
don't know the rules. If in doubt, check the local rules."
"If you have friends at our firm, call them to find out the inside scoop. They can give you
helpful information."
"Read the recent press releases on our website."
First Impressions/Etiquette:
"Project energy and enthusiasm. If these are lacking, you won't get an offer."
"Being late is the kiss of death. Assume the interview is going to begin 30 minutes before the
actual time, and grab a cup of coffee if you arrive early."
"Be polite and courteous to support staff, such as secretaries, front-desk receptionists, etc.
They often have the ear of decision makers and will not hesitate to provide informal feedback
on you, especially if you are not respectful."
"Turn off your cell phone. Get a haircut. For men, wear a dark suit, a white/blue shirt, and
red/blue tie. Take off that strange-looking high school ring. No one will appreciate your
unique fashion sense. Don't give people something weird to remember you by two months
later when they're trying to remember who you are and whether you deserve an offer."
"Do not look at your watch during the interview. Good eye contact is key."
"The more you are relaxed and at ease, the more the interviewer will be relaxed and at ease."
"For both men and women, a firm handshake and winning smile is important. It is your first
chance to show confidence. I have written people off immediately after their limp
handshake."
The Interview Itself:
"Start a conversation with your interviewer before they have a chance to ask a question.
Facilitate a conversation and not an interrogation or deposition."
"When somebody asks 'Why are you interested in our firm?' they also want to know why you
are interested in leaving your existing job. Volunteer your reasons for leaving your existing
job as early as you can in your interview so that we don't have to ask you the question
directly."
"It is much better to preemptively bring up and explain any weaknesses in your background."
"If you have received very good performance evaluations, it is your responsibility to make it
known to us because we may not want to ask and risk making you feel uncomfortable."
"Remember that the easiest topic to ask someone (interviewer) about is him/herself—people
naturally like to proselytize about their own accomplishments. Ask why we joined this firm,
why we like it, etc."
"If you are an associate, focus on impressing the partners, but focus on bonding with the other
associates as a friend. I don't want to hire somebody who will make me look bad."
"If you are changing cities, you should be able to show your connection to the new city and
your demonstrated interest in living there. For example, how many times have you visited,
have you lived there, etc."
"You will be asked to talk about your prior experiences, so be prepared to discuss each and
every detail of your resume."
"Some of us are not good interviewers, and we get nervous as well. If necessary, it never hurts
to take the lead and help carry the interview with somebody that is not doing a very good
job."
"The more laughter during an interview and the more we like you personally, the more we
will overlook your weaknesses and play up your strengths. It happens all the time."
"The more the questions relate to the interviewer's personal experiences—as opposed to
administrative-type issues—the better."
"Be careful with asking questions that [cast] the firm in a negative light. You can ask
questions about things that you are concerned about—for example, a merger or practice
group leaving a firm—but balance those questions with questions about things you feel are
positive aspects of the firm."
"Avoid questions that deal with money, vacation, part-time, billable-hour minimums, etc.
Find this out on our firm's website or informally."
"If you really don't know the answer to a question, just say, 'I really don't know the answer.'"
"No matter how disgruntled you are with your current position, don't speak negatively about
your current employer."
"Save your negative-type questions, such as 'What do you not like about this firm?' until after
you receive an offer. That way, we can't ding you for being negative."
"Remember that partners are joint owners in the firm. When someone points out weaknesses
in their firm, they take it personally."
"Associates are more honest when they are speaking with you outside the actual office. If you
have tougher questions you need asked, such as whether there are difficult partners to work
with, etc., a lunch interview is the best time to get a more truthful answer."
"Do not feel you need to over-explain things you perceive as weaknesses about yourself…have
an answer ready, but do not go on and on about it."
"Assume that everything you say to each interviewer will be discussed and compared by each
of the interviewers when you're gone and scrutinized for inconsistencies."
"Realize that the law firm needs you as much as you need them. Don't come across as needy
or having low self-esteem."
"Unlike interviews during law school, remember that the firm really needs help because they
can't handle their workload."
"The more you focus on how your skills and experience can help make our lives easier, the
better."
Post-Interview:
"I recommend to students that they not call repeatedly when someone is not answering. We
have caller ID. A message or email is much more effective without stalking the person you are
trying to reach."
"Don't get too hung up on thank-you notes. If you want to write one, email is fine. Just make
sure there are no typos and you don't write the same thing to each person."
"In a thank-you note, don't say you think you're a 'perfect fit' after an initial interview. It's too
early and questions your sincerity."
"If you are anxious about a possible offer, don't call to 'check in' unless you have a good reason
for doing so, such as another pressing offer."
Is voluntary disclosure during an interview a good idea?
Question: I am a third-year litigation associate in a mid-size law firm and was recently told
that I should start looking for a new position. The reason I was given by the partners is
that although I am a valued attorney and have done good work, there is not enough work
to sustain me at this point. The partners specifically told me that they would help me find
a new position, keep me on the firm's website, give me good references, and also
suggested that I not tell potential new employers that I was asked to leave. Should I
volunteer information regarding the reason for my job search during the interviews or
not? I am getting conflicting advice.
Answer: This is perhaps one of the most difficult (and grayest areas) that comes up in
attorney job searches. Thus, I'm not surprised at all that you are receiving conflicting advice.
Many people feel strongly that you should volunteer this information, while many others feel
strongly that you are under no obligation to voluntarily disclose this information. I will explain
some of the common arguments on both sides and then provide my personal opinion at the
end.
1. Common Arguments Made by Those in Favor of Voluntary Disclosure:
Although you were asked to leave because of a downturn in work, the fact that you were laid
off should be considered material information that a potential new firm would certainly want
to know when evaluating your candidacy.
The legal community is small, and odds are the reason you were asked to leave will become
known to your prospective employer at some point. This is even more likely to happen if
people at your current firm know people at your future firm.
Credibility is everything. If you are interviewing with a firm and the people there find out
(without you telling them) that you were asked to leave, they may question your credibility
and doubt the sincerity of everything else you told them during the interview. If the new firm
finds out the truth after it hires you, the hiring partners may feel as though they were misled
during your interview. They might feel that although they didn't ask if you were laid off, it's
still something you should have disclosed.
Don't listen to what your current firm tells you about not disclosing this information. It is
concerned that you will tell other employers that work is slow, which will make it look like it
is not doing well. It is protecting and looking out for its reputation. Don't risk your credibility
because of this issue.
If you were thinking of hiring somebody, wouldn't you want to know why that person was
leaving his or her current position?
While you may not feel comfortable volunteering this information at the beginning of your
interviews and could risk raising a negative inference about your candidacy, it is much wiser
to come clean with the information at the beginning. By doing this, you will be showing strong
character and that you are trustworthy, two of the most important things employers look for
in attorneys.
2. Common Arguments Made by Those Against Voluntary Disclosure:
By keeping you on the website and telling you not to disclose that you were asked to leave,
your current firm has specifically taken steps to ensure that you won't have to disclose this
information. The partners understand that there is a strong bias against people who have
been asked to leave (even if it was due to workflow issues), and they feel that it would not be
fair for you to have to disclose this information since you were let go because of a workflow
issue that was their fault and not yours. As long as you are still employed by your current firm
and your interviewer doesn't ask whether you were laid off, that's all that matters.
If you were asked to leave for performance-related issues, that's one thing. But this was due
to workflow issues, which are totally out of your control. Thus, because it does not reflect
your performance, it's not really relevant to assessing your abilities as a lawyer.
The interviewing firm has a duty to ask for information that it deems relevant, and if it deems
whether you were asked to leave your current position relevant, it will certainly ask about
the issue.
If you volunteer information that is often perceived as negative without being asked, the
interviewing firm might question your judgment. Rather than seeing you as honest, the hiring
partners might think you are naïve. (Litigators never disclose—up front—negatives about their
"cases" without being asked.)
3. My Opinion:
After seeing this type of scenario play out in numerous ways, I am in favor of full disclosure,
even if you are afraid that volunteering the information up front may hurt your chances of
being hired.
The phrase "the truth will set you free" is very applicable to interviewing. If you go into an
interview trying to hide the truth or hoping it won't come up, you will not interview as well
because your energy will be focused on protecting yourself from being "found out" rather than
on showing the new firm why you are a strong candidate. A subtle but markedly different
energy will come through. Plus, Murphy's Law dictates that what you're trying to hide will be
found out.
Some people have said things like "Law firms usually don't voluntarily disclose the negatives
about their firms without being asked, so why should I?" But two wrongs don't make a right.
Just because law firms don't disclose their negatives, it doesn't mean you have to play the
same game.
I think the conundrum you are facing is caused by a larger problem in the industry. There is a
bias against attorneys who have been asked to leave, and I can understand why it's an issue
employers want to vet to ensure they are not inheriting another firm's "problem."
Some laid-off candidates are asked to leave because of problems, but some are still very good
performers and are the victims of circumstance. Even those who are good performers may
still run into the following perception: "If this person was really a superstar, the firm would
have found a way to keep him/her around."
Certain law firms continue to reinforce the negative stigma by automatically dismissing
candidates because they were asked to leave. Due to the repercussions (and embarrassment)
that accompany being asked to leave and the massive pressures candidates are under while
looking for new jobs after being asked to leave, they are understandably scared of severely
hurting their chances during interviews. As such, some are inclined to simply not volunteer
the information.
All in all, I think the best thing you can do is come forward with the information, but express
it the right way. Don't just say, "I was asked to leave." Instead, provide the interviewers with
more context that explains the circumstances that were out of your control. Also, highlight
the facts that you received good performance reviews and have good references.
Based on what you are telling me, this was not in any way your fault; you were a victim of
circumstance. As such, you need to make that clear when you interview. If you present this
the right way, the firm will likely appreciate your honesty, and hopefully, if everything else is
a fit, it will still be interested in continuing discussions. At the very least, the firm will
appreciate your honesty and character, which goes a long way.
If a firm automatically dismisses your candidacy after you disclose that you were asked to
leave for non-performance-related issues, this does not reflect well on the firm's ability to
look beyond the surface of candidates, and thus, it may not be the type of place you would
want to work for anyway.
As I mentioned above, I've seen attorneys handle this situation in a lot of different ways with
a lot of different results and can confidently conclude that up-front, voluntary honesty is the
best policy for everybody involved. It's certainly not the easiest policy to follow, but in the
long run, it's the best.
Good luck to you, and thanks for the great question.
How to evaluate if the offer is good?
Question: I need your help with how to best negotiate an offer I have. I am a third-year
corporate associate focusing exclusively on mergers & acquisitions. I have an offer from
another firm to join their corporate securities practice. Because I've focused on M&A, I
don't have any real securities experience yet, but I think I can get up to speed pretty
quickly, and based on what I know, I think I'll enjoy securities more than M&A. I got my
offer last week, and the firm wants to bring me in as a first-year associate at a much
lower salary than my current job. Their justification is that I don't have the experience of
a third-year securities associate. Does that make sense, or are they being cheap? (C.C.,
New York)
Answer:
Dear C.C.,
The issue of "taking a lap" when you switch practice areas is very common. Often, when
making a practice-area switch, taking a hit in class year makes complete sense, especially for
the incoming attorney.
I've seen numerous associates interpret reductions in class year the wrong way and think that
firms are being "cheap" because they want to pay lower salaries. Usually, this is hardly the
case. Rather, a firm is going to want to set your billing rate at the maximum rate possible in
light of your experience and the client's needs. From a business perspective, a firm would not
want to bill you out for less money than you're worth. But firms will not bill you out for more
than they think clients will want to pay based on your experience. Thus, firms have a juggling
act to contend with when they bring in associates who are switching areas. Remember—they
want to bill you out as highly as possible, but not too highly, based on your relevant
experience and their clients' needs. Your billing rate is largely driven by clients' needs.
For your benefit, taking a reduction in class year (and a lower billing rate) will afford you
more time for training and getting up to speed. Partners will be more lenient if a project
takes you more time because your billing rate will be lower. While you're learning a new area,
why put yourself under the stress of having to complete projects more quickly? As partners
often say, "the client will expect somebody at your high billing rate to complete this task
much faster."
Another consideration is the fact that your performance will be judged in comparison with the
performances of other colleagues at your same year level. If you enter as a third-year
associate, your performance will be compared with the performances of other third-year
associates, many of whom, I imagine, will have two solid years of securities experience under
their belts. Would you want to step into a situation where your "equals" are much more skilled
than you and you're trailing behind? This could hurt you in many ways over the years.
There are some associates who, in my opinion, place too much emphasis on the fact that they
may be taking a reduction in salary without focusing on the dangers of entering at too high of
a year level. When making a practice-area switch, focusing too much on the incoming salary
usually does not make business sense and indicates very short-term thinking. The phrase
"cutting your nose off to spite your face" comes to mind.
So, with this background in mind, let's consider your situation. Despite my comments above
and based on what I see happening in the market, bringing you in as a first-year does strike
me as a bit extreme. Why? As a third-year M&A associate, you have some relevant experience
and are not starting from scratch. While you haven't worked in securities, you have still
worked on M&A deals, and it's not as if you're coming from an insurance-defense litigation
practice and have never worked in a corporate practice. Furthermore, much of the ramp-up
time for first-years involves learning how to survive as an associate in a law firm. You
obviously already know how to do this. Indeed, somebody at your year level and with your
experience knows how to bill time, handle transactions, and essentially survive day-to-day as
an associate in a law firm. I've seen people in situations similar to yours enter as second-year
associates and get up to speed rather quickly.
In your case, if the firm has not already explained its reasons for offering to bring you in as a
first-year (which I'm sure it did), I'd ask for its reasons. (Don't approach it as if you're insulted;
rather, approach it as if you're simply trying to better understand the firm's business reasons
for doing so.) Remember—a firm does not want to bill you out at a lower rate if it doesn't
have to.
If you don't agree with the firm's rationale and you still want to attempt to negotiate entering
as a second-year, you should do what good attorneys do: make your case. Point out your
relevant and transferable experience and explain why you believe you will be ahead of most
first-years (who just started around five months ago). Or you could try to obtain an upfront
signing bonus to compensate you for the significant reduction in pay that you'll be
experiencing. That way, the firm can still bill you out at a lower rate while helping to
compensate you for the reduction in salary.
If, after hearing the firm's explanation, you agree that entering as a first-year makes sense,
you may want to consider the following strategy (which I have seen work successfully). If,
after the end of your first year, you are performing very well and above your year level, the
firm will consider bumping you up to third-year. In other words, based on your experience and
the fact that you have successfully handled the transition to securities, you would skip a year
level.
In short, don't lose sight of the forest for the trees. If you are looking to switch practice
areas, it makes sense to be reasonably flexible and focus on your long-term goals rather than
your immediate salary and year level. A little flexibility now can go a long way.
