Recession Hits GC’s Bonuses

The recession has battered markets — and jobs — over the past couple of years. According to Corporate Counsel 's 2010 GC Compensation Survey, publicly traded companies saw their profitability hammered, and compensation tanked even for the top lawyers at major corporations. Big chunks of take-home pay — particularly those bonuses — took a beating. Discretionary bonuses dropped nearly 40 percent.

According to Corporate Counsel, the new world of compensation has less love for discretionary bonuses, and stock options, too — two components of GC pay that, prerecession, knew nothing but good time. That said, there has been a silver lining. Salary has been up 3.8 percent, and stock awards have been up 5.6 percent. These aren't huge increases, but in a world where flat is the new up, they helped hold the doom and gloom at bay, at least for now.

So what should we make of all this — bonuses hammered, but salaries and stock holding their own, and even getting an uptick? "The days of super excessive pay may be over," said one compensation expert. "But companies still need to incentivize and retain people. They'll come up with packages."

Why the huge drop in discretionary bonuses? A bad economy and increased visibility. Recent SEC rules, for example, require companies to go into detail on their proxy statements about how they calculate compensation for their top executives: What companies does it compare itself to? What information did it look at? A narrative of the process must be provided — a Story of the Pay. And discretionary bonuses are a story not all companies want to tell. Yet companies had to keep their top employees — a point that helps to explain the salary uptick: that 3.8 percent.

In the end, the economy may return back to the good old days, but the process for determining top executive pay likely won't. There will most likely be more rigor and oversight involved in determining executive pay. In the meantime, GC’s need not worry too much, companies will still look for ways to keep their top lawyers and provide healthy compensation – just structured differently.

1,000 Applications and Zero Interviews - Why?

In a recent post by the ABA Journal, Laurie-Allen Shumaker a 60 year old unemployed lawyer with 23 years of experience, who was laid off in January 2009 from her position as a shopping center lawyer, claimed to have applied to over 1,000 jobs—landing exactly zero interviews.

"Interviews are like seeking unicorns," she tells the blog, even though status updates for two positions reported she was the best-qualified applicant. "It's hard not to rake through one's brain trying to figure out why. Is it my age or my gender holding me back?"

Could something else be holding Laurie-Allen back?

Yes, perhaps her age and gender could be affecting her chances of success, especially in a market where employers have a plethora of highly qualified candidates to choose from. They can be very selective, and not always in a non-discriminatory manner.

Also, she is in a practice area that has but all dried up, and is facing a very large candidate pool for very few positions. It’s a number’s game – and when the odds are against you, unless you have a personal connection to the company or firm doing the hiring, your chances can be very slim. Laurie-Allen could simply be in a more difficult position because of the type of experience she is selling in this marketplace.

Is that the whole story? Hardly.

When candidates hit the proverbial wall, they inevitably blame factors outside of their control to explain their lack of success. Rather than looking at the things they are doing during the course of their job search, candidates are quick to point the finger elsewhere. Laurie-Allen’s story contains some red flags that indicate that there could be more to it than just discrimination.

Could applying to 1,000+ jobs have actually hurt her chances?

Laurie-Allen claims to have applied to more than 1,000 jobs—including positions as a clerk and a day care worker. Clearly there were not 1,000 jobs that called for someone with her particular skills and experience. Candidates who shoot their resumes indiscriminately to all of the jobs they can find, hoping that something will stick, often find themselves in Laurie-Allen’s situation—without a job or an interview.

Why?

While playing the numbers game may seem like a fine idea; a job search is not like playing roulette in Las Vegas. You do not improve your odds by scattering your resume to the wind. Doing this not only looks desperate, but it does nothing to increase your chance of landing a job. If anything it could hurt you. The legal community is smaller than you think, and if you are caught papering your resume all over the place, you will be perceived as desperate, unfocused, and not the candidate one would want to hire. Legal employers want to hire candidates they perceive to be selective, highly sought-after, and who have something special and specific to offer them. They are looking to land a "star." If you devalue yourself by sending your resume to everyone claiming to be good for any job out there, you lose that intangible value employers are looking for.

