Avoiding a Bad Reputation at Work

Here are some good tips for protecting your reputation at work. The article appears on Law Crossing, BCG's sister company but I found the article courtesy of the Estrin Report. The article contain some very simply workplace rules and reads kind of like the book All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten.

Turning the Lights Out on Moonlighting

My colleague Pete Smith, from BCG's San Francisco office, warns of the perils of trying to moonlight when you work for a law firm. The key takeaway is that no matter what you do, make sure your firm is aware of your activities. I can't imagine that any law firm would care that you played in a rock 'n roll band during your off hours (as long as you are available to perform the work that the firm needs you to do.) But representing "Aunt Harriet" might be another story.

Training a Pidgeon

David Maister has done it again, this time with a great videocast. His subject matter is learning how to effectively motivate an employee, colleague, child, etc. to perform at a higher level. Associates who are learning how to work with support staff should watch this. Partners who want to get better work product from their associates should watch too. Anyone who is a parent will benefit from this brief presentation.

One of the most interesting points that Maister makes is that effective management requires one on one communication. Any effort to manage groups in group settings is likely to be ineffective.

For lawyers, the real challenge is that in most law firms, lawyers are not rewarded for spending time managing; most associates are measured by their productivity (i.e. billable hours.) But taking the time to manage your support staff or associates who report to you has the long term benefit of increasing your own productivity. It just requires a law term view.

Have You Audited Your Career Lately?

I am pleased to announce that the BCG Associate Career Audit is now live on the BCG website. I created the tool to help law firm associates take stock in their law firm experience. Originally, I published this as an article in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. Now you can complete it on-line and have the results sent to you by e-mail.

It is confidential and takes about 10-15 minutes to complete. So far, the feedback on it has been very positive. I would welcome additional feedback and I would be happy to go over the results with any law firm associate who is interested in thinking critically about his or her experience.

If you like the tool, please spread the word. There is no charge for using the audit and my only hope is that it proves to be helpful to associates who are ready to think more critically about their careers.

Admitting Mistakes

On Point, a talk show on NPR, has a very interesting broadcast on accepting blame (you can listen to it for free over the internet.) Carol Tavris, a social psychologist in California, talks about her book "Mistakes Were Made (but not by me)." She highlights how our culture is not very good at admitting mistakes and that it is now common to hear politicians use the passive tense ("mistakes were made".) She warns about what she calls the "dangers of blind righteous certainty" and suggests that this problem goes way beyond politicians.

This is very relevant to all professionals including lawyers. Clients rely on lawyers for their professional judgment and pay a high premium for quality legal advice. But how often do most lawyers admit that they have given clients the wrong advice? When was the last time you apologized to a client for steering him or her down the wrong path?

What the Recruiting Process Can Tell You

If you are interviewing to make a lateral law firm move, sizing up the firm can be difficult. The only way to really know what life is like on the inside is to work there. But there are ways that you can identify some warning signs that the firm has "issues". For example, pay attention to how the firm handles the recruiting process (see my latest article in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly for more.)

Myths About Becoming a Lawyer

I participated as a guest blogger on Penelope Trunk's blog, the Brazen Careerist. My post, on the subject of whether someone should go to law school, has generated some interesting discussion. If anyone out there wants to participate, follow the link above. Her audience tends to be a more general audience; but obviously, some lawyers are reading her excellent blog as well.

On a related note, Law.Com published an article today about the difficulty 2nd career lawyers have in getting jobs at larger firms. According to NALP research, over 50% of 40+ year old law school grads end up in solo or small firm practice.

Interviewing tips from the horse's mouth

Fred Cohn from JD Jungle has this terrific dialogue with recruiting coordinators and hiring partners from major law firms (Paul Weiss, Weil Gotshal, Arent Fox) on how to interview. One overriding theme present in this article is that candidates need to really exhibit their interest in the FIRM. The interview isn't just about the candidate but how much the candidate wants to be a part of the firm. Doing your homework and expressing your enthusiasm for the position goes a long, long way.

Another critical point for interviewees is to watch your BODY LANGUAGE. You must have good eye contact, stand up straight and give off an open confidence. When I first began interviewing to be become a recruiter, I met with a recruiting firm that stressed to me how important favorable candidate interviews are when it comes to your chances of placing that candidate. Ironically, I asked how I HAD DONE when it was all over the and the owner of the company said it was a great interview, but that my eye contact was sub-par. It was such a great lesson! And as you can see in the article, it makes a big difference to all of these firms.

The third point that really stood out in this article is how much GEOGRAPHY matters. If you are looking to transition to another city, you better have all of your ducks in a row and be able to portray a compelling reason as to why you are willing to move to this city. "I love the ocean," isn't a great answer when you are interviewing for a position in L.A. Ummm...Who doesn't love the ocean?