Should a resume be only one-page long?
Question: I am a second-year associate, and I want to find a new job. I've always read
that resumes should not exceed one page. Do you agree? (B.A., Washington, DC)
Answer:
Dear B.A.,
Many attorneys place too much emphasis on the length of their resumes. Here's the rule I tell
my candidates: Your resume should be as long as it needs to be in order to persuasively and
effectively communicate your background without wasting space or providing irrelevant
information.
As a general rule, if you can fit all of your relevant experience on one page, this is ideal. But
if you are judicious with your descriptions and headings and still need more than one page,
don't sweat it.
Remember, effective communication is an integral element of being a good attorney, and
your resume is your
opportunity to show your communication skills. There's nothing wrong with a two—or even
three—page resume if that is the length that is needed to convey your relevant background
and experience. For some attorneys—for example, those who have had extensive prior careers
or those with impressive lists of publications—several pages can be required to fully
communicate their background. On the other hand, if an attorney is just a few years out of
law school and has had only one job, relevant experience can likely be communicated in one
page.
One problem I often see is that an attorney will have a resume that is a page and a quarter
long and has lots of "white space" on the first page. (In other words, there is a lot of unused
space on the first page.) This can be problematic because it sends the subtle signal that the
attorney did not take the time to simply figure out how to fit all of the information on one
page (by adjusting spacing, margins, etc.). This could reflect adversely on the attorney's
attention to detail.
A resume is your first opportunity to show your communication skills, so it's critical. There are
many excellent articles and resources on resume writing.
In short, be as concise as possible but as detailed as necessary to effectively and persuasively
communicate your background and experience. When your resume does this, the number of
pages becomes irrelevant.
Chapter 4
What to expect from legal recruiters
Should you apply to the same firm through different recruiters
Question: I recently submitted my resume to a firm through another recruiter. I am very
excited about this firm and think that I am a great fit for their current opening. However,
the recruiter who submitted my resume is not returning my phone calls, and I'm not sure
what the status is of my submission. Is there any way you can send my resume to the
firm?
Answer: This question comes up more times than I can count. Unfortunately, the short
answer is that once your materials have been submitted to a firm, you should not submit your
materials again through a different source. The following considerations apply to your current
situation:
1. The Referral Source
When a law firm receives a resume (whether directly from a candidate, through an attorney
at the firm, or through a recruiter), that resume is typically logged into a database that helps
the firm track potential candidates. This system also enables the law firm to keep a record of
the referral source. This becomes important if the candidate is hired by the firm because the
law firm will likely owe a placement fee to the referral source.
Thus, in your situation, the first recruiter who submitted your resume is considered the
referral source, and having a second recruiter submit your resume will create a conflict. I
have personally been told by recruitment professionals that they will ignore the submission
altogether if there is a conflict because they do not want to get involved in a dispute
between the various referral sources.
In order to avoid such a result, the best idea is to continue contacting the recruiter who
submitted your materials until you get a response on the status of all pending submissions.
Even if s/he is only able to confirm that the materials were sent but no response has been
received, you absolutely deserve to know the status of all submissions the recruiter made on
your behalf.
2. A Reflection on Your Professionalism
When a law firm receives a candidate's resume several times from different sources, it may
reflect poorly on the candidate's professionalism. In choosing to work with a recruiter on your
job search, you are placing a great deal of trust in that individual. In return, a good recruiter
will never submit your materials to a firm unless you have given your express permission
(preferably in writing).
Thus, you are responsible for keeping track of your job search and the firms to which you
have been submitted. When your resume is received twice by one firm, it may give the
impression that you are not keeping track of your own search and that you are sending your
resume out in a haphazard fashion. In order to avoid this negative impression, make sure you
keep track of all firms where you have submitted a resume, and don't hesitate to insist that
your recruiter get your authorization before submitting your materials to any firm.
3. Same Firm, Different Office
As a member of a national recruiting firm, I tend to work with a considerable number of
candidates who are relocating or are otherwise considering multiple legal markets. In this
particular set of circumstances, I have found that people tend to believe that if they
submitted their resume to one office of a law firm, it is okay to then submit to a second
office through a different recruiter.
Be careful here. Many firms have either instituted or are in the process of instituting
centralized databases for their recruitment professionals. Be honest with your recruiter so
that s/he may advise whether a submission to one office means you have, for all intents and
purposes, been submitted to all of the firm's offices or you must indeed submit separately to
each office that is of interest to you.
4. The Rare Exception
As with most rules, there are rare exceptions. For example, if it has been more than six
months since the recruiter submitted your materials to the firm, it might be okay to send the
materials again. Or if some time has passed and an entirely new position has opened up, an
exception might be made. However, in the vast majority of circumstances, the best course of
action is to follow up with the recruiter who made the initial submission and ask that
recruiter to send you a written list of all the firms to which s/he submitted your materials
that includes the status of each submission.
How to find the right headhunter?
Question: I am an associate at an Am Law 50 firm, and I get calls from headhunters all the
time, sometimes up to several times a week. I never took the calls in the past, but I have
recently decided to look for a new position. How do I go about finding the right
headhunter? (M.M., New York)
Answer:
Dear M.M.,
Excellent question. Frankly, I wish more associates dedicated more time to the selection of a
headhunter since it is such an important decision and one that is usually (and unfortunately)
given too little thought.
I have written two comprehensive articles on this important topic that will provide you with a
lot of useful information on selecting a headhunter. Here they are:
"What to Ask the Headhunter" - This is an article that discusses 10 questions you can use to
help evaluate and select a headhunter. This article was published in Legal Times on October
30, 2006, and has been used by many attorneys selecting headhunters. Here is a link to the
PDF: http://www.bcgsearch.com/crc/what-to-ask-the-headhunter.pdf.
"How to Select the Best Legal Recruiter and Maximize the Effectiveness of Working with
One - This is an article I co-wrote with two of my colleagues. Here is a link to the article:
http://www.bcgsearch.com/crc/maxlegalrecruiter.html.
If you read both of these articles, I promise that you will be much more informed and savvier
regarding the selection of a headhunter than you were 15 minutes prior to reading them.
Good luck!
Can I use more than one legal recruiter in my job search?
Question: I am about to start looking for a new job, and I am entertaining the idea of
using a legal recruiter. However, a friend of mine told me that her recruiter “fired” her
after learning that she was using more than one recruiter. Is that how it works, and if so,
how do I make sure I am working with the right one?
Answer: You ask a very good question about using a legal recruiter, and although I cannot
speak for all legal search professionals, here are my thoughts. Legal recruiters are paid by the
law firms into which they place candidates, and they are only paid if the attorney they
present to the firm is hired there. Because of this, recruiters are going to focus on helping
those candidates that they think have the greatest chance of successfully placing into a new
position.
While no one is obligated to use only one legal recruiter for his or her search, there are a
number of benefits to doing so, assuming the individual is willing to find the right professional
who will work diligently on his or her behalf. It is basic human nature that most people are
going to be more loyal and dedicated to someone who is loyal and dedicated to them, and
this rule certainly applies to legal recruiting. When I represent someone who is invested in the
process and dedicated to using my services exclusively, I will do absolutely everything in my
power to get them as many new opportunities as I can. This includes spending significant time
getting to know the candidate, putting forth the best possible resume and supporting
materials to each firm, and thinking outside of the box to find hard-to-find opportunities at a
variety of firms. Having said that, when I work with a candidate that believes he or she will
have a better chance of hearing about “all of the opportunities out there” if he or she works
with multiple recruiters, I will work with them and I will give them the best representation I
can, but I would be lying if I said that I am equally as motivated to go the extra mile to help
that candidate. Simply put, my efforts are going to be better served with a candidate who
believes that I can provide them comprehensive representation instead of someone who will
use whatever recruiter that calls him or her first about a new opportunity.
Make no mistake, I would never “fire” a candidate because he or she is using more than one
recruiter, and I work with countless candidates who are also working with other such
professionals. But I can understand why your friend's legal recruiter may have made the
decision he or she made. A good recruiter spends an inordinate amount of time getting to
know his or her candidates, putting together effective marketing materials for the candidate,
researching the relevant market for the candidates, finding the best possible job
opportunities and sticking with the candidate through the entire process. Given the time and
effort that goes into properly representing a candidate to law firms, I can understand that
some legal recruiters would focus their efforts exclusively on candidates that are dedicated to
him or her.
I also understand the temptation to work with multiple recruiters. After all, many candidates
believe that if they work with more than one, they increase the chances that they will be
alerted to more of the job openings in the relevant market, because in their minds, it is not
likely that one recruiter will have relationships with all of the law firms and therefore have
knowledge of all of the openings. While this may be true (I do not necessarily believe that it
is), doing some initial due diligence, finding one highly-regarded legal recruiter and
developing a strong working relationship with him or her will exponentially increase the
candidate's chances that the recruiter will go the extra mile to find them a new position.
Many of the candidates with whom I have worked have done just this, and without exception,
I have given each of them 110% of my effort and attention. Not only have I placed the
majority of these candidates into exciting new positions, but they have remained good friends
that come to me for advice and information on the market for years to come.
With regard to your friend, I am sorry that her recruiter “fired” her, but I encourage her to
take a good look at the other recruiters with whom she is working. If she has concerns that
one or more of them is not doing a comprehensive job then instead of finding additional
recruiters to fill in the gaps, she might want to consider taking the time to find one recruiter
that will help her through the entire process. I feel very strongly that this will do nothing but
increase her chances of exhausting the market and finding the best opportunities for her
practice area and career goals.
As for you, I encourage you to do the same. Make no mistake, I understand that putting all of
your eggs into one legal recruiter's basket requires having a great deal of faith in that
recruiter, but there are plenty of very capable, experienced and loyal recruiters that do this
job with the best of intentions, and using one of these recruiters is going to be far more
beneficial than using six random recruiters who happen to be advertising a few jobs here and
there.
No matter which route you choose, I wish you the best in your job search.
Skeptical partner considers working with a recruiter
Question: I am a partner at a mid to large size firm. I have done well and have a decent
book of portable business. I frequently receive calls from headhunters trying to move me
to another firm. Generally I avoid these calls. I am busy, happy with my firm, and I not
into take the risk of moving my practice. I see little difference between my firm and the
opportunities being pitched by the headhunters who call. However, given the current
economic situation and the difficulty my firm has had recruiting in related practice areas,
I am reviewing my situation. I know a lot of people at various firms in my area of
expertise. What would the benefit to me be of spending time working with a recruiter?
It's my impression that for the most part, you are just out to make a buck with little
thought or understanding of what might motivate me to be more open minded.
Answer: There are different styles to recruiting, just as there are in the practice in law. I
don't object when someone refers to me as a ''headhunter'' but I see a distinction between a
headhunter and a professional recruiter. At BCG Attorney Search, we fall into the latter
category. A professional recruiter usually calls for one of two reasons, either of which might
be helpful to your success in the short or long term:
Number One- Ours is a relationship driven business. We make calls to introduce ourselves and
get to know a little about you so that over time we can develop a positive relationship with
you. As your practice matures and the market changes or develops, we will have an
established rapport with you. By investing in learning about you as an individual and as an
attorney, we learn about your practice, personality, and the strengths and weaknesses of your
current platform. This information allows us to identify and alert you to opportunities that
you might have an interest in as we work with clients in executing their strategic growth
plans. Many attorneys take the time to speak to us for a few minutes from time to time,
particularly when they like the demeanor of an individual recruiter or are impressed by how
much they know about a practice discipline or the competition. I am sure you've noticed
there are a range of styles out there and you may find yourself opening up more to one person
than another, which is a good indicator of who to seek out or spend a few minutes chatting
with. By developing a relationship with a couple of recruiters that you like, you can stay on
top of the market, get information about what is going on at other firms, and stay informed.
When you take stock at various points in your career of your practice and goals, you will have
established a level of trust over time that can come in handy at some point.
Number Two- Ours is a relationship driven business. We often have ties to particular clients
and work closely with them. Frequently when we sit down with a client at the beginning of a
search, we discuss what sorts of traits and skills a client is seeking in building or developing a
practice area. For clients with whom we have developed a strong relationship, we often do
targeted searches. This means we are entrusted by the client to convey more substantive
information about a firm or practice to a handpicked list of pre-identified prospective
candidates. If you receive one of these calls, it means that we conducted research for the
client and have sat down together to discuss the profiles of select attorneys. The client has
already expressed interest in speaking with you and directed us to contact you at their
request. If you take no other recruiter calls, should you a recruiter indicate they are calling
on behalf of a particular client at the firm's bequest, take the call. It's nice to be wanted and
this is a great opportunity to take an inventory of your present situation. It offers you a
chance to compare where you are to another platform in depth. You may talk to the firm
pursuing you and decide to move or you may ''re-choose'' your current firm. At a minimum you
will learn some interesting things about another practice or firm and/or make some new
contacts in your practice industry that could be useful at another point in your practice or
career.
Regarding your comment that we are in it to ''make a buck'', yes this is how we earn our living
and obviously there is a financial profit if you make a lateral move. But not all of us are
mercenary in our efforts. Those of us who are in recruiting for the long haul take look at our
work in a bigger picture, and just like any sort of business development, we approach it with
a service oriented mentality because our reputation and credibility on the line. Those two
things are extremely important to success in any field, so it is in our interests to work towards
a positive outcome for our candidates and clients and for them to have a favorable
experience working with us. Much of our business comes from referrals or additional
opportunities clients give us to work on searches and just like attorneys we want a lasting
relationship with our candidates and clients.
A professional recruiter can be an outstanding resource to any attorney. When the timing is
right, we provide a wealth of information and insight into various firms. We act as your
advocate and counselor in researching and comparing practices to find the one that has the
elements that have the keys need for your success and work to thoroughly identify firms
whose platforms will support the attainment of your goals. You never know whether an
opportunity may be transformational in terms of elevating your practice unless you listen and
talk with those recruiters that present themselves with knowledge and professionalism.
Chapter 5
Do grades matter? And for how long?
Do grades and school rankings matter if aiming for a Big-Law job?
Question: I am currently employed at an AmLaw 100 firm but do not have great grades
from a top school. Am I still marketable to top firms? How can I improve my marketability?
Answer: It is important to remember that your law school performance stays with you even
after you have practiced for several years. There are some law firms that even require law
school transcripts from partner candidates! So, even if you have gotten some great
experience at your current firm, your law school performance can still limit your options for a
lateral move.
That said, there are absolutely ways you can improve your marketability. My first suggestion
would be to try to specialize in an area of law that is in demand. For example, if you are a
litigator, you may try to specialize in labor & employment or health care litigation, both of
which are usually desired by law firms and are often in short supply. On the other hand, as a
general commercial litigator, you would be competing with a large number of similarly
qualified applicants. If you develop a specific expertise that firms need, they will be more
willing to overlook law school performance. I have had success placing candidates who
performed rather poorly in law school at top tier firms because they had a very specific
expertise that the firm needed.
