For OCI if the school has the space sometimes it is done right on campus, otherwise it is typically done at a hotel or Alumni Club. My New York OCI was hosted at an Alumni Club (which also served as a hotel), literally hotel room after hotel room filled with lawyers representing every big firm in the city. In a bizarre process that resembles speed dating the candidates scurry from room to room for 20 minute interviews that offer the prospect of making $160,000 for the first few years of their burgeoning legal career.

My guidance counselor gave a long speech about how at this stage in our career we were just “expensive clay.” Her point was that firms invest a lot of money in us and then eventually maybe three or four years down the line they are able to mold us into the makings of a high-powered attorney. The firms that participate in OCI were after the best “clay,” the easiest clay to mold, the clay that would hold the best shape. So although the lawyers they were interviewing knew very little about the type of law these firms actually practiced they were in theory worth large sums of money only because they could be easily trained in complex areas of the law. Many law schools do not even offer classes that teach the type of law that are the bread and butter of these firms (e.g. structured finance, project finance, derivatives, collateralized bond, asset backed commercial paper) yet these law schools feed off the fervor of the US News Rankings and being able to average out the 80% low salary earners of each class with the 20% high salary earners (see my example below)– however they make no effort to provide custom tailored course offering towards Big Law- it seems as if it is a love hate relationship. The law schools don’t want to seem like they are shoving all their students toward Big Law, however the Big Law numbers in the glossy brochures are often what lures students in the first place. Unfortunately, this is the case even in a good economy.

EXAMPLE:

If a hypothetical law school enjoys the employment rates as shown above, or similar, as most do. They have a situation where the top graduates maybe 57 or so out of 300 earn jobs at Big Law firms paying the current going rate of $160K. The entire rest of the class, over 80%,  243 students could earn jobs paying less than 50,000 a year, which often times is the case (see the venting section of this website, or Tom the Temp’s Website, or Big Debt, Small Law , for a more realistic, albeit bitter, view of these numbers).   This heavily skewed break down allows Law Schools to advertise average salaries of over $70,000 (case-in-point John Marshall Law School , mind you this was during the Big Law, “NY to 190” nonsense hiring boom). Also worthy of note is the “range” in the John Marshall link, topping out at $240,000- bringing me to my next observation… not only is the data itself heavily skewed as reported, but it is self-reported and excludes students who are “not actively looking  for employment” whatever that means (seems like an easy way to exclude a chunk of unemployed lawyers in the statistics).  Anyone making $240,000 fresh out of John Marshal Law School, is either working for their father who happens to be the, CEO of Boeing, or is a fraud.  Another trick law schools employ is to report industry statistics rather than personalized statistics for their own graduates, instead of reporting the median income of the students they actually placed in certain size firms, they will report instead the average amount paid but these size firms (take a look at such an example here).  The games the admissions offices play are a form of fraudulent misrepresentation that if any publicly traded company perpetrated each and every shareholder would have the automatic right to bring a derivative action against the company,  these actions  are a travesty and I agree with Half Sigma that these statistics given their high stakes value should be audited  by independent accounting firms.

In any event the worst part about OCI, is that despite the fact that you may be at a top law school (or performed well enough at a non-top law school to participate), and are on your way to the big bucks (or at least so you think) all of the HR departments try to lure interest in their firm by using little useless little trinkets that you might find in one of those jam-packed annoying party favor books your parents ordered from when you were probably about four.  If you want an idea of what I am talking about go to the Oriental Trading Company website click on toys and novelties,  just about everything you see there was at my OCI except they items had firm names airbrushed all over them.  I kid you not, magnetic dart boards, plastic water jugs, foam stress balls, mint tins, gumball machines just to name a few of the items. I mean just think of it, here comes the editor of the Yale Law Review, order of the coif, ranked 1^st or 2^nd in his class, who spent his summer setting up the new constitutional framework of  Ecuador walking down the hallway and he passes by some HR employee of “Firm X.” The employee sticks their hand out and offers him a… firm branded Chinese yo-yo !

All kidding aside, back in the 2006 heydays where firms actually drooled over bright law students (instead of pooping on them), one completely invalid measure of a firm’s mettle (yet still actively employed) was to evaluate the firm based on the size of the USB key the Firm handed out, that’s right to all the firms reading this, if you were that firm that decided to go with the 50 MB standard USB key, you were in serious trouble. The firms that got attention were the ones that slapped 1GB flash drives into a Cross pen (some serious James Bond stuff), now that sure beats a heavily branded stress ball. At least firm documents could be pre-loaded onto the USB drive and it could be argued that it is a “recruiting tool,” this argument fails when applied to stuffed penguin plush toys (ahem… Stroock).

I had just about 25 interviews spread across three days during my OCI.  While I could write several blog posts on the process (and may in the future) I just want to quickly highlight some of the characters I met from that day and some tips for those who may be going through it, about to go through it, or are going to go through it.

The Cast of Characters:

The Softball Thrower

The softball thrower started the interview off with a few personal “get to know you” type softball questions, (i.e. where did you grow up, what line of work are your parents in etc.), nothing unusual about this. Except The Softball Thrower never stopped, not one single substantive interview question was asked during the 20 minute interview (“How about those Yankees,” “What movies do you like,” “What is your favorite book,” What do you do for fun” etc. etc. etc.). I kept waiting for resume or law school questions to come. They never came, and neither did an offer from The Softball Thrower’s firm.

The OAF-Lite

The OAF-Lite, was a large ferocious litigator but unlike the OAF his questions had a purpose and his interview while tough was fair. He asked me if I remembered my 1L writing class brief topic, and grilled me on detailed questions about the stance I took and why I reasoned the way I did. Luckily someone who had interviewed earlier in the day gave me a heads up and I was able to think back to my topic, otherwise I wouldn’t have been able to field these detailed questions about a paper I had drafted a month ago. He then asked me to argue the other side of my original position against him. I respected the OAF-Lite and because I was prepared I did get a callback and an offer from the OAF-Lite’s firm.