In Pursuit of Happiness

Career Journal has published an article suggesting that Americans are no happier today than they were 30 years ago. Despite significant gains in material wealth, we Americans have found no additional happiness. (I wonder how lawyers are fairing in this regard--my guess is that we are less happy as a group than we were 30 years ago.)

Why haven't the numbers gone up? Is it because most of us have not taken the time to figure out what makes us happy? Is it because "stuff" is not the key to happiness?

Is it time for some introspection? A career assessment? For you law firm folk out there, I will soon have an on-line tool that will help you take stock of your experience. For now, it can be found here.

Survey on Effective Interviewing

My colleague Dan Binstock in BCG's DC Office has reprinted the result of a great survey he did on effective law firm interviewing. Dan compiled the best interviewing tips he could find by asking law firm partners, associates and recruiting coordinators.

Signs You Are About to Be Fired

My colleague Carey Bertolet from BCG's New York Office lays out the warning signs. Her article is probably most relevant to lawyers who work in law firms generally (and larger law firms in particular.) Those tend to be less forgiving work environments.

The Obligations of Law Firm Parnters

Altman Weil has republished an article entitled "What Are the Obligations of Partners". The author suggests that the longterm health of any firm requires that partners continue to demonstrate that they are "adding value" to the firm. He writes that in order to maintain one's equity partner status, that each partner should make contributions in the following areas:

Does this partner consistently provide the requisite quality client service? Does this partner engage in practice development efforts for himself and others? Does this partner participate in management as needed? Does this partner do his/her duty regarding mentoring, training, etc.? Does this partner consistently act in a firm-minded manner?

He suggests that a partner who is billing 2300 hours and doing nothing but collecting on his time is not "adding value" to the firm.

But can't each partner make different contributions to the firm? After all, not everyone has good management skills. Isn't a partnership really just a way to bring together different strengths under one roof?

What if the partner who is billing 2300 hours is doing a great job of cementing the relationship with a number of key firm clients.

There has been a number of articles written as of late about deequitization of partners. Senior management of firms where this has happened would have you believe that this is necessary in order to maintain the financial health of a firm in the longterm. But maybe part of it is just pure greed. Whatever the case, it seems like a trend that is here to stay.

Women Are "Staying" in Droves

Almost 80% of women who leave law firm practice end up staying in or returning to the workforce; and more than 50% of them stay in the legal profession. In other words, female attorneys are not leaving either the workforce or the profession to be stay at home moms. But they are opting out of law firm practice at far greater rates than men. As a result, although men and women have been graduating from law school at equal rates for the past 15 years, women still only account for 17% of the partners in law firms. Those are some of the key findings of a new study just completed by the MIT Workplace Center . Robert Ambrogi of the Law.Com Blog Network writes about the study here .

Yesterday, I attended a reception at the Federal Courthouse in Boston where Mona Harrington of MIT did a great job of presenting the results of her research. Judge Nancy Gertner, who was a major catalyst behind the study, and Lauren Rikleen, past president of the Boston Bar Association and author of a terrific book on how law firms can begin to address the lack of female advancement in the legal profession (Ending the Gauntlet: Removing Barriers to Women's Success in the Law) also gave articulate presentations which quickly went to the heart of the issue (i.e. that law firms can do a lot more to promote the advancement of women.)

Afterwards, I received an e-mail message from Sheila Statlender, a clinical psychologist in Newton, Massachusetts who sits with me on the BBA Standing Committee on Work/Life Balance. She also attended the session and had some interesting things to say. Here are some excerpts from an e-mail she sent to the members of our committee:

Findings which indicate that female attorneys are not opting out, but rather finding work outside of law firms, and in astonishingly high percentages at every stage (associate, partner, etc.) provide important documentation, and refutation for those claiming that women really are just "choosing" to be stay-at-home moms.

OK, I admit it - at first I thought - this is not new news. We've been hearing it and saying it for quite a while. Women aren't progressing in their career paths and are earning significantly less than their male counterparts. "Opaque" discrimination now makes it harder to identify factors such as less desirable work assignments, inferior mentoring and tougher challenges with regard to business development. This doesn't seem so much a wake up call, as it does a signal from the "snooze alarm:" we've heard it before, and now it's blaring again. But we also know that change happens slowly, especially in large, powerful and at heart conservative organizations (like law firms). So I say bravo to those of you who continue to reset the alarm, letting it blast, rather than simply shutting it off.

I do have a question for Lauren especially: you really are calling for in essence a revolution in the legal profession: an overhaul of how firms handle compensation, what kinds of professional practice and activities will get acknowledged in terms of the bottom line, and along with this, a necessary shift in the values which underlie these practices. What kind of response are you getting from your audiences, from firms, from individuals? Is anyone hearing and responding? Can you give us some hope here?

