            |
|
|
|
May 2005
By William Seaton We all work for money. Even if it's not the only reason we work, it's certainly not the least reason either. (Yes, there are exceptions but I suspect they are not reading this column.) Recently, I was approached by salary.com about putting their Salary Wizard on the EmplawyerNet website so lawyers can find out what they should be making. Sounds useful but years ago EmplawyerNet did its own salary survey, albeit not a truly scientific one. While the survey did produce numbers, it didn't really produce any reliable patterns and we eventually removed it from our site. Thinking perhaps salary.com brought more science to the task, I checked the salaries of various legal professionals in Los Angeles (LA), New York (NY), Fairbanks, Alaska (FA), Biloxi, Mississippi (BM) and Fargo, North Dakota (ND). For the title "Attorney I" which seems to be a young associate, the median was $89K in LA, $92K in NY, $73K in ND, $74K in BM and $97K in FA. For an Associate General Counsel" you get $257K in LA, $266K in NY, $210K in ND, $215K in BM and, again the highest, $281K in FA. In fact, for every title I checked the message was the same: if money is your only object, move to Fairbanks. This didn't strike me as right so I looked elsewhere to see what other salary figures were available. At payscale.com, another salary site, the median for in-house lawyers in California was $60K and $55K in New York. I guess they didn't factor in salary.com's Associate GCs. For Associates they show $75K in California and $72K in New York and for all Attorneys/Lawyers it was $102K in the Golden State and $110K in the Empire State. Trying to quell the madness I turned to the National Association for Law Placement (NALP), an organization whose law firm members are skewed to the large-sized. Their 2004 survey showed a median 1st year associate salary of $95K, while in the eighth year it was $135K. This is certainly accurate as for their members but it is nonsensical to treat this as the median for all associates everywhere in the country. Only when NALP narrows its reporting to lawyers at firms of 251 or more is it trading in meaningful numbers, and then for only a tiny fraction of all practicing lawyers. The fact of the matter is, the only reliable salary surveys are those that relate to large firms in specific cities. Why? Within each city the big firms compete desperately with each other for talent, so their salaries keep pace with one another lest they lose out. Everywhere else - mid and small sized firms, in-house legal departments, government and non-profit positions - salaries are all over the place. In fact, one survey I read said that starting salaries for lawyers at firms of 35-75 attorneys was $84,500 to $161,750. The breadth of that range deprives it of any real use. We may as well say that as a lawyer you can expect to make between forty thousand dollars and a million because, well, that's what lawyers make these days. But people love salary surveys. They either bolster your position at the next salary negotiation or let you know you are being treated fairly. So, if you must, feel free to go to salary.com and introduce yourself to the Salary Wizard. He'll tell you where the money is. His best advice? Invest in a good parka.
Hiring Up at US Law Firms
Law Firm Revenues on the Rise
Billable Hours Rising With the Rest
Q: Dear Career Counselor:
Should my resume include a section detailing my interests or hobbies? My law school's career counselor advised that such information should be omitted, but I have seen other resources provide the opposite advice? What gives?
A: Dear David, You have stumbled across one of the enduring divisions among the ranks of career coaches and counselors. The reason you have come across conflicting advice is because different career coaches have reached different conclusions on this point. On the whole, I tend to void including strictly personal information on resumes, but I am not dogmatic about it. The difference of opinion about this issue largely stems from the dual purpose of a resume: (1) to get to the next step of the hiring process, which is usually some kind of interview; and (2) to help set the agenda during that next step. Coaches and counselors that dislike personal statements on resumes tend to emphasize the first of these purposes. They argue that including personal information in your resume might detract from your ability to get an interview. This, they argue, is because decision makers can be quirky, and it is impossible to predict how someone might react to learning about some aspect of your background or personality. They therefore suggest omitting such information from your resume. Those who advocate for the inclusion of personal information correctly point out that such information can be beneficial during the interview process. For example, as the interview process proceeds, the employer is likely to want to talk to you about things that are not strictly related to your job qualifications. They will often want to learn about your interests, so they can begin to assess how well you are likely to fit in with their organization. Including some personal information on your resume can be a good way of helping steer the employer to personal information that makes you look good and which you want to talk about it during an interview. And that's the key if you decide to include personal information on your resume. Make sure you mention items that are almost certain to make you look good, and that you would enjoy discussing. For example, in most all cases you would want to stay away from mentioning political or religious affiliations or other issues that are issues that are notoriously divisive. You also want to stay away from mentioning issues that potentially conflict with the image you want to portray regarding your ability to do the job. For example, I have seen people mention on their resumes that they are naturists or that they have a passion for home brewing beer. Those are probably not the images you want to conjure up in your potential employer's mind. To be sure, some employers may cringe at the notion that you have extensive personal interests. They want to know is about your work. My experience is that most employers don't fall into this category, but it is very difficult to tell at the beginning of the process if the employer you are about to contact will recoil at the mention of even the tamest personal interest. That is why I generally advise against including purely personal