The Ass

The best way I can describe this guy is an Ass. From the minute I stepped foot in the room he went on and on about how much money he made. “You wouldn’t believe how much money I made last year” he said. He went on to explain how he started the Russia practice at his firm, interjecting “it’s really sick how much money I make.” This meeting wasn’t an interview as much as it was a pompus soliloquy. No callback was awarded here but I did make it out of the interview without punching the Ass in the face.

The Lazy Eye

Nothing too exciting here except the Partner’s blood shot lazy eye was impossible not to stare at during the interview. Kind of like flipping past the Discovery channel and catching a glimpse of two animals engaged in acts you never really cared to think about animals performing, yet even though you know you really shouldn’t be staring at it, you just can’t help it. I tried my best to stare at a dot on the wall behind the partner’s head but I knew eventually he would catch on. I couldn’t help but think of what put him in that state and I kept coming back to the notion that it must have somehow resulted from large amounts of reviewing documents. Despite this setback the partner was actually quite cordial and we managed to have a productive interview and I got an offer.

The Easy Guy

I believe the Easy Guy gave a callback offer to every person he saw the day I interviewed with him. If not everyone nearly everyone. But he came prepared, the business cards he handed out were pre-prepared callback invitation cards. It stated right on the card that you were invited to come back for an interview at the firm and the number you should call to schedule it. The interview at one point hit a dead halt, prior to that we were discussing where my apartment was in relation to the school’s campus, he then asked me to draw a map showing my apartment and the distance from the school. He then handed me a call back/business card. I guess their strategy was to cast a wide net and then weed out students during the callback process. I was one of those weeded out later in the process.

The Big Tobacco Guy

About ten minutes into a stellar interview, where I was actually told by the Partner I was interviewing with that I reminded him of his good friend, another Partner at the firm. He looked up from my resume and said oh “I see you worked for the National Institutes of Health on a smoking cessation project” you know… Phillip Morris represents a significant portion of the firm’s business.” He explained, “the science is inconclusive on whether smoking causes cancer at all.” “It is?” I thought silently to myself, at that point for some reason I immediately thought about my favorite legal movie A Civil Action where Robert Duvall’s character is trying to demonstrate that pollution in the drinking water in Woburn isn’t the cause of the abnormal rates of Lukemia in the town. I started listing all the alternatives Duvall did in the movie… teflon pans, coffee, sugarless gum, silver fillings, hair spray… etc. I thought this approach was rather crafty and exhibited quick thinking; I tried to assure him at this point that my work for NIH was merely analyzing smoking cessation advertising to see how effective it was and that I wasn’t participating in an anti-smoking campaign at all, he didn’t buy it and in all honesty, neither did I.

“I could Tell Guy”

This guy kept me waiting in the hall for 15 minutes of my 20 minute interview. When he invited me in we had a quick conversation, at one point I said I think I want to go into “Litigation.” He said back to me: “you didn’t need to say that” “I could just tell.” I asked him what he meant by that and he said litigators “just have a certain personality.” At the time I took this as a compliment, now after meeting the OAF I’m not so sure. In any event, 5 minutes of exposure to my legal prowess was all it took to get a callback and later an offer from this firm.

The “Puzzler”

After this mediocre interview is coming to an end the guy gives me a cylinder shaped object, with a small hole in the bottom. He says “what do you think it is.” He waits for just about a minute as I think to myself “I have no #$#$% clue.” I didn’t really care either, but I think my final guess was “a paperweight.” He then looked at me as if I failed the test, then he instructed me to place my hand on the top right corner and left bottom corner at the same time and squeeze… it was a flashlight… whoopie. Tricked by a trinket = no offer.

The Shiny Object Guy

This guy a patent litigator spent 12 of our 20 minutes talking about how juries are fascinated by shiny objects. He said that once while he was putting on a case for a panel of “mock jurors” he left his pen inside his suit for one speech and used it to point in another, he said the juror’s eyes followed it when it was used and that they paid more attention to the pen then to the him (I could see why). He explained he had decided to put the pen away during his opening when the case actually went to trial (I thought great use of firm money, I’m sure you discovered the smoking gun evidence the case hinged upon). Since he did all the talking, and probably bored himself, no offer was awarded here.

The other 14 interviews were fairly normal. Except the awkward pause I got when I tried to make a joke about my alma matter in one—it was a joke she didn’t get since it was not her alma matter.  You could say it was a “failed rhetorical flourish that fell flat” (anyone catch the reference?).

Of the 23 interviews I received 11 callbacks and of the 11 callbacks, I declined 3 interviews (I was actually in a position to decline interviews from major firms, it’s so far removed from today I can’t even remember what it must have felt like— now I take interviews from any firm that will listen to me for a half hour without billing me). In any event I declined 3 interviews, of the 8 remaining callbacks I went on I got 5 offers to join summer programs at firms. I think ultimately, I picked the wrong one—although there is no way to know for sure what my fate would have been along any of the other paths.

I remember right before I interviewed at OCI Big Tobacco Guy’s firm put on a panel where 6 new associates gave presentations on OCI. The one thing I remember is one of the girls, after giving some BS advice about wearing “comfortable clothes” talked about how she went through an entire interview with toilet paper stuck to her shoe. I thought to myself who could be so silly… then during my OCI I’m rather convinced although I do not know for sure that I gave at least one entire interview with my fly open, possibly more. Luckily , i think, my suit jacket covered the area so I don’t think it was an issue.  Although the interview rush can cloud your mind, make sure to check that you are put together before starting the day.

For those of you reading the article for my sagely wisdom, below are my 5 tips for a successful OCI. As you can probably tell my advice for interviewing outside of an OCI process hasn’t been perfected yet, but as far as OCI goes I think I can help.

