Lawyers Are Not Cheerleaders

If you want to understand the difference between the psyche of a lawyer and that of an entrepreneur, ask someone for references and tell them that one reference should be a lawyer and the other should be an entrepreneur. Listen carefully to what each reference says. In one instance, you will probably hear a reference that is filled with qualifications and disclaimers. In the other instance, you are likely to hear an unqualified and uniformly favorable report (you can probably guess which one will be the unqualified favorable reference!)

Of course I am stereotyping; but I am always amazed at what most lawyers say when I call them to check someone's references. Take, for example, a conversation I had this week. While in the end, I got the impression that this partner felt that the individual was an excellent attorney, there was so much qualifying language that I really had to wonder if this partner actually liked this associate. Was he hiding something from me? (In this case I went the extra distance with follow up questions and concluded with a resounding "no", he was not trying to hide anything; he just didn't want to be on the record for saying anything he couldn't completely back up.)

Typically, the attorney/reference starts off by asking "what would you like to know?" Innocuous enough. I generally follow up by asking the reference if the individual did a lot of work for the partner. That's when the hemming and hawing starts. I'll ask if the individual did good work and the reference will tell me "Well, he was only a first year associate but he did very good work for a first year associate."

In contrast, ask an entrepreneur for a reference and it is much more likely to be black and white.

So here is a lesson for the future. If you agree to be someone's reference some day, make sure you feel comfortable giving an unqualified reference. If you want to help someone, don't hem and haw. You will only raise unnecessary suspicions. Of course if you do have genuine concerns about an individual, either don't agree to be their reference or if you are called without getting advanced warning, focus on the positive (unless it is not there.)

Similarly, if you are looking for someone to serve as a reference for you, it is better to choose a cheerleader if you have the choice between a lawyer who you did the most work for and a lawyer who knows how to give a positive reference. Here are some other things to read on the subject (here and here ).

Wake Up! PPEP Matters!

I have to write this blog entry to get some of the angst out of my system. There is something very disturbing in "the force" going on, and I want to warn those complascent few to whom this piece is directed.

To cut to the chase, there is a certain class of high-caliber firm with (relatively) low PPEP that is lulling its associates into a false sense of security. That's a dangerous place to be. Okay, I'll back up.

Let's see if you can identify this firm or firms in your market: old, prestigious, PPEP below 900K, known for its brainiacs, fewer (sometimes far fewer) than 1000 lawyers, limited international presence. Okay. Do you have this firm in mind? Let me tell you what some associates in these firms are telling me. Number one, they are blithely unaware or unconcerned about trends in the market and smugly minimalist about firm 'platform'. They don't care about PPEP and figure they are making plenty of money anyway. They see the firm has having an historically consistent partnership track, regardless of proven potential to bring in business, and figure there are plenty of mediocre partners there so why won't they fit in when the time comes? These associates did well academically and have not had to change firms before. In short, if this were 1950, they would be fine.

Guess what? It is not 1950 and things have changed. Bottom line: if you want to stay standing still, you have to be running. If these associates are not interested in joining the global "megalomaniac" trends (not my word) of continual growth and continual expansion, are not interested in being psycho-marketeers and are not interestd in being high-octane megalomaniacs themselves, it is even MORE incumbant upon them to start working TODAY on building their books of business. That's because either their current firm is going to eventually phase them out (because it will have changed business models) or these associates will have to self-select out because the firm they know is going to jump on the global bandwagon.

Better minds than mine have been saying for a good few years now that the future of law firms (10-20 years) is a "global 20" that are "all things to all men." Basically, there is emerging a super-class of firms to stand in dominant positions for global work in the future--and all the good work in the near future is going to be global work and all the good "domestic" work will be done by these firms as well.

Your nice, white-shoe firm with half-a-dozen domestic markets and a marquee foreign outpost is either going to jump onto or rejoin the mega-merger mania, or it is going to subside into a regional (what we used to and sometimes do still call 'national') player. Basically, these firms will drift into a second or third tier within the first tier of firms. Are you feeling this yet?

