Why Are Women Attorneys Unhappy
Have we come a long way baby? When it comes to female lawyers at law firms, the answers may be a resounding no. While women represent approximately 45% of associates, the only represent 20% of partners.
Vault took a look back at its most recent Associate Survey, in which nearly 17,000 associates at law firms from across the country rated their firms in areas such as satisfaction, hours, compensation, diversity, and associate/partner relations. And in nearly all of these areas, women rated their firms lower than did men. While that’s not new, what is interesting is that the same issues that have plagued women’s careers over the last few decades endure:
First, many female associates feel that it is impossible to have a family and make partner—and so they take themselves off the partnership track, even before they have children.
If that’s true, so what can firms do about it? How many progressive law firms offer on-site childcare or reduced hours with the opportunity to make partner? Not many. At the end of the day, it’s about billing a lot of hours and bringing business to the firm, and if you have other responsibilities, such as child rearing, and don’t want to have a partner or third parties to do it for you, the chances of making partner are slim to none. Unless firms change the rules of the game, the choices for women will be the same.
Second, female associates complain that their male counterparts have different—and better—opportunities for business development, important assignments and mentorship.
Is this a case where men prefer other men in terms of providing assignments, either consciously or subconsciously? Could this be related to the fact that women are not perceived as available or motivated to become partner? Given that a majority of women are leaving before partnership there is some truth to that assumption, and this could be a catch-22 issue. Would women partners be more likely to provide other women more opportunities? That’s not necessarily true. Perhaps this is a case where women may have to be more proactive and actively seek opportunities, rather than wait for them to be assigned.
Finally, a common complaint among senior women associates is that their potential for making partnership is not clear enough.
That gripe is equally true when it comes to men. What it takes to make partner at major law firms is as clear as mud, whether you are a man or a woman. However, the fact that men represent 80% of partners may means that the message is not necessarily what is making the difference. At the end of the day, you have to stand out. To do that, you have to work on the big transactions and litigation, put in the hours, and bring in the clientele. There is no one way to do it, and firms are not keen to give its associates clear directions on how to make it, simply because there isn’t a whole lot of room at the top.
While law firms have been creating more innovative and far-reaching programs and policies, the rub is in the lack of action. The numbers speak for themselves. The good news is that these are issues that are being talked about, but the bad news is that old stigmas, gender assumptions, and business practices endure.
Foreign Attotneys May Now Work In the U.S. as In-House Counsel
It looks like in the midst of immigration reform by the Obama administration,things may be looking up for foreign lawyers. Under a resolution approved on Monday by the ABA House of Delegates, foreign lawyers will have limited authority to serve as in-house counsel in the United States.
Resolution 107A is among a series of proposed amendments to the ABA model ethics rules that acknowledge the globalization of law practice. It amends Rule 5.5(d) of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct concerning unauthorized practice and multijurisdictional practice. The amendment states that foreign lawyers may work as in-house counsel in the United States, but they may not give advice on U.S. law unless it is based on the advice of a lawyer who is licensed in the appropriate jurisdiction. A related resolution, 107B, requires registration for foreign lawyers working as in-house counsel.
Seven states already expressly permit foreign lawyers to work as in-house lawyers in the U.S. offices of their clients. This will likely open the gates to foreign lawyers looking to practice in the U.S. But how does that bode with our current economic climate? The legal market has yet to bounce back, and employment numbers are still low. With thousands of U.S. lawyer unemployed and many more U.S. law graduates still seeking employment, how will this impact our market? The answer remains to be seen.
Career Malaise: Reassessing Your Career Choices In Your 40′s
The road to partnership has become more arduous and the attrition rate at law firms is at an all-time high − 80% of lawyers are leaving large law firms by their 5th year.At the top of the list of complaints are business-development demands − not to mention billable hours and the collection pressures of junior partnership. As a result, many attorneys are prompted to re-examine their career path midway.
The good news is that switching jobs mid-career may be easier than for attorneys in other demographics. Partly due to the high attrition rate, attorneys with more than 5 years of experience are in high demand in law firms. This is also the benchmark experience level usually required by in-house legal departments. Experienced attorneys have a variety of career alternatives available (see our previous blog, Why Are Unhappy Lawyers Hesitant to Leave the Practice?).