The Tips:

1.Create an Attractive Portfolio:

Instead of handing each individual document over like piece-meal during an interview, it is nice to have a folder to present. I created 25 packets for my OCI. Each one had a transcript, a resume, a writing sample, and references. I used a little business card with directional arrows in the tab of the folder flap to direct the reader where each document was, sort of like an index. I admit it was a little anal retentive, but it made for a nice professional presentation. Instead of digging through papers during each interview you simply hand over one folder and finish the exchange.  Showing strong organization skills during an interview is always a plus.

2. Ask for a Business Card and Take Notes on the Back.

Ask each lawyer you interview with for a business card. On the back of each card as soon as you leave the interview room quickly jot down a few things you remembered from the interview. “Likes the Mets and Golf.” “Structured Finance Partner, Head of the firm’s Pro Bono Committee” etc. This will be useful information and will help you personalize your thank you letters.

3. Have 3 Key Stories

At least 3 in depth experiences or stories that demonstrate your lawyerly skills. These snippets will be almost like pre-rehearsed speeches (except you will not deliver them in such a way), whenever the conversation allows you will pull one of these stories out and make sure to play it up as best you can. Remember these are your three best stories from all your legal experiences so make them good, highlight the relevant law and legal rules involved and if it can be entertaining as well all the better. Each interview will take its own course, but look for opportunities where you can naturally work in these key experiences. This is especially needed for interviewers who talk more than you do. If you get one of these interviewers make sure to get in as much about you as you can so they have something to remember you by, if you don’t they will have no reason to remember you as they talked the whole time and you didn’t. My best story involved a case where I had to look up the ownership and origin of the copyright on Rudolf the Red-Nosed reindeer, it turned out despite our initial suspicions Rudolf is not in the public domain!

4. Follow up with an E-mail that Night

Strike while the iron is hot, when the interview is still fresh in both you and your interviewer’s head. Use the notes you took on the business cards to create personalized thank you notes. This re-emphasizes your interview and if you are good with capturing key buzz information in the interview the interviewer will instantly remember your meeting while reading your thank you, getting you extra attention—which is almost always a good thing.

5. Familiarize Yourself with Writing Samples and Law School Papers

Some lawyers, like OAF-Lite, love to have an intellectual discussion and spar with you based on either your writing sample or something you wrote in law school. Be able to talk intelligently about these topics off the top of your head. Sometimes the interviewer will ask you to frame the topic just by saying “explain to me what you argued in your first legal memo” without giving you any specific details. If this re-quires you to go back and re-read these documents then you should do it. Just in case. The more you know about it the better you look, and heaven-forbid you should cite a case off the top of your head you will score major interview points.

Here are the names of any of the specific firms I discussed above: LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae LLP, Blank Rome LLP, Bryan Cave LLP , Nixon Peabody LLP, Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, Chadbourne & Parke LLP, Jones Day.

This is when my resume takes its journey to “Nowhereville.” The resume starts strong and proud traveling straight through Middle Earth towards Walden Pond, it then treks over Atlantis (of course remembering to steer clear of Utopia, wouldn’t want it to end up in a happy place) and winds up anemic and emasculated in a little place towards the back of “The Waste Land” known as Nowhereville. Nowhereville is where 95% percent of my resumes wind up. 4.99% wind up in some combination of the Bermuda Triangle, a random Black Hole, and Never-Never Land (where I am told Captain Hook has initiated a hiring freeze).  Finally, .01% actually reaches someone with the capacity to hire, who then promptly discards my resume in the nearest trash bin or rips it into 4 neat squares and uses the backs as scrap paper. Second, I search the internet for mid-sized firms that engage in the type of legal work I would ideally like to practice in. I craft a letter directly to the managing partner of the firm, explaining that “I am looking for a chance to prove myself and to gain valuable experience.” I then explain “I am willing to work part-time. I am willing to work for a probationary period and I am willing to work for compensation well below market rate.” I have yet to receive a response to any of these e-mails. Third, alumni networking, I created an excel spreadsheet listing all the alumni from my Law School that have agreed to allow students to contact them. I e-mailed each one individually asking for advice or any job leads they might know of. For those who respond, I get, mechanically, each one of the following components or some derivation in a different order. [1] A sentence that expresses sympathy or sorrow for my position, [2] A sentence that explains I should “broaden” my search to a variety of legal settings including non-profit organizations and small/mid-size firms (gee… there is an idea why haven’t I thought of it? [see paragraph above]) [3] A sentence or two that explains I should keep my skills fresh by finding a way to “volunteer” or provide pro bono legal services (tacitly implying that my general good demeanor will pay the bills and put food on the table), and finally, [4] a concluding paragraph that explains they are available if I’d like to call them at their home or office but that they really do not have any further advice. Here is one specimen (annotated) by way of example:

Dear [Jobless Lawyer], [1] I am very sorry to hear about your situation. My suggestion would be to keep looking. There may be jobs at smaller (mid to small sized firms) that you would have to take a pay cut to work for, but still may be worthwhile. [2] I would suggest broadening your search, if you have not already done so. [3] With respect to finding something that will allow you to develop your skills as a litigator, I would suggest that you reach out to non-profit/pro bono organizations, many of whom have special programs to permit laid off associates to work (albeit for free). Those are my initial thoughts. [4] Feel free to give me a call at the contact information below, although unfortunately I doubt can be of much further assistance. ~ [Ivy League Crony]