Second, as you build your specialization, try to get your name out there as an expert in the
field. Write articles, sit on panels, and try to develop a reputation for yourself. When I submit
a candidate whose reputation is already known to members of the firm, that candidate is
much more likely to have success, even if their law school credentials are not tip top.
Third, try to network as much as possible to develop personal connections. The reason why
firms use law school performance as a means of judging a candidate, is because it is often the
only data point a firm has at its disposal. By developing a network of contacts that can vouch
for you at a firm, you give the decision makers more data points by which to judge you. These
personal connections can make the difference between an immediate rejection and a job.
Finally, keep in mind that it can be tricky to determine the best way to utilize your
connections once you have made them. Make sure to tell your recruiter about any contacts
you have at firms or with others who may want to vouch for you. Your recruiter will work with
you to strategize on how to put your network to the best possible use.
IP associate wonders why his recruiter needs undergrad transcripts
Question: I am an intellectual property associate. My recruiter has asked me not only for
my law school transcript, but for my undergraduate transcript as well. Is this unusual?
Answer: Law school transcripts are an absolute requirement for your recruiter. Many law
firms will consider an application incomplete until law school transcripts are received.
In the case of an intellectual property associate, a candidate's undergraduate major and
coursework is often as important to a firm as the candidate's J.D. if that candidate is being
considered on the basis of an undergraduate technical degree. When you are beginning a
lateral job search, it is important to quickly secure your law school and undergraduate
transcripts for your recruiter so that she can get the process started. Usually, firms are
content with unofficial transcripts during the application process. These can often be quickly
attained through an institution's website or via fax. The firm may later request an official
transcript when they are engaged in the due diligence process related to an offer.
Where should education go on a lawyer's resume?
Question: Where should education go on a lawyer's resume? On the top or at the bottom?
I've received conflicting advice.
Answer: There is no definite rule, but my personal opinion is that if you have been out of law
school more than two years, it makes sense to put your work experience at the top, as this is
the most timely and relevant.
The one—important—exception is if you feel your law school/education is a very strong selling
point (e.g., you went to a top school; you graduated at the top of your class; or you have
other relevant coursework that is worth highlighting). If your education is a stronger selling
point than your work experience or your current job (for example, your current employer may
not open many doors because it is not well known or highly regarded, etc.), you can still keep
your education at the top for a few more years since that will likely garner more visual
attention from the person doing the resume screening. The person reviewing the resume may
think, ''Well, that person went to a top law school, and while I don't recognize the current
employer, I don't want to risk passing up somebody from a top school so I should at least let
the resume be passed along to the hiring folks for consideration.''
Here's a hypothetical example illustrating this point: Candidate John Doe went to Harvard and
graduated magna cum laude in 2006. Since then, he has been working at Smith & Smith. Now
let's say John's brother, Larry Doe, went to a 4th tier law school and works at Wilson &
Wilson. If you were to poll 10 people as to whether Smith & Smith or Wilson & Wilson was a
better firm (based only on these facts), I would guess that almost all would say Smith & Smith
because of the quality of John Doe's education. The inference is that somebody from Harvard,
who graduated magna cum laude, would only join a good firm. It's not necessarily true, but
it's a normal assumption. It's under that same assumption that you should list your education
first (probably up until 5 years out) if the market value of your education is considerably
stronger than the market value of your current employer or work experience.
Are law school transcripts necessary when applying for jobs?
Question: I was working with a recruiter who sent my law school transcripts to potential
firms along with my resume. I believe that this hurt my chances with these firms as my
law school grades are not what I want to emphasize. Can I send only my resume in the
future? I don't imagine that my transcript is terribly relevant now that I've had practical
law firm experience.
Answer: In my experience, many law firms want to see your law school transcript at the
outset. It is often a prerequisite to even being considered. For these firms, the very short
answer is "No, you can't send just your resume if you want your resume to be looked at." More
to the point, though, you almost always want to send your transcript when applying to a firm.
How much weight a law firm gives to the transcript totally depends on the firm. Some law
firms have strict grading criteria even when they consider more senior attorneys. Some firms
will not consider any transcripts that have anything lower than a B. Some only want to
consider lawyers who graduated at or near the top of their class. Bear in mind that although
many firms want to see (or require that they see) your transcript, it is a smaller percentage
of firms that are as strict about grades as the firms I just mentioned.
Thus, the first misconception is that every firm that requires a transcript will not consider a
candidate who has a transcript that is anything less than stellar. This is absolutely not the
case. For most firms, your law school record is one factor among several that they will
consider with respect to lateral hiring. What weight the transcript gets will depend largely on
the firm, the partner who is looking at the resume, and the strength of the other facets of
your background.
At the end of the day, if there is something about your transcript that might exclude you from
consideration, the only thing you can do to mitigate this is to work with a recruiter who will
explain (or you can explain) the context of the law school grades. Give the firm the
opportunity to see the grades in the appropriate light.
It's not productive to be defensive or tell a firm that it's stupid to consider grades. It can be
productive to provide a firm with relevant information about your law school career that
might mitigate any less-than-stellar marks. You can and should highlight those qualities (your
law firm experience, for example) that are so compelling that grades become a far less
significant consideration, if they are considered at all.
I believe the biggest misconception is that if one removes the law school transcript from the
application process, the firm will somehow assign it no weight or very little weight when
considering his or her candidacy. I do not think that this is true.
If a firm likes everything it sees with respect to your background but has to ask for a
transcript, the easy assumption to make (from the firm's perspective) is that you have
something to hide. At this stage, you've highlighted the transcript issue for the firm, and I
believe your transcript will get more scrutiny when the firm has to specially request that you
provide it. Not only have you shined a spotlight on the very part of your background you
wanted to obscure, but also the firm is going to have to find your initial application and make
a complete file from what could have been complete at the outset.
What many candidates may not realize is that part of the application process is due diligence
on the firm's part. Firms often have internal policies that dictate what they need to have to
consider a lateral candidate at various stages throughout the process. You may fundamentally
disagree that your law school transcript is relevant, but it may be little more than an
administrative requirement that has to be checked off for you to move on to the next stage of
consideration.
I hear a lot of frustration from lawyers about the transcript issue. I understand that a bad
torts grade from your first semester of law school as a wet-behind-the-ears 23-year-old may
seem to be a silly thing to consider for an associate position a decade later. I don't even
remember my torts grade, and I would hate to think that my future hinges on it.
Some firms do find it important, but that may simply mean that you are not a match for those
particular firms — and that's not the end of the world. However, I believe you'll find that if
you understand why the transcript is used along with a variety of other factors, many of
which will be far more significant to a firm, including it in your application materials won't
seem to be as much of a negative as you think it is.
Do grades matter if you have good litigation experience?
Question: I am a fourth-year litigator at a small firm that focuses on criminal defense
(DUI, street crimes, etc.). I'm the only associate, and there are two partners. I love being
in court practically every day and think I can run circles around my friends who are
litigators in the big firms (and have never been in court!). However, none of the big firms
in Philadelphia will even interview me. Do grades still matter, even though I have such
good litigation experience? (B.R., New Jersey)
Answer:
Dear B.R.,
It sounds like you are probably a very experienced "trial attorney," which is different from a
"pretrial litigator." It's important to understand that litigation in small firms is usually very
different from litigation in large firms.
In large firms, many of the cases are very big and can go on for years before they either go to
trial or finally settle. As such, most of the litigation consists of pretrial activities (discovery,
expert witness reports, motion writing/briefing, hearings, etc.) that lead up to a possible
trial. In certain large firms, there are junior partners who have never been to trial and some
junior partners who have never argued in court. In many mega firms, some associates rarely
(if ever) take depositions or argue in court. (Often, high-profile and high-paying clients want
the partners to handle these aspects.)
On the other hand, these associates develop other skills—they are adept and skilled
researchers, they have a uniquely focused attention to detail, they have fantastic
Bluebooking and writing skills, they can write motions and eloquent briefs that are nothing
short of works of art, and they can effectively organize and produce millions of documents in
large-scale document productions. While they may rarely step into court and argue motions,
their fantastic attention to detail and ability to navigate through the pretrial process are
what high-paying clients want.
On the other hand, in a very small firm that has an active trial practice, the skills of a typical
associate are much different. Usually, the cases are much smaller and go to trial much more
quickly. Therefore, the litigators must be good trial attorneys. In many small firms, litigation
associates attend court for the first time shortly after they begin working. Many first- and
second-year trial attorneys are comfortable speaking to judges in court, while this would
scare many associates in larger firms. Trial attorneys in small firms are often more adept at
thinking on their feet while being questioned by judges in court. They often possess much
greater ability to apply the rules of evidence. As a result of their day-in and day-out
courtroom experience, they can cross-examine witnesses very effectively and connect with
juries in ways that many litigation associates in large firms cannot.
So when you say that you "run circles around [your] friends who are litigators in the big firms,"
I can certainly understand and appreciate this. However, keep in mind that you are comparing
apples to oranges. You are able to run circles around your friends, but only in regard to "trial
litigation." When it comes to the type of pretrial litigation that is inherent in large law firms
(which is not your area of expertise), your friends can probably run circles around you in
certain respects. Sure, they may not be able to argue in court, but they can probably teach
you a thing or two about running a large-scale document review that involves several million
documents and a host of complex privilege issues. No one type of litigation is better or worse
—they're just very, very different.
The best litigation practices are those that have both pretrial litigators and trial attorneys,
since the skills are quite different. However, in most litigation departments in large firms, a
majority of the litigators are pretrial litigators since pretrial is such a dominant portion of the
practice.
The reasons you may not be getting interest from large firms at your level are 1) they are
credential-focused (yes, grades still matter) and 2) they strongly prefer mid-level litigators
who have immediately transferable skills that can often only be gained at competitor firms
with similar practices. Because much of your experience is as a trial attorney in a very small
criminal firm, you don't have experience practicing in a large competitor firm.
Also, more importantly, you have focused on handling criminal-defense matters, but these
types of "street-crime" cases are rarely handled by large firms, which generally focus on
commercial litigation. (An exception is white-collar defense, which is often practiced in
larger firms since the defendants are usually very wealthy and can afford the large-firm
rates.) As such, there would likely be a substantial learning curve involved were you to join a
large firm.
Thus, rather than retrain a trial lawyer from a small firm, a larger firm will often prefer to
hire somebody from its competitor across the street (somebody who is more experienced in
handling commercial disputes). Indeed, the ramp-up time would be much shorter for such an
attorney than it would be for somebody who has focused predominantly on criminal-defense
matters.
This is not to say in any way that criminal defense is somehow not as "good" as commercial
litigation. (In fact, many people would argue that it's much more exciting and fun.) The point
is that it's just a very different ball of wax, and firms prefer to hire people who already know
their ball of wax.
You did not mention your reason for seeking a position in a large firm. While I have a hunch
it's probably due to the recent raises in salaries, I don't want to make this assumption. (Plus,
this issue will open up a whole new can of worms best saved for another Q&A.)
However, I'll say this: since you really enjoy being in court, you will probably be much happier
and more fulfilled in a trial-focused practice. Most of these practices are at smaller or midsized firms where the billing rates are lower and the stakes are not as high, but the cases are
more likely to go to trial. Best of all, since you enjoy being in court, you'll have a lot more
fun. With the number of unhappy attorneys out there, the importance of having fun and
enjoying your career is something you should never lose sight of while looking for a new job.
Good luck!
Chapter 6
What you need to know about relocation
Can you get a job in a LA biglaw firm before clearing the CA bar exam?
Question: I'm a third year associate currently practicing in New York but I'd like to make a
move to Los Angeles. What are my chances of finding a position with a large law firm
before I take the California bar exam?
Answer: In general, firms in California are very particular about hiring candidates who have
already been admitted to the CA bar. In my experience, they are stricter about this policy
than any other state and that is likely due to a combination of California not having
reciprocity with any state at any level of practice, as well as California being a very desirable
place for attorneys to work.
That said, there are a few things to consider if you have not yet been admitted to the CA bar.
First, what is your practice area? Typically it will be most difficult for litigators to find a job
in California without admission to the bar whereas some transactional positions will be more
lenient. Additionally, if you have a more niche practice such as capital markets or real estate,
you are more likely to have a chance at a job with a California law firm without the bar than
someone who has a more commonly found focus, such as commercial litigation.
Second, is it possible for you to sit for the bar exam before applying for jobs? I've had success
with candidates who, although not yet admitted to the bar, have at least already taken the
exam. When speaking with law firms I'm able to tell them that the candidate is awaiting
results. While they are not yet admitted obviously, it shows that this candidate is dedicated
to moving to California (and not just throwing darts on a map) and it also means that by the
time the candidate interviews and gets an offer, they will likely already have their results in
hand.
This is not meant to discourage you from exploring job opportunities in California but rather
to prepare you for some hurdles you may face. If at all possible, go ahead and register for the
exam and try to at least have taken the test before applying to jobs. If you have specific
questions about your own job search, I'd love to be of assistance!
Texas lawyer planning Midwest move seeks info on rules regarding being waived in.
Question: I am currently practicing law in Texas, and while I like aspects of my current
job, my wife and I have decided to move to the Midwest, where we both grew up and
have family support. I have been out of school for six years and am under the impression
that I can waive into the Illinois Bar as well as a handful of other state bars throughout the
Midwest. However, I have a number of questions regarding the process, the costs, the
time it takes to complete the process and whether the background check done on
applicants includes contacting current employers. As you can probably imagine, I am
conducting this job search in confidence so as to avoid jeopardizing my current position.
Can you help me find the relevant information for each of the state bars in the Midwest?
Answer: You ask a very good question, and one that I get from many candidates with whom I
work. Seeking admission to another state bar on motion can be complicated, time consuming
and quite confusing. Until recently, attorneys struggled to find accurate information on the
process. Thankfully, much of this information is now on the Internet, and to the extent that
an attorney has specific questions regarding the process as it applies to his or her situation,
most of the state bars have qualified employees available to answer such questions. As a legal
recruiter, I tell every candidate seeking admission to another state bar to research the
applicable rules online and then call the bar and speak to a live person. The rules for each
state differ and many have changed recently (Illinois, in particular, amended Rule 705 of the
Illinois Supreme Court Rules in January 2011 to make admission on motion easier on attorneys
like you), so it may be next to impossible to locate information specific to each attorney’s
circumstances and situation.
