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]
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.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.
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.
JD/MBA: Make Your Business Degree Work For You
In today’s world, in-house counsels are increasingly required to display a wide array of legal skills, as well as business expertise. In the last two decades, in-house counsels have evolved from acting as legal administrators to acting as both legal counsel and strategic business partners. As a result, the number of lawyers pursuing dual degrees or business degrees after earning their J.D.’s has increased.Start By Updating Your Resume
Of course, the first thing one does after earning a new degree is to include it under the “Education” section of the resume. While this may be an obvious step, it's the "where" and "how" that makes the difference. First, consider adding the degree to the header or profile of your resume. The majority of J.D./M.B.A. candidates are generally experienced lawyers who have their education at the bottom or on page 2 of their resume. By placing it front and center on the first page of your resume, your degree will get you more easily noticed by potential employers.
Next, work though the entire substance of your resume, and make sure to incorporate the business-related skills you’ve acquired. You need to be able to demonstrate the value you bring to your current and previous positions with respect to your business acumen, skills, and experience. Focus on how you were able to effectively and seamlessly combine legal counsel with business concerns. Sometimes simple changes to a resume change can have a remarkable impact on employers.
Update Your Profiles and Contact Information
While you may want to refrain from including your J.D./M.B.A. reference everywhere, there are certain places where it should appear. You law firm’s website biography should clearly include this information, as should your business cards, and your email footer. You should also consider updating your profile on social media and networking sites such as LinkedIn, Facebook, and MySpace. Again, making individuals in your network, or those that could potentially become part of your network, aware of your M.B.A. degree is a step in the right direction.
Don’t Be Afraid of Using a Little Publicity
While no one expects you to shout it from the rooftop or advertise it in a flying banner, using a little publicity when done tastefully doesn’t hurt. If your company already publicizes this sort of thing for internal dissemination, to its customer-base, or to the general public, be sure to take advantage of it. This type of publicity can come in the form of a press release, website update, newsletter etc. Also, be sure to provide your own list of contacts, from your outlook or other contact list, to the department responsible for disseminating the information.
Be Sure to Put Your Degree to Work
While you may have it framed in your office; don’t forget the practical value associated with your M.B.A. degree. It’s not enough to have gone through the theory, it is now your responsibility to re-assess your current responsibilities and determine ways that you can apply what you have learned to create additional value for your organization. This means bridging your legal advice with your newly acquired business skills. Look for ways where you can add value to a transaction or project applying your M.B.A. knowledge and skills. Of course, you do not want to overstep your role, but to the extent this is part of your responsibilities, step up and provide a business perspective to your legal advice. The manner in which you use your M.B.A. will determine its full value. So, start putting those wonderful skills to work.
2010 Predictions for In-House Legal Departments
It’s safe to say that few in the legal profession were sorry to see 2009 end. This was a year that was marked by one of the worst recessions in recent history, also dubbed the “Great Recession.” According to the blog LawShucks, 12,196 people were laid off at 138 large law firms tracked last year. In all, 4,633 lawyers and 7,563 staffers lost their jobs.While there is always a certain level of enthusiasm along with bringing in a new year, that excitement is not simply seasonal, but based on a historically busier quarter for hiring. The first quarter of the year tends to set the tone. While some recruiters seem to be optimistic about the lateral partner market at law firms picking up, and the thawing of salary freezes, that effervescence may be cooled by some harsh realities.
The dip in unemployment numbers may be a sign that the hemorrhaging has stopped, but if 2010 is slated to be a “better” year than 2009, better is relative. Many predict that we won't get back to full employment – or to about a 5% unemployment rate prior to the recession – until 2013 or 2014. This really speaks to the severity of the job losses that have been absorbed by the economy. They are massive. The economy lost over 7.2 million jobs since the recession began in December 2007.
Law firm partners with a book of business have always been considered a hot commodity, no matter what the state of the economy. So now that more of them may be willing to make a move does not indicate an improved market. Only the creation of new positions and an uptick in associate hiring would signify a real improvement of the market, and no one is seeing or predicting anything like it in the coming months.
We expect to see a slow return to hiring over the next six months. How slow? It will be highly conservative, with departments looking to hire replacement positions first, followed by critical needs second.
