Integrity Matters to Your Legal Career

As I watch the U.S. Attorney scandal unfold, I can't help but feel a certain amount of schadenfreude. IMHO, this Attorney General seems to have little regard for the separation of powers. He has equal contempt for civil liberties that have been enshrined in our Constitution for over 200 years. But his demise will not come from his role in getting eight U.S. Attorneys fired. Rather, it is his lack of honesty that will send him packing.

Alberto Gonzales' former Chief of Staff has now essentially testified under oath that Alberto Gonzales lied when he claimed he had no role in the dismissals. I give it a week before Gonzales announces that for the good of the country, he will resign. What Gonzales actually did may not have been enough to get him fired; but lying about what he did is unbecoming of the Attorney General of the United States. Integrity matters. Lawyers, in particular, should never forget this.

Temping in the Law

My colleague Danice Kowalczyk in BCG's New York office offers some interesting thoughts about when it makes sense to take a job as a legal temp. Temping has been around for a while now in the legal profession. Temping arrangements can be a win/win for firms who need to quickly build an army or fill an empty slot and lawyers who wants to work in the profession without the long hours and ongoing commitments that come with partnership track.

But it is a mistake to think that taking a temp job is an entree into a large law firm position. Over the years, I have spoken to a number of staff attorneys who are stuck in dead end positions doing document review.

On the other hand, temping can be a good foot in the door if the work is more substantive. This is more likely to happen at a smaller firm and more likely to occur if you seek out temp work directly through aggressive networking. Agencies may be able to find you work more quickly; but it is less likely to be substantive. This may not be a bad thing if you need to generate income. But as Danice nicely points out, it is important to know what you are getting yourself into.

Returning to the work-force after being a stay-at-home mom?

Continuing my discussion of working mothers from a couple of weeks ago (which incidentally resulted in an interesting discussion on law.com's Legal Blog Watch), I am mentioning here an article I saw in the WSJ Career Journal on what to do with your resume after staying at home with a child.

The article advocated being very forthcoming on your resume when you have stayed at home for a period of time raising a child. In fact, instead of leaving a gap, which could give a firm or company pause, the idea is to include your experiences as a stay-at-home parent. The article mentions Carol Fishman Cohen's advice, co-author of the book, "Back on the Career Track," which is to say, "I made the decision to stay home, and now I can't wait to get back."

I constantly tell my candidates that the purpose of a resume is to answer a potential employer's questions and of course, to sell yourself. The more questions an employer has, the more likely a resume is to end up in a trash basket. Employers read resumes in seconds, not minutes, and gaps are bad, even if there are reasonable explanations for the gaps. "Gap Moms" (or Gap Dads) shouldn't apologize for their commitment to their families, but rather make a notation in their resume that explains the time that they took off for their family's sake. I am eager to hear opinions on this advice.

"Sitzkrieg"--Why Lawyers Will Weather the Impending "Recession"

Immediately following the declaration of war against Hitler’s Germany in 1939, the uneasy populations of the allied nations went about their daily business; their lives as yet unchanged. In a gallows-humor attempt to explain this sudden onset, of, well, nothing particularly unusual, some cheeky Brit came up with the term “sitzkrieg”—the “sitting war” in contrast to Hitler’s “blitzkrieg”—“lightening war” against Poland. Of course, the “phony” war turned all too real soon thereafter, and lasted six years.

I couldn’t help think of the sitzkrieg as I sit here next to my three warm cats contemplating what many call inevitable, the first American economic recession of the 21st Century. It pains me even to mention such a possibility as I am: a) an incurable optimist; b) a shameless and blithe capitalist; and c) not an economist by any stretch of the imagination.

However, one can’t help but hear the voices that proclaim the impending doom of, not an economic implosion, but of a gradual slow-down of the steady growth we have been enjoying.

Of course, this will undoubtedly raise the issue of what impact the legal markets will face. It is nearly an aphorism that transactional work flowers during economic booms, and then wanes while litigation waxes during economic down-turns. It is certainly the case that the lateral litigation market has been lackluster after years of sustained growth. Thus, I will rush to be the first, perhaps, to proclaim the beginning of the end of this last long brush with bullish corporate practices. We no longer believe so innocently (as we did before 2001) that things that go up need never come down.