information. The key phrase in the prior sentence is "purely personal information." If a personal interest is directly relevant to a particular job, mention it in the main body of the resume. For example, knowledge of a foreign language or familiarity with a foreign country or culture might be an important qualification for a particular job. The same is true of certain social or political affiliations. For example, if you are seeking a job with an environmental organization, it might make sense to mention other environmental organizations with which you are affiliated. Even the interest in home brewing beer could be directly relevant if you were applying for a job with a beer manufacturer or related trade association. But if you are mentioning a hobby or interest simply to let a potential employer know more about you as a person, you are generally better off omitting such information from the resume, and introducing yourself at the interview. Career Counselor's Corner questions are answered by Gideon Grunfeld, President of Successful Career Strategies, Inc. (www.scslawcareers.com), which specializes in helping lawyers take control of their careers in and outside the practice of law. You can submit questions to Mr. Grunfeld at gideon@scslawcareers.com
This part of the LawPath newsletter is often a good place to point out the obvious. Obvious advice, however, sometimes needs to be delivered. This month's topic is summer associates who will soon be arriving at law firms around the country. The obvious thing about these individuals is that, when it comes to dating, they are off-limits. Whatever the circumstances, even if you yourself are only a year or two out of law school, it will not be a positive for your career when it becomes known that you are romantically involved with a summer associate. And it will become known. Remember that the summer associate program is really a two or three-month long job interview and this by definition proves problematic for your personal involvement. As a full-time employee of the firm, there is a disparity of work-place power between you and the summer associate. That won't look good if and when things go bad with your summer associate lover.
Dealing with Deadbeat Clients When you decide to do pro bono work, you want it to be just that -- your decision. In other words, you don't want to work for a client expecting to get paid and then have the client fail to meet that expectation. Unfortunately, nonpaying clients are part of law practice. You therefore need to manage these clients. Sometimes you will be less surprised than others when a client does not pay its bill. This is because there are clients who will come right out and tell you they are not in a position to pay your fees. Many lawyers have had the experience of a client coming through the door, telling you what they need done, indicating they want to hire you and then dropping into the conversation that the two of you will need to be creative about billing and collecting. These clients will ask you to ride along with them while they set up their companies and promise to reward you on the back end. That can pose a hard choice for lawyers - especially those trying to build their business. Maybe you really need clients and you are not working at full capacity and the risk seems reasonable. You might sign up with this client who doesn't guarantee you anything. Worse is the situation when the nonpayment comes as a surprise. You submit your bill and either hear nothing or only hear about additional work that needs to get done for the same client. While you might find it distasteful to discuss fees, it's a taste you need to get used to. There are, of course, ways to guard against getting stuck. In the example above, you might ask for partial payment and maybe some equity ownership in the business in exchange for taking a risk. For clients you don't know well, you can ask for a retainer on the front end. There is, however, the question of what happens after the retainer has been used up. Some lawyers will take the aggressive step of refusing to do one minute of additional work until the retainer is replenished. Others take a case-by-case approach about how much they want to trust the client. On the back end, you and/or your firm should have a policy in place for dealing with clients who are behind on their invoices. You might, for example, cut off clients (within the rules of professional responsibility) after three months. Conversations with your client who has not kept current should take place well before that point in time. You will want to add a certain amount of flexibility to any collection policy. There are companies out there who pay like clockwork. The only problem is that their clock is three months slow. That's probably a client you don't want to cut off. Another client without that track record might be treated differently. Speaking of clients you don't know well, there may be signs early on that collecting may be a problem. If, for example, you see a series of firms that have come and gone on the same matter you are handling, this may be a sign of a deadbeat client. Precautions should be taken. Perhaps most important of all the things you can do, communicate on this issue before it becomes a big issue. There are times when your client might not even be aware that it has fallen behind. Also to help foster communication, don't be shy about collecting your fee. You don't expect to work for free and your clients shouldn't expect that either.
Talk the Talk that is Lawyerese. Learn some of the words and phrases that will be important to your career advancement at The Firm.
Where are there more lawyers, Washington DC or Japan? (answer at end of newsletter)
A tavern owner in Arkansas sued the state because sobriety checkpoints set up by the state caused people there to drink less.
The Papers of Abraham Lincoln:
www.lincolnlegalpapers.org/ A documentary history of the law practice of Abraham Lincoln, this site shows you what it was like to practice law in the 19th Century and without word processors. Trivia answer: -- Washington DC. In the words of Lee Iacocca, "The Japanese have about as many lawyers as we have sumo wrestlers."
|
Become a Member | Job of the Day | Recruiter Directory | Employment Connections Run with the Rodent | Education Center | Vox Populi Bookstore | About EmplawyerNet | Member Support | FAQ | Home Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions For prompt attention, please use our email support service. You may also call us at 800-270-2688 |