Sending your legal resume all over town in the course of your job search will only set you up for more failure, and take you right off the path to success. It may be counter intuitive, but before starting to blindly send a resume around town, you have to start by assessing your skills, figure out what you have to offer, and what type of employer will be best served by hiring someone like you. In other words, you have to be open‐minded, but selective. If Laurie-Allen had targeted her search better, the odds are she would have improved her chances to land an interview.

What did her resume and cover letter look like?

When you know that there are factors working against you, such as the fact that you were laid off or in a practice area not in demand, it is even more important to have a resume and a cover letter that set you apart from the competition. How much time and effort was spent on these two documents is unknown, but chances are that they could have been improved.

Clearly, by applying indiscriminately to over 1,000 jobs, Laurie-Allen most likely sent the same resume and cover letter, over and over again. Most attorneys and law students applying to jobs typically write one version of the legal resume they send to numerous job openings. While this approach may work in some cases, having a one-size-fits-all legal resume is not the most effective way to conduct a job search.

A one-size-fits-all legal resume is like junk mail. They are not personalized and customized toward an employer’s needs. When you receive junk mail that does not address you by your name or your needs, what do you do? Probably toss it. Employers are no different. They receive resumes by the hundreds. As a result, they are looking for an excuse, any excuse, to reject the majority of the resumes they receive. An easy way for a legal resume to earn a one-way ticket to the rejection bin is lack of customization.

Candidates planning to apply to more than one position should draft a resume that is specifically customized to each position. Granted this takes more time than mass mailing the same resume over and over again, most employers can tell the difference between a form resume and a tailored resume. The true value of a legal resume resides in its specificity vis-à-vis the position. If you don’t tailor your legal resume to the position you are applying to, you will most likely obtain few positive responses from your resume, as in the case of Laurie-Allen.

While factors beyond her control could have contributed to her lack of interviews, there are things that Laurie-Allen could have done to improve her chances. It’s never too late to start again, by being more selective in her application process and re-focusing her energy on her resume and cover letter, she might still land that coveted interview.

Debunking the Top 10 Job Search Myths – Part 1

There are a lot of misconceptions about the job search process; many of which turn into myths that people believe in and that can prevent them from landing the job of their dream. Here are the top 5 myths of interviewing:

Myth #1: A resume should only be one page long.

There is no hard and fast rule when it comes to resume length. Granted, employers are not interested in reading a five or six page resume, but a one-page resume that says little about your skills and experience may be a detrimental as a resume that is simply too long to read. Resumes typically range from one to three pages. While there is something to be said about keeping a resume concise, it’s more important to make sure that the resume contains enough substance to impress and employer than not enough. If you are a recent law school graduate, then a one-page resume will meet your needs. However, if you’ve had more than ten years of experience, you will soon find that a one-page resume often falls short of doing the job.

Myth #2: A cover letter is not necessary.

Most attorneys seeking a new job wonder about the same thing: Is a cover letter really necessary? In this competitive legal market, you have to take every opportunity to stand out from the crowd, and a well-written attorney cover letter can set yourself apart from the competition. While some employers confess to ignoring cover letters altogether, others read them carefully and give them a lot of stock. At the end of the day, it is better to err on the side of over inclusiveness, and add a great attorney cover letter to your resume, rather than sending it alone. Great cover letters can make a difference. Don’t send your resume without one.

Myth #3: It’s okay to stretch the truth a little on a resume.

That may seem like an obvious no-no, but you might be surprised to find out how many applicants stretch the truth or simply lie or their legal resume. The most common offense usually involves some type of misrepresentation or misleading statement concerning degrees, grades, class standing, academic honors, participation on scholarly publications, work history or relevant work experience. Today, employers have access to a number of tools to verify resume information through both formal and informal channels. Therefore, avoid making factual misrepresentations of any kind on your legal resume. You should always aim to represent your qualifications, skills, experience, and interests fully and accurately.

Myth #4: Don’t send out resumes during the summer or in December because no one’s hiring then.

