A Bizarre Take on the Spitzer Story

Several days ago, I suggested some career lessons we can learn from Eliot Spitzer so I couldn't resist linking to this latest post by career "guru" Penelepe Trunk (I put the "guru" in quotations because she evokes both strong praise and equally strong criticism from her readers.) Penelope suggests that there are some good career lessons we can all learn from Spitzer's call girl. Her choice of subject matter is truly bizarre; but I think she makes some good points that are relevant to lawyers (1. invest in yourself 2. know what you are selling and 3. if you do more than one thing--which is true for most lawyers--look for the synergies, e.g. practice bankruptcy and finance, M&A and general corporate, etc. )

Returning to Law Firm Practice--Another View

In my post yesterday, I linked to my colleague Gloria Cannon's article about in-house careers. In the article, she made the case that it is difficult to go from a law department back to a firm (unless you can bring a significant amount of work from your corporate employer.)

I neglected to mention my own view which is that going back to private practice may not be quite as difficult as Gloria suggests (though it is certainly difficult--particularly if you want to return to a large firm.) Here is someone who supports this alternative view.

Going In-house: Potential Risks and Rewards

My colleague Gloria Cannon has written a nice piece about the pro's and con's of going in-house. She suggests that a ticket out of a law firm is likely to be a one way ticket--so think long and hard before you attempt the move. Gloria, who works out of the Pasadena office of BCG Attorney Search, has good personal insights because she practiced at a large firm and worked in-house for an investment management company (i.e. she held coveted jobs in both worlds.)

For a slightly different view, here is a piece that I wrote a few years ago.

What Women (and Men) Can Learn From Hillary

We can learn a lot by watching politicians stumble (to wit, Eliot Spitzer.) But we can also learn positive lessons for our own careers from public figures. Hillary Clinton is a politician who offers us both (i.e. guidance on how women in particular can advance and examples of how men and women can damage their careers.) A female partner at Andrews Kurth in Dallas weighs in.

Personally, I admire Hillary's tenacity, her debating skills and her focus on issues that matter a lot to me. But I squirm when I see her trying to embellish her resume with factually inaccurate material (e.g. the latest controversy over her trip to Bosnia.) She has plenty to be proud of in her career. I'm not sure why she feels the need to go beyond the facts.

Listening is More Powerful than Talking

A reader weighs in on my latest article on telling the truth in an interview. He suggests that the problem for many lawyers is that they are too concerned with their own technical qualifications when they are in an interview situation. He suggests that the key to success in any business interaction (job interview, meeting prospective clients or referral sources, etc.) is to use your listening skills:

I read your article and agree with it. My experience is more like yours so what you posit seems very common sense to me. However a lot of client service professionals, such as lawyers, accountants, and consultants, seem to fall into some of these traps.

They are so concerned about technical qualifications and problem solving and putting them out there that they neglect to think how others will receive them, i.e., not putting themselves in the position of their audience. Another way of discussing this is their failure to listen.

I see this in how they write their resumes and come across in conversation. They should communicate about the value they bring and the objectives they've accomplished in terms of who they are speaking to or to whom they are mailing their resume. Instead they do an information dump of sorts and hope something sticks. When interviewing people should align their accomplishments and skill to the objectives of the interviewer's organization. Amplify the strengths that fit, acknowledge your weaknesses and set them aside.

The quickest way to partnership is to bring in business, and to bring in business you need a network, and to have a network you have to get outside your protective bubble. Yet I observe deep seated resistance to this and I find it amazing--an overall lack of willingness to network or prospect and get "the big picture." I'm sure there are a myriad of reasons for their reluctance but I still don't get it especially since the vast majority of successful people maintain these skills.

Do You Have Friends in the Right Places?

I learn so much by watching politicians stumble. Sometimes I feel a sense of schadenfreude (i.e. rejoicing in the misery of others.) But I actually feel sorry for Eliot Spitzer (and especially his wife--who looks like she has aged years in the last month.) My take away from the whole affair (pun intended) is that Eliot Spitzer fell quickly because he did not have friends in the right places. His aggressive and muckraking style made him an easy target when it became clear that he had some skeletons in his own closet.

It was only 48 hours from the time that the first news hit the press to the time he announced his resignation. By any measure, that is a meteoric fall.

Would Spitzer had survived if he had made more friends in Albany? He certainly would have lasted longer. So the career take away is that given the choice, it is better to make friends than to make enemies. Get to know your colleagues. Show interest in them. You never know when you'll need their support.

A View from the Interviewer's Seat

In response to yesterday's post, a reader writes:

Good article, and I literally "LOL" at the "institutionalized" comment. I think the premise is right. I think the reality is that good interviewees just know how to spin it. Also, interviewers (except for a few sociopaths) like it spun. That is the game; that adheres to the "truth, but not the whole truth" concept. The devil is in the detail, in getting it right, ethical and effective in the particular instance. That takes work, prep, and a comfort in your own skin (as a candidate).

As an interviewer, I had a candidate recently tell me that a gap on her resume was a mental health break from the law that was kicked off when she lapsed into a 2 hour crying binge, at her desk, at the office, when she discovered a misplaced comma in a filing. Wow! Too much information. To make it worse, she seemed to wear this as a badge of honor, and wanted me to see her as a no-nonsense, straight shooter who could afford to be brutally honest b/c she was such an obvious star (or so she thought). I found it a sign of poor judgment (to tell me in that way), and an uncomfortable exchange. No doubt, she could have used your help and advice. I did not hire her.

Anyhow, thanks for sharing the article.

The Truth and Nothing But the Truth

Some advice about telling the truth at a job interview (my latest article in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.) Hint: you don't have to tell the "whole" truth.

Don't Cover Up Your Mistakes

That's today's advice from the Snark. And what if you are criticized for your shortcomings? I wrote a piece about this several years ago.

Reading Past the Headlines--Part II

In November, I commented on the first signs of layoffs in the legal profession. While we are seeing a continuing trickle of similar headlines including today's news about Dechert, it is still important to read the article before drawing any broad negative inferences. There is no question that many law firms have tightened their hiring criteria; but corporate and IP remain active areas of lateral hiring.