            |
|
|
|
October 2005
By William Seaton Forrester Research, a Cambridge, Mass.-based market research firm, reported that 12,000 legal jobs moved offshore in 2004, following a trend that has seen other industries - notably computer programming and accounting - hit by a loss of jobs to cheaper overseas workers. By 2015, Forrester predicts the legal job losses will increase to 79,000, with just over half being attorney positions. And you thought competing with your classmates for jobs was tough. Try the teeming masses of India or Australia. To keep this in perspective, 12,000 jobs is a minute fraction of the legal industry, less than one-percent of the estimated million and a half legal workers. Furthermore, most of the jobs are at the low end of the food chain, meaning such tasks as document management and research, as the licensing rules prevent foreign lawyers from providing direct legal advice to American clients. As of today, the outsourcing trend represents more of a threat to the paralegal industry than it does to lawyers. Emphasis on the word "today." Already several U.S corporations and law firms (see News, below) are outsourcing routine legal work and one employer, General Electric, has set up a legal subsidiary in India, employing some thirty lawyers. GE's U.S.-licensed lawyers review the work product of the foreign lawyers and if this ultimately proves an adequate work-around of the licensing restrictions, one wonders if the trend may one day morph into a paradigm shift. Lawyers are in the broad class of knowledge workers. Rather than build buildings or paint pictures, lawyers make a living dispensing knowledge, with their license guaranteeing the requisite education to do so. Knowledge workers, however, are the most vulnerable to outsourcing as their work is neither geographic specific nor dependent on a unique talent. The carpentry can't be outsourced to India because the building is here and artists will always be protected by the fact that you can't clone artistic vision. But you can review a contract in India and you can teach a smart (and cheap) worker how to do it. So what would such a shift mean for the legal profession? One of two things. Let's assume that the trend, however widespread, will stay restricted to the lower levels of work, the kind of rote tasks that young associates cut their teeth on. Take that out of the equation and the de facto apprenticeship that lawyers go through disappears. Law schools don't teach these pragmatic tasks so, with law firms hiring fewer new associates, more newly minted lawyers will resort to hanging out their shingle, the functional equivalent of a doctor telling you that you're his first surgery victim, uh, patient. Or perhaps this portends another kind of sea change. Already there are legal outsourcing shops popping up here at home so perhaps we ultimately find the cheaper workers in our own backyard. The ABA will fight this, as it should, if the work is done by non-lawyers, but they may not have to. There are some one hundred and ninety ABA accredited law schools, turning out more than enough workers, assuming they'll take the lower scale. If they don't, the risk is that someone in India will.
US Military Back on Campus at Harvard Law School
Australia Dealing With Cheating Law Students
Is Your Legal Job Going Overseas?
Dear Career Counselor:
Q: I am 58 years old and have practiced real estate law for much of the last twenty years. I recently saw several positions posted online that sought a "commercial real estate attorney with 2-5 years of experience." One of the positions required expertise in conduit loans, an area in which I am very familiar. It is clear to me that my applications are generally being ignored at least in part because of my age. It's not a matter of money as I am not seeking the salary earned even by a senior associate. What can I do to change this situation?
A: Dear James, A two-pronged approach can be useful to reduce the chances that your age will be a factor in evaluating your application. The first approach is based on the premise that most employers do not intentionally discriminate on the basis of age, but are more likely to discriminate if they are given information that makes it easier for them to do so. The second approach seeks to find positions where your additional experience is most likely to be perceived as an asset. The key to the first approach is to present information that is most relevant to the position you are seeking and omit the rest. Too often, attorneys of all ages use a resume as a mini-biography, in which they attempt to summarize their entire career in a page or two. But a resume is most effective when it is a future-oriented proposal, and not an historical summary. James, in the case of the conduit financing position, identify the experiences that most directly relate to this area of real estate law. How do you do this? Use a heading on your resume that makes clear you are listing your "Relevant Experience." In addition, describe what you have accomplished in terms of the benefits you have provided rather than the emphasizing the experience you have. For example, you might indicate that you have handled conduit financing deals that are worth in excess of $500 million (or whatever an appropriate amount would be). You could also indicate that you have more than 5 or 10 years of experience in a given area, rather than indicating you have more than 20 years of experience. Likewise, you should also consider listing the experience you have had in the last 10 years or so, and omit prior work experience from the resume. You would also not be the first attorney to list where they went to school without identifying the year in which they graduated. To be clear, I am not suggesting that you omit such information if you are specifically asked about it either on an application form or during an interview. You should of course answer such questions truthfully. The second approach takes a different tack. Rather than trying to shape your resume to hide the amount of experience you do have, affirmatively seek out positions where your experience is most likely to benefit an organization. Many if not most advertised positions seek attorneys with less than five years of experience. And for good reason. Most companies are especially keen to fill senior positions through a trusted source. You should therefore contact potential employers regardless of whether they are advertising an opening. It might also be helpful to discuss your situation with a recruiter, recognizing that recruiters fill a very small percentage of positions. You should, however, primarily rely on getting in touch with employers directly and through your network of contacts. Moreover, you will increase your success rate if you meet potential