The key; however, is to make that career re-assessment at the right time. Made too early, the opportunities tend to be either too few or too limiting to be appealing. Made too late, after 10 years of practice, the opportunities tend to not only be more limited, but also less financially attractive. The ideal time for attorneys to make the transition falls within the 5-10 year window. This is a small window of opportunity that leaves little time for procrastination...Have you re-assessed your career lately?
Are You Ready to Go In-House?
If I had a dollar for every time I heard a law firm associate tell me “I want to go in-house,” I would be enjoying my retirement on a tropical island in the South Pacific. The allure of taking one’s practice in-house is understandable, and in many cases, quite appropriate.The opportunity to take an active role in a client's business decisions, to focus on the growth of one client and one industry, to part with billable hour requirements and business development responsibilities, and operate within a more predictable and sometimes less taxing schedule, are all very compelling reasons to make that transition. But how do you know whether you are ready to make the move in-house?
There is a notable difference in wanting to go in-house and being ready to go in-house. No matter how enticing the opportunity might turn out to be; unless you are truly ready for it, it might not be the successful transition you were hoping for. How do you know whether you are ready? Here are some questions to consider in determining whether you are ready to make that leap in-house:
Do You Have the Experience?
When you consider that 75% of associates leave private practice by their fifth year of practice (NALP 2005), it is not surprising to see a number of junior associates banging on corporate doors to transition in-house. Obviously most in-house job postings will include the minimum level of experience required for the position – but is meeting the minimum requirement enough? Not necessarily.
Companies that hire in-house counsels are looking for attorneys who are self-sufficient, who can work independently, with little support, and almost no supervision. Sounds like an ideal proposition? Yes, but consider the following: this also means that corporate legal departments are not good training grounds either. This is not a place where you will be taught skills, or have much of an opportunity to learn from more senior counsel. It will be assumed that you are already skilled in your practice area, can handle all of the documentation and processes that come with it, can provide strategic advice to your company, and can oversee the legal work of potentially more experienced outside counsels.
In light of what companies expect from their attorneys, it is recommended that you stay in private practice for at least five (5) years before you consider making a transition in-house. While the level of responsibility and training tends to vary on an individual basis, and from firm to firm; this minimum threshold can at least ensure that you have had the opportunity to be exposed to the various documentation and processes of your practice area.
While law firms continue to have a dubious reputation in terms of the quality of their training, they remain the best place for junior attorneys to acquire experience and develop legal skills. Corporate legal departments for the most parts are thinly staffed, and therefore provide you with more limited access to experienced counsels (and sometimes no access whatsoever) to whom you could go for support or advice. And remember, if you are thinking about picking up the phone to call an outside counsel to get advice, it will cost you and your company. Corporate legal departments operate under strict budgets – they do not provide for this type of on-the-job training. Corporate legal departments also tend to work with fewer resources, in terms of libraries, software programs, continuing legal education programs etc. Finally, the work you will be required to handle in-house, will demand that you not only be able to draft, revise, and negotiate or explain the various documents associated with the transaction or litigation matter, but that you take it a step further and advise your client on what strategy and steps they need to take to meet their business objectives.
The longer you stay in private practice, the more valuable you will become to a company, and the more likely you will be able to succeed in-house. The best time to transition your practice in-house is generally between your fifth year and tenth year of practice, or right before partnership. Why before partnership? Because by the time you make it to partnership, you may have become either too expensive, or too dependent on your high compensation package, to be able or ready to absorb the salary cut you will need to take when moving in-house.
Are You Ready for a Salary Cut?
When speaking with attorneys who are ready to make that in-house transition, I invariably hear the same message, “I am ready to take a salary cut for the right opportunity.” They seem candid and honest about their willingness to give up a portion of their law firm compensation to move in-house, and they generally are. However, very few tend to understand just how much of it they will have to give up to make that move. That’s understandable; where law firms make their compensation public knowledge and generally align themselves in terms of their size and geographical locations, corporate legal departments are not only more guarded about their figures, but are also much more unpredictable – as compensation can vary greatly depending on a company’s size, industry, location, and financial situation.