While law firms are less apt to hire during the summer months, there are openings all year round. On the corporate side, business people can sometimes have a more relaxed attitude during the summer, and therefore more time, which could mean an opportunity to approach them and network. People leave and hiring needs change, not matter that the season. Not sending resumes during a particular season because it is viewed as “slow” can affect your chances of landing a great job. In December, companies may have money left over in their budgets to hire, and look to hire before the new calendar or fiscal year. Often, law firm attorneys wait to get their end-of-the-year bonuses before jumping ship elsewhere, which means new positions often become available during this time of the year.

Myth #5: The most qualified candidate is more likely to get the job offer.

That’s not always true. While, firms and companies are looking for highly qualified candidates with specific skills and experience, that’s not always enough to land a job offer. Potential employers are also looking for “fit,” in other words, for someone that meshes well with the culture of the firm or the company, and who will get along with those working there. Often, it’s a case where you have two well-qualified candidates, where one may be a bit more impressive on paper than the other, but the one that gets the offer is the one that “clicked” best with management or the hiring partners. Skills, expertise, great law school credentials, and an impressive track record can only take you so far. Personality and fit are often what gives a candidate the extra boost needed to land an offer.

[Other 5 Myth to come in next post]

Legal Recruiting Firms: How To Find The Best Ones

Looking for an attorney job but finding it hard to find one? Here are tips to find legal recruiting firms that can find the right job for you.

If you are wracking your brains about finding the attorney job you really want, practicality should tell you to look for legal recruiters. To shed some light on that subject, good legal recruiters can help you land positions in certain companies or firms that best suit your professional goals.

Legal recruiters call themselves a number of things such as attorney recruiters, legal headhunters, or executive recruiters. Whatever name they use, effective legal recruiters can help you identify legal positions you would not otherwise be able to find on your own, as well as help you put together resumes and cover letters to help you stand out from the crowd. But choosing a legal recruiter is just as hard as finding a job, and if you are unlucky enough to choose a bad one, you may lose your chances of getting that dream job, or worse -- get blacklisted.

Almost every legal recruiting firm will style itself as the best in the business, and there are many that meet different kinds of needs. Some specialize in law firm placement, in-house jobs, or part-time and contract position. Not everyone’s need for a legal recruiter is the same; therefore in looking for a legal recruiting firm that best suits your needs, you should narrow down your list to one or two that best suits your job search. Now that you’ve narrowed your list, how can you find out if those legal recruiters are any good?

Ask your peers and colleagues what they have heard about that legal recruiting firm. There is bound to be more than one of your lawyer friends that knows a thing or two about legal recruiters. Some may even be where they are right now because of a legal recruiting firm. They may be able to recommend someone to you.

Check the Internet for more information. How well does the legal recruiting firm rank on Google? Are they on the first page? Don’t forget to check other sources as well, such as legal publications, blogs, and testimonials that can tell you how good or bad a legal recruiting firm really is.

If you find a legal recruiting firm that looks good on paper, but has only been in business for two years or less, then beware. Jumping the bandwagon based on their slick brochure or website is not the kind of risk you want to take. Do some research, inquire as to the clients they represent, and the candidates they have successfully placed. Look at the jobs they have listed on their website. If you are still uncertain, stick to a recruiting firm that has been in business for at least five years. If they have lasted this long, chances are probably good at what they do.

Legal recruiting firms tend to vary in terms of the services and the assistance they provide. Some legal recruiting firms do not only identify positions on your behalf, but also help you to secure the job. Some of the services that a firm can offer include resume and cover letter assistance, as well as interview preparation.

Professional legal recruiting firms often offer state-of-the-art database access where you can sign-in directly and update your contacts and resume. Finally, a good legal recruiting firm ensures that the job suits your skills and experience – they focus on making the right fit.

Finding top-notch legal recruiting firms is not a simple task. Just don’t forget to narrow down what you really need before signing up. You should know that there are a good many legal recruiting firms available out there, so take your time and look them up. Always keep a keen eye, and never let yourself fall for bogus over exaggerated ads; chances are the bigger the claim, the less effective the firm.