In my professional experience, the only times I have seen attorneys run into trouble seeking
admission to another state bar on motion arises when the attorney does not have all of the
necessary information to determine: (1) if they are actually qualified to waive in; (2) what is
required (in terms of paperwork and other supporting information) of an attorney who is
qualified to waive in; and (3) how long the process generally takes. The last thing anyone
interviewing with a law firm wants to do is to provide inaccurate information on his or her
eligibility to waive into a state bar on a job interview or shortly after being hired. Obviously,
doing so will make the candidate look ill-prepared and less-than-serious about making the
geographic move to that state.
To help you get started, here is a link to a list of all 50 state bar websites:
http://www.nextclient.com/resources/legal-links/state-bar-websites/.
I wish you nothing but success with your job search and move.
Unemployed lawyer planning to move out-of-state unsure about bar issues
Question: I am a second-year associate and was laid off from my job in March 2009. Since
then, I have focused my time on finding a new job. I am completely open in terms of
geography and have applied to a number of jobs in different states. I finally secured an
interview with an out-of-state firm, and while I am excited at the opportunity, I am not
sure how to address the fact that I am not yet barred in the state. What do you
recommend?
Answer: In this troubling economy, where jobs are scarce, this is becoming a common
concern among candidates. I applaud you for putting your career first and keeping an open
mind with regard to opportunities outside of your state. Even so, many firms are hesitant to
interview a candidate with little-to-no connection to their state for fear that the candidate is
not serious about making a move to an unfamiliar place. One way to create a connection
between you and the state in which the targeted firm exists is to become a member of that
state's bar. Often times, though, it is not possible (or practical) to seek admission to every
state's bar in which you have applied for a job.
Take your situation, for example. As a junior associate, you are not eligible to waive into
another state's bar, so your only option is to take the state bar exam. This is a pretty big
undertaking, both in terms of time and money, so it is not something a candidate can do at
the drop of a hat. Plus, if you applied to firms in a number of different states, how do you
decide which state's bar exam to take?
If you are targeting your search in one state, then it may make sense for you to take that bar
exam even if you have not secured an interview at any of the firms to which you have
applied. But, if your job search covers a broad geographic location, then when asked about
your bar status in a particular state, I recommend that you be honest and straight forward.
Explain that while you wish you could focus your job search exclusively in this geographic
location, given the economy and your need to secure employment, you do not have this
luxury. Follow that up with an explanation of your connection to and interest in the specific
state and offer to take the next offered bar exam. Finally, you should make every effort to
explain that if you move to the city, you plan to remain there permanently.
This is certainly not a fool-proof way of convincing a firm that despite your lack of bar
admission you are serious about making a move, but it is the best you can do given the
current circumstances in which you find yourself. Some firms will understand why you are not
barred, while others will exclude you from consideration for it. There is not much that you
can do in that case—some firms are not going to take you seriously until you are admitted in
their state. It is an unfortunate fact but one over which candidates have no control.
Because you are a junior associate, you cannot waive into another jurisdiction's bar. However,
for more senior associates who interview with out-of-state firms, it is absolutely imperative
that you research the rules of reciprocity between your current state and the target state's
bar. Many states permit attorneys to waive into another state's bar if that attorney has met
certain criteria (such as practicing for 5 years in a certain jurisdiction). It is absolutely
imperative that you know these facts and be able to explain them in an interview. Trust me,
there is nothing worse than a candidate who shows up for an interview without knowing
whether he/she is eligible to waive into the specific state's bar. Moreover, it is even more
convincing if you can walk into an interview and truthfully explain that you have already
begun the process of seeking admission to the bar (there is usually a large amount of
paperwork involved, and it can take a few months to secure admission, so the sooner you
begin the process, the better). This can be expensive to do, but it certainly sends the
message to a firm that you are serious about making a move into that jurisdiction.
The reality is that many firms are going to prefer candidates already admitted to the relevant
state bar, and there is little that an out-of-state candidate can do to change this. But, if a
firm has granted you an interview despite your lack of bar admission, then it is your job to
convince the attorneys interviewing you that you are going to be admitted as soon as
possible, either through waiving in or taking the next bar exam.
Is it important to have ties to the region?
Question: I currently live on the East Coast and will be traveling to Los Angeles for an
interview next week. I have heard a lot about how important it is to have ties to the city
in which you are interviewing but the truth is that I have absolutely no ties and applied to
this position simply because it is one of the few available in my area of practice. What
should I say if I am asked about ties to the region?
Answer: The very first thing to keep in mind is that you must always be honest when
answering any question in an interview. It may seem harmless to ''stretch'' your connections to
the region but you must resist the urge to do so. You never know what someone will
remember about your interview and the last thing you want is to be caught in a lie—no matter
how harmless it may seem.
Having said this, there are some things you can do to minimize your lack of strong ties to the
region. Here are a few suggestions:
Distant family members and/or friends. While you do not want to overstate the significance
of these individuals, you should definitely mention them as a means of letting the interviewer
know that you do have some sort of support network in the region.
Have you traveled to the region? While you do not want to bring up the one time you took
your family to Disneyland ten years ago, it is helpful to note if you have traveled to the region
with any degree of regularity. This will establish that you are familiar enough with the region
to know whether it will be a good fit for you on a personal level.
Do your research! If you truly have absolutely no ties to the region, be honest about it.
Explain that you are most interested in finding a good professional fit and then explain why
the particular firm meets this goal. In addition, do some research into the region and tell the
interviewer what appeals to you about the particular region.
Remember, the main reason employers want to see ties to their region is because they are
concerned about stability and retention. If you lack strong ties, your goal should be to make
up for that by demonstrating that your decision to interview in the particular region is part of
a well-thought out plan. The more you can do to show that the move will be long-term, the
farther you'll go towards overcoming concerns over the lack of strong ties to the region. Good
luck!
NY associate planning shift to CA wants to quit job
Question:
Dear BCG,
I am a second-year attorney practicing in New York. My boyfriend lives in California, and I
am planning to relocate there as soon as I can. I'm currently at an AMLAW 100 firm in the
litigation group. I'm planning to take the California bar in February, but I want to quit my
job now and move to California. Should I?
— C.B.
Answer:
Dear C.B.,
Absolutely not. Do not quit your job until you have accepted an offer with a firm in California
and your conflicts have cleared. Stay where you are, search out substantial assignments to
build your resume, and be very discreet about your job search. Right now, we are all working
in an increasingly competitive legal market. It is a buyer's market for the firms; hence, they
are being highly selective and exceedingly slow in their hiring decisions. Don't do anything
that could harm your chances of being considered for a position.
Were you to quit now, it could take you many months to find your next position. You do not
want a lengthy chronological gap on your resume, especially when you are just beginning your
legal career. Long gaps raise questions about (a) ability, (b) reputation, (c) commitment to
practicing law, and (d) judgment. Stay put, do good work, and be patient. Your opportunity
will arise, but you must consider the long-term impacts of your current decisions.
Is it mandatory to pass the CA bar to practice in CA?
Question: I am contemplating a move to California but have heard that most law firms
require attorneys to be members of the California bar. Is this true? If so, why do law firms
have this requirement?
Answer: Although there are always exceptions to the rule, most firms in California do require
candidates who are applying for positions with them to be members of the California bar. The
exceptions usually pertain to practice areas where there is a high demand but a low supply of
candidates and/or to candidates who have exceptional qualifications for a given position.
There are several reasons that law firms in California require most candidates to be members
of the California bar prior to applying for positions. The following are some of the most
common:
The Expectations of a Lateral Hire: Contrary to the hiring that takes place through the oncampus process during law school, lateral hires, by definition, must be experienced attorneys
who can immediately assume a given set of responsibilities at the firm. Accordingly, when a
lateral attorney is hired by a firm, s/he is largely expected to step right in and carry the same
workload as other associates within the group. Doing so can be very difficult for an attorney
who is not licensed to practice law. This is especially true for litigation-focused positions
where the attorney is required to sign pleadings and/or make appearances in court.
Dollars and Cents: Much has been written about the rising costs associated with hiring a new
employee. Between the actual hiring process, where law firm attorneys have to sacrifice
billing time to interview multiple candidates, and the expense of training and integrating a
new attorney, the cost of hiring a new attorney can be quite significant. Now, if a candidate
is not a member of the California bar, s/he is most likely relocating from another state and
expecting the law firm to incur relocation costs. On top of that, attorneys who have not sat
for the bar exam will need to pay all the fees associated with taking the exam and probably
need some time off to study for and to take the exam. With these rising costs in mind, many
firms prefer to hire candidates who have, at the very least, already taken the exam and are
simply awaiting results.
Seeking a Commitment: Many people want to live in California, and many attorneys want to
practice law in California. But few attorneys want to take on the time and expense of the
California bar because it is, after all, an exam with a relatively low pass rate. When law firms
are looking at a potential lateral hire, they want to know that in hiring the particular
candidate, they are making a long-term investment. And, for relocation candidates, it is very
important to see signs that the person is truly committed to living in California permanently
or at least for many years to come. Thus, when an applicant has already taken the initiative
to sit for the exam, it is a sign to the prospective law firm that s/he is committed to living
and practicing in California.
In addition to the fact that law firms tend to prefer candidates who are already members of
the bar, it is worthwhile for relocation candidates to consider sitting for the bar exam prior to
making a move simply because taking the bar in California can be incredibly onerous if it is
done in conjunction with a geographical move and starting a position at a new firm. It is a
piece of "housekeeping" that, if done prior to the actual move, can make for a smoother
transition.
Having said this, the truth is that for well-qualified candidates who can fill needs where there
is high demand and low supply, exceptions will be made. The same goes for candidates who
have expertise in certain niche practices.
What do you need to know if you are planning a move to the West Coast?
Question: How difficult is it to transition to the West Coast legal market from another
region of the country? Is it imperative to have the bar in my state of interest as well as
ties to the area?
Answer: As someone who has made the transition from East Coast to West Coast and has
helped several attorneys do the same, I can tell you that making the move to practice in
California, Oregon, or Washington is immensely rewarding but has some inherent challenges
(though not insurmountable ones). It's easy to see why this might be; these three states boast
some of the most beautiful and livable communities in the country and are highly sought after
destinations. The focus on quality of life and work/life balance on the West Coast stands in
stark contrast to the hustle and bustle of many East Coast and Mid-Western metropolitan
areas and is a very attractive counterpoint for burned out associates living in other regions.
Obtaining a legal position in any of these three states is challenging but worth it—and having
the Bar and ties to the area are immensely helpful, if not imperative in some cases. It's
important to know what to expect, what is possible, and how to best proceed in your search.
Below are some quick pointers that may be useful.
California
California is one of the most sought after destinations for attorneys in the country (and
increasingly the world) and has become an increasingly competitive market, particularly in
general litigation where jobs have been scarce. Both Northern and Southern California boast
beautiful terrain and weather and high quality of life. But obtaining a position here as an out
of state lateral can be difficult. Two very important tips: First, sitting for the California Bar
(or at least stating your intention to do so) is an absolute imperative for anyone seeking to
make the move here. California does not offer reciprocity with any other state in the US so all
new attorneys must take the Bar exam in either February or July (considered by many to be
the toughest exam in the country with pass rates averaging around 35%). There are several
firms with whom we work who will not even look at resumes of candidates who do not yet
have the California Bar. If not yet admitted, stating on your resume (under Bar Admissions)
that you are sitting for the next California Bar exam is a must. There is some latitude here
with transactional attorneys; firms are more willing to consider out of state transactional
associates than they are litigation associates. That said, litigation superstars will often be
considered (Top 5 law school and stellar grades and experience) with the expectation that the
candidate will take the next bar exam.
Second, ties to the state or area are also very important. We are almost always asked by
firms, “What are this person's ties to the area? Why do they want to move here?” This matters
more in some areas of the state than others but being able to state that you have family,
former connections to the area (lived there previously; attended school there), or at least
friends residing in the state is key. Firms want to know that you are serious about making the
move before they invest precious time and resources in your candidacy, so clearly
demonstrating any connections to your city or region of choice is imperative. For smaller
markets like Sacramento or San Diego, ties to the area are non-negotiable. I recently had a
recruiter in Sacramento tell me that the firm would not consider my candidate because she
couldn't demonstrate that she had ties that were strong enough to the city (this is also true of
Seattle and Portland, by the way. More on that below). It's as if firms decide for you that you
will not be happy in an area if you don't have sufficient, existing connections (and are afraid
you will leave) and will therefore not take you seriously as a candidate.
Oregon and Washington
These two states are sufficiently similar in their approaches to hiring out of state attorneys
that they can be adequately grouped together. Like California, Oregon and Washington offer
beautiful landscapes, relaxed and friendly communities, and a work/life balance that includes
a heavy focus on the outdoors. However, breaking into these markets can be quite daunting
for non-locals.
When thinking of working in Oregon and Washington, think about a stereotypical New England
town: they like their own! Oregon and Washington are two of the toughest markets in the
country to penetrate for this reason; ties to the state are not just important—they are the
primary jumping off point for consideration. Oregon and Washington firms are notorious for
only wanting candidates who are originally from these states or who have lived or studied
here in the past. The reason is simple: weather! Practitioners in Oregon and Washington have
seen their fair share of attorneys who decide they want to practice there and then leave
within a year or two because they can't handle the cold, the fog, the rain or all of the above!
Firms are even more wary of candidates coming from the Southern California region who are
used to perpetual sun and warm weather.
Unlike California, there is reciprocity with the bar in both Washington and Oregon. Admission
requirements are different for each state to be sure and check the bar websites for both
states before beginning the process. It is also important to note many law firms in these
states prefer candidates to have the Washington and Oregon bars (once you are admitted to
one, you can waive into the other). There is a lot of collaboration and cross-over work
between the two states, so firms are requesting this more and more (many current job
postings state that they prefer admission to both states' bars).
When beginning a job search for any of these states, it is of course wise to be realistic about
the desirability of your practice area. In California, IP Litigation and Patent Prosecution
(specifically for associates with technical degrees) are practice areas where the demand
exceeds the current pool of viable applicants—so there may be more flexibility in these areas
regarding the Bar and ties to the area. Corporate M&A associates are also in high demand in
both Northern and Southern California. In Oregon and Washington, Intellectual Property is
also a strong practice, as are Tax, Trusts & Estates, and Corporate.
Remember that any job search can take up to several months but this time frame is always
lengthened when making a move to another state, particularly competitive states like
California, Oregon, and Washington. To ensure success, become familiar with the practice
areas that are in the most demand in your state of interest as well as the cultural mores and
requirements that drive hiring decisions.
Chapter 7
Unable to become a partner, what are your options
Partner leaving to start own firm offers associate chance of becoming partner
Question:
I am an associate at a big firm, who has just finished my 8th year. I was told in my last
review that due to the economy, I wouldn't be up for partner for another several years.