The only in-house figures that seem to gather the attention of the press, and therefore those that are readily available to the general public are the compensation figures of Fortune 500 general counsels. In fact, those figures are typically those of the 100 highest-paid general counsels at Fortune 500 companies. In 2006, the average cash bonus and restricted stock grant received by this group approached $2 million. In addition, more than half of the group cashed in stock options in 2005, with an average gain of $3.1 million. In comparison, the average profit taken home last year by an Am Law 100(R) partner at the nation's 100 top-grossing firms was $1.1 million.
Top earners like Thomas Russo, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.'s vice-chairman and chief legal officer, takes home a whopping $21.2 million, with $450,000 in salary, $4.6 million in bonus, and $16 million in stock option cash-ins. Occidental Petroleum Corporation's Donald de Brier received nearly $7.2 million in stock options in fiscal year 2005, while MGM Mirage's Gary Jacobs got a sweet $5.5 million in options.
While not everyone has the grandiose ambition or the profile to become a Fortune 500 general counsel – these figures have a tendency to skew the expectations of attorneys wanting to make the jump from law firms to corporate legal departments. 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, with bonuses averaging 20%-30% of base.
Most attorneys who hear these figures gripe, “It’s not market.” It’s easy to understand why. The salary wars waged by large law firms around the country increasing first-year associate salaries to $145,000 and $160,000, as well as incremental increases of other classes by as much as $15,000 have done little to provide law firm attorneys with a realistic understanding of their worth in the corporate legal market.
They forget one crucial distinction between the law firm and in-house environment. While associates and partners are an integral part of the law firm’s “profit centers” and help generate millions of dollars in revenues on behalf of the firm, when they transition in-house, they become “part of the overhead.” In-house counsels, with very few exceptions in the licensing area, do not generate revenues. At best, they protect a company from liability. Unlike a law firm that sees the hiring of associates and partners as a means to increase productivity and revenues, companies must determine whether hiring an attorney in-house is cost effective, in both the short and long run. The value proposition changes drastically, and therefore, so does the compensation.
The question that each attorney must resolve in his mind, is whether he or she can absorb the cost of transitioning in-house – as for most of them, there will be a significant monetary tradeoff.
Can You Handle The Limited Career Path?
By now, some of those left with the experience and the willingness to make the financial sacrifices may think that it’s just a matter of time before they make their way to a more senior-level position or take the general counsel position. Well, not so fast.
According to a 2005 Survey conducted by Corporate Counsel, nearly seventy-five percent (75%) of in-house counsels polled described overall opportunities for advancement in their departments as either "limited" or nonexistent. Although many of the 1,278 respondents reported that they had been promoted since going in-house, they said that they were unlikely to get much further. Nineteen percent (19%) said there were no opportunities for advancement whatsoever for them in their department, while fifty-six percent (56%) percent said opportunities were limited.
What does it mean for you? If you think that with time you will enjoy promotions including a better title or a significant increase in pay, you may be going in with unrealistic expectations. Most corporate legal departments are small or flat in terms of structure; therefore, title promotions or elevation to other roles tend to be rare. Unlike law firms where you move up class levels every year, and enjoy significant pay raises, when transitioning in-house you may find yourself in the same position for many years to come, with pay raises that average 3-5% a year.
Most in-house counsels bid their times and move up only when a more senior counsel decides to retire or to transition to another company. In fact, the best chance for advancement may be jumping to the legal department of another company. Companies with larger legal departments of fifty or more attorneys, usually have more avenues for advancement. They may have a more hierarchical structure to enable its attorneys to move up to more senior roles with more responsibilities and greater levels of compensation. That said, in-house attorneys don’t have the same clear and linear career path as their law firm counterparts, and opportunities for advancement for the most part are limited. Before you make any decisions, you need to ask yourself whether you are ready to bid your time and live with fewer opportunities for advancement.
Conclusion
Before you start polishing your resume and look for in-house positions, make sure you’ve gained the experience you will need to succeed in-house, that you are able to let go of your attractive law firm compensation package, and can work in an environment where your career path will not be a straight line.
The trade-offs are far from perfect; however, most lawyers who made that transition with open eyes insist that going in-house was a decision they would make again. Gripes and all, in-house lawyers are nearly unanimous in preferring the more complex path they've chosen. How do we know? Only 1 percent of in-house lawyers say they'd like to be at a law firm.