I couldn't help but think, as I listened to the presentations yesterday, of comparisons with other professional fields. Physicians, for example (female and male alike) are standing by as more and more of their professional freedoms are slipping away. Health insurers are dictating reimbursement and even basic medical practice. It has occurred to me that many professionals are in the position that factory workers found themselves in in previous decades - only factory workers formed unions and were able to go on strike. They found ways to take back or establish power (ok, maybe I'm idealizing a bit). Can anything comparable be done in the current arena(s)?

Since I am sharing my morning musings and subjecting you all to some stream of consciousness (except for those of you who may have had the wisdom to hit the "delete" button already :-) I'll take it one step further. I fantasized about a walk out of female attorneys, hopefully accompanied by their male supporters - perhaps only an hour or two in length, to protest current conditions and to express support for the ideas/strategies proposed at yesterday's briefing. Or an all day conference, a sort of pre-planned walkout, filled with workshops on getting better asssignments, business development, the work-life continuum (I agree with Lauren that "balance" is not a realistic term!), self-care, etc. - not held on the weekend, but pointedly during the workday.

Balancing Loyalty and Integrity

George Tenet's appearance on 60 Minutes marks the latest in a long series of former officials from the Bush administration who have belatedly opted for integrity over loyalty. The former Director of the CIA has now revealed that his often quoted remark (i.e. that the case for WMD in Iraq was a "slam dunk") was taken out of context.

So where was this guy in 2002 and 2003 during the run-up to the war? Why is he coming clean now in 2007?

A cynical answer is that loyalty served him well in 2002/2003; it enabled him to keep his job (for a while anyway); but "integrity" (coming forward with the gritty truth about the distortions perpetrated by Dick Cheney et al.) will now help him sell more books.

Without getting into a long diatribe about the credibility of these latest accusations, I believe that Tenet's behavior (i.e. his belated decision to come clean) is instructive for lawyers and their careers. In short, I believe that when confronted with a choice between loyalty and integrity, that integrity should trump. By this measure, George Tenet failed his ultimate boss, the American people.

In the workplace, there is often a tension between doing what you think is right and doing what your clients want you to do. This tension also exists between partners in law firms and associates who receive direction from these partners. Your sense of what is right and wrong may not be entirely consistent with that of your clients or superiors.

The choices, of course, are not always so easy and sometimes there is a clear conflict between your own sense of loyalty and your feelings that doing something for a client conflicts with your values. Sometimes, standing up for integrity means risking getting fired from a job that you need to support your family.

If you take the time to set your own moral compass, however, you will know when it is time to put loyalty aside. You will know what lines you will not cross.

For some attorneys, this may mean refusing to represent clients in certain industries (e.g. the tobacco industry or defense contractors.) For others, it may mean taking the extreme step of reporting a lawyer to the Board of Bar Overseers when someone in your firm is acting in a highly unethical manner.

Loyalty is not an inherently bad quality. A law firm with loyal associates and support staff will provide superior client service. What I am talking about is unbridled loyalty.

Four years ago, George Tenet made the decision not to refute false statements he heard coming from various members of the Bush administration. He chose to be loyal to the Commander in Chief rather than stick his neck out and undermine the case that the President was making for going to war. Judging by his emotional state on 60 Minutes, it doesn’t sound like that decision is sitting well with him now. Think about that.

WSJ Reports on Rise of Alternative Billing Arrangements

An article in today's WSJ [subscription required] shows a rise in the use of alternative billing arrangements by large corporations. So I guess I was prescient when I posted on the subject yesterday. The article reports a demonstrated increase in law firms charging either flat fees or value added fees based on the results achieved for the client. While this is not particularly new, apparently there are better software solutions available to manage these billing arrangements. There are also more firms and corporations who have had experience with these arrangements in the last few years.

Bottom line: start thinking more about alternative billing arrangements but don't delete your time and billing system.

Have You Padded Your Bills Today?

WSJ Law blog reports that according to a study by Stanford Law School, more than 50% of lawyers surveyed reported padding their bills. This may include charging for unnecessary work or recording more time than was actually devoted to a task.

But isn't this true in any business that bills for time? Maybe the bigger issue is whether a lawyer charges an appropriate amount for the work he or she has performed for a client (somewhat independent of the amount of time spent.) Doesn't the free market take care of this problem?

For years, there has been talk of value billing in the legal industry. This would remove the over-billing issue from table. Personally, I think everyone would be a lot happier if most legal services were performed on a flat fee basis (with benchmarks for adding fees when matters get more complicated than expected.) But we are part of a conservative profession that doesn't like change. So maybe in another decade or so, it will catch on.