2010 Best Legal Department...And the Winner Is?

Corporate Counsel's fifth annual competition for "2010 Best Legal Department" identified Microsoft as its winner. The winning legal department was one that prevailed in a prolonged and very expensive antitrust legal battle. As Ian Forrester, a partner at White & Case who represented Microsoft in Brussels put it, the case is "a really extraordinary piece of legal history." Some have called the settlement one of Microsoft's general counsel, Brad Smith's crowning achievements. He and his legal team ended more than a decade of close scrutiny by European regulators. The software colossus can keep doing business across the Atlantic, and the stage is now set for better relations with Brussels.

The litigation successes were among several reasons Microsoft was named Best Legal Department of 2010. The department achieved success after having its budget and staff cut for the first time, due to the economic meltdown. The department improved its diversity, it's helped laid-off workers get free computer training, and has represented immigrant children in court. In other words, it has reached out to the community and given back in tough times.

All three legal departments that were selected this year (the other three finalists) had one thing in common: they retooled and achieved great success doing "more with less."

• Finalist: Discover Financial Services
  
• Finalist: Hewlett-Packard Company
  
• Finalist: The Williams Companies, Inc.
  

See below what made each of these legal departments stand out from the crowd:

Discover Financial Services
2009 Net Income: $1.3 billion
General Counsel: Kelly McNamara Corley
Number of In-House Lawyers: 34
Pro's: Doing a lot with very little.
Con's: No formal pro bono program.

Why Was It Picked as Finalist: The legal department at Discover — the country's sixth-largest credit card company, headquartered in the Chicago suburb of Riverwoods — has only 34 lawyers. While they have limited resources, they are doing a lot with what they have. Its tiny litigation team — with just one full-time attorney and two part-time lawyers — handled over 1,000 legal matters in 2009, while resolving 11 of 14 pending class action suits. Not bad for a small legal team!

Hewlett-Packard Company (HP)
2009 Revenue/Net income: $114.55/$7.66 billion
General Counsel: Robert Holston
Number of In-House Lawyers: 190/425 (worldwide)
Pro's: Good litigation management, excellent pro bono and diversity programs.
Con's: Ad hoc flextime and fixed-fee arrangements.
Why Was It Picked as a Finalist: Retooling of the legal department, reorganization of litigation, and commitment to pro bono and diversity. "This isn't a place lawyers go to retire," said deputy GC Ashley Watson. Today, HP lawyers describe the department as "energized." In the past two years especially, there have been higher work expectations, a boatload of new hires, and ambitious new projects like revamping the company's worldwide system for complying with local laws that have meant more work for newcomers and veterans alike. Changes were not easily made, but today HP's Legal Department stands as one of the best in the country.

The Williams Companies, Inc.
2009 Revenue/Net Income: $8.3 billion/$285M
General Counsel: Jim Bender
Number of In-House Lawyers: 39
Pro's: Outside counsel management, discovery, and pro bono efforts.
Con's: Diversity.
Why Was It Picked as a Finalist: Williams' legal department was able to do what most talk about, but never get to achieve: to cut its outside legal expenses by about 15 percent. The effort started six years ago, when General Counsel Jim Bender decided to reduce the number of law firms the natural gas company used, and implemented blended-rates (that came as close to fixed rates as can be). Williams's ability to use its data to effectively manage outside counsel is one reason it was chosen as a finalist for Best Legal Department. They've also done a god job implementing a new compliance program and developing a comprehensive approach to discovery. Kudos for a legal department that's done what most hope to achieve , but never quite get to do - make real cuts into outside legal fees.

Five Rules To Landing an In-House Job

The desire to move in-house has not been dampened by the economic downturn. Perhaps, it’s as strong as it’s ever been. More lawyers have had to evaluate their options and career paths in light of the recent economic collapse. The same can be said of lawyers already practicing in-house. Despite greater pressures to do more with less, in-house lawyers are just as eager to remain in their current practice or seek their next in-house job as they have ever been. What does it take to make it in-house? Candidates who succeed are not only excellent lawyers; they are savvy strategists who know how to market themselves successfully. Here are some tips to help you put your best foot forward and land that in-house position:

Rule 1: Be Realistic
Not everyone fits the mold or is cut out to be an in-house lawyer. Before you start your job search, you need to evaluate whether you have the right background and motivation to make the transition. Most lawyers who want to go in-house are young law firm associates who are either tired of the law firm grind or who are seeking greener pastures. The vast majority of these associates tend to be too junior to have any realistic shot at landing an in-house position. What is the right level of experience?