I am in no way trying to diminish the responses these alums took the time to type to me, because the reality is this is the best advice they can give. I just would have thought that maybe one out of fifty could have started their e-mail with “I have a friend…” or “I know of this small firm that is hiring” or “let me pass your resume to an old colleague of mine.” I mean so much for Ivy League cronyism, for those of you who think it exists, I am living proof it doesn’t. $250,000 worth of degrees… today that and $2.25 will get me on bus (to make my point even clearer the bus costs $2.25). Fourth, the “informational interview.”  This is where job seekers are encouraged to call up random folks for any variety of reasons (i.e. you are interested in the type of work they do, they are an alumnus, they look like they might need a friend etc.) and ask them out for coffee, a meal, dinner etc. There is no expectation that this will lead to a job, in fact it is almost certain that it will not. These meetings, I am told, should be treated like formal interviews, although they are not. The story goes that before leaving the “interview” you should get the name of another individual from the interviewer that you can go on another “informational interview” with. Sort of like those bizarre pyramid schemes that leaves some ambitious housewife driving a pink Cadillac but the rest of them with a basement full of expiring cosmetics. Unfortunately, I have not found the Cadillac. Adding insult to injury, my girlfriend refers to these endeavors as “man dates.” It would be worth the ridicule if something came of them, but nothing has. My fifth strategy is to get up on my soapbox and scream out to the world that I need a job and to please hire me. I did this by paying $25 dollars to post an ad in the job section of craigslist. Yes, I realize it is annoying when you are searching through job postings to find that one sad soul whose post reads “JUNIOR ATTORNEY LOOKING FOR WORK,” but I figured hey maybe that guy (or girl) was on to something I wasn’t, and I took the plunge. Here was my post:

Vault Top 10 Firm Litigation Associate – Looking for Experience I am a prior big law junior litigation associate, and a product of the recent economic downsizing currently occurring at the majority of corporate firms. I am looking for an opportunity to keep my litigation skills fresh and learn new areas of law until I am able to secure another full time position.  My primary areas of interest are business/commercial, antitrust, securities, appeals, soft IP and real estate litigation. I am willing to entertain offers for lower (but reasonable) paying positions, as long as they provide for extensive substantive legal experience in a variety of areas. My Credentials:

• Law journal experience.
• Two published law journal articles and one currently in peer review.
• Worked as a law clerk for a State Judge.
• Worked in-house for a large publicly traded Fortune 500 company.
• Approximately 1 year of litigation related experience.

Ideally, I would like to put my services to use for a medium sized litigation boutique, either in NYC or easily commutable from NYC, and involved in at least some of the areas of law I mentioned above. Although these are not firm requirements by any means. Please e-mail me with any offers. I can provide my resume, references, and writing samples upon request.

That day I received four responses: The First:

Just wanted to wish you good luck.  You might want to check out NJ’s recent pro bono initiative…that’s something I am going to look into. Also, I doubt it matters, but for what it is worth, American Lawyer is the default guide for ranking law firms, not Vault–if you were to say ’AmLaw top 10 firm’ it might make more of an impression…like i said, just a thought. [Mr. I am not Barred in New Jersey but Thanks for the Tip]

The Second:

Dear Sir or Madam: I saw your craigslist post. I am a new entry level associate looking for a position. I would like to treat you to lunch if you are in the city sometime to have a discussion about your experiences which I believe would be beneficial to my own career. I imagine there are a lot of experienced associates such as yourself and new entry level associates such as myself “out there” right now competing for a few law positions. I hope that we could learn from one another. Please contact me by responding to this message. Otherwise, I wish you well in finding employment. [Mr. Two Heads are Better than One but not When we are Competing for the Same Jobs]

The Third:

I saw your Craigslist post and I don’t think you will have any problem finding employment. I was wondering if you happen to come across any firms looking for a good legal secretary if you could let me know, or refer them to me.  I am looking for a Legal Secretary position, I attach a copy of my Resume for your review. Thank you, and good luck to you in your search, [Ms. Desperate Secretary Sending out Her Resume to Any Warm Body]

The Fourth:

Hi, I noticed your craigslist advertisement. I am working on an article about the legal layoffs and I was wondering whether or not you’ve seen any results? Thanks, [Mr. Unemployed Lawyer Posing as a Reporter to See If My Approach Was Successful]

To recap these are the four responses I received: 1) Someone correcting the title of my post, 2) Another unemployed lawyer looking for an “informational interview” 3) A legal secretary who for some unknown reason sent me her resume and 4) A reporter seeking to learn if my approach was successful. If it wasn’t for a fifth response (which came later) I would say this post was a complete waste of $25 bucks, however I did get what could be an actual legitimate lead for a part time position from this post. It is too early to tell but I will be sure to update in real-time on my twitter any success I may have hit upon with this approach.

I’ve recently wondered if I might have some secret message hidden in my resume that exclaims how much I like to be played with like a mouse dangling from a cat’s paw.  Maybe it is written with lemon juice or only visible under special infrared light. Of all the legal interviews being conducted in all the law offices across New York City, the real “winners” somehow have a way of finding me.

This story starts with me searching for a position on lawcrossings.com, I came across a posting in soft IP law (trademark and copyrights) advertising for a position as a litigation associate admitted to Federal Court.  Since I have two published articles in the area of trademark law I thought this sounded like a position I could be suited for. I am not admitted to Federal Court so after reading this post I did some quick research (nothing extensive) to search for the procedure to become admitted to Federal Court. I came across an application on the NYSD website, I skimmed it briefly and made sure none of the application questions were odd or anything that would stand in my way of getting admitted.

I determined from my review of the application materials that admission to Federal Court would not be difficult and that I should apply to the position.  I also believed that if the person reviewing the applications truly only wanted to consider applicants who were admitted to Federal Court at the time of their application they would screen me out and not offer me an interview (it’s not like that hasn’t happened before). So I said what the heck and I sent it in.

The next day I got an e-mail from an Attorney at the firm to call his assistant and make an appointment to meet. I did this.

I determined after researching the firm and preparing for the interview that the firm was a solo practice. I never liked the idea of working for a solo-practitioner as a young lawyer because I am certain I would feel like the person’s lackey—not a feeling I ever wanted while in law school—but since the work was in soft IP, entertainment and internet law which are areas I would most prefer to practice in I thought I would overlook this “principle” of mine. Being jobless as long as I have you start to learn that the time spent watching the days on the calendar pass is directly proportional to level of erosion of your principles. Mine were putting up a valiant effort but every now and then one minor one had to go, this was one of them.