Anyway, the advice to network, write, speak, and get noticed, and that consistently, applies to ALL attorneys wherever they are. It's just that maybe those not in the circumstances described above already knew that (and just aren't doing it). Those guys in the ivory-shoe tower just didn't think this applied to them. So now they know.

Try It, You'll Like It

A post in Penelope Trunk's blog, the Brazen Careerist, reminded me of an old Alka-Seltzer commercial. The commercial, which I probably heard thousands of times by the age of 12, showed various characters encouraging a spouse/friend/relative to try some spicy or otherwise gastronomically challenging dish ("Try it, you'll like it.") "So I tried it...and I didn't like it!" goes the refrain.

Penelope writes eloquently in her post that it is hard to predict whether you will like a job until you actually "try it". Maybe you will "like it". But even if you don't, the secret to career success is to try different things until you find what you do like. While I believe that some self assessment can be very helpful, working with or without a career counselor, in the end, it is very hard to predict what will work for you professionally.

Finding career satisfaction is hard work and it is ongoing. In general, there are no easy fixes to career dissatisfaction. On the other hand, if you are not happy with the work you are doing, there are many easy ways to explore other options without quitting your day job.

As lawyers, we all have the chance to do pro bono work. Aside from the spiritual rewards that you get from helping someone or some organization that cannot afford legal services, doing pro bono work is an excellent way to explore a new practice area. This is true even if you are not interested in litigation. There are many opportunities to be an advocate for indigent clients. But struggling entrepreneurs, non-profit organizations or artists may also be short on cash but long on ideas. Find someone to represent and find a mentor to help you when you have questions. You will be helping others who need your services and you will be test driving new skills.

Excellent Piece on Writing Samples

My colleague Dan Binstock has put together an excellent piece on writing samples. He pretty much answers all the typical questions we get about what to use, what to look out for, etc.

Some of his advice includes: proofread like crazy and use a introduction to give the reader the context for the piece. This is particularly important if you are just submitting an excerpt or if you need to redact names in order to protect confidentiality.

New Attorney Q&A Section on LawCrossing

I wanted to share a new column on LawCrossing.com that will answer attorneys' career-related questions on a weekly basis. It is featured every week on the Attorney Section of LawCrossing, and here's a link to this past week's question/answer. http://www.lawcrossing.com/article/index.php?id=2502

If you have any questions you would like me to answer in an upcoming column, please feel free to email me.

Subduing the Passions

Sometimes being the consummate professional is a drag. Maximizing your time, being in touch with your mental state, having your personal goals and daily task list under control, even having your professional and personal networks sufficiently massaged, is not always satisfying. After you have been consistent for a while, it can get boring.

What? Do you think this is a motivational piece? The fact is, there is a good reason why so very few attorneys actually put into consistent practice the habits necessary to continually succeed--nothing stays fun forever and the human psyche is set up to expect a certain rate of new thrills; laziness is also a factor.

I was contemplating barraging you with quotations from famous men and women about bumping up against internal barriers. Suffice it to say, however, that many have lamented that they “do not do the good they wish to do.” Even in the popular culture this issue is recognized. Why else are their 347 books at Barnes & Noble written by “motivational speakers?” We all know most of what we should be doing; trouble is, doing it. So, what next?

My current philosophical ‘darling’ is Enlightenment-era thought. A prominent feature in the literature is the admonition to "subdue the passions." When an 18th-Century philosopher talks about subduing passions, he is not talking about eschewing passion as such. The point is to bring our actions back into alignment when our inclinations get out of whack. If we liken ourselves to an automobile traveling down our path in life, then it is our internal core of passionate desires that serve as the tension and alertness to steer us between obstacles and to choose one road over another. But if our passions are not under sufficient control we can veer off-course--dangerously, even fatally.

I think that this culture's constant drive for the next, the exciting, the ecstatic, is a passion that is out of whack. Doing what is right, doing what is necessary, and being consistent about it, is all about foregoing constant distraction for the greater good--your own good! That means that if I have to decide between web-surfing or following up on marketing calls, I do the latter. If I have the choice of reading another thriller, or writing a short article, yup, the latter. Success is realized when we get past the need for new thrills; true passion is maintained by giving it appropriate rein, but also by husbanding its expression. It all boils down to better ideas—and the better idea that correct and logical (even if boring) action is preferable to inefficient but exciting stimulus. I'm afraid that moderation can be a very, very good thing.