The ideal in-house candidate is an experienced lawyer with at least five years of professional practice experience. That tends to be the bar set for the majority of in-house law departments. The “five year rule” is not completely arbitrary. Law departments seek experienced attorneys who can operate fairly independently, and lawyers with five year of private law practice have often been exposed to the type of depth and breath or work to provide them with some independence in their practice. Because in-house legal departments tend to work with fewer resources, they are not considered good training grounds for recent law graduates and junior-level attorneys. Moreover, in-house attorneys, unlike their law firm counterparts, are viewed as part of overhead. Therefore, while attorneys are a necessity, they do not contribute to the financial bottom line of the companies they serve. Therefore, in-house legal departments have every incentive to want to hire experienced attorneys who require little training or supervision.

Rule 2: Be Strategic
If you have visions of practicing in-house, you need to make sure that your ducks are lined up accordingly. In other words, you have to plan ahead. The vast majority of in-house positions, well over ninety percent, are transactional positions. Since this is very much a numbers game, to improve your odds of moving in-house you should consider pursuing a general corporate practice that offers exposure to a lot of different areas. In other words, when it comes to in-house opportunities, not all practice areas are created equal. While corporate law departments do hire attorneys in a variety of specialized practice areas, including litigation, labor and employment, intellectual property, real estate, and tax – to name a few, these positions are few and far in between. In other words, there are very few in-house legal opportunities available for these practice areas. Moreover, because of the type of competition that is generated for these few position, outstanding candidates are often kept from ever making the final cut.

While having a transactional background will allow you to be eligible for more in-house position, to be more competitive you also need to develop “industry” experience. Companies overwhelmingly favor hiring lawyers who know and understand their business. Lawyers that are invested in a particular industry tend to be more competitive than those who do not have any industry experience, or those that have simply jumped from job-to-job irrespective of the industry. The fear that many lawyers have in specializing in an industry is to become pigeonholed into that industry and to have fewer opportunities available. While this is a legitimate concern, this needs to be balanced against the significant edge it provides them from having that specialization. A strategic lawyer will choose an industry that is poised for growth, and more likely to offer opportunities in the future. For instance, in-house lawyers that are specialized in healthcare and pharmaceuticals tend to be better insulated from market pressures and have more opportunities available.

Rule 3: Be Flexible
As recruiters that specialize in in-house attorney placement, we regularly speak to lawyers who want to make that transition in-house. They are often eager and want to appear flexible by being willing to make compromises for the “right” in-house position. That said there is a notable difference between wanting to go in-house and being ready to go in-house. These discussions inevitably turn to matters relating to money and type of positions, and all of the talk regarding flexibility and compromise appears to be a distant memory.

If you are looking to go in-house, be prepared to take a salary cut. While all potential candidates usually start by saying “I am willing to take a salary cut,” the question really turns to how deep are you willing to take this cut? Most law firm attorneys expect to take a 20-30% cut from their law firm compensation, while the reality is that most law firm attorneys transitioning in-house experience compensation reductions ranging between 50%-70%. The median base salaries for in-house attorneys with 5-10 years of experience ranges between $100,000-$150,000 per year. These are not easy to digest figures, with many law firm lawyers looking to make less than the first-year associates they are training.

To circumvent this sharp salary drop, many attorneys, most of whom have much more than the minimum five-years of required experience to go in-house, hold out for “general counsel positions only.” Those who like to show some flexibility will even consider “deputy general counsel” positions. That’s akin to a first-year associates saying that he/she only wants to consider partner positions. The hard truth is that general counsel positions are very few, and incredibly competitive. To give you an idea, a single general counsel position can generate as many as five hundred applications in less than ninety days. The top ten candidates selected to interview are most likely accomplished general counsels with more than twenty years of experience, who possess extensive industry-specific experience, and are ivy-league educated – at least. The vast majority of general counsel positions are never available to the greater public. They are often filled from within by succession plans, or candidates are handpicked by the CEO and/or Board of Directors from a pool of people they already know. In other words, through networking and relationships. Therefore, if you are looking to go in-house or transition in-house, you have to be willing to work your way up the ladder, and set your sights a little lower.