What Does It Take To Become An In-House Counsel?
The number of attorneys who are interested in making the transition in-house is increasing, despite current economics. While securing an in-house position has always been difficult because of supply and demand, doing so in this economy is even more challenging. There is a significant distinction between wanting to go in-house and being ready to go in-house – something that many attorneys tend to miss when conducting their job search. In this article, we discuss what it takes to become a strong candidate for an in-house position in today’s marketplace.
Experience
The ideal in-house candidate is an experienced attorney with at least five years or more of professional practice experience, who can operate fairly independently. Why five years or more? In-house legal departments are not good training grounds for recent law graduates and junior-level attorneys. Companies generally do not have the resources available to train 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.
Is there such a thing as too much experience? In some cases, there is. Companies tend to value hiring attorneys who have both law firm and in-house experience. Partner-level attorneys who only have law firm experience are at risk of being passed for positions, junior-level or otherwise. They tend to be viewed as too specialized, not business-oriented enough, and lacking in industry experience. That prejudice tends to grow in accordance with the length of time they have remained in private practice without ever having held an in-house position. Partner-level attorneys are often viewed as too “inflexible” and expensive to successfully transition in-house. In an employer-driven market companies get what companies want, whether or not these preferences are justified. Therefore, the best time to consider an in-house transition is after five years of practice and before partnership.
Practice
When it comes to the type of practice area in-house legal departments are interested in when hiring, it is important to remember that 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.
If you are playing a numbers game, which is what you have to do when considering an in-house attorney position, and you are interested in moving up on the in-house totem poll, you should have general corporate and commercial contracts experience. In other words, transactional attorneys have an edge in the number of positions available to them, not to mention improved prospects for advancement within law departments, including general counsel positions.
To improve your odds even further, you should supplement your transactional practice with some exposure to litigation, employment, corporate governance, finance, intellectual property, and governmental regulations, to be able to assist a company gets its goods or services to market. Corporate law departments tend to look for “generalists,” or attorneys who are able to spot issues and handle matters in a wide variety of areas. In other words, most in-house counsel act like ER doctors conducting triage when the ambulance gets in. They have to quickly identify the problem, establish priorities, determine what they can handle themselves and whether they will require the services of a specialist, or in this case an outside counsel.
Aptitude
Even if you have the required experience and practice area to be a good candidate for an in-house position, there are a number of “soft skills” you need to be competitive and successful for these positions. First, as an in-house attorney you need to have business sense. When a company hires in-house counsels, they are expected to provide legal advice in a business context. The ability to understand business objectives and provide legal advice to non-lawyers is crucial to succeeding as an in-house counsel. Along those lines, the ability to persuade is also an important quality to have, as counsels often have to defend their positions. This assumes strong negotiation skills, as well as superior oral and written communication skills.
In-house attorneys are also required to work with a wide variety of people, from senior executives to employees on the floor. Therefore, having strong interpersonal skills and the ability to be comfortable in a variety of situations, from conducting formal board meetings to dispensing informal hallway advice, it very important as well. Finally, a successful in-house attorney must be able to provide practical advice. In other words, companies tend to turn to their counsel for solutions to their business problems, rather than for textbook advice or opinions. To be an effective problem-solver, an in-house attorney must not only be familiar with his company’s business, structure or industry, but also its culture and its risk management standards. Of course, these are but a few of the soft skills that are required to be an effective in-house counsel; there are others, many of which are company and industry-specific. What is to be remembered is that being an experienced and skilled legal practitioner, while a requisite, is not always sufficient to become a strong candidate for in-house positions in today’s marketplace.