We predict that about 15-20% of corporate legal departments will be selectively hiring over the next six months of 2010. If the economy is to stall again, we will start seeing sign of a slow down in the 3rd quarter.
What might this look like over the course of the year?
• Quarter 1> 5-10%
• Quarter 2> 15-20%
• Quarter 3> 20%
• Quarter 4> 20-25+%
Companies this quarter (Q1) are re-evaluating their needs and considering staffing requirements. Many legal departments have affected cost-cutting measures, and most are now working at or above capacity. As a result, some replacement positions will become available, a small number of companies will hire to re-balance their legal departments, and some companies will look to hire their first in-house counsel. That said, unless we see a determinative change in the economy, the hiring market for in-house counsels will not be markedly different from the market we experienced in 2009. While there will be fewer layoffs, positions will continue to be few and highly competitive.
Who Will Be Hiring in 2010?
We expect few changes in the types of companies that will likely hire in-house counsels in 2010. Companies who will be hiring at a greater rate than others will most likely be in the following industry sectors:
• Health care
• Education
• Government
• Energy (alternative)
• Manufacturing (possible)
• Services (possible)
If the economy does show some signs of a recovery, we could see companies in manufacturing and service enter the hiring circle, albeit conservatively.
• Regulatory/Compliance
• Litigation
• M&A
We can also expect smaller companies to take advantage of the market and hire their first in-house counsels. We have seen an uptick in hiring in the areas of regulation/compliance, litigation, and employment, although the boost in the number of hires was not necessarily significant. We are looking for a re-emergence of deals for 2010, with a conservative uptick in mergers and acquisitions.
What Will Salaries Look Like?
In-house attorney compensation always depends on several factors, including:
• Industry
• Geography
• Size of the Company
• Size of the Legal Department
• Position Level/Responsibilities
• Position Requirements
• Company Finances
• Economic Market
We expect compensation to remain flat for 2010. Salary freezes for current staff, small bonuses, and a reduction in base pay for new hires. Of those companies not cutting lawyer compensation, we can expect the majority of salaries to remain at status quo, and a minority to increase by a lower margin (expected 3%-5% increase in 2010, over 8% in 2008, and 10% in 2007).
Large Company In-House Lawyers (2010): Average of $200,000 in pay and bonuses.
Large Company In-House Lawyers (2009): Average of $206,000 in pay and bonuses.
Large Company In-House Lawyers (2008): Average of $236,000 in pay and bonuses.
Large Company In-House Lawyers (2007): Average of $226,000 in pay and bonuses.
What Should Lawyers Expect In-House?
For most attorneys practicing with law firms, 2010 will not be the year for them to transition in-house. Why? Because they will see few open positions, together with a plethora of highly qualified in-house counsels fighting for every available job.
For counsels practicing in-house, most will end up having to work more for less money. They will also work with less support – both in terms of outside counsels and internal administrative assistants and paralegals. Resources will be stretched thin. However, legal departments may be more open to selective hiring to handle the increased workload. 75% of the General Counsels we polled said they wanted to bring more legal work in-house for 2010, and 45% said they were actively planning to hire additional staff to handle the increased workload.
What’s “hot” for 2010? Compliance/regulatory is the new in-demand practice area for in-house counsels. Companies will be hiring selectively to fill in the gaps. Those looking for job security should look to develop skills in these areas to demonstrate their value and cost-saving effectiveness.
What are your predictions for 2010? Share your thoughts with us.
Why Recruiters Are Worth What They Charge
In this economy, I hear a lot of companies asking the same question: "Is this legal search firm worth what it charges?"
Why then are corporate executives so tightfisted when dealing with what is so commonly thought of as the “heartbeat” of their companies . . . top-talent?
Companies think very little about paying the often excessive fees charged by their outside accounting and legal firms . . . or even to the gaggle of consultants who promise cost-cutting and streamlining miracles in other areas of operations.
Yet, when faced with brain drains, talent deficiencies or the need to replace a legal counsel with a better one, their thoughts too often turn to parsimony. This K-mart mentality belies and contradicts their stated objectives to “hire the best,” especially at pecking order levels below the “big picture” executive suite inhabitants.
Of course recruiting fees can vary from legal search firm to legal search firm but, when they do, you will almost always find that those on the low side are sure to exclude some very key ingredients of the process, all of which are vital to providing the indispensable services necessary to satisfy the needs of the employer.