Rule 4: Be Visible
What does it take to land an in-house position? A good dose of luck, the right connections, and perfect timing. The first step is to make yourself visible. With so few positions available and one of the deepest and most competitive candidate pool seen in recent history, you need to be at the right time, in the right place, and know the right people. In other words, you have to network. There is no getting around it. The best way to land an in-house job is through connections. You have to make yourself visible to those who know about in-house positions before they hit the general candidate pool. The best way to cut through the long stack of resumes is to have someone vouch for you, or tell you about a position before it becomes available to the general public. To do that, you have to get the word out, mine the contacts you already have, and start meeting with people outside your current network.

You can work with a legal search firm as well, but it is by no means a shortcut. It is no substitute for networking. Networking is still the best method for identifying positions and making yourself available to them. If you are going to work with recruiters, be sure to contact search firms that either specialize in or have a significant part of their practice dedicated to in-house search. You should also try to contact several search firms. Unlike law firm searches, in-house searches tend to be handled on an exclusive basis – one search firm for one particular position and company. As a result, every search firm has its own select list of clients and positions, which may not be representative of all the opportunities available in the marketplace. Therefore, registering with several specialized search firms will allow you to be available to a good cross-section of in-house positions.

Rule 5: Be Patient
The saying “good things come to those who wait” has never been truer than for those who are seeking to go in-house. How long does it take to land an in-house job? Well, it depends on your qualifications, experience, flexibility, and the market in general. That said, for the most part, it takes about six months to a year, for most applicants to land a position. This is not for the faint of heart or impatient. You will have to endure a lot of rejection, often silent, before landing that coveted in-house position. The type of position you are seeking will also determine the length of time it will take for you to land an in-house job. The higher the level, the fewer jobs there are available. Most of the senior-level positions tend to be filled from within, by in-house counsels who have bid their time and are ready to get promoted. So if you are holding off for a more senior-level position within a company, you may have to wait that much longer for the opportunity to become available. The key is to be patient, to continue honing your skills, network, and when presented with an opportunity, grab it.

Google's CLO Has Many Reasons To Be Happy

We recently heard about how happy CLOs are to be in-house, with 90% of CLOs reporting their contentment to the ACC. That said, some CLOs are definitely happier than others.

Take David Drummond, Google’s chief legal officer, for example. Drummond has lots of reasons to be happy, about $2.233 millions’ worth to be exact. This year, according to an article by Mike Swift of the Mercury News, Drummond earned a base salary of $500,000 – and that’s not all. Drummond received a bonus of $1.733 million.

How Does Drummond’s Compensation Package Compare to Other Executives’ at Google?

According to the Mercury News, Google's founders and CEO drew a $1M base salary in 2010. Other top Google executives received double-digit raises in base salary and bonuses. Is the sky the limit? Not exactly. Google capped its bonuses at $4.5 million for the 2009 fiscal year, according to the SEC filing.

Of course, if Google is being generous with its executive, it’s because the company is enjoying unprecedented profits. Google is one of the few companies in the country that was recession-proof during this crisis. Google reported a record profit of nearly $2 billion for the fourth quarter of 2009, a fivefold increase over the last quarter of 2008.

How Does Drummond’s Compensation Package Compare To Other CLOs’?

While Drummond is being handsomely compensated, he still falls short of the top ten. According to last year’s list of the 100 top-paid general counsels (total cash compensation), Drummond came in 23rd position, earning a total of $1,826,251.

While Google may be a happy place, Walt Disney, known as the “happiest place on earth," lives up to its reputation, especially for Alan Braverman, its CLO, who earned $4,032,885 last year and came in 5th place overall. Who beat out Disney and Google for the top spot? The most highly compensated CLO last year, in terms of cash compensation, was Gregory Doody of Calpine Corporation, who brought home $9,743,621. It is indeed good to be CLO!