Confidentially, one of my partners has decided to leave the firm and start her own
boutique firm and has asked me to join her. She has offered me partnership in her new
firm and estimates that I will be compensated the same, if not more. Should I accept this
new opportunity or is it too risky? – B.P.
Answer:
Dear B.P.,
In this economy, there are no sure bets. Thus, this is a hard question to give conclusive advice
on. I think in this type of situation, you have to ask yourself what is important to you and
make a pros and cons list. If your position at your current firm is pretty solid and you are
receiving an ample amount of work, you may want to stay if the prestige of a large firm is
important, in addition to a more stable work environment.
If making partner and developing a book of business now, is more your cup of tea, then it may
be worth the risk in following your partner to this new position. Keep in mind though, that,
like most other fledgling boutiques, this new firm will likely be run like a start-up company
until it is able to establish itself fully. Thus, you may have to take on a greater administrative
load and deal with the growing pains that any new company experiences. On the other hand,
this new venture will surely be exciting and will allow you more opportunity for growth and
direct business development.
If things are not as stable at your current firm and stability is of the utmost importance to
you, you would need to do your best to assess which position would afford you more job
security. If the partner that is trying to recruit you has a large book of business and your
practice has slowed at your current firm, it may make more sense economically to join the
new firm. There are so many personal and complicated factors that go into making a decision
like this one, that there really is no ''correct'' choice that I can offer. I hope though that I have
highlighted some of the issues you may want to consider in making this decision. At the end of
the day, all you can do is make the best informed choice you can and then hope for the best.
Sixth-year litigation associate sees little chance of making partner
Question: I am a sixth year litigation associate with a large firm in Los Angeles. This year
the firm promoted only two associates to partner and neither one works in the Los
Angeles office. I have consistently had very good reviews, and the Los Angeles partners
have told me they will go to bat for me when I am up for partner. However, the Los
Angeles office of my firm does not have the pull and power it used to - which, I believe, is
partly why the firm did not promote anyone from our office. While I am happy at the firm,
I can not help but be concerned for my future and opportunity for advancement.
Meanwhile, I have a friend who moved to a boutique firm several years ago, and he was
just promoted to partner as a sixth year associate! What should I do?
Answer: Sadly, the chances of making partner these days at a large firm are slim - even in a
booming economy. There are many factors that come into play as to whether someone is
promoted to partner, including likeability of candidate, potential of candidate to bring in
business, political savvy of candidate, candidate's practice area, hours candidate billed over
the last 3+ years, and the economics of candidate's firm. In the case of a large firm's branch
or satellite office, you also need to consider the office's overall reputation within the firm. It
is important to consider whether the partners in your office have the ''pull'' to help advance
your career. If the firm has routinely promoted associates in your office to partner and this
happens to be an ''off'' year due to the economy, then my best recommendation would be to
stay put but explore other opportunities as a precaution.
If the Los Angeles office has not been self-sufficient and has relied on other offices for work
for over two years, it would be wise to explore other options very seriously. As you get more
senior, it is going to become more and more difficult to move to another firm without having
an existing book of business. Now is the time to look into other opportunities. 2010 is already
showing signs of being a stronger market for laterals.
You can expect a firm of ANY size to take at least two to three years before they even
consider you for partnership (your friend who made partner as a sixth year is more of an
exception to the rule). There are NO guarantees. It is possible to be turned down for
partnership, but then make partner at a later time. Of course you may be promoted to Of
Counsel (if the firm has attorneys with such a title) and then promoted again to partner. At
this stage in your career, ANY law firm - no matter what the size - is going to hire you with an
eye toward partnership. The hiring process will take much longer than for more junior
associates, and you will certainly be asked to provide a conflicts form and possibly a business
or marketing plan. A firm is going to ask you questions about your existing experience but also
about your relationship with firm clients. Ideally, any firm that hires you will hope you are
able to bring in work and certainly will expect you to help generate more work from existing
clients.
Many believe it is ''easier'' to make partner at a small or mid-sized firm. This assumption is
usually true, but the factors that come into play in making partner at a large firm are the
same factors that a small or mid-size firm considers. With more and more large firms focusing
on their core or top 10 institutional clients, more and more of the ''middle market'' companies
are being referred to the small and mid-size firms. Also, generally these firms have lower
billing rates (although not always) making it is easier to bring in new clients who simply can
not afford large firm billing rates.
It would behoove you to speak with a seasoned recruiter who would offer you advice for your
particular situation. You want to work with someone who is honest and is going to look at the
big picture. You need a recruiter who is not motivated by money but rather helping people
and doing the right thing. Particularly if you are in good standing at your firm and not
necessarily in a rush to leave, you want to work with someone who is going to offer you good
advice based on what is best for your career and not the recruiter's need to make a
placement or fulfill a job opening. Of course, I would recommend BCG Attorney Search
(www.bcgsearch.com) to find such a caliber of a recruiter.
Chapter 8
How to handle work-life balance, difficult working conditions and
layoffs
Does being long-term unemployed hurt chances of getting back in the legal field?
Question: For those attorneys who have been laid off or otherwise told that they must
find alternate employment, to what extent does a period of unemployment really hurt
their chances of securing their next job?
Answer: Obviously, those attorneys who have been laid off for performance-based reasons
will have a much more difficult time finding subsequent employment. However, for those
attorneys who have experienced economic layoffs, the ability to secure another job largely
depends on how the layoff is handled on the attorney's resume and in the interview context.
It's true that some law firms still won't look at laid off associates, but these firms are few in
number.
Those who fare the best are the ones who are, first, honest about the circumstances resulting
in the layoff and, then, include with their submission a comprehensive list of references that
can attest to the attorney's work performance and can corroborate that the layoff was indeed
economically-motivated.
Laid off attorneys seem to be most successful at securing good new jobs when they stay
focused on their areas of expertise and do not panic. While most attorneys who have been
laid off can get another job if they spam law firms (i.e., the “throw everything out there and
see what sticks” method), this approach is typically not successful and, even when it is, the
end result is usually one of regret. Rather than jumping on the first position that pops up, or
taking on contract attorney/document review work, previously laid off candidates do far
better when they give themselves a definitive block of time (for example, 6 to 9 months) to
focus on securing a job that has good long-term prospects and that comports with their
practice area expertise and overall career interests.
Finally, practice area is relevant to the calculus. Those who have developed niche practice
area expertise (e.g., patent prosecution, executive compensation, energy regulatory work)
will most likely secure new jobs more quickly than those who have a more wide-ranging
practice base (e.g., general or commercial litigators or general corporate attorneys).
Lawyer experiences ''Buyer’s Remorse'' at new law firm
Question: I recently moved to a new firm, but after a few months it has become clear that
there were a number of misrepresentations regarding the position. I am not happy with
the situation, and want to move on, but since I just recently made the move, am I stuck?
Will other firms even consider me?
Answer: If you are in the hunt for a new job (or sometimes even if you aren't), you may
encounter an opportunity that seems like the perfect fit, or at least good enough that you are
excited to give it a shot. As a young associate, a partner you particularly like working for may
decide to switch firms and ask you to come with them to the new firm. If you are a mid-level
candidate with excellent credentials and experience but are concerned about partnership
opportunities at your current firm, you may find yourself looking into another firm who
promises a shorter path on the partnership track.
Even if you are happy where you are, it is never a bad thing to research and explore these
types of opportunities. It is even good to do this even if you only want to stay informed about
the state of the legal market in your current or future area of expertise. You never know
when your situation may change, and it is a good idea to have a sense of your potential value
on the open market.
If you do choose to explore a new opportunity, it can often turn out to be a very good thing.
You can gain experience on different types of cases, learn from and be mentored by new
attorneys with a different outlook, or even just be refreshed by the excitement of the switch
and taking on the challenge.
Like anything, however, there is a dark side to this process. It is rare but does occasionally
happen that an attorney will find him or herself in a new position where the reality of the
situation is far, if not entirely divorced, from what was initially represented or promised to
them during the search, interview, and offer phase. Much like the candidate who asked the
question above, I have a couple of friends who have found themselves in less-than-ideal
situations soon after having made a job switch.
One followed a partner he liked to a new firm, but due to a lack of available work from that
partner he was stuck exclusively on cases with a different partner who turned out to be
entirely unpleasant to work with. Another friend joined a firm as a staff associate with the
promise that she would be made a full associate after the first review period – two positive
review periods came and went, and she was still a staff associate at a substantially reduced
salary. A third friend specifically left one big firm to be a staff associate at a different firm
for reduced pay in exchange for a lower billable hours requirement to achieve a better
work/life balance. After a full nine months of 200+ hours per month due to the workload he
was assigned, it became clear that the contracted arrangement for more manageable hours
was illusory.
Back to the original point, if you find yourself in a similar position, it is certainly reasonable
to want to start your search again. However, it is absolutely true that firms are less likely to
consider, or will at least be very wary of a candidate with multiple moves on their resume.
Pretend you are a hiring partner at a large law firm. The hiring process is time consuming and
expensive – filling the position of even a basic associate involves reviewing hundreds of
resumes, scheduling interviews with your firm's busy attorneys (who are not billing client work
if they are interviewing prospective hires), and running conflict checks, not to mention the
logistics and expense on the human resources end (benefit enrollment, preparing an office,
training, etc.). And once you have that new attorney, it takes them time to get up to speed
on their caseload, some of which might not be billed to the client depending on that
attorney's experience level. Regardless of any given candidate's superstar credentials, you
want someone who will stick around so you aren't repeating the same process a year or two
later. You should be able to understand at this point why multiple moves on a resume might
raise a red flag, or at least make a hiring partner somewhat wary of that particular
candidate.
If you are the candidate with that resume, and especially if you have made a move very
recently, you may not be entirely stuck where you are. However, you are likely at a
considerable disadvantage due to the above considerations on the part of hiring partners. One
option is, of course, to stick it out and try to make the best of your current situation. If you
are reading this far into the article, however, it is probably because that option has little to
no appeal.
The other option is to start the search process now, regardless of whether you will be able to
move right away, and I would highly recommend engaging the services of a good legal
recruiter. A good recruiter will provide you with an honest evaluation of your situation and
potential chances. Even if your recruiter advises you that waiting a little longer will be better
or even necessary, establishing this relationship as soon as possible will expedite the
application process when opportunities arise or it makes sense to move forward with your
search. A good recruiter will also be able to help you get a better look from firms by writing a
strong cover letter on your behalf, specifically one that helps explain your moves (and your
desire for a new job) in the best light possible. Much like writing a persuasive brief for a
court, you and your recruiter must always be 100% honest with any potential employer, but
presenting things in the right way can make all the difference in the world.
In sum, if you have recently made a move or have a series of moves on your resume, moving
forward and getting consideration from new employers may be more difficult, but no matter
what your situation there is always a way to improve your odds.
How do I know if a small law firm is reputable?
Question: How do I know if a small firm is reputable?
Answer: With large firms still recovering from the economic effects of the recession, lawyers
have shifted their focus from larger employers to mid-size and small firms. Many attorneys
that would not have considering working for a smaller shop are changing their tune. It
appears that many smaller firms have elegantly survived the recession by relying on smaller
matters with more friendly billable rates and lower overhead. Given the events of the past 18
months in the legal community, this conservative and security-minded approach is
increasingly appealing.
Last week, I got a call from a lawyer who was targeting small firms, but didn't know how to
tell one firm from the other. There is always plenty of gossip and chatter about the larger
firms. Big law firms have reputations that you can do some research to uncover, if you don't
know it already. But small firms may not make it to the radar screen. They may not have
much of an internet presence. So how do you figure out whether you are targeting a
reputable shop?
I don't think that there is too much that you can do to determine the quality of a small firm
by way of reputation. Because you are less likely to know current or former employees of the
firms, and even less likely to be able to identify their client base, you shouldn't be selecting
and excluding small firms before you have a chance to interview with them. While all
interviews are important, learning about the people who make up the roster of a small firm is
paramount. There is no escape at a small firm—you will work with this discrete group of
lawyers intimately.
I encourage lawyers to stay away from the question of ‘what is this small firm's reputation?'
and focus instead on what questions will be the most revealing at an interview. You should be
asking about the firm's clients, the firm's philosophy about client service, and what direction
they see the firm going. Where a firm is so small that it is not widely known, it is even more
important for the lawyer interviewing to gather enough information to assure himself or
herself that they are talking to a solid group that does excellent work.
Because small firms don't usually follow the same protocol as large firms in terms of their
hiring, lawyers who are interested candidates need to be a bit more flexible. Interviewing
with a small firm may not have the same structure that larger firms have when interviewing—
you have to be prepared to roll with the punches. Candidates for smaller firms need to be
prepared to take on more of the responsibility for diligence and asking all the right questions
before taking a potential offer. The reward for doing the work on the front end may result in
a match that provides more responsibility and more security in the long term.
Young lawyer fears for his future amid legal industry changes
Question: I am a second year associate at a mid-size firm where there have been lay-offs.
I know I am fortunate to still have a job but I feel disillusioned. This isn't what I signed up
for. I worked so hard in law school and had my future mapped out. Now the whole legal
industry is changing. I am asking myself a whole lot of questions about my career choice
and how law firms are going to look in the next few years. Will law firms ever be the
same?
Answer: Many young lawyers fear their futures have been hijacked. It has been depressing
seeing so many people lose their jobs. Unfortunately, over the past few years the structure of
a majority of law firm's compensation and billing systems had become unsound. They got so
rigid and uniform that they were bound to break under the stress and lack of competition.
That is why this painful transition was inevitable. However, the current uncertainty and
suffering will lead to a brighter, more sustainable future for the profession in the coming
months. Let me explain:
Firms have been forced to take stock, make tough choices, and implement changes. The most
important change at many firms is being driven by pressure from clients to keep costs down.
Firms are being forced to get more creative with their billing rates and structures. That could
mean slower growth in terms of attorney compensation for a little while, but it means greater
flexibility with respect to clients.
Modifying and coming up with more varied billing systems will open doors for business
generation. That will have a ripple effect leading to vaster opportunities for attorneys to
build books of business through a more diverse client base. A broader client base will be
quickly followed by a higher margin of profit than was possible when firms were all competing
for the same small pool of top-paying clients. Where the profits are derived from will be
composed differently than we are used to. However the size of the pie as a whole will be
much bigger in the not too distant future.
With business picking up due to the greater flexibility in billing structures, unemployed
attorneys will be absorbed by firms in order to staff all of the new matters.
Your long term prospects are going to improve as a result of the angst we are enduring and
your possibilities for professional growth will be much better. We are going through growing
pains right now, but have faith. Law firms will adapt, flourish, and be better as a result.
Is moving in-house a wise move in this economy?