5 Myths About Legal Recruiters
A good legal recruiter can help you find the job you’ve always wanted. That said, candidates generally don’t understand what legal recruiters do, or how best to use them. To maximize this partnership and motivate them to be your advocate, here are 5 myths that need to be dispelled:
MYTH 1: A Recruiter's Job Is To Find Me a Job
FACT: Legal recruiters are paid by their employer clients—not their candidates. Their job is to find the best talent for the position the employer is seeking to fill. They have to keep in mind all of the employer’s requirements and deliver candidates that are an exact match. They aren't paid to help people transition to new practice areas, find jobs for those that have been unemployed for long periods of time, or practiced on their own as solo practitioners. Instead, they are seeking talented individuals who have done the job already in a different context, or candidates ready to move up to the next level in their same career path. Also, companies simply do not accept unsolicited resumes from recruiters. They hire them for specific jobs. So it is not within a legal recruiter’s capacity to present you to their current or former clients just based on your strength as a candidate; it simply does not work that way. While good recruiters dedicate extensive time and resources to working with candidates who are likely to meet their employer clients’ expectations, they are not an employment agency, career counselor, or coach for job seekers. Therefore, recognize their role and advantage of your legal recruiter’s knowledge regarding the search and hire process, and the legal marketplace.
MYTH 2: Recruiters Are Rude and Unresponsive
FACT: The truth is that most recruiters simply don't have the time to respond to the hundreds of unsolicited resumes and phones call they receive every week. It is also common for a recruiter to make over fifty calls each day, and with that kind of volume they simply don't have the time to deal with unplanned conversations. Legal recruiters, like anyone, have limited time and resources, and have to prioritize who is worth speaking with, and for how long. They are likely to be very responsive to clients or potential clients who have job orders for them to fill, and people who they see as strong candidates for those job orders. They are likely to be much less responsive to those who approach them out of a sense of desperation, with a career change in mind, or for whom they don’t have a job to submit them to.
MYTH 3: It’s Best to Work With Multiple Recruiters or Bypass Them Altogether
FACT: If you are seeking a law firm job, you need only one good recruiter to handle your search. Virtually all law firm searches are done on a “contingent” basis, meaning any reputable recruiter can submit a candidate to a prospective employer for consideration. Choosing one good recruiter ensures that you have access to all law firm openings. In contrast to a law firm search, if your goal is an in-house position, then you should engage multiple resources. However, while most in-house positions are filled on a “exclusive” basis, some in-house searches are conducted on a “contingent” basis, much like firm searches, meaning that the company accepts candidate submissions from a number of reputable recruiters. You should authorize your chosen recruiter to monitor such opportunities on your behalf. When you hear about a job from recruiters, and decide to bypass them by sending your resume directly to the employer, so you don’t come with a fee, think again. Chances are the recruiter and employer are working on an “exclusive” basis, so you’ll still have a fee attached to your candidacy, and you’ll likely have to be vetted by the same recruiter you tried to bypass. Rather than optimizing your goodwill and have the recruiter help put your best foot forward before an employer, you may have lost your only internal ally. The same can be said in a contingent situation; for the legal recruiter will have an incentive to make you stand out from the rest of the applicants. They will be able to discuss your candidacy directly with the employer, and potentially make the difference. On your own, you will not have anyone able to help you get a leg up on the competition.
MYTH 4: Recruiters Aren't Interested in Negotiating The Best Compensation Package
FACT: The majority of legal recruiters are paid recruiting fees that are a percentage of the new hire's first year base salary. The more you earn, the more they earn. Therefore, it is generally in their best interest that you obtain the best possible compensation package. Legal recruiters often they have inside information about what a company is willing to pay, and are able to negotiate a higher salary than what a candidate initially thought they could get. However, the opposite is often true. The company may have already discussed what they would be willing to pay for a top notch candidate, or made it clear that they are not willing to negotiate. In these cases, legal recruiters can do little but to advise candidates of the same, and not enter into negotiations that will not only produce no results, but also potentially damage the newly created relationship between the candidate and the employer. Companies do not take the recruiter's commission out of the new hire's compensation. Employers who have decided to hire a recruiter to assist them with the search understand that they must pay a premium for candidates sourced through recruiters, and are willing to do so.