When I arrived at the firm I was impressed with the lobby. It looked like a smaller version of a lobby you might see in a top AmLaw firm employing hundreds of attorneys.  It had a selection of over 30 magazines laid out neatly on a table in front of vintage hard leather couches, the floor appeared to be marble and the office name sparkled in shiny gold plated lettering

After waiting 20 minutes past the interview time I finally met the “Over Aggressive Fellow” (OAF).

The interview begins by him leading me to his office. “Office” however is not the right word to use in this circumstance… cave, dungeon, pack-rat lair would provide the better description. Whatever impressions the lobby made the OAF’s office immediately negated them and then some. The office was an absolute mess. Papers thrown about everywhere, three different cups filled with three various liquids enjoying three separate spots in the room. Poorly clipped newspaper articles hung next to crookedly hung degrees gracing the walls. A pink dish towel was randomly thrown about in the middle of the floor, having no apparent function (except of course besides adding to the chic décor of the room). A suit jacket was tossed in the window sill as if it was on display for fashion week. It was simply an absolute mess.

Although I consider myself observant, I was only able to pick up all the nuanced details of this room because I sat in it idly for over 30 minutes while waiting for OAF to finish up work that had piled up during the day.  As he made calls to his secretary, typed e-mails, proof read documents I simply sat in the office pondering how disappointing it is having gone from ELF to OAF in a matter of six months. I had never been treated so rudely during an interview in my life, and this was just the beginning.

Although, on a typical day the three windows in the OAF’s room probably provided enough light for comfort, the day I interviewed was a rainy day and the skies were pale. The OAF was apparently trying to save money on the electric bill because for the entire half hour I sat in his office watching the OAF work the lights were off.

The OAF finally shut his door and turned the lights on. The first thing he said was “I don’t have a copy of your resume.” I shuffled through my briefcase for an extra copy and promptly handed it over. His first question was “so you have been looking for a job since [ELF].” He then spent some time looking over my resume. He asked me what “TA” meant I explained “Teaching Assistant.” He then asked if “there really was a course in Internet and E-Commerce law” at my school, as if to see if maybe I had fabricated it for my resume.  I explained that yes the course did in fact exist. He asked if during the class we ever spoke about some esoteric legislation that was being considered that could potentially affect Google, he spoke too fast for me to process what he was talking about, but I honestly had no idea what he was referring to.  So I explained that was not something we covered, although we did cover “initial interest confusion” and “trademark infringement as applied to meta-tags” which did apply to Google.

Then he looked up from my resume and said “are you admitted to Federal Court.” I explained that all I needed was a sponsor. He said “that could be a problem.” To which there was a moment of silence. I thought to my quick review of the SDNY application form and sheepishly said “I don’t think it should be a problem” if things work out “you might even be able to sponsor me.” He looked up for a moment and said “that is an interesting solution.” To which I said “I believe you only have to be admitted to the SDNY” and “vouch for the candidate on the application.” Silence again. I then explained that I reviewed the application in preparation for the interview and my understanding was   “you only have to be admitted to the SDNY” and “vouch for the candidate on the application.”

At this statement OAF perked up as a blood hound would that just got a whiff of red meat. He immediately said “you just told me you believe that to be true,” “now you are representing the requirements as 100% true facts.”  I explained “I am not trying to misrepresent the rules, I am just explaining my understanding of what I read” he did not want to hear it, he immediately cut me off. Stating again how he believed I was representing to him that I was 100% sure of the rules. He then turned to his computer and started typing an e-mail. I couldn’t believe he went back to doing work.

Except unbeknownst, to me the OAF was actually typing me an e-mail while I sat across from him, explaining the rules of a little exercise he had just somehow conjured up.

When he turned back around he started lecturing me. At this point I knew the interview was going horribly, the OAF’s personality was a complete turn off as was the office environment he kept. I had already determined that as much as I needed a job, I would rather scrape clean the bottom of the deep fryers at Roy Rogers then spend another minute with the likes of the OAF. I kept repeating to myself, “just thank this man for his time and leave,” “just thank this man for his time and leave,” yet I was strangely drawn to see what the OAF had left to say, I guess I am just a glutton for punishment and I did not leave.

He continued with his lecture. He stated “the requirements of Federal admission are a legal rule, and as an associate you will be tasked with interpreting and drawing legal conclusions from these types of rules every single day.”  He went on “the correctness of these interpretations are of crucial importance for this job.” “You understand that right?” he asked. I realized at this point that I was no longer an interviewee (in fact I never was) and that I was merely a party being deposed. Cutting off witnesses, buckling them down to explain slight inconsistencies in their word choices is the bread and butter of litigators.  Only usually this behavior is reserved for court rooms and conference rooms, not sprung on unsuspecting interviewees.

I just simply said “yes.” He then said “what the rule actually says is of little importance, it either lays out the requirements you suggest or it doesn’t” he explained … “but what is important, is whether you are correct, because your correctness in this interpretation is an indication of how you will perform if you were to get the job and that is what is relevant for me evaluating your candidacy.” “You will research the requirements and provide a report of them to me, and if your understanding is correct we will meet again… if it is not we will not meet again.” “Ok so we are done here.” And just like that an interview I had waited for over 45 minutes to start was over in less than 10.

He actually said to me before I left “I will certainly see you again.” I wondered why someone so careful with word usage would say “certainly,” when he just explained to me that our meeting again was not certain (and I had already determined that regardless of the outcome of this little endeavor I would never step foot in this office again, so in fact it was certain that we would not meet again) but I digress.

Here is the OAF’s e-mail to me (that he typed to me during our interview):

[Joblesslawyer],

I am just confirming that you will email me the requirements for admission to the SDNY as I have asked you to do several times…you are now insisting that you are 100% sure of them and you know with certainty that all that is needed is that you have a sponsor that is admitted to the District already and you are asking me if i would mind being your sponsor…please follow my requests and check the rules again and confirm for me that your understanding is correct….