However, I don’t for one minute believe that this will be catastrophic for any solid corporate practice. It may merely result in allowing natural attrition to take its course. Further, it will only intensify the already tedious and long-drawn-out process that most lateral hiring is these days. Yet again, this is all the more to the good because I can assure you there has been little or NO frivolous or poorly-thought-out hiring going on, even in corporate circles. I do not see any widespread shrinkage in corporate groups looming on the horizon.

The result is that, as a profession, lawyers are going to ride out any impending “recession” that comes in the next 18 months, it one comes at all. The trick that I think most trained and traditional economic pundits are missing, is that the global economy has so much pent-up and ending demand for resources, that economic blips are being smoothed-out almost immediately. I liken this to the SF housing market. Whenever prices fall even by $5,000, as many more family can qualify to buy. What we end up with is, basically, is a stagnation or flattening of economic indicators. I don’t think that we can realistically call every loss of a point of annualized growth a “recession”. We perhaps need to go back to the well for a more descriptive neologism.

I’ll settle for an unending sitzkrieg.

Is Less Equity Such a Bad Thing?

Law.com reports on a recent study released by Citigroup Private Bank. The study suggests that rising law firm expenses (higher associate salaries and rents) will create upward pressure on billable hours and downward movement on the number of partners who are invited into the equity ranks. One law firm consultant quoted in the article seems to think this is all bad news.

"I think that making it harder to become an equity partner than it has been in the past may actually work to the detriment of some firms, because associates coming into these firms looking ahead to the prospect of becoming an equity partner may throw up their hands and say 'I'll never make equity partner, why should I even try?'"

The reality, however, is that most associates at major firms already do not expect to make equity partner and many have no ambition of doing so. While upward pressure on billable hours is a scary thought, I'm not sure that less equity is such a bad thing. The accounting firms have already figured out that professionals need ongoing opportunities to advance their careers. So a system which provides lawyers with only one or two chances for advancement (non-equity partner and then equity partner) no longer makes sense.

I speak with so many young associates who would happily trade salary for a chance to advance more slowly. If firms would insert several layers of promotion into their ranks, then lawyers would have more opportunity to decide whether to go for maximum income (through a series of promotions) or to stick with a balance between good work, good compensation, and livable hours. Under such a system, an individual lawyer could decide to go through the hurdles necessary to achieve counsel and senior counsel status but not do what it takes to get to non-equity I, non-equity II or equity partner status (and still hold a good job!) Too unrealistic? Only if you rely too much on precedent to make management decisions.

Personal Isn't Private

My colleague, Carey Bertolet from BCG's New York office makes the case that what you do outside of work can affect your reputation. I'm not sure that being disheveled in public is necessarily always bad (if you are at a baseball game, etc.); but maybe it is a gender thing. Women tend to be judged more by their appearance than men. Or maybe, as my wife likes to remind me, I'm clueless about how I look sometimes.

Her warnings are very sound, though. Particularly in an electronic age where digital is forever. For example, I wonder what respectable firm will want to hire this BC Law School student. Clearly she is very photogenic; but what on earth was she thinking when she sat for that photo shoot.

A Lawyer Walks into a Bar

Last night, I attended the world premiere of a documentary called A Lawyer Walks into a Bar at the SXSW festival in Austin, Texas. A friend from UT Law School, Evan Fitzmaurice, is a producer on the movie. The documentary follows six wanna-be lawyers struggling to prepare for and actually taking the California Bar Exam, one of the most challenging bar exams with the lowest pass rate nationwide.

The packed theater was filled with many lawyers and non-lawyers who gave the film a rousing reception. This hilarious, emotional and compelling documentary features many noted attorneys such as Joe Jamail, Robert Shapiro, Alan Dershowitz, Nancy Grace, and Scott Turow, who all give their perspectives on practicing law as a profession. I hope the movie gets picked up by a distributor. Every person that's ever taken a bar exam will relate to the emotional roller coaster ride that these six people undertake. Keep an eye out for it- it's destined to be a hit among the legal crowd.

Are You Arrogant?