MYTH 5: Recruiters Don't Care About Creating Long-Term Relationships
FACT: Legal recruiting is a relationship-building business. Successful recruiters know that their long-term success is based on building their network of relationships. Repeat business that comes from gaining multiple job orders from the same company is a key ingredient to any successful legal recruiting firm. The same can be said of candidates that were not a good fit for a current job, but went out of their way to introduce them to someone who was, or tried to provide them with job leads. These are the sort of candidates that a recruiter will remember and likely contact when they have a good job order to fill. Recruiters also have connections that can help candidates; and they are likely to offer them to those that showed a great deal of professionalism and respect of the process. One surefire way to get a recruiter's attention and build a long-term relationship with them is to offer to provide the names of people who are strong connectors to others, thought leaders, and high performers in their specialized field. Thinking of the relationship as “qui pro quo” can go a long way towards establishing a relationship that can be fruitful for both parties.
Not every candidate will find success working with a legal recruiter. However, if you are accomplished in your field and committed to staying in it, building relationships with legal recruiters who specialize in your skill set and industry can be your greatest asset in your job search.
No Change in Hiring Through the End of 2012
Legal hiring remains sluggish and there are not signs of improvements on the horizon through the fourth quarter of 2012. According to a report released by Robert Half, a little over 30% of lawyers interviewed in law firms and corporate legal departments were planning to hire. That means that the greater majority, nearly 70% don’t.
What’s driving the hiring? Since the recession, we have yet to see hiring driven by growth. In other words, hiring is limited to instances where adding a headcount will reduce cost or improve productivity. In other words, corporate legal departments are only selectively hiring if the legal hires are capable of handling legal work in-house more cheaply than outsourcing it to a law firm. Law firms are seeking attorneys with solid business development skills and client portfolios to expand practice groups in high-demand specialties such as health care and corporate law.
In short, this is still leaving a lot of lawyers in the cold. The only “pick-up” in hiring activity seems to be centered on full-time legal staff including paralegals, legal secretaries, and contract administrators. Why? Because they are more economical to hire than full-fledged lawyers. The practice areas that are generating the most interest in-house remain corporate, compliance, and privacy.
The New “Hot” In-House Practice Area: Privacy Law
Why Is Privacy Law So "Hot"?
Innovations in technology have made it easier to track, collect, and process personal information about individuals. As a result, companies of all kinds are challenged to manage the way that they use data to both comply with U.S. and non-U.S. laws and to protect such data from unauthorized access.
What makes it even more challenging, is that in addition to maintaining compliance in a continuously evolving legal landscape, companies must also contend with industry standards promulgated by a wide array of diverse and sometimes overlapping industry groups. Regulations and court decisions have opened the door to increased liability for companies. Companies also have to contend with cyber hacking, data breaches, and other privacy concerns that are exposing them to further liability and costing them a great deal of money.
Why Are Companies Increasingly Hiring CPOs and Privacy Counsels?
Companies are increasingly suffering from data breaches, as hackers are getting more sophisticated and finding new ways to steal sensitive data from seemingly secure enterprises. This is a growing concern that is costing companies a great deal of money.
One study reported on 1,700 instances of computer hacking, cyber terrorism, and other data breaches in the past seven years, resulting in some 900 million compromised records. Another study of 49 breaches in 2011 reported that the average cost of a data breach (including detection, internal response, notification, post-notification cost and lost customers) was $5.5 million.
To handle the growing promulgation of ever-changing privacy laws and protect themselves from liability and exposure to computer hacking, cyber terrorism, and other data breaches, companies have been steadily adding key chief privacy officers and privacy counsels to their ranks.
Today, companies that maintain consumer or employee information have to address data protection issues and take measures to mitigate the risk of loss of the sensitive data it stores. Failing to do so can result in serious legal ramifications, not to mention public relations and business problems. As a result, more chief privacy officers and privacy counsels are joining companies of all sizes, and this is a trend that is certain to continue. In terms of industries, financial services, technology and software and healthcare lead industries with privacy hiring efforts.
In addition, not only are companies increasingly hiring chief privacy officers and privacy counsel, but they are also requiring general counsels, as a part of their skill set, have some expertise in privacy and data protection law. This is a new and increasing trend.
What Are the Salaries for CPOs and Privacy Counsels?
When it comes to hiring chief privacy officers and privacy counsels, it is a classic case of supply and demand. This is relatively new practice area; therefore, the number of chief privacy officers and privacy counsels is small compared to the demands. The pharmaceutical and professional services industries offer the greatest compensation and salaries, and depending on geography, industry, and company size, CPO’s salaries can range from the high 200K to the mid $400K. In terms of salaries for privacy counsels, they are akin to those offered for intellectual property counsels. Again, depending on geography, industry, and company size, privacy counsels salaries generally average $145K.