We have not offered you a position yet and we may or may not consider your for the job but we need to make sure that your understanding of the rules is correct and since this is the type of conclusion that you would make as an associate, your cooperation and your answers will be meaningful to the application.

[The OAF]

As it turns out (after I thoroughly researched local civil Rule 1.3) that in order to sponsor a candidate for admission to the SDNY the sponsor must actually have known the candidate for a total of 1 year in addition to being admitted to the SDNY (someone meeting these requirements would not be difficult for me to find). But, oh well.

Here are select excerpts from my response:

Dear [OAF],

…

I stand by my statement that it should not be difficult for me to get admitted to the SDNY.

Had this been a central issue or even tangential issue to an actual case, that required analysis of court rules I would have conducted thorough research on the point, had the issue fully briefed and would have been prepared to discuss it at length. Unfortunately, although my statements are being held to the same level of scrutiny a formal fully briefed position would get I did not have the luxury of actually preparing for this argument.

If I did commit an error I believe the error was in approaching our interview merely as an interviewee and not as a subject being deposed. I did not realize my words were being parsed and analyzed for the slightest contradiction. Had I believed after waiting casually in your office for over a half hour with the lights off for you to finish up work, that a formal interrogation was soon to ensue I would have put my litigator hat on and certainly would have been able to more adequately spar over minute details. By the time I was able to figure out the direction you were taking the conversation, it was already too late and I had apparently painted myself into a corner as an attorney hopes a key witness will on the other side of a big case, when being cross examined on the stand.  Only your technique was more like a sneak attack, and not analogous to what truly happens when arguing a case, forcing me into a bizarre bet over an artificial position I never actually agreed to defend.

… Good luck with your subsequent interviews. It was a very interesting experience meeting with you.

~[Jobless Lawyer]

On that note, I’ll just say, I have some luck, thanks Puck.

The first half of the video below had me cracking up because it reminded me so much of my interview with the OAF, unfortunately the second half of the video takes a turn for the worst so I suggest you end it after the interview segment (the main differences being I did not get the job and I did not dance with a transvestite) .

Their strategy is a different one. Once you click to learn more about a position a message is sent to your “search consultant” who will see if your credentials match the requirements for the position.  If your credentials and the position aren’t an exact match and I mean exact (i.e if you have 1 year 7 months of litigation experience and the post wants 2 years, you will not be allowed to apply—and yes this example is from personal experience) you will not be provided with the information regarding the position. If you do match you will be provided with the employer information and an opportunity to discuss the position with your consultant.

Here is the interesting part, each job posted on lateral link provides the candidate with a bonus of either $5,000 or $10,000 dollars depending on how much the job pays. Jobs exceeding $160,000 a year will give you a bonus of $10,000 and jobs paying less usually carry a bonus of $5,000. In essence Lateral Link operates just as another recruiting firm would, except they share the extra bonus with you. Typically a headhunter/recruiter makes 15%-20% of a first year’s salary. Therefore, for a $160,000 a year job Lateral Link stands to make $24,000-$32,000 on the placement, if you worked with another recruiting firm they would simply keep this entire amount, Lateral Link instead shares a modest percentage (31%-41%) of this fee with the candidate.

In a good economy, if you have decided that using a recruiter or search firm is the right move for you (see my post on recruiters and junior associates) then certainly include Lateral Link in the mix, just be aware of their strict credential matching policy.  My take is if you’ve decided on using recruiters you might as well throw one into the mix that allows you to reap in some of the financial benefits of your placement. Although be sure to still consider the calculus of the situation.

But I digress…

The real feature of this post is about a program that I was contacted about a few weeks ago run by Lateral Link called the “bridge-year program.”  After reading the e-mail the company sent out explaining the accolades of the program one would think they were being exposed to a unique opportunity for lawyers as amazing as the introduction of sliced white bread. However, this is certainly not the case.

Here is Exhibit A:

——————————————————————

Dear [Jobless Lawyer],

Lateral Link is pleased to announce the launch of our new Bridge Year Program.  The goal of this program is to assist our Members who have been affected by reductions in force as well as those who are participating in firm-sponsored deferment programs.

Through the Bridge Year Program, Lateral Link is working with our in-house clients to create short-term arrangements, whereby these clients “adopt” experienced attorneys looking to bridge a gap in their employment.  In addition to a potential permanent job offer at the end of the program, participating members will receive several benefits including: i) new in-house connections with sought after companies; ii) the opportunity to maintain and develop their legal skills; and iii) a nominal stipend of approximately $2,000 per month during the program.

Lateral Link has already helped attorneys participating in firm deferment programs to obtain positions at several top companies.  The Bridge Year Program expands these efforts to include assisting qualified, recently laid-off attorneys who are interested in an in-house legal “internship” position.

We have some great opportunities for attorneys with experience in real estate, corporate, litigation, IP, and other practice areas.  Our clients include some of the most well-known names in their industries, from cosmetics and entertainment to high tech and sports brands.

If you would like to be considered for the Bridge Year Program, please provide us with your information.

Best regards,

[Lateral Link]

——————————————————————

What a joke. Despite their best attempt to put all the trimmings on this jalopy of a program it is still a jalopy.

Here is the true translation for Exhibit A:

Since we here at Lateral Link are a bunch of crafty entrepreneurs we have determined a way to keep our clients happy, make a referral fee and sell the intellectual labor of lawyers who were negatively affected by the dismal economy at bargain basement prices.  We are looking for experienced lawyers who will agree to work for the exploitive rate of $12.50 (or lower) an hour for an entire year at a large private corporation.  What they will get in return are long nights and no guaranteed job but instead a wonderful pat on the back and the satisfaction of knowing they may have made “connections.”