Happy CLOs Are Poised to Hire More in 2010

According to the results of the Association of Corporate Counsel's 10th Annual Chief Legal Officer Survey, CLOs are not only happy with their job, but want to share that happiness by hiring more in-house counsels in 2010. More than 90 percent of CLOs that responded to the Survey indicated that they were happy with their jobs (up 2% from last year’s Survey). Even with the recession and a heavier workload, chief legal officers said they still like their jobs. It’s still good to be in-house. And, it looks like that happiness is going to spread.

How Much Will CLO Increase Hiring By?

About one-third (29 percent) of the 970 chief legal officers who responded to the survey said they're planning to add to their departments this year, up from 23 percent last year.

While these are positive news in an otherwise still gloomy market, this does not mean that the in-house legal market has turned the corner.

In-house legal are still operating under tough budget constraints, and while a 5% increase over last year is good news, it will not serve to make much of a dent in this saturated market

Who Will They Be Hiring?

In particular, over one-fourth (28%) of respondents plan to hire lawyers to do commoditized work, and 21% of these respondents plan to hire specialists.

In addition to the increase in hiring plans, the survey found that the number of law department attorneys based outside the U.S grew this year. This increase can be seen in Western Europe and Canada, where the number of in-house attorneys rose from 1% in 2008 to 7% in 2009; and also in Asia/Pacific, where there was an increase from 1% in 2008 to 2% in 2009.

Why Are CLOs Looking to Hire More?

The recession has forced companies to take a critical view of how they operate. While CLOs will be increasing in-house hiring, they will also be decreasing spending on outside counsel. More than a third (34 percent) said they've cut spending on outside counsel. At the end of the day, they have figured out that they can operate more efficiently by bringing more work in-house, spending less on outside counsel, and boosting spending on alternative fee arrangements, the survey shows.

Could This Be a Long-Term Trend?

That remains to be seen. While this is not a significant increase in hiring, this may be a sign of more positive news to come. Moreover, the recession has forced companies to try on a new model, and they may like what they see.

Newsline - 02/22/10

• What the New White House Counsel Made Last Year. New White House counsel Robert Bauer made just under $1 million last year as the head of the political law group at Perkins Coie, according to a financial disclosure form he filed this month. Bauer reported $958,788 in salary and bonuses from the firm, where he was a partner in its Washington office. That's almost 20 percent above the firm's 2009 profits per equity partner of $802,111, as reported this month by The AmLaw Daily. He also reported $14,000 in speaking honoraria and a $7,500 fee from teaching at Yale University last spring. Bauer, who started at the White House in late December and succeeded Gregory Craig, reported household investment assets worth between $2.38 million and $5.55 million. It’s a good thing that Bauer has such a nice nest egg stashed away, because he is now slated to earn about earned $172,200 per year - the highest salary paid to any of the White House counsels, and what his predecessor Craig earned last year (see our previous Blog post "What Do White House Lawyers Earn?"' It’s not bad by any standard, but these attorneys are clearly not in it for the money. Craig had also left a very lucrative private practice with the Washington, D.C.-based law firm of Williams & Connolly, where he was earning $1.7 million a year. It is refreshing to see attorneys motivated by other things besides the bottom line when making a career move. The National Law Journal
  

• Levi Slashes its Outside Counsel. Levi Strauss has been busy making cuts, and we’re not talking about jeans either. Last spring Levi Strauss & Co. cut the number of outside law firms that it uses down to just two — one of the most sweeping reductions yet by a large company. The lucky survivors were: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe to handle all of the worldwide legal work, and Townsend and Townsend and Crew for its global intellectual property matters. General counsel Hilary Krane said that in addition to yielding improved work at lower cost from her outside firms, the deals have also had a side benefit: better performance from her staff attorneys. While this may come across as sweeping reform by a clothing giant, this may signal a new trend for companies: fewer outside counsels to assist better-staffed in-house legal departments. Corporate Counsel