Can Your Name Impact Your Job Search?
In today’s digital age, job hunting is usually reduced to a resume that includes a printed name. First impressions are everything, and often these impressions are formed according to the name that appears on the resume. Can your name impact your job search? Unfortunately, the answer is yes. Especially, if your name is on the exotic side of the spectrum. In other words, if your resume does not include a familiar Anglo-sounding name, chances are you may be getting short-changed when it comes to landing an interview.
Studies Show Bias in Names
One study by researchers at MIT and the University of Chicago found that job applicants with names that sounded African-American got short shrift when it came to the hiring process. The researchers sent out 5,000 fake resumes, and it turned out that resumes with names such as Tyrone and Tamika were less likely to get calls from prospective employers than their Anglo-sounding counterparts, and qualifications seemed to have little impact.
Since 9/11, there seems to be more of a bias against Muslim/Arab sounding names. Job seekers from the Middle East and India sometimes complain that their job searches are taking longer than their Anglo Saxon named counterparts. Could the reverse also be true? Some job seekers with Asian sounding names sometimes claim that employers select them based on stereotypes that includes being ‘smart,’ ‘hardworking,’ and ‘committed.’”
Are potential employers discriminating? Possibly, and this sort of bias might not even be deliberate. When all things are equal, individuals tend to gravitate towards the ‘known’ rather than the ‘unknown,’ and name recognition and familiarity is no exception. Whether or not it is deliberate, or the employer has some legitimate business reason for preferring certain names to others, this practice is very much alive, especially in a market where there are more qualified applicants per position than ever before.
Should You Change Your Name?
To change or not to change your name is the real question. If you have an ‘exotic’ sounding name or one that reflects your ethnicity, should you change it to a name that will strike most people as ‘familiar’ or ‘mainstream’ rather than ‘foreign’ or ‘confusing?’” That’s a deeply personal question. If you chose to change your name, you may be catering to the ignorance and discrimination that prompted you to make the change in the first place. On the other hand, changing your name could have a positive impact on your resume selection and job search.
Whether you chose to change your name to an American-sounding or ‘neutral’ sounding name, you may want to simply consider following the national trend: name abbreviation. How many people do you know today who go by Alexander, Christopher, or Elizabeth? Whenever a name is more than two syllables, you can be sure that someone will try and find a short nickname to replace it. Adopting an abbreviated version of your names could allow you to retain part of your identity, but provide an easier or more memorable option for your colleagues to remember. While changing your names is a deeply personal choice, it may be worth exploring, especially if you’ve been hitting the pavement unsuccessfully.
Are Law Schools and the ABA Contributing to the Unemployment Crisis?
The job market for lawyers is the weakest it has been in the last two decades. Prospects for 2011 law graduates are bleak. According to recent statistics from NALP, among law grads whose employment status was known, only 65.4 percent were in jobs requiring bar passage, the lowest percentage ever measured by NALP.
NALP’s executive director stated “the class of 2011 may represent the bottom of the employment curve for this economic cycle.” Its members were caught up “in the worst of the recession, entering law school in the fall of 2008 just as Lehman Brothers collapsed.”
While only 65.4 percent are finding law-related jobs, the rest of the employment rate for 2011 law school graduates is not much better, with 85.6 percent finding employment, the lowest rate since 1994, when it was 84.7 percent.
With so few law graduates finding legal employment, what are law schools doing about this?
According to a recent Wall Street Journal article, some law schools are cutting the size of their incoming classes, a move legal experts describe as unprecedented. However, of the roughly 200 laws schools accredited in the U.S., only 10 are looking to decrease their incoming classes. Of those cited, are the University of California's San Francisco-based Hastings College of the Law, a top-tier school, Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago ranked 12th in the country by U.S. News & World Report, and George Washington University Law School, ranked 20th by U.S. News.
Why are so few law schools cutting their incoming classes?
The answer is simple: money. Paul Schiff Berman, dean of the George Washington University Law School, ranked 20th by U.S. News, says the school, which enrolled about 480 students in 2011, hasn't decided how many slots would be cut for the incoming class, but he estimates the reduction would cost the school about $1 million.