If you think this is a harsh critique of the program need I remind you that the participants of this program are mega corporations that only exist to generate profits for their investors. We are not talking about non-profit organizations or groups providing legal services to needy individuals of the community. These are the actual groups that need discounted legal services and would not get help if it wasn’t for pro-bono or volunteer attorneys.  I would not include Fortune 500 companies on that list.

I hope new lawyers will spend these rough times helping those in need and volunteering their time, rather than slaving away for a corporation who has the audacity to offer a stipend fit for a summer intern to a duly licensed full time attorney while offering absolutely no guaranteed future employment prospects.

But it gets better. If you thought $12.50 an hour was insulting, wait until you see the true beauty of the “bridge year program.” Apparently the $12.50 an hour is only for premiere placements, others are not so lucky. Most placements actually go for far below this rate.

Before I knew the rates of pay (or rates of “nonpay” as I should call them) were non-negotiable, I wrote to Lateral Link requesting information about one of the placements and asking if the employer would consider increasing their stipend to $3,00 a month (as you can see I was really looking for a sweetheart deal with that request).

This was the response I received:

——————————————————————

Dear [Jobless Lawyer],

Unfortunately, this company has a very limited budget… they can only contribute $13,500 for a 4 day work week (about $8 per hour).  That said this job would provide for excellent experience and contacts.

Please let me know if you would like to be considered.

Best,

[Blah Blah], Esq.

Lateral Link Group, LLC

——————————————————————

Oh happy day! The dreams of a fulfilling career that carried me through law school may finally be here with the LaterLink program. Now that I think about it, I believe my first job out of high school as a camp counselor paid around $8 an hour (but the camp also provided me with free lunch and an opportunity to swim every day).

The minimum wage rate in D.C., Oregon, Vermont and Washington are all above $8 an hour so I’m guessing this company probably isn’t based in one of those territories (unless one of their handsomely paid attorneys discovered a wage loophole). My guess is that the folks over at LateralLink probably advised that the company incorporate in Wyoming where the minimum wage rate, is the lowest in the country, at $5.50 an hour.

Unfortunately, as insulting as these positions are, since the actual unemployment rate is approaching 17% (for an insightful analysis explaining why this is the case see this reasonablythinking.com post, put together by a colleague of mine with far more insight into the financial world than I could ever hope to provide– plus you might pick up some good investment tips here as well !) they are nontheless , pathetically, still atrractive to a young lawyer.

Here is my response:

——————————————————————

“Hi [Blah Blah],

I appreciate you keeping me abreast to this opportunity.

And I don’t mean to sound rude when I say this but $8 an hour for a licensed attorney … is just insulting.

I know we are in bizarre times with the economy the way it is, but … unfortunately, this is not an opportunity I can pursue.

Best,

~[Jobless Lawyer]”

——————————————————————

Some may say I should have just ended it there and moved on, others may say I took it too far already, but I say I was not finished yet.  I had to give the executives at Lateral Link a further piece of my mind because this program actually had some potential, but for the fact it was missing a crucial component: respect for the attorneys they hire shown by offering a livable adult wage somewhere close to the fair value of the services they expected to extract.

So I wrote another letter to them:

——————————————————————

[Blah Blah],

I understand that for an associate on deferment this type of position makes more sense. I also understand that the deferred associate is who the “bridge-year” program is designed for.

I imagine that under these current economic conditions LateralLink is probably getting an overwhelming response to these types of outrageous positions, because the reality is there just isn’t much out there…

However, for someone in my shoes who was previously earning [a respectable salary] at a large law firm and has over $100,000 in law school loans, as do most of my peers, the prospect of making $8 an hour is a bitter pill to swallow regardless of what contacts or connections may result.

At the end of the day this program allows companies to reap the benefit of bright, young, well-educated lawyers while paying an amount near or below minimum wage.

My suggestion is that the companies you partner with should consider:

1)      Increasing the stipend to $4,000 or $5,000 a month.

OR

2)       Allowing the participants to work for 2 companies simultaneously in the same geographic region working either 2 and 1/2 days for each company or alternating 2 day and 3 day weeks with each company.  This way if each company contributes $2,500 a month the total amount of compensation can reach $60,000 a year which is at least a decent wage, and one most lawyers in today’s times I think would seriously consider.

Again I thank you for your help and attention, and I appreciate your company’s efforts to think outside the box during rough times.

I hope my suggestions are helpful.

~[Jobless Lawyer]

——————————————————————

Unfortunately, this letter was not responded to and I fear it will never be.

My advice:  stay off the bridge to nowhere!

Legal recruiters are job prospect destroyers for junior associates.  For someone like me who has 1 year and 7 months of legal experience (and a measly 5 months – thanks again Evil Law Firm [ELF]– if you count only post law school graduation experience), legal recruiters add next to no value to the job seeking process, in fact they may take value away. The true calling for a headhunter and where their real value is, is in shopping high profile, well experienced candidates around confidentially. In good economic times this is how general counsels are typically found, and how partners or senior associates make lateral moves from boutiques to ELFs or ELFs to boutiques discretely. In other words there is an actual need for them. When placement of junior associates is considered however, this need ceases to exist.

Unfortunately today, it is impossible on any career website such as monster.com, careerbuilder.com, or lawjobs.com to scroll 3 millimeters down a page of without seeing: Daybreak legal, Davidcarie, Greenkey Legal, Yorkson legal, Topaz Attorney Search, BCG Attorney Search, Hiretrends, Jurisearch, Wise Counsel or the like. I am not kidding when I say it is not possible to find an actual legitimate position on the job boards without running into recruiting firm trolls who all post the same position dozens of times over.  If you don’t believe me go to lawjobs.com and type in “attorney” and choose NY then count how many positions are posted by actual firms and how many are posted by the agencies I listed above. The ratio is about 1:20 and sometimes not even that good. The worst part about it, is that the recruiter postings are usually all for the same job, it’s just that each separate recruiting firm is trying to fill it and obtain the commission.