So why are legal recruiters worth what they charge? Just a few of the often unspoken reasons are:
1. EXPERTISE
Nobody knows the legal marketplace better than a professional legal recruiter or legal search firm . . . nobody! In-house human resources and company recruiters, no matter how effective, view the legal marketplace through an imperfect or misrepresentative prism, and tunnel vision is their occupational hazard.
Just as physicians are cautioned against treating members of their own families, so too is it folly for an in-house H/R professional to believe that they have an undistorted and unbiased picture of the legal employment landscape. They are vulnerable to the pressures of internal politics and cultural dimensions which do not hinder the outsider.
Street-smart legal recruiters already know the neighborhood, including the unlisted addresses so often overlooked by the insiders.
2. CAST A WIDER NET
A professional fisherman will always have more to show than a weekend angler. Legal search firms are in the legal marketplace day in and day out. They know the unfished coves, reefs and inlets that are unknown to others. The job-hunter bookshelves are filled with lore about the “hidden legal job market.” The same holds true for professional legal recruiters who have a detailed roadmap to the hidden talent sources which will never be accessed by newspaper ads, alumni associations, applicant databases, job boards or any of the other more familiar sources of people.
There are occasional pearls through these sources (and someone inevitably wins the Publisher’s Clearinghouse Sweepstakes too) but you have to shuck an awful lot of smelly oysters to find them. Legal search firm only give you oysters proven to contain pearls. Your only job is to determine which pearl is the best.
Want to catch what you’re fishing for? Hire a guide!
3. COST
There is a misconception among employers that the cost of an attorney hire equals the cost of the ads or Internet postings run to attract the attorney hired. Nothing could be further from reality.
Try adding these to the true cost and you’ll see just how cost effective an outside recruiter can be:
- Salaries and benefits of the employment/recruiting staffs plus those of the line managers involved in the hiring activity (who are not productive in their normal job pursuits when they’re out recruiting).
- Travel, lodging and entertainment expenses of in-house recruiters; source development costs; overhead expenses including but not limited to telephone, office space, postage, and PR literature.
- Applicant database maintenance, reference checking, clerical costs to correspond with the hundreds of unqualified respondents, etc.
4. UNBIASED THIRD PARTY INPUT
For a mid to senior-level attorneys, the average legal recruiter may develop a “long list” of a hundred or more possibilities. Each must be called and evaluated against the position specifications as well as the personality “fit” with the company and the people with whom they will ultimately work. Once this is winnowed down to the “short list,” an even more intensive interviewing process begins to narrow the search to a panel of finalists for review by the client.
This process is not, as some believe, simply romping through the file cabinets, harvesting from the Monster lookalikes or putting the job opening out to others on the legal recruiter’s network with crossed fingers that someone good will show up.
It is highly unlikely that a legal search firm will be plowing new ground with your opening. They deal within spheres of influence far more familiar with your needs than any internal recruiter and, more often than not, view the finalists as people who are competent to solve client problems rather than just fill an open slot in the organizational chart.
Because they want to do business with you again and again, they are looking for (and challenging you to excellence by hiring) the “truly exceptional” rather than the “just satisfactory” so often settled for by in-house hirers.
5. CONFIDENTIALITY
Advertising or otherwise publicly proclaiming an opening, aside from its cost and demonstrated ineffectiveness for sensitive senior level counsel openings, often creates anxiety and apprehension among the advertiser’s current employees who wonder why they aren’t being considered or worry about newcomer transition problems. Just as often it alerts competitors to a current weakness or void within the company.
6. SPEED
The recruiting process is always faster through a legal search firm that is continually tapped into the talent marketplace than one having to start the process from scratch. For every day that a key opening remains unfilled, a company’s other employees must grudgingly do double duty, or a company may need to rely more extensively on expensive outside legal counsels. And this doesn’t factor in the profit opportunities or competitive advantages lost to a company because a position remains unfilled or is done on a part-time basis by others less qualified.
7. POST HIRE DOWNTIME
Not only is speed an essential part of the legal search firm’s process, the ability to locate an attorney who can immediately “hit the ground running” with a minimum of “ramp-up time” saves time and money after the hire. All too often, a hire selected through less effective sources offering a smaller talent pool requires several months of expensive training and orientation.