Something to think about.

Are You an Employee or an Entrepreneur?

I've had several conversations this week with senior associates who really understand business development. While neither is an equity partner, both bring in several hundred thousand dollars in fees to their firms. (i.e. as originations.) Both are interested in exploring a lateral move.

What was interesting was that both of these lawyers still chose to speak about themselves as employees and wanted to know who might be interested in "hiring" them.

In my experience, this is pretty common. Until you are actually a partner somewhere, most attorneys think of themselves as employees when in reality, anyone who has the ability to generate their own work is really an entrepreneur. An employee, in my book, does someone else's work. That is not a good description of a lawyer who is doing a lot of marketing and business development and having some success at it. While it may be technically true that you are an employee because you receive a pay check that is subject to withholding, it understates what that you have to offer.

This may sound like matter of semantics; but I think it is important for more senior associates to stop thinking themselves as wage earners. Changing the label you put on yourself changes the way you talk about yourself. It alters the dialog you might have with another firm.

Law firms continue to hire lawyers as employees, but few law firms "hire" senior associates. By the time an associate reaches his or her eighth year in practice, it is difficult to find a law firm that wants to "hire" that individual as an employee; however, there are many firms out there who are looking for senior attorneys who have the ability to generate work.

Will salary rises minimize the desire for going in-house?

I had an interesting conversation with a candidate who works at one of the firms that raised salaries. This candidate was seriously contemplating an in-house opportunity which, despite a small decrease in salary, seemed to have everything she wanted. Until salaries raised. The recent raise in salaries completely changed her perspective, and what seemed like a small decrease in salary was now much more significant. In turn, she feels that she can no longer "leave so much money on the table." She has decided against going in-house for the next few years because the pay disparity is too significant, even if this means working more hours.

This was the first time I saw, first-hand, how the recent increase in salaries is keeping people at firms. I imagine we are going to be seeing much more of this. Any thoughts?

Declining an Offer While Preserving the Relationship

This week a candidate asked for my feedback on how to decline an offer while preserving the relationship. I conferred with other experts at BCG, and I think the most important theme that came out of our discussions is to show appreciation for the offer and sincere regret for being unable to accept it.

A carefully-worded thank you note to the section head that expresses your sincere thanks for the opportunity is in order. If there were other individuals at the firm that you connected with, a hand-written or e-mailed note is a nice courtesy. It is important to convey that the decision you made was a difficult one.

Furthermore, I would mention that you hope to run into them professionally in the future. OR tell them that you enjoyed meeting them so much that you would like to keep in contact- then DO! Think of this an opportunity to expand your network of contacts.

Take the Pressure Off

Penelope Trunk has a great post on career planning. She offers a nice counterbalance to the conventional approach to career planning (i.e. in which you sit down and assess your strengths and weaknesses, likes and dislikes and make career decisions based on the results.)

Of course a good career counselor would never suggest that a client make career choices based on a single test or assessment; however, there is a lot to be said for just trying to experience work as a way of assessing where you want your career to go.

I think her advice is particularly useful for lawyers who have "typical" lawyer personalities (i.e. you "planners" and "perfectionists" out there.) We lawyers are not always good at taking things as they come; but letting go and not trying to control everything in life may be one of the best ways to find out what really excites you. Take some chances (again, not easy for lawyers who get paid to advise their client's on avoiding risk.) Look for some of the positive things about your current job and take the opportunity to be creative where you work. If you work in a law firm, you may not have a lot of competition.