• SEC Says BofA GC Didn't Get Fired Over Legal Advice. The Securities and Exchange Commission is going against the generally accepted speculation that former Bank of America general counsel Timothy Mayopoulos was fired because of his unwelcomed legal advice regarding the merger. In a court filing on Wednesday, the SEC says Mayopoulos got fired to create a position for Brian Moynihan in an effort to keep him from leaving, according to stories in the New York Law Journal and the Wall Street Journal Law Blog. Moynihan served as general counsel for 44 days before taking over as CEO. The SEC position reinforces congressional testimony by Moynihan that, before his appointment as general counsel, he had planned to leave Bank of America because he was not pleased with the position he would get after the merger. Yeah, right! The SEC’s conclusion lacks fundamental logical credibility! Here's the story: GC gives advice executives do not want made public, GC gets escorted out of the building 24 hours later, and is subsequently treated like a pariah. Despite receiving excellent reviews during his tenure at BofA, Mayopoulos was given little love after he was told to pack his stuff and leave. When Mayopoulos reached out to two of the bank's executives to obtain references to try and find a new job, he was snubbed by one and got a cool reaction from the other. Th internal dialogue was probably something like this: A reference? Yeah, you did a great job for us, but I'm not sure we can do that for you. You know, rules and all. Good luck though. I'd hate to see how Mayopoulos would have been treated had he not done a good job. ABA Journal
  
  
• Ford Gets Mileage Out of Fewer Lawyers. When Ford's sales collapsed — from 2006 to 2008, and the company lost a cumulative $30 billion, something had to be done. The response: Laying off a third of its 300,000 employees worldwide. The Company’s In-House Legal Department was no exception to these cuts. Ford's general counsel David Leitch made the painful move of slashing his staff by 40 percent, from 200 lawyers to 120. His department continues to perform at the same level, he said. And it hasn't increased its use of outside lawyers to make up for the loss of in-house attorneys. However, while Ford’s attorneys “have adapted, and are more efficient and effective than they ever thought they could be" when the economy turns around, Leitch will have a new challenge on his hand. If your car takes on a lot of mileage, it’s bound to break down sooner rather than later. If you want your car to keep performing at a high level, you’ll either need to ease up on it, or get a new one. The same can be said about employees who’ve been asked to “do more with less,” over a long period of time. His overworked counsels will probably be the first to look for greener pastures, and he will need to either up his internal numbers or use of outside counsel to keep up with demands. Corporate Counsel

A Gen Y Guide to Getting—and Keeping—a Legal Job

With top tier firms shedding associates and in-house legal departments tightening their belts, it’s a tough time for young attorneys to enter the workforce. But there are ways to stand out from the pack. Here, experts offer their tips for making an impression and snagging—and keeping—your dream legal job.

• Be a yes man: Especially in a rough economy, it’s critical for young attorneys to fulfill their bosses’ requests with enthusiasm, says Ann-Marie Neville, a managing director in MLA’s New York office. “You have to step up in this market, because guess what—if you don’t, [your manager] is going to turn to somebody else,” she says.

• Keep your eyes open: It’s important for young lawyers not only to complete assigned tasks but also anticipate what clients and co-workers need from them, says Neda Khatamee, a managing director in Major Lindsey & Africa’s New York office. “Be available, but also really be able to dance to everyone’s tune, from your partners to associates in your own class,” she says. Adds Neville, “Always be prepared to be the best possible associate who’s ready to be in front of the partner’s best client.”

• Network: Your law school drinking buddies may one day turn out to be your best asset, Khatamee says. Building your network of both colleagues and clients early is one of the keys to growing and advancing as an attorney.

• Respect your elders: While it’s great to bring new ideas to the work place, pause to learn why tradition dictates certain practices in your office, says Cam Marston, president and founder of the consulting firm Generational Insights. “No one’s going to care how you want to change it until you prove you know why it’s there in the first place,” he says.

• Stick it out: “Patience is a virtue you can never have too much of,” says Vanessa Vidal, president of ESQ Recruiting. Though it may be tempting to bolt for another firm with flashier perks, she says a resumé dotted with too many jobs in too few years is a red flag to future employers. Though career moves may eventually be necessary to advance, make a commitment to the firm or department you start with until you encounter an opportunity too good to pass up. When your ideal job appears, a track record of loyalty will position you well to sail through the hiring process.

InsideCounsel, by Lauren Williamson - Online Exclusive that Accompanied The Cover Story in the February 2010 Issue.