Doug Richardson, a consultant with Altman Weil has a great piece on why many lawyers are perceived to be arrogant. He describes typical lawyers as:

• rational, logical and dispassionate in their basic cognitive style
• confident that their opinions are correct
• intuitive thinkers who tend to make quick assumptions and judgments
• more oriented toward completing tasks than building relationships
• define their personal credibility and authority in terms of subject-matter expertise (meaning they tend to be specialists, not generalists)
• often competitive and protective of their ideas, tasks, authority, prerogatives (and, later in practice, their clients)

He notes that in today's work environment, collaboration is more important than ever. Therefore, lawyers need to put more emphasis on developing better relationship skills.

What is most interesting about this piece is that he suggests that many lawyers are unaware that they come across this way. The solution? Ask for feedback more often and consider hiring a coach.

The Problem With PEP

Bruce MacEwan has an interesting post on the problems with PEP (profits per equity partner) as a measure of firm success. He argues that in a perverse way, focusing on PEP ignores two important constituencies : clients and everyone who is not an equity partner.

From a career perspective, looking too closely at PEP can blind you to bigger issues (Do you like your colleagues? Do you like coming to work every day? Do you like the work you are doing? PEP may be high but is the firm building a secure future?) It also leaves out the whole analysis of your likelihood of remaining an equity partner (to wit, the recent news that Mayer Brown has voted to de-equitize 45 partners.)

PEP that is stagnating, can be a sign that a firm is stagnating. My colleague Pete Smith warned about this here. But focusing too much on PEP in evaluating a firm's success is like focusing solely on who is paying the largest salary (as I warned about here.)

Productivity and Procrastination

Procrastination and unproductivity go hand-in-hand. I've read a lot of books on productivity, many of which include substantial sections on procrastination and how it inhibits productivity. Interestingly--and somewhat ironically-- procrastination is a characteristic that seems to be most pervasive amongst overachievers and perfectionists.

If you are trying to become more productive (who isn't), but find that you are having difficulty implementing new strategies due to procrastination (for example, you know you should be planning and making a project list each day, but you just don't get around to it or intentionally avoid doing it), here's what you should do.

First, step back and look at the causes of your procrastination. In my opinion--and in the opinion of many, many others (just read the reviews on Amazon)--the very best book on procrastination is called "The Now Habit" by Neil Fiore (who Steve mentioned in one of his earlier posts). Until you can uncover the sources of and deal with procrastination, you will never be able to implement even the most simple productivity tools since your procrastination will undermine you getting started.

Second, once you have a better understanding of procrastination, read "Getting Things Done" by David Allen. This is one of the best books on organization and productivity. But ... and a BIG but--if you tend to procrastinate, only read this book AFTER you have read "The Now Habit." Otherwise, it's putting the cart before the horse and you will find yourself getting frustrated.

Try these books. They work.

A Case of First Impressions

If you have been reading the newspapers in Massachusetts lately, you will note that the honeymoon for our recently elected governor, Deval Patrick, is coming to a close. His campaign generated tremendous enthusiasm, particularly amongst the politically disengaged. There was excitement about his call to launch a new era in Massachusetts politics. He vowed to respect all political views and he inspired many to think that maybe this time would be different. Maybe this time we would elect a governor who really had our best interests at heart. Maybe this time someone could take over at the State House and show us how progressive politics can mix well with business friendly practices.

That may still happen and as a huge supporter of Deval, I still believe he can turn things around. But he has made life very difficult for himself by not paying more attention to the symbolism of his early acts as the first African American governor in the Bay State.

His missteps are instructive for anyone starting a new job. When you start a new position, your superiors will be watching you. Do you enthusiastically embrace all new assignments or complain about short deadlines? Do you make an effort to learn more about the colleagues around you or do you talk about yourself and gossip about other lawyers in the office? Do you respect the opinions of the support staff who have been in the organization far longer than you have (and who will probably be there long after you are gone) or do you try to establish early on that you are the one who went to law school and therefore more knowledgeable about all aspects of the practice?

Deval Patrick's missteps were not particularly egregious. For a state car, he chose to drive a Cadillac rather than the Ford that his predecessor, and Presidential aspirant Mitt Romney, used. He invested a whopping $27,000 in redesigning his office. He hired a secretary for his wife, a partner at the law firm of Ropes and Gray, to the tune of $72,000 and he made a call on behalf of a sub-prime lender which he claimed was in his role as a private citizen (he had previously been on the board of this mortgage lender and he had no financial interest in the matter.)