Zen: There's Such a Thing as Too Much of a Good Thing

I talk to associates every day at great firms. These people are smart, successful, and even polite (thanks!). However, many also have a regrettably short-sighted view of success in their profession. Many associates at great firms will tell me that they are happy and have good work. The difficulty with that being the end-all and be-all of one’s analysis is that it is basically founded upon an excessively Zen-like perspective on time. MEANING, you may be practicing law for 20, 30, 40 or even 50 more years (yes, I’m afraid with advances in science, many of us will be working WELL into what today we call ‘old age’). Therefore, does it really MATTER that you think you have ‘good work’ right now, as a fifth-year lawyer? I’m afraid that your career deserves a little more introspection than that. At the least, think about whether your firm is positioning itself wisely in the marketplace. Please realize that your ability to serve your clients is going to depend on the quality of the NETWORK of attorneys you can bring to bear on any given problem. If your firm is not making the long-term decisions regarding compensation, rates, and other ‘bottom-line’ considerations, it may not be able to attract talent in the long term. THIS MATTERS. I've identified a few creteria that I value in the following piece debunking the myths of "firm culture". Enjoy: http://bcgsearch.com/crc/pdf/zen.pdf

More is more indeed

This follows on my “Kool-Aid” piece of last week. This is the first of several further installments justifying what some consider superficial reasons for jumping ship. So here goes:

If greener pastures beckon; heed the call. If you are eyeing what others are making in a different firm and thinking of making a move, listen to the impulse. Frankly, associate pay and PPEP (profits per equity partner) are reliable indicators of the current strength, prestige and desirability of a firm--especially when you think about sitting on the partner side of the desk. If you think that you have the chance to make it in a bigger/better/sexier firm, you should seriously consider it. The positive ramifications of a move upward are huge, and not just to your pocketbook. A firm that has made correct management, market focus, platform, rate, and client choices, usually gets rewarded by the market. Of course, those same beloved market forces are currently keeping profitable firms in line on associate compensation. More importantly, considering the variable and shifting market and economic forces of the 21st Century economy, maybe you cannot afford not to be in the next tier of firms. Given market consolidation, there will be fewer firms at the top. Firms that are currently besting their competitors are the most logical bet in terms of longevity, growth, and access to the best clients-and these issues should be central in your mind as you are molding your practice.

Success is Failure

I work with a personal trainer who just taught me a new Orwellian phrase: Success is Failure. He was talking about the fact that in order to build muscle strength, you need to work your muscles to failure. But I think the phrase has a lot of relevance to the practice of law.

Before I explain, I just want to say for the record that I don't plan to write anything else in this space about the recent spate of salary raises. While I reserve the right to completely change my mind (and I am perfectly fine if my guest bloggers decide there is more to write on the subject), I believe that far too much time and energy is wasted in the legal profession worrying about maximizing income in the short run. Sure, 10-15K can be a very nice addition to an already nice salary; but as I have already said in earlier posts (e.g. here and here), I believe there are much more important things to worry about in the long run.

For example, aren't you better off in the long run if you work for a firm where you are valued, where you have a shot at partnership and where you are being mentored on how to build a practice? You will earn a lot more in the long run if you can market effectively and you will be much more successful in marketing yourself if you enjoy what you do and are given a lot of opportunities to get visibility, meet clients, etc.

Which leads us back to Success is Failure. In sales, it is important to fail. If you don't fail, then you aren't doing enough because nobody lands every prospective client. Failure is a sign that you are taking some risks.

So try to practice at a firm that is happy that you are trying to build your visibility and pleased that you are meeting potential referral sources. Join a firm that accepts failure as part of the business development process. If you simply choose to maximize income in the short run, you may find that your short term success leads to long term failure. In the short run, the firm that is paying top dollar may expect you to bill out maximum hours leaving little time for anything else. If you take the long view, then you may fail to maximize income in the short run; but you will experience much more long term success.

A Quick Recipe For Career Success

A partner at Pillsbury Winthrop has published a nice piece on how to take charge of your career in a law firm setting. He suggests that in today's law firm, it is critical to take responsibility for your own career advancement. "Learn all you can", "share your opinion", "develop personal relationships with clients" are some of suggestions he makes. It's a quick read and a good reminder that in the law firm of the 21st Century, there are opportunities to advance your career: but you need to be responsible for yourself. I wrote a similar piece several years ago.

The Truth and Nothing But the Truth After an Offer

Recruiting can be a frustrating business at times. You try your hardest to be honest and forthcoming with candidates and you work hard to build the candidate's trust in you. But the favor is not always returned. For some reason, there are candidates we work with who believe that it is in their best interest to keep information from us and from employers. While I imagine this is usually coming from a place of trying to minimize the risk of sending the wrong message to a firm or recruiter (e.g. trying to avoid sending the message that you are not really that interested because you have other options), from my perspective, I believe that this strategy usually backfires.