Law schools are considered profit centers at many universities. If incoming classes are cut, where will they find the money lost from these cuts? Law students are finding themselves caught in a Machiavellian spiral. On the one hand, law schools are profiting from large classes, and on the other, law grads are struggling to find employment. Where does the responsibility lie?
Law schools don’t seem as worried about the employment prospects of their graduates as they are about their pocketbooks. Even those that are considering cutting back incoming classes are not making significant reductions. Hastings College of the Law announced a reduction of 1,000 from 1,300 in phases over the next three years. 100 less law graduates per year? A drop in the bucket. But Hastings is looking at cuts that could cost the school $9 million. Now you get the picture.
That said, law schools are not alone in taking on the blame. The ABA has contributed to churning out more law graduates than the market can bear, with no signs of slowing down. According to the Wall Street Journal, the number of law graduates per year spiked to 44,495 this year from 42,673 in 2006, and the American Bar Association accredited 10 new law schools over the same period.
These 10 new law schools are not Harvard-type law schools either, so you can guess how marketable those law school graduates will be one they are ready to hit the job market. Why the ABA would help worsen the job market by increasing the number of law graduates is hard to comprehend.
Moreover, one could argue that second and third tier law schools have more of a responsibility to cut their class sizes than top tiered law schools. With exception of some of those at the best schools, going for a law degree today is simply a bad investment. Well, those lower tiered law schools don’t seem to agree.
Thomas M. Cooley Law School, the largest in the nation, with 3,700 students, which has campuses in Michigan and recently expanded into Florida, is not interested in reducing the size of its entering class on the basis of the perceived benefit to society, arguing that they meet ABA requirements. "Cooley's mission is inclusiveness," adds Mr. Robb, who says he worries reducing class sizes could disproportionately affect minority students.
How noble. I am sure those same law graduates will feel very included as they line up together in the unemployment line. Luckily for these minority students, Thomas M. Cooley Law School is generously willing to give them the “opportunity” to be straddled with debt with little opportunity to pay it off.
Law grads are hitting the pavement with more debt.
Law students in the class of 2015 will rack up an average of $210,265 in law school debt, according to Law School Transparency, a non-profit group that provides law education information to prospective law students. As for the class of 2016, the group estimates that students will accrue an average of $216,406 in debt. The upward trend in law school debt is astonishing.
In an economic market where salaries are decreasing and opportunities are dwindling, how do law schools justify these increases? When you consider the extreme belt tightening measures that private businesses have been taking to cut down their costs, one has to wonder what type of economic cutbacks law schools have been taking.
Together with the ABA, law schools are churning out more graduates, increasing student debt, and pumping more job seekers in a market that’s already saturated, with little care of how these graduates will fare. In an industry that stresses ethics and moral responsibility, this type of behavior is highly questionable. The worst part is that there does not seem to be an end in sight to this vicious cycle.
What’s the answer?
Should the ABA and law schools be penalized? Of course law school applicants may share some of the responsibility, but law schools and the ABA are the ones responsible for turning them into jobless graduates. They are enablers that are contributing to the unemployment crisis amongst legal professionals. Should we have regulations placing limits on the number of accredited law schools and law graduates? Scrape the ABA with an organization that is free of conflicts of interest? Or trust the market?
We’ve tried the market approach, and the adjustments are not helping turn back the numbers. Today’s law graduates are carrying more than $200,000 in debt, and with 50% privileged enough to make between $45K and $60K per year, they are unlikely to dig themselves from under their debt. Perhaps it’s time to consider other options, including government intervention.
Awards
Affiliates
Links
Categories
- In-House Careers
- In-House Compensation
- In-House Diversity
- In-House Ethics
- In-House Headhunters
- In-House Human Resources
- In-House International
- In-House Job Hunt
- In-House Jobs
- In-House Legal Costs
- In-House Legal Market
- In-House Life
- In-House Litigation
- In-House Management
- In-House Outsourcing
- In-House Survey
- In-House Transitions
- In-House Vendors
- In-House Women
- Layoffs
- Uncategorized
Archive
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- June 2012
- April 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- October 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- July 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008