 
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

contact@bcgsearch.com (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 placement-worthy. 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 low-hanging 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 well-thought-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 well-thought-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 self-assured, 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 heli-snowboarding 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 message-and 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 well-qualified 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 after-the-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 mid-sized 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 on-campus 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 level-would 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