When I counsel attorneys on effective interviewing strategies, I always advocate a policy of telling "the truth and nothing but the truth". But I always add that "you don't have to tell the entire truth." In other words, when you are communicating with a prospective legal employer, not every detail of your professional life is relevant.

For example, suppose you worked at a small firm for three months prior to joining your current firm. While you need to disclose this to a prospective employer (minimally in a cover letter and possibly in your resume), it is not necessary to tell a future employer that you left this firm because the partner you worked with was the biggest @#%!& you ever met. As long as you disclose one of the "real" reasons for making the move (e.g. that the new firm seemed to have a deeper practice), you are not obligated to bad mouth the jerk you left behind.

But let's say you have received an offer from a firm and you are trying to sort through your best options. If you tell the firm that you just need a week or so to think things through, that is usually fine. But if the firm asks you if you have any other offers and you reassure them that you are only considering that firm, you will potentially do a lot of damage to the trust you may have built up with that firm (and with the recruiter if you are working with one) if it turns out you were actually juggling multiple offers.

Boston v. NYC

With the exception of Fish and Richardson, it's beginning to look like Boston firms will not follow the lead of Simpson Thatcher (at least not in Boston.) WilmerHale, for example, has raised starting salaries to 145K (except for New York where they have followed the market.) But that still doesn't mean that associates in New York are better off. If you have the option of working for a large firm in either city, don't forget two important variables--cost of living is higher in New York and on average, associates in New York work longer hours. There is a good post on this on Greedy Boston .

First of all, if the focus is going to be on the money, let's take more than a cursory glance at the numbers. According to ccnmoney.com, what costs $135k in Boston costs $207k in NYC. Groceries, housing, utilities, transportation, and even healthcare are all more expensive in NYC than in Boston. So NYC firms pay better than Boston, but not enough to provide a comparable standard of living. Moreover, you'll be working a hell of a lot more in NYC than you will in Boston. To put it simply, the difference between NYC wages and Boston wages isn't enough to logically. justify a preference for NYC over Boston on wages alone. There has to be something else, such as culture, location, opportunities, etc., that warrant such a decision. I know too many people who regret being sucked into NYC because they used to think it was the cool, hip place to be. Don't make the same mistake.

Do Not Drink the Kool-Aid!--A Wake-Up Call for Young Associates

There are lots of good reasons why forty-plus percent of fourth-year attorneys are in their second law firm. Personally, I've enumerated about a dozen categories of reasons that associates switch firms early in their careers, all of them reasonable. But the big three, and the ones many think are unreasonable or at least disadvantageous, are really the best reasons for leaving, and ones you should make sure don't apply to you if you are planning to stay put--especially as you allow the fourth and fifth years to roll by on your career clock. Bottom line: listen to your gut, even your flights of fancy, and especially the market. Don't "drink the Kool-Aid" by swallowing your own firm's marketing brochures. Be a careful and wary "partner" with your law firm.

Further, disregard the politically correct purveyors of "moderation" and "loyalty." These are good concepts in the abstract, but you have to know how to apply them appropriately. Let’s face it, firms certainly aren't out to get you, but they do see every single attorney (partners as well as associates) as a practice in and of itself, and someone (while hopefully integrated into the firm and "cross-selling") who is, if not expendable, then separable depending on the needs of the firm. You are an important cog, maybe, but still a cog. Realize that firms spend considerable resources determining which attorneys and groups remain within the "core competencies" of the firm (to say nothing of their respective impact on PEP at year-end). As such, you would be well-served to constantly make your own analysis of the fitness of your current firm. If one or more of the following three scenarios fits your circumstances, a switch may be what the doctor ordered: you want more money; you want to cleanse a less-than-picture-perfect early career; you have a strange itch to move that you can’t put your finger on. These reasons are not as crass and superficial as you may think--each is important on its face, but may also underlie latent analyses that you haven't taken the time to flesh out. I’ll be writing about each of these issues in the next couple of days—stay tuned!