Personally, I do not think that any of these acts amount to much. I don't think this signals that the new governor is going to recklessly spend the Commonwealth of Massachusetts into bankruptcy. I'm not particularly comfortable that this governor would believe that he is entitled to act as a private citizen once he is elected to office; but I'm willing to let him learn from his mistakes (he has already given the appropriate apologies for making the phone call and for choosing the Cadillac and the $12,000 drapes--and he has promised to reimburse the Commonwealth for some of his "excesses".)

The problem for Deval Patrick, is that he is now on the defensive. He made the critical career error of not paying more attention to first impressions. He may surprise us all (and I hope he does), but he is now fighting an uphill battle that would have been a lot easier had his first media coverage focused on his bold new initiatives. If he had chalked up some successes in his early days, than his superiors (the public who put him in office) would be far more willing to cut him some slack.

Read This Post--If You Can Find the Time

David Maister has done it again! He has a terrific podcast on procrastination (free for downloading through i-tunes.) This time I was sure he would leave something out; in particular, I did not think he would focus so much on addressing the underlying psychological causes of procrastination (and even more importantly, some highly effective behavioral responses to procrastination.) But he absolutely did.

On the subject of procrastination, I would like to suggest a great book which focuses heavily on behavioral approaches to thoughts which sabotage our success. It is called "Awaken Your Stongest Self" and is written by Neil Fiore, a Ph.D. psychologist. A couple of months ago, I hired Neil for some coaching and procrastination is one of the issues we have been working on. Neil's approach is very behavioral (i.e. he isn't trying to help me figure out the root causes of my own professional insecurities; rather, we are working on how to deal with the numerous "distractions" that take away my focus from doing what I love to do which is helping lawyers with their careers.)

While it is admittedly too soon to evaluate his program, I can say with certainty that after a few months, I'm doing a lot less procrastinating. I know I have a lot more work to do (it's hard to break old habits and thought patterns.) But I'm well on my way and Neil has been a tremendous help.

How to get a family-friendly position at a large firm

In the years that I have been engaged in legal recruiting, I have worked with several really top-notch female candidates that wanted to return to an exciting practice within a large firm after having a baby, but did NOT want the hours associated with a full-time partnership track position. I relate to these women who "want it all," for I myself want a rigorous and stimulating job, but also want to spend quality time with my child. It is a delicate balancing act.

For all of the media attention that the firms try to gain for proclaiming their family-friendly atmospheres, they rarely advertise part-time or reduced billable hour positions. These positions are usually found through back door methods (for example, a friend at a firm) and my experiences in placing these women have only confirmed my suspicions that female-friendly (i.e., family-friendly) large law firms are difficult to come by.

I have, in fact, placed and gotten offers for women with reduced work schedules. But the interview process is tricky. In order to successfully negotiate, these women had to interview as if they wanted a full-time position, then sit back and wait for an offer. Then once the offer was in hand, they negotiated their hours. Simply put, they had to make the firms believe they were indispensable before they showed all their cards.

Hillary Mantis at vault.com has some interesting thoughts on family-friendly options. I am also curious to hear from women who have successfully found family-friendly attorney positions after having a baby. Feel free to add your comments.

Talk to the Press

I have long believed that almost any publicity is good publicity. It is hard to get noticed in the crowded marketplace as a professional. Having others mention your name is therefore generally beneficial (unless it is in connection with a scandal or a criminal act.) Obviously, you want to be extra careful to "get it right" if you are speaking on behalf of a client; but short of that, even a mangled quote is helpful in building your visibility. Most people will only remember that they saw your name somewhere, not that you said something which was patently stupid.

This is hard for most lawyers to grasp. We are wordsmiths and take pride in sounding articulate in print. But let go of it! The name of the game is visibility!

Similarly, do not take for granted that the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times are the only publications that matter. I spoke to a reporter a few months ago who was doing a story for Amtrak's magazine, Arrive. I didn't think the publication had much readership; but I'm always happy to try and be helpful to reporters. The article, which appears in the March/April issue, is on the subject of law firm partnership. As it turns out, the publication has almost 2 million readers (who would have known?)

So the moral of the story is try and be helpful to the press; don't get overly concerned that you are being quoted properly (although in this case, I thought the author made me sound better than I ordinarily would); and speak to everyone. You never know where it might lead.