8. REALITY
Legal search firms often recognize and have a duty to inform clients that they may be mistaken as to the type of person sought, the salary required to attract them, or the possibilities that the solution might just lie in areas outside the traditional target industries . . . something an internal recruiter is politically disinclined to do. Too many hirers fail to understand that a legal recruiter’s primary function is not necessary to fill a slot, but to provide the right candidate to solve a problem.
9. NEGOTIATION
Master negotiator Herb Cohen says that, “negotiation is the analysis of information, time and power to affect behavior . . . the meeting of needs (yours and others’) to make things happen the way you want them to.” As a buffer and informed intermediary, legal search firms are better able to blend the needs and wants of both parties to arrive at a mutually beneficial arrangement without the polarizing roadblocks which too frequently materialize in face-to-face dealings.
10. PRIORITIZING COMPANY RESOURCES
It is often amazing to see how much of a company’s revenues are squandered on non-productive perks for existing high-level employees while they penny-pinch on what is every company’s lifeblood . . . talent acquisition.
Club memberships and the like may be fine, but no one with an IQ higher than Forrest Gump’s believes that these expenditures substantially contribute to a company’s profit margin. But one well-placed general counsel save a company a tremendous amount of money. And the fee for having hired these legal counsels pales to insignificance when compared to the contributions they make to the bottom line.
The next time you think a legal recruiter’s fees are too high, put them in the proper perspective before asking for that Blue Light special or spinning your wheels thrashing about trying to fill vital openings with less effective (but not necessarily less expensive) pedestrian methods. Savvy executives learned long ago that the fee paid to a legal recruiter is a shrewd strategic investment, not an extraneous expense. They also know that the “best” is far different from the “best available.”
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.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.
2009 Brought the Largest Drop in Lawyer Headcount in Thirty Years
The results of the 32d annual National Law Journal survey of the nation's 250 largest law firms provides a vivid picture of the toll that the economic recession exacted from law firms this year. The total number of attorneys working at the top 250 law firms plunged by 5,259 lawyers. How significant is this loss? According to the article, it's as if all of the lawyers working at two firms the size of Jones Day vanished in 2009.The number of attorneys in 2009 sank to 126,669 lawyers, compared with 131,928 attorneys last year. In 2008, the number of attorneys increased by 4.3 percent. This is only the third time since 1978 that lawyer counts has dropped.
Which of the 75 law firms on the NLJ list bled the most in 2009?
- Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, which declined by 26.4 percent to 468 attorneys from 636 in 2008.
- Latham & Watkins, which shed 444 lawyers, had the biggest number of layoffs. It had 1,878 attorneys this year, compared with 2,322 in 2008, for a 19.1 percent decline.
- Taking the No. 1 position on the NLJ 250 was Baker & McKenzie, which had 3,949 attorneys.
- DLA Piper took the No. 2 spot this year. Its lawyer population fell by 7.3 pecent, to 3,450 attorneys from 3,721 attorneys in 2008.
Associates were the hardest hit by layoffs; their rank shrank by 8.7 percent, to 61,733 from 67,648 last year.
Partners, on the other hand, seem to be doing better as a whole. The number of partners in 2009 was 53,468, compared with 52,980 in 2008, an increase of 0.9 percent.
Perhaps the most worrisome numbers are those of first-year associates whose start dates law firms deferred. Of the 250 firms on the list, 113 reported that they deferred a total of 2,784 associates. That figure represents 42 percent of the 6,636 law graduates who would have been in the incoming first-year associate class.
This will have a major impact on the future of employment for both current and would-be lawyers that have recently graduated. The unemployment rate hit 10.2 percent in October. All told, 15.7 million Americans are out of work. Lawyers are no exception.
The legal sector lost 5,800 jobs, according to seasonally adjusted statistics in a recently released report (PDF) from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. When not seasonally adjusted, the figures show a gain of 1,500 jobs, but that is probably attributable to the elimination of summer associates from law firm payrolls, reports the Am Law Daily.
What can these unemployed lawyers expect from the job market? Many are looking at a long road ahead, often looking for 6-12 months before gaining employment. Grim figures that are unlikely to change in the near future, especially with the end of the year closing in, which traditionally provides for additional layoffs.
[Leigh Jones, The National Law Journal, November 09, 2009]
Awards
Affiliates
Links
In-House Jobs
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
- 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