Question: I am currently a 7th year attorney practicing with a law firm that I moved to
laterally about fifteen months ago. Shortly after I made my move, a former client
approached me and attempted to recruit me to come in-house. I declined at the time
because I had made a commitment to my new employer and had not given consideration
to the possibility of moving in-house. Recently, the same client has again asked me to join
their in-house legal team and made me an attractive offer. Given the current instability in
law firms and the low odds that many partners will be made in the next few years, I am
seriously contemplating it. Would this be a good move at this point?
Answer: First of all congratulations, not only have you weathered a tough economy and
retained your position with your current law firm employer, you have clearly made a great
impression on this client. It would be unwise of me to give definitive advice without having
the full specifics of your practice, knowing more about your firm and your potential in house
employer, but I do have a few thoughts on why it could be a good time to take this
opportunity.
You are correct in estimating that fewer partners are likely to be made in the next couple of
years. Given your level of seniority, as far as building your resume, this could be the right
time to add in-house experience to your background. It can be far harder to make a move
such as this a year or two from now in the event you are passed over for partnership. If you
like the client, the offer is competitive, and you have done your diligence on the long term
stability of your potential employer, taking on a new challenge and developing and
broadening your legal skills could be an asset down the road regardless of whether you remain
in house or choose to return to private practice. You will have a larger variety of career
options and professional versatility, which in the long haul positions you nicely and enhances
your professional security. Good luck making your decision.
Laid-off IP attorney planning for his M.S. in E.E.
Question: I'm a first year IP attorney and I have recently been laid off. I'm considering
going back to school to get my master's degree in electrical engineering. Would you
recommend this?
Answer: Absolutely. The need for IP attorneys that have hard science backgrounds in
electrical engineering, computer science, and physics continues to grow. In fact, this seems
to be the only practice group area that has been sheltered from the economic down turn that
California has been in the grips of during the last 6 months. Now, if you really want to make
yourself marketable, consider learning an Asian language such as Mandarin.
Laid-off attorney thinks telling the truth will hurt his job hunt
Question: I was recently laid off from my law firm. My law firm has told me that they will
keep my personal profile on their website for the next two months. Furthermore, a
partner at my firm told me that it might be best for job–seeking purposes not to mention
that I've been laid off until I have to. I can't help but feel that my chances at present of
landing a new position are much better if other firms are not aware that I've been laid off.
Answer: I sympathize with your situation and would probably feel much the same way if I
were in your shoes. Your firm is trying to do what they can to improve your chances of landing
an opportunity and their hearts are in the right place.
However, there is absolutely no question that you must be honest with other potential
employers about your current employment situation. You must give your recruiter license to
discuss the fact that you have been laid-off in their presentation of your materials to other
firms. And if you secured an interview without using a recruiter, it is your responsibility to
alert the potential employer as to the true reason why are you are seeking other employment
during the interview process.
Why? Because your potential employer will undoubtedly find out that you have been laid off.
They will check references at your firm and a partner or senior associate will mention it. Or
they will hear about lay-offs at your particular firm through the rumor mill and assume the
worst.
It is far, far better to be honest about your employment status from the outset, than to be
branded as dishonest or withholding once you get further along in the process. I have seen
several candidates try to withhold this information from me and potential employers and get
extremely burned in the process.
Laid-off attorney thinks telling the truth will hurt his job hunt
Question: I was recently laid off from my law firm. My law firm has told me that they will
keep my personal profile on their website for the next two months. Furthermore, a
partner at my firm told me that it might be best for job–seeking purposes not to mention
that I've been laid off until I have to. I can't help but feel that my chances at present of
landing a new position are much better if other firms are not aware that I've been laid off.
Answer: I sympathize with your situation and would probably feel much the same way if I
were in your shoes. Your firm is trying to do what they can to improve your chances of landing
an opportunity and their hearts are in the right place.
However, there is absolutely no question that you must be honest with other potential
employers about your current employment situation. You must give your recruiter license to
discuss the fact that you have been laid-off in their presentation of your materials to other
firms. And if you secured an interview without using a recruiter, it is your responsibility to
alert the potential employer as to the true reason why are you are seeking other employment
during the interview process.
Why? Because your potential employer will undoubtedly find out that you have been laid off.
They will check references at your firm and a partner or senior associate will mention it. Or
they will hear about lay-offs at your particular firm through the rumor mill and assume the
worst.
It is far, far better to be honest about your employment status from the outset, than to be
branded as dishonest or withholding once you get further along in the process. I have seen
several candidates try to withhold this information from me and potential employers and get
extremely burned in the process.
Recently laid-off associate unsure how to handle job status in interviews
Question: I was recently laid off from my position for economic reasons. The partners in
my practice area where not generating enough business to keep our hours high enough
and there were cuts throughout the firm. I received several months of severance pay and
my biography is still on the firm's website, at least for a couple more months. Should I tell
prospective employers the truth or try to find a job before my profile is removed?
Answer: Your credibility is one of your most valuable assets. I advise you to be honest with
potential employers from the outset. There are many attorneys in the market now who have
lost their jobs due to economic reductions in force or their firms dissolving. The average job
search is taking between four and six months these days and over the past month more
attorneys have entered the ranks of the unemployed. We may be about to turn the corner on
that, but the duration of searches is likely to increase slightly before it begins to improve.
Do your homework, preferably while you are still on the firm's payroll:
Ask for copies of any written evaluations that are in your file
Speak to the people that supervised you and ask them if they will be references for you and
what they plan to say. If they are willing to write a letter of recommendation that you can
provide to employers who are interested in you, that can give you an added measure of
comfort.
Find out what the human resources department intends to say when called for a reference.
Most likely they will only give dates of employment, but you should get as much information
as possible so that there are no surprises.
Times have changed and with the number of talented attorneys who have lost their jobs it is
no longer the stigma it once was in the eyes of potential employers so long as you tell the
truth and present yourself as favorably as possible.
50+ successful solo practitioner wants to join law firm
Question: I am a 53-year-old corporate lawyer who graduated from a top law school and
has over 25 years of experience as a sole practitioner. I have handled large clients and
very sophisticated deals. I am tired of the administrative responsibility of running my own
shop, but I'm not ready to retire. I've talked to a number of recruiters, but none are
willing to represent me to a firm. I'm not ready to be ''put out to pasture,'' and I consider
this age discrimination. What should I do?
Answer: Unfortunately, I have had this discussion with a number of very frustrated attorneys
over the years. While it may seem like recruiters are discriminating against you because of
your age, that really has nothing to do with why they express concern over placing you in a
firm.
For the recruiter, part of developing a strong relationship with a firm is having an
understanding of the type of candidate the firm wants to see. Our job is to save them time
and to present candidates who are exactly on point with their needs. Most firms give us
guidelines to follow and ask us to stick to them; otherwise, we would not be providing them
with a service.
That being said, I have never had a firm tell me not to present a candidate who is over a
certain age. In fact, I have witnessed a number of attorneys who are very close to retirement
transition successfully to law firms. I have also seen a number of attorneys well into their
thirties or forties graduate from law school as a second career and land law firm positions.
Age is not necessarily the issue for senior attorneys trying to transition into a firm. However,
here are some legitimate hurdles that they may face:
Lack of business.
Unless there is that rare opportunity where a firm has more business that it can handle and
just needs someone to come in and hit the ground running, a firm almost always requires
senior attorneys to bring a book of business with them. While the threshold varies, incoming
attorneys should at least bring enough work to support themselves.
Firms fear the candidate will not be happy and will not be a good long-term prospect.
As you probably know, firms don't actually start to make a profit off of an attorney until a few
years down the road. In an effort not to suffer a loss, then, firms hire candidates that they
feel confident will be with them for the long haul. It is risky to bring in someone who has
never worked in the given environment and does not know if they will be happy.
Firms do not know how to bill out a senior attorney in a lower class level. ''Higher quality at a
lower cost'' doesn't seem to work.
Many senior attorneys are willing to take a hit in class level or title in an effort to make the
transition. It would make sense that the firms would jump at the opportunity to hire an
experienced lawyer without having to pay him or her for that experience. Again, though,
firms fear that while this idea may seem great at the outset, ultimately the attorney will not
be happy with the work and leave.
Concerns that other associates in the group will feel threatened.
Many senior attorneys are willing to come in at a senior associate or counsel level, just to get
a foot in the door. However, firms have to keep their other associates happy, and often,
those associates will feel threatened by an attorney who comes in at their level with
significantly more experience. Naturally, they fear that the work will shift disproportionately
and that they may not make their billables, which in turn threatens their future at the firm.
Firms are skeptical of senior attorneys willing to take a lower position.
All firms have been burned by bad hires in the past and so often think that if it is seems too
good to be true, it probably is! Firms are skeptical of senior attorneys who all of a sudden
have a change of heart and offer to take a significant pay hit to do it. It's terribly pessimistic,
but unfortunately, it's a chance that firms are often not willing to take.
While the reasons listed above may frustrate you more than the process itself, keep in mind
that these are only hurdles. The hurdles can make your job search more difficult, but not
impossible. There will be that firm that recognizes the value of your expertise and years of
experience, but it may take a little time to find it. However, if the doors don't open all at
once, it may be your experience level that is part of the problem, not your age.
Associate about to be let go unsure how to handle reason for leaving in interviews
Question: I am an associate and was recently told that I should start looking for a new
position because, due to the economy, our practice is not busy enough. The partners told
me they would help me find a new position, keep me on the firm's website, give me good
references, and also suggested that I not tell potential new employers that I was asked to
find a new position. Of note, I haven't had to sign any type of non-disclosure/severance
agreement at this time.
My question is this: When I go on interviews (I have a few coming up), do I have to
volunteer that I was gently asked to leave, or should I only disclose this if asked? If they
probe into my reasons for leaving, I will tell the truth, but I've gotten a lot of conflicting
information as to whether I need to volunteer this information up front.
Answer: This is perhaps one of the most difficult (and grayest) areas that comes up in
attorney job searches. Given the slowdown in the economy, "stealthy layoffs" are occurring
much more frequently. (The fact that you did not sign a non-disclosure/severance agreement
removes a thorny issue from consideration here, which I can address in a different Q&A if
anybody wants to know.)
Thus, I'm not surprised at all that you are receiving conflicting advice. Many people feel
strongly that you should volunteer this information, while many others feel strongly that you
are under no obligation to voluntarily disclose it. I will explain some of the common
arguments on both sides and then provide my personal opinion at the end.
1. Common Arguments Made by Those in Favor of Voluntary Disclosure:
Although you were asked to leave because of a downturn in work, the fact that you were laid
off should be considered material information that a potential new firm would certainly want
to know when evaluating your candidacy.
The legal community is small, and odds are the reason you were asked to leave will become
known to your prospective employer at some point. This is even more likely to happen if
people at your current firm know people at your future firm.
Credibility is everything. If you are interviewing with a firm and the people there find out
(without you telling them) that you were asked to leave, they may question your credibility
and doubt the sincerity of everything else you told them during the interview. If the new firm
finds out the truth after it hires you, the hiring partners may feel as though they were misled
during your interview. They might feel that although they didn't ask if you were laid off, it's
still something you should have disclosed.
Don't listen to what your current firm tells you about not disclosing this information. It is
concerned that you will tell other employers that work is slow, which could imply that the
group is having major problems. It is protecting and looking out for its reputation. Don't risk
your credibility because of this issue.
If you were thinking of hiring somebody, wouldn't you want to know why that person was
leaving his or her current position?
While you may not feel comfortable volunteering this information at the beginning of your
interviews, and could risk raising a negative inference about your candidacy, it is much wiser
to come clean with the information at the beginning. By doing this, you will be showing strong
character and that you are trustworthy, two of the most important things employers look for
in attorneys.
2. Common Arguments Made by Those Against Voluntary Disclosure:
By keeping you on the website and telling you not to disclose that you were asked to leave,
your current firm has specifically taken steps to ensure that you won't have to disclose this
information. The partners understand that there is a strong bias against people who have
been asked to leave (even if it was due to workflow issues), and they feel that it would not be
fair for you to have to disclose this information since you were let go because of a workflow
issue that was their fault and not yours. As long as you are still employed by your current firm
and your interviewer doesn't ask whether you were laid off, that's all that matters.
If you were asked to leave for performance-related issues, that's one thing. But this was due
to workflow issues, which are totally out of your control. Thus, because it does not reflect
your performance, it's not really relevant to assessing your abilities as a lawyer.
The interviewing firm has a duty to ask for information that it deems relevant, and if it deems
whether you were asked to leave your current position relevant, it will certainly ask about
the issue.
If you volunteer information that is often perceived as negative without being asked, the
interviewing firm might question your judgment. Rather than seeing you as honest, the hiring
partners might think you are naïve. (Litigators never disclose — up front — negatives about
their cases without being asked.)
3. My Opinion:
After seeing this type of scenario play out in numerous ways, I am in strongly in favor of full
disclosure, even if you are afraid that volunteering the information up front may hurt your
chances of being hired.
The phrase "the truth will set you free" is very applicable to interviewing. If you go into an
interview trying to hide the truth or hoping it won't come up, you will not interview as well
because your energy will be focused on protecting yourself from being "found out" rather than
on showing the new firm why you are a strong candidate. A subtle but markedly different
energy will come through. Plus, Murphy's Law dictates that what you're trying to hide will be
found out.
Some people have said things like "Law firms usually don't voluntarily disclose the negatives
about their firms without being asked, so why should I?" But two wrongs don't make a right.
Just because law firms don't disclose their negatives, it doesn't mean you have to play the
same game.
I think the conundrum you are facing is caused by a larger problem in the industry. There is a
bias against attorneys who have been asked to leave, and I can understand why it's an issue
employers want to vet to ensure they are not inheriting another firm's "problem."
Some laid-off candidates are asked to leave because of problems, but some are still very good
performers and are the victims of circumstance. Even those who are good performers may
still run into the following perception: "If this person was really a superstar, the firm would
have found a way to keep him/her around."
Certain law firms continue to reinforce the negative stigma by automatically dismissing
candidates because they were asked to leave. Due to the repercussions (and embarrassment)
that accompany being asked to leave and the massive pressures candidates are under while
looking for new jobs after being asked to leave, they are understandably scared of severely
hurting their chances during interviews. That being said, given the slowdown in the economy
and the higher frequency of these stealth layoffs this year, the industry is becoming much
more understanding of the fact that many excellent attorneys are simply unable to be "fed"
by their firms, and one firm's loss can truly be another's gain.
All in all, I think the best thing you can do is come forward with the information, but express
it the right way. Don't just say, "I was asked to leave." Instead, provide the interviewers with
more context that explains the circumstances that were out of your control. Also, highlight
the facts that you received good performance reviews and have good references.