employers in a context that does immediately suggest that you are looking for a job. For example, identify the people who would be in a position to hire you--attorneys and non-attorneys--and identify where you can meet them. Trade association meetings or industry groups can be a good place. Moreover, when you do contact potential employers in writing, consider using a one-page biography rather than a resume; the resume instantly makes people think that you are looking for a job. The biography makes it more likely that people will view you as a potential resource—a source to solve some of their problems. This second approach also has a greater potential to land a job that pays better. One of the ironies of the job market is that employers tend to devalue more senior attorneys who seem willing to take a significant pay cut. Some employers conclude that more senior applicants can't be very good attorneys if they are seeking to fill a mid-level associate's position. Thus, James, you may have better luck securing a higher paying position commensurate with your experience. James, no one approach that is guaranteed to help you find the job you want. But if you use both approaches listed above, your chances of success may improve. 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
While we are all very familiar with the concept of attorney-client privileged communication, many lawyers are a bit loose with their lips when talking about what is going on in the office. Many of us are interested in our cases or deals and we like to tell people about them (even if the other person doesn't really want to hear about them). Too many lawyers get in the habit of talking about their matters with other lawyers and then develop the bad habit of speaking openly outside the office. Even if we don't mention names, even if the information might actually be public and even if we don't think what you are saying is detrimental to the client, you can be sure that clients will appreciate discretion when chatting with others. Another "even if" is that the client is very unlikely to know that you are spreading the word. That, however, is certainly not an excuse. It is always a possibility that the information can get into the wrong hands. It's also possible that the people you tell may question your judgment and be less inclined to hire you when they need help with a legal matter that they wish to keep confidential.
Partnership: Be Sure it's What You Want Before Getting on the Track The Holy Grail among law firm associates is, of course, partnership. On the one hand, being elected to partner is proof of acceptance and approval by the firm's top management. On the objective side, it is ownership, a stake in the firm as a business entity and the opportunity to share in the fortunes of the firm's productivity. But like so many established concepts in the legal world, this most cherished ideal is not what it used to be. And it may be something much different at your own firm where you can set up shop and, happily, elect yourself partner. The partnership track can vary significantly from firm to firm and from region to region. It might be a nine or ten year proposition as it is in some major cities or it may be seven to eight years in other places. The larger the law firm, the more this track is a set and inflexible rule. In smaller law firms, the track may be shorter or, in some cases, the advancement to partnership might be made on an ad hoc basis. Again, if it's your own firm, you may "ad hoc" as much as you like. In more recent years, there has been the development of the "off-track" partner. This is an individual who is, in essence, a permanent associate. This person's income will rise over time but he or she will not become directly dependent on the firm's profitability. No partnership decision is ever made on such individuals and they do not have the prospect of becoming an owner in the business enterprise that is the law firm. These same positions are sometimes known as "senior counsel" or "special counsel." When a firm passes someone over for partner, they often ask that person to leave. But if that lawyer's services are still valuable and he is willing to remain in the firm on a nonequity basis, an arrangement as a permanent associate can satisfy both party's needs. In fact, for some lawyers a nonequity position may even be preferable. Such an individual is not tied economically to the investments and debts of the firm and need not spend the additional time on management issues expected of partners. They simply do their job and are guaranteed their paycheck. Many lawyers are very happy to be in this place, even if it is considered to by some to be lawyer's no man's land. Still, if your ego can stand it, you should at least consider such a position as an alternative if you don't think you are on the partnership track or you prefer to be off the track. What goes into the partnership decision varies from firm to firm and even under the best of circumstances the result may be unpredictable. Certainly, the quality of work, the ability to work with clients, intra-office relations and the number of years one have put in with the firm have much to do with whether one is offered partnership. Other considerations are the overall health of the firm, the number of associates being considered for partner at any one time, the demand for your area of expertise and some vague intangibles that go under the name of "politics." As you can see, many of the elements that impact your election to partner are outside your control. This is another reason lawyers set up their own firms - they get to have more control over issues that impact their fate. Not everyone who enters a law firm will, after some prescribed period of time, automatically become a partner. Not even close. The profession is recognizing this and is developing alternative arrangements to the traditional up-or-out approach. You should come to grip with these changes and figure out what is best for you.
Lawyers need to know how to travel in style. Let The Rodent teach you how to do it.
In the British House of Commons, what is the distance that separates the benches on which the members of different parties sit? (answer at end of newsletter)
The New Hampshire state motto of "Live Free or Die" is stamped on license plates by prisoners housed in the state's Concord prison facility.
The LMA site has much helpful information for law office personnel, consultants and vendors involved with marketing, client development, client relations, practice development and communications. Trivia answer: The distance is equal to the length of two and a half swords, thus long enough to keep the two sides more than a sword's length away from each other.
|
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 |