Based on what you are telling me, this was not in any way your fault; you were a victim of
circumstance. As such, you need to make that clear when you interview. If you present this
the right way, the firm will likely appreciate your honesty, and hopefully, if everything else is
a fit, it will still be interested in continuing discussions. At the very least, the firm will
appreciate your honesty and character, which goes a long way.
If a firm automatically dismisses your candidacy after you disclose that you were asked to
leave for non-performance-related issues, this does not reflect well on the firm's ability to
look beyond the surface of candidates, and thus, it may not be the type of place you would
want to work for anyway.
As I mentioned above, I've seen attorneys handle this situation in a lot of different ways, with
a lot of different results. I can confidently conclude that up-front, voluntary honesty is by far
the best policy for everybody involved. It's certainly not the easiest approach to follow (and
you will easily find peers who will reinforce your inclination to keep quiet), but trust me, in
the long run, honesty really is the best policy.
Good luck to you, and thanks for the great question.
Is telling a headhunter that you are about to be laid-off a good move?
Question: I am a mid-level corporate associate and have just been told that I am being laid
off because there is not enough work in my practice group. My firm is giving me three
months to find a new position. One of my friends at the firm has advised me that I should
not tell my headhunter the truth about my situation because it will only hurt my chances
of finding a new job. Is this true?
Answer: This is a great question that more and more candidates seem to be asking as of late,
especially in this market. First and foremost, I think it is very important to be as honest and
forthright with your recruiter as possible from the very beginning about all aspects of your job
search, including the reasons you are looking for a new position. Transitioning to a new job
can be a very stressful experience, and recruiters want to make this process as easy as
possible for you. In addition, recruiters work very hard on behalf of their candidates in order
to help them find that perfect new job.
However, in order to allow your recruiter to do the best job possible on your behalf, it is
imperative that you provide your recruiter with all important and relevant information
regarding your background, experience, and job search. Withholding potentially negative
information from your recruiter will only cause problems down the road because this
information seems to inevitably come out at some point, and usually to the detriment of the
candidate. It is much better if your recruiter knows all relevant facts from the outset of your
job search so that she can determine the best possible way to handle your specific situation.
With respect to your specific case, I do believe that honesty is the best policy as the truth
always seems to come out. Firms routinely ask lateral candidates why they are leaving their
firms, and the fact that you are being laid off because your practice group is slow is
unfortunately becoming more and more commonplace. Thus, it is nothing to be ashamed of,
as firms seem to be a bit more understanding of this situation. However, it is very important
that you are able to provide strong references from your current firm in order to alleviate any
concerns that you are being laid off for performance-related reasons.
In addition, by not disclosing your current situation up front, you may find yourself in the
awkward position of no longer being employed in the middle of the interview process with a
potential employer. At this point it will be very difficult to explain the change in your
employment status because the firm will recognize that you have been withholding important
information from them. This can be very detrimental to the interview process and ultimately
lead to disastrous results.
For example, a few years ago, one of my former candidates was in this exact situation — i.e.,
he had been laid off from his firm, and the firm had told him to not tell his recruiter the truth
about his situation because it would hurt his chances of finding a new job. Thus, he never told
me that he was being laid off and only had a few months to find a new position.
This candidate had no problems getting interviews as he had outstanding academic
credentials and was at a top Los Angeles law firm. He successfully obtained several interviews
and ultimately received an offer to join a fantastic firm. However, unbeknownst to me, this
candidate was no longer employed at his firm when the offer was extended. In fact, the
candidate had misrepresented his employment status when he had gone on his last interview
with the firm.
Obviously this was not a good situation. At the end of the day, both I and the firm finally
learned the truth about this candidate's situation. When the firm found out, they rescinded
the candidate's offer because of the misrepresentation and not the fact that the candidate
had been laid off. Because of the candidate's numerous misrepresentations and lack of
disclosure, the firm had serious concerns about the candidate's ethics and integrity.
Had the candidate told me and the firm the truth about his situation from the beginning, the
firm would not have rescinded the offer. In addition, I had lost complete faith in this
candidate and was no longer able to trust that what he was telling me was the truth. As a
result, I stopped representing this candidate.
In summary, while your situation is an unfortunate one, it is not an insurmountable one.
Unfortunately in this economy layoffs are becoming more common. However, there are
definitely opportunities out there for candidates like yourself. To be able to capitalize on
these opportunities, trust your recruiter to be able to handle your situation in the most
appropriate manner. Best of luck!
Associate learns negative gossip about law firm making the offer
Question: I have an offer to join a firm as a mid-level M&A associate. I was inclined to take
it. However, while I really enjoyed my interviews and the attorneys with whom I met, I
have heard some unfavorable comments about the firm. Now I am not so sure if it is the
right move.
Answer: For an attorney, the choice of a law firm is an incredibly personal one.
Candidates often ask me if they are making the right choice when they make their final
decision to join or not join a firm. They like to know if I, as a professional recruiter, think
that they should move at all or which of a number of firms they should choose.
I am a little hesitant to give my personal opinion. Why? As a recruiter, I can speak to (and
meet with) my candidate for hours about his or her search. I can help evaluate the external
factors of a law firm and practice and then match them with my candidate's personality and
workplace goals. But at the end of the day, I am not going to work there. My candidate is.
Therefore, I ask all of my candidates if they can imagine "walking through the door every day"
at their prospective firm. You really need to feel comfortable and that you fit in. You should
be wary of a recruiter who is pressuring you to join a firm, as it is a decision only an
individual can make.
You should be equally wary of advice from fellow associates. Some firms get bad reputations
— some are deserved; some are not. Each practice area at a law firm is different. Generally,
the personality of the group is rooted in the personalities of its leaders. I had a much
different experience practicing in tax at my firm than my colleagues had in litigation or in
M&A — not necessarily a better or worse experience but definitely different.
If an associate tells you that he or she "loves" or "hates" a certain firm, please ask him or her
why. Find out why the associate feels the way he or she does, and ask yourself how you would
respond in a similar circumstance. Also find out what group he or she is in and if he or she has
been there in the past few years. The culture of firms can change with time.
You want to make sure that you are comparing apples to apples, not apples and oranges!
Remember that even if one associate in the M&A practice at Firm X thinks it is "a sweatshop"
or has "subpar work" or "difficult personalities," another associate — either in the M&A
practice or another practice — might think that it is an incredible place to work. It is an
incredibly personal choice. Remember: one man's leftovers is another man's feast!
My best advice? Imagine yourself walking "through the door" at that firm. How does it feel?
Are you ready to jump in? If so, there is your answer!
Work-life balance & a BigLaw job
Question: I have worked very hard the last four years to get top grades at a top tier
school, work on Law Review, and get an offer from my favorite, prestigious, top-ranked
firm. I have worked here ten months, love the firm, love the practice group I am in, and
I'm getting good reviews. My fiance feels that this is the time for me to move to his city so
we can get serious about our commitment, marry and settle down. Of course, I'm
committed to my fiance but I realize that big firms value longevity, and a serious focus on
career. What is this move going to do to my professional opportunities?
Answer: (Many of these thoughts may apply to same sex couples as well where one partner is
relocating to meet the needs of the relationship.)
You are not alone. This scenario is one of the more common stories that cross my desk.
Fortunately, there is some empathy for this situation among hiring partners and recruiting
staff, but you should be aware of the pitfalls, so you handle it with delicacy and finesse.
First, I would be remiss if I didn't note that I have only worked with women making the move
to be in the same location with their future husbands. Rarely, have I helped an imminent
husband find a good legal position to relocate near his soon-to-be-wife. Often there is a good
reason for choosing who is to move. His job may be in a professional field less amenable to
transition, or they both want to settle where he is, or it is a location where their families
have settled as well. But, lacking an obvious reason to choose his location, many times, the
women still are expected to make the job change. This works if both individuals share that
value in terms of their respective professional priorities within a relationship. But, not
infrequently, a woman will throw her professional trajectory into the hopper with smoldering
resentment (of which she may or may not be consciously aware) to meet an expectation that
may not jibe with her sense of fairness and her definition of mutual support between two
committed people.
So, the first step in this situation is to examine the decision-making process. Talk out short,
medium, and long term goals for each person's respective career both as individuals and as a
couple. Map out the pros/cons of location and opportunity for each individual in various
locations in light of these goals. Don't assume that you will take turns putting individual
career goals first. Don't assume that she is always going to accept that her career will be
secondary in light of assumptions about children and gender stereotypes. The current
generation is very savvy and evolved when it comes to gender roles and providing mutual
support with professional issues. But, in my experience the couples who are the most
successful talk it out. Be explicit. Make sure each person understands the other's viewpoint,
values, and desires. Ensure that each person feels acknowledged and heard according to their
norms of their culture, and the mode in which they want to merge into a relationship. And
then, make the decision and jointly figure out how to best unfold the plan.
We will assume that the couple, now living apart in separate cities, has decided that they are
going to get married the summer after they both start working as first year associates. They
also have decided that they will settle in his city for the long run and she will change firms.
Probably the most important tool you have on your side to minimize the negatives of moving
to a new firm at this point in your career is timing.
If you can stay at a law firm for at least a year you will minimize the penalty of "leaving too
soon." The prevailing wisdom is to stay at least two to three years before any move. But in
the case of leaving to marry, staying for a year, and staying even if it means you may be
somewhat inconvenienced for a few months, is often seen as a good faith effort on your part.
Each situation will be different. If you are a junior litigator and are on a case that is going to
be "crazy busy" and you play an important role, try not to leave until your role has been
played out. If you think the demands of the case may go on for years, try to give three to six
months notice. If you are part of a practice group that is slow on work, often an early
departure may not be a negative at all; it might be the best of both worlds, for you and for
the firm.
Try not to be totally self-serving. If the firm has provided expensive continuing education
programs, a luxurious all-firm retreat, or given you financial support above and beyond the
norm, figure out some way to show some appreciation and not give them your "two weeks
notice" the day you return from the retreat. Often, you have at least one relationship with an
established member of the firm who is also a mentor and a friend. Speak to this person about
your long range plans and seek their advice regarding the politics of leaving the firm early,
despite having represented that you would probably be there for a much longer period. You
may gain some insight regarding what the firm values most in this situation, whether it is
staying until a busy case or deal winds up, training someone to do what you were doing, or
simply moving on gracefully and expediently so that the firm is no longer making an expensive
investment in someone who is not going to be there.
The goal is to not burn bridges, maintain strong collegial relationships, appear savvy and
responsible, and ensure a source of references to assist with your search for your next
position in your new location. In top tier practices, it is a small world. Attorneys move
between firms more than ever before. You may well be meeting the colleagues you worked
with in your first firm across the negotiating table, in the courtroom, or as office mates in the
future.
In the best of all worlds, a firm may have an office with your practice group in your new
location. You can explore transferring rather than leaving the firm. This can be more
complicated that it appears at first glance. Often it is a matter of personalities and your
perceived value by the managing partner in your current office. If you are moving from a
situation where you are sought after to do work for partners, to a situation where you may be
begging for work, then perhaps going to a new firm may make more sense than a transfer.
When approaching firms in the new city, a good legal recruiter can help you frame the
transition so that it can be seen as a positive and your departure from your first firm is
reflected in the best possible light. Try to speak to a recruiter before you give notice, and
even better, before you have a rigid time frame. The recruiter can give you market
information regarding the potential time frame in that market to find what you want. This
can vary tremendously. Optimally, you will not give notice until you have a new position lined
up. In tight markets, there may come a time when you simply have to join your
fiancé/husband and you leave without having a new position. Be very sure how this will affect
your search before you give notice. It can be handled, but it can be a significant negative to
many law firms to consider hiring someone who is currently unemployed.
As you consider moving to a new firm, it is a wonderful time to reexamine your values and
what you want professionally. After working for a year at a big firm, most associates have a
much better idea of what they want and need to develop their career. Pause before you go
immediately for prestige and paycheck and make sure the firm lifestyle supports your career
goals. It may also be time to rethink your professional goals in light of your married status.
Will you have additional time responsibilities at home related to what you and your spouse
plan for the near future? Will the choice of neighborhoods to support your goals as a couple
have an impact on what you are willing to do in terms of a commute? Will supporting your
financial goals as a couple mandate a certain level of compensation, or will your marriage
allow more freedom in that respect?
An unexpected career transition related to a committed relationship need not be a
professional negative. Have great communication with your spouse-to-be so that everyone's
values and goals are acknowledged in formulating the plan. Approach the firm you are leaving
with honesty, humility and flexibility. Use your legal search consultant to help you form a
search strategy in your new location that recognizes your evolving career goals, the realities
of the market you are entering, and the need to make a graceful exit from your old firm.
We help people make these career moves successfully all the time. And congratulations!
Associate stuck working with difficult partners
Question: I am a first-year litigation associate at what many consider to be a top (and
difficult) firm. I am stuck working closely with two very difficult partners that always
criticize my work and rarely give me any positive feedback. I know that my work quality
is not that horrible because other partners have told me that they heard my work product
is very good and that these two partners are notoriously difficult to work with. I went to a
great law school and graduated at the top of my class, but I am starting to doubt my
intelligence and feel pretty miserable.
I have started getting anxiety each time I have to hand in an assignment or answer
questions, and I feel like my anxiety is starting to impact my performance. I am reluctant
to tell my colleagues how bad my situation truly is for fear of being seen as a complainer
or a failure.
Is this what many big-firm associates deal with? Will I have to just suck it up? Please
don't print my name or city. (If you can't tell, I am just slightly paranoid!)
Answer: I want to start by mentioning how courageous it is of you to share this question—I
know that there are many attorneys who will be able to relate to what you are dealing with
and will be comforted by seeing that they are not the only ones facing this type of situation.
It sounds like you are going through a very difficult situation, but you are certainly not alone.
Dealing with a difficult attorney/partner who is in a position of power (in terms of seniority,
etc.) is one of the most common challenges junior (and more senior) attorneys face. Given
the stresses and inherent pressures of practicing law, combined with the intense personalities
of many attorneys, it is not surprising that some attorneys—wrongly—take their stresses and
frustrations out on people who have less power and happen to be in their lines of fire.
Oftentimes in a large law firm, many of the difficult partners bring in a lot of business and
feel that they add an amount of financial value to the firm that somehow justifies their
behavior. Unfortunately, while many other partners in the firm may be aware of these
particularly difficult partners, they will look the other way because they don't want to create
conflict and the partners with the big books of business often wield more power.
So what do you do in this situation? First off, staying where you are and accepting the status
quo will continue to take a toll on you emotionally, and probably physically, and will continue
to affect your performance. If you are ridden with anxiety each time you need to speak with
one of these partners, you are probably focusing your energy on how to emotionally protect
yourself from being criticized by them rather than on doing the best job you can on the work
itself. This is one of the ways in which a partner's difficult personality adversely impacts the
quality of a firm's legal work.
I'd strongly suggest exploring how you can start working with other people in your practice
group or firm. You may not be able to remove yourself entirely from this situation, but you
could try to transition away from these partners and fill your plate with new work from other
partners.
If your practice area or firm has somebody who coordinates work for junior associates, you
should speak to that person. You should be careful not to "trash" the partners (no matter how
upset or resentful you may feel), but respectfully ask whether you can broaden your exposure
to other partners or projects. (They'll be able to read between the lines and get the point.)
If there is no person who coordinates the assignment of work to junior associates, you should
make efforts to meet more partners and let them know about your willingness to help out
with any existing or potential project that comes in. Better yet, if you have a mentor or
friend who is more senior than you, consider speaking to this person in confidence about your
predicament. You will likely benefit from the advice of somebody who has more institutional
knowledge about the partners and may have concrete suggestions on how you can best
navigate this situation.
You have two things in your favor: (1) you have been told that you do good work and (2) these
partners are "notoriously difficult" to work with. Thus, it should not come as a surprise that
you would like to remove yourself from their work. Odds are many associates have been in
your same situation with the same partners.
If you suffer silently and "suck it up," the firm could assume that you don't mind working for
these partners. Without any indication otherwise, they could be thinking, "Phew! We finally
found somebody who is able to tolerate them." And if you are performing well (which you
are), the firm will not want to lose you because the cost of replacing an associate is very
high.
Because you are a first-year associate, it will be much easier to lateral to another firm once
you have been at this firm for at least one full year. Even if you have a good reason for
wanting to leave, firms see a yellow flag when somebody is looking to leave a firm during the
first year of employment.
People certainly are able to switch firms with less than one year of experience, but it's more
difficult and there's more explaining that needs to be done. Thus, to the extent you can take
action to start alleviating these uncomfortable working conditions, I'd start right now. If you
try—in earnest—to remove yourself from working with these partners but are unable to
transition at all after several months, you will be in a better position to consider a lateral
move. It is usually best to exhaust all possible solutions at your current firm before seeking
employment at a new firm.
Lastly, I would like you to take a look at an article from the Legal Times on "BAS," which is a
tongue-in-cheek acronym for "battered attorney syndrome." You may find this article helpful
as well. Here's a link to the PDF:
http://www.bcgsearch.com/crc/battered_attorney_syndrome_legal_times.pdf.
I sincerely hope that your situation improves. Please write back in a few months and let me
know how your strategy is playing out—maybe it will be worth providing the readers with an
update on what you did and how effective your strategy was.
Unemployed lawyer with business litigation experience plans to start his own firm
Question: I am a senior (Class of 1998) business litigator who has been laid off of a small
boutique firm since June 2009. I have approximately $50,000-$100,000 in portable
business that I have maintained for several years now. I have interviewed with several
firms in the various geographic regions that my family and I can move to; however, I have
not yet received an offer. Many of the firms require more portable business. I am unable
to look outside of the state due to my wife's job, and I am losing hope. There simply are
not any other firms I can apply to, and I am thinking about starting my own firm. Any
suggestions?
Answer: We are hearing this very story several times a week. Even in a flourishing economy,
we find that senior level attorneys, especially general litigators, have a difficult time finding
a new position after being let go from their firm. Without a substantial amount of portable
business (at least $300,000-$500,000), many firms are unable to support the salary demands
of a senior level attorney.
Some attorneys believe if they lower their salary demands and apply to jobs for junior level
attorneys they will have more success. This is not true. Firms who want to hire an associate in
the 2-5 year range are not willing to consider someone who is significantly more senior – even
if the attorney's experience is exactly what the firm is looking for. This seems puzzling since
the firm would technically get a ''deal'' by hiring a more experienced attorney for the price of
a less experienced one. However, firms target a certain class year for many reasons besides
experience level. There may already be a number of senior attorneys at the firm who are on
partnership track and adding another person at their level-even to come in at a junior levelwould disrupt the politics within the firm. Firms also hire within a certain range because they
simply do not want someone who has too much experience. Firms like to train their associates
to do things their way. A senior level attorney will likely have learned to do things in a way
that may not be conducive to the firm's practice.
Now back to your question about starting your own firm. I recently spoke with a senior
attorney who believed if he began a firm with several other senior level attorneys who had a
few clients then perhaps each attorney could support the other and build upon their business.
For instance, if one attorney has $50,000, another has $75,000, and another has $100,000,
perhaps they could all work together and support each other and market their skills as a
group. This is a very good solution to your predicament. Now how do you find these fellow
attorneys?
I have several ideas on this one. The most obvious option would be to become more vocal and
active in your local bar association. Do not simply attend functions related to your practice
area alone. On the contrary, you will likely find people who can offer services and skills
different than your own in unrelated practice areas! This is also true with CLE classes.
Assuming you have not yet met your CLE requirements for the year (or even if you have), you
could sign up for a class that is unrelated to your practice, and use it as an opportunity to
meet new attorneys who are in the same situation as yourself.
Another thought is to use www.lawcrossing.com! It is free to every employer to post a job.
Well, think of yourself as an employer! Be honest in your description of what you are trying to
achieve. An example of such a job posting: ''Solo practitioner with business litigation practice
from the Class of 1999 is trying to start a firm. Looking for talented senior level attorneys
with a minimum of $50,000 in portable business to join forces and build upon our talents and
grow a business.''
Lastly, once you have decided to start a firm, make sure everyone you have ever met knows
about this decision! Make sure to get in touch with old colleagues you have worked with who
have since left the firm, law school friends, family, business friends, family friends, old firm
clients, etc. You could go as far back as a law school internship or externship, or even as far
as a high school or college summer job. It is also important to get in touch with your old firm
(even if it hurts your pride a little). Firms often have to turn away work for a number of
reasons (e.g., case is too small, client conflict, requires too low of a billing rate), and may
want to recommend you. Before you know you will have developed more clients and built
upon your business. It will take years to double your business, but be patient and consistent.
What to consider when weighing a law firm offer?
Question: I just received an offer from a well-regarded large law firm in Houston. I am
excited about the offer, but I know that there are only so many jumps I can make before
people start to look negatively upon my resume. I've already moved twice. My current
position is good, but not great. I believe the perfect position is out there, but it's hard to
know whether this is the one. What, in your opinion, are some important considerations
to consider when weighing a law firm offer?
Answer: Deciding whether to accept a law firm offer can be nerve-wracking, especially when
the law firm has given you a deadline by which to respond. While there are undoubtedly many
questions to ask yourself when considering an offer, I believe it is most important to focus on
four overall questions:
Do you feel a positive gut instinct about this firm and the offer?
Are you excited about the opportunity?
Do you feel that this firm offers you an opportunity that is better than your current
situation?
Can you envision a long-term relationship with this firm? Or does the opportunity at this
firm get you closer to your ultimate goal?
If the answers to the above questions are affirmative, then it is likely that the move will be a
positive one. But a lot of factors come into play, and you should be extremely cautious,
especially if you have already made a lot of career moves. I developed this questionnaire and
worksheet as a tool that may help delineate your goals and help answer your question of
whether this law firm offer is the right one for you.
OFFER ANALYSIS QUESTIONNAIRE
Personality Considerations
Does the firm generally share your beliefs/attitude on the practice of law?
Are you comfortable around the associates and partner with whom you'll be working?
Do you feel a sense of collegial camaraderie at the firm?
Have you talked with other associates who have worked for the partner you will be assigned
to? What did others think of the partner? What is the partner's reputation as a boss?
Can you see yourself genuinely fitting in at the firm?
Does the firm share the same work ethic as your own?
Have you considered the dress code of the firm? Does the attire match your personality (or
can you live with the dress code)?
Has there been a great deal of turnover at the firm in recent years? This can point to a
potentially hostile environment.
Have You Done Your Homework on the Firm?
Check all available research outlets:
Avery Index
Chambers & Partners
Vault
American Lawyer
Have you examined and are you comfortable with the firm's billable hour requirements?
Have you examined the bonus structure at the firm?
Have you looked at the profits per partner for the firm? And have you examined any
differences between tiered partnership tracks?
Have you considered the frequency with which attorneys in your section make partner at the
firm?
Will there be quite a few associates at your level that will be up for partner at the same time?
Will there be several associates ultimately competing for one partnership spot?
Have you talked with associates at your level already practicing with the firm? (But be
discreet, and do not make the firm feel they are under too much scrutiny.)
Have you read any recent articles published about the firm (in American Lawyer, for
example)?
Do the Dollars Make Sense?
Does this firm offer a pay-raise over your current situation? Is the salary equivalent, or is it a
pay decrease?
Are you being "slotted" at an appropriate level for your graduation year? Do you have to take a
step back on the length of time it will take you to make partner? (This could be a good thing
if you need more time to hone your skills/adapt to a new location/grow your book of
business, but it can be a major negative for some.)
Is the firm paying market salary for its size and reputation?
If the firm offers lower salaries, does it make up for it with lower billable hour requirements,
more hands-on opportunities, or better quality of life?
Will the salary help you achieve your personal financial goals (paying off law school loans,
buying a house, etc.)?
Again, examine the cost of living if you are changing locations. Do not get too hung up on the
overall numbers, but instead think of how far a dollar goes in the new location you are
considering.
Is the firm itself financially stable?
Location, Location, Location
Is this offer in a city where you can see yourself living for a length of time?
Is it important to your significant other to be in this region or location?
Do you have friends and family in the region?
Is the economy of the region healthy? Are businesses thriving and growing in the region? Will
there be sufficient business/future clients to sustain the office of the firm?
Is the office a satellite office? Is there enough work to sustain the office's growth?
Is the future growth of this particular office a firm-wide goal?
Do lawyers in this particular office make partner?
Examine the cost of living in this city.
Does the city's lifestyle match your interests and activities?
Will the climate affect you? Are you averse to warm climates? Do you tend to be miserable in
cold climates?
Diversity Considerations
Does the firm have a strong diversity program?
Does the firm not only attract diverse talent but also retain diverse talent?
Are diverse attorneys at the firm making partner?
Are there strong women's initiatives at the firm?
Are there a lot of women partners?
Is there a supportive work environment for parents?
Does the firm have a strong reputation for being GLBT friendly? (See
www.hrc.org/placestowork.)
Practice Area Considerations
Will new learning opportunities be available to you?
Will the opportunity expand the breadth of your experience?
Does the offer give you the opportunity to work in your desired practice area?
Will you be working with well-regarded attorneys in your particular field?
Will there be an opportunity for you to explore new and interesting practice areas in addition
to your own? Is this important to you?
Is there an opportunity in the future for you to change your practice area? Or will there be an
opportunity to work in a new area of law that is attractive to you?
Possible In-House Opportunities in the Future
Do corporations like to hire from this particular law firm?
Are there opportunities to receive the rigorous law firm training that companies so value?
Will the prestige of the firm open doors for you in the corporate environment at a later stage?
Firm Size
Is the size of the firm important to you?
Are you more comfortable in a large firm or a small firm?
Is it important to you for your firm to have a national presence? International presence?
Regional presence?
How many people work in the office you are considering? Is that a plus or a minus?
How important is it to you to have the resources that large firms provide?
Is it important to you to have a large support staff?
Prestige
Is the firm ranked on the Am Law 100? Am Law 200?
Is the firm recognized in your region?
Is the firm recognized by Chambers & Partners?
Does the firm have large Fortune 100 clients? Fortune 500 clients? Sophisticated clients?
Environment
Do you like the firm's offices? Does the quality of the offices matter to you?
Do you like the location of the offices?
Are the offices convenient to your home? If not, will this be a large sacrifice?
Quality of Life
Have you examined any quality of life considerations at the firm?
Have you assessed whether the firm is on any quality of life "lists" (whether good or bad)?
Have you examined associate satisfaction rankings?
PROFESSIONAL GOALS WORKSHEET
In two years, I see myself________________________________.
In five years, I see myself________________________________.
In 10 years, I see myself_________________________________.
In 20 years, I see myself_________________________________.
My preferred firm is of a small/medium/large (circle one) size.
My preferred firm is in this region in the short-term: __________
My preferred firm is in this region in the long-term: ___________
I want my working environment to be: ________________________.
I want my practice to encompass: ___________________________.
Please rank in order of importance to you (be honest and realistic with yourself!):
_____I want to specialize in a particular area.
_____I want to change my practice area.
_____I want high-profile clients/cases/deals.
_____I want to work for a very well-regarded partner.
_____I want to have great opportunities for mentorship and training.
_____I want to have access to a great deal of resources.
_____I want to have prestigious firms on my resume.
_____I want to have ample opportunities to go in-house in the future.
_____I want to make partner (and work at a place where this is possible).
_____I want to work for an international firm.
_____I want lower billable hours.
_____I want to find an alternative career.
_____I want opportunities for direct client contact.
_____I want to be in the courtroom on a regular basis.
_____I want to be in a different region or city.
_____I want a higher level of compensation.
_____I want significant opportunities for pro bono work.
_____I want to find a firm where I can stay a long time.
_____I want a supportive, nurturing environment.
_____I want an opportunity to work abroad.
_____I want job security at a stable firm.
_____I want to work with collegial individuals.
_____I want a nice mixture of work and quality of life.
_____I want leaner staffing of cases/deals (more responsibility).
_____I want to work in a large office.
_____I want to start my own firm.
_____I want to develop my own clients.
_____I want to work in a firm that values diversity.
_____I want to work in a firm that has good opportunities for women.
_____Other: __________________________________________.
Which five or six concepts did you rank the highest? These are the most important points to
keep in mind while you consider your offer. Does the opportunity match your future goals and
desires?
Acknowledgments
Thanks to our wonderful recruiters at BCG Attorney Search for contributing to this book.
Robyn Ginsberg
Senior Managing Director- East Coast, BCG Attorney Search, Washington D.C.
Evan P. Anderson
Managing Director, BCG Attorney Search, San Francisco
Suzanne Dupree Howe
Managing Director, BCG Attorney Search, Houston
Liz Hudson
Managing Director, BCG Attorney Search, Los Angeles
Claudia Barnes
General Manager, BCG Attorney Search, Los Angeles
Paul Danielson
Recruiter, BCG Attorney Search, Los Angeles
Julie Lehrman
Recruiter, BCG Attorney Search, Chicago
Our former recruiters whose articles were used in creating this book.
Danice Kowalczyk
Veronica Pawlowski
Caroline Lee
Lisa Pavia
Erin Curran
Stephen Seckler
Deborah Acker
Gloria Noh Cannon
Tricia McGrath
Jenny Van Veen
Dan Binstock
Carey Bertolet
Neil Sirota
Laura Rusche
Christine Gately