If  a firm advertises directly on their website that there is a position—what happens next is each of these recruiting firms (who stand to make commissions of 15%-20% of the candidate’s first year salary) will craft their own job spec based on the original firm’s description (keeping it anonymous of course) and then proceed to flood all the various job boards, what results are multiple iterations of the same exact position for unsuspecting job seekers to stumble upon over and over again.

I made the mistake of using one of these agencies to apply for a litigation position I found on a job board. Not knowing any better I found a search firm that was advertising for a “Junior Litigation Associate,” little did I know the position was also posted directly on the actual law firm’s website for all the world to see. The recruiter still submitted me; needless to say I didn’t get the job.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that any hiring partner in their right mind is not going to pay a $24,000-$32,000 premium to hire a junior associate with 5 months experience who is currently unemployed for a position that was nationally advertised right on the law firm’s own website! Especially, when that hiring partner has a stack of resumes piled up to the ceiling of similarly credentialed junior lawyers that applied directly to the position without a recruiter. Herein lies the problem with using recruiters for junior positions (not to mention doing this during a recession).

I have found that if you want to avoid recruiters (and as I said, if you are as junior as I am, you want to avoid recruiters like The Plague) you are much better off using search services that provide posts directly from the source (i.e. theladders.com, hound.com, attorneyjobs.com).

When I first started my job searching,  I must have applied to a position listed with recruiters as “NY Junior Litigation Associate” about 100 times thinking that it was with 100 different firms. To my surprise 99% of the time each post led me back to either Akin Gump or Kasowitz Benson—two firms that I had already previously made the mistake of applying to through a recruiter (see my Akin Gump post for further details on how that went).

My advice now (6 months on the job prowl has now made me somewhat of an expert on recruiters) is if you find job posts that interest you and are linked to a recruiting firm, do yourself a favor and put your resourcefulness hat on and start googling away. You are much, much, much better off finding the direct post in any way you can before submitting through a recruiter. This way you save the firm money if they should choose you and therefore you make yourself instantly more attractive for the position. In fact about %15-%20 more attractive.

Occasionally, a recruiter will approach me with an exclusive private listing they have (or at least so they say), which means they were hired or commissioned directly by the company to fill the position and therefor it will not be advertised anywhere else. In these cases I usually bite the bullet and apply through the recruiter, but in all other situations I try my best to resist, despite constant pressuring.

It’s my opinion that in today’s legal market you can not throw a stick down any street in NYC without hitting an unemployed ivy leaguer with a law degree (don’t actually do this because once said lawyer is hit you will open yourself up to a negligence claim sounding in assault). Since we aren’t that hard to find why would a firm ever pay a recruiter to find what is likely standing outside their Park Ave. window begging for a job (possibly with a squeegee and bucket or cardboard sign in hand)?

After several weeks had gone by I figured the submission probably landed with all my others, either in the Bermuda triangle, or a black hole, because to get an acknowledgement that my resume was received (even though I send out over two dozen a week) is rare, and to get an actual response to the submission is rarer. So when I saw a giant package sitting on the counter in my lobby addressed to me from the NY Appellate Ct. 2nd Circuit, I was surprised to say the least. The size of the envelope the mailing came in was monolithic. It could easily hold two or three telephone books. So what was it that was inside?

I thought to myself…. maybe they were so impressed with my application that they dispensed of the normal formalities usually required to obtain a position. Since they didn’t want to jeopardize losing such a stellar candidate, I postulated, they probably filled the package with all the HR employment papers to finalize the hiring process and the appropriate manuals to explain company policy, vacation time etc., they maybe even threw in an early bonus, in the form of a wad of cash, directly in the envelope to sweeten the deal. What else could it be right? WRONG. What the package contained was… drum roll please …. court documents !

What the package contained was a set of pleadings, reply pleadings, and a response to the reply. It contained a voluminous record recanting a civil court trial regarding a construction accident that occurred during the renovation of a New York City hotel.

This was interesting I thought… but what the heck was it doing in a mailing to me? Oh I get it, the court is so busy they wanted to get me started on my first assignment right away! NOT A CHANCE. What it was… was a mock case with which a customized writing sample could be prepared. As I searched deeper into the packet instructions were provided as well as a DVD which included a one hour long explanation of the exact requirements and specifications the writing sample was to conform. The final paper was to be 12 – 24 pages, and you had at the very least several weeks to complete it and at the most several months (after 3 months it was explained that their office will close your application), and would culminate in an interview if your work product merited one. The project required detailed research and analysis of construction accident case law, since the actual case settled, it could not be consulted in the legal research databases in order to determine the “correct” answer, in addition the facts were chosen because they were ambiguous enough that no NY precedent seemed directly on point. In short it was an assignment that could not be written in a few short hours. The question presented was a substantial legally inquiry that had I still been employed by ELF I would have likely been billed out 12-14 hours (at $435 an hour) to complete the initial draft. Meaning by any Large Law Firm standard they had mailed me a $5,000 question.

I worked long and hard on the $5,000 question, I wrote up detailed case analysis on every published construction law case in NY history, every relevant law review article, ALR note, and other persuasive secondary sources. I read and re-read the record taking copious notes on each relevant point. After I had analyzed all relevant precedent with an eye towards the specific facts presented, I began formulating the appropriate legal reasoning and in what ways it was applicable. After taking several weeks to write the assignment, I bundled up the finished sample and FedExed it off to the Courthouse. Read the complete writing sample here.

Doo doo dee deee doo doo do, doo doo doo do dew dew dew do do do doooo do do do do do do deee doo doo do do do doooo dod (Jeopardy Theme Song).

And another month.

Doo doo dee deee doo doo do, doo doo doo do dew dew dew do do do doooo do do do do do do deee doo doo do do do doooo dod.

And another.

Doo doo dee deee doo doo do, doo doo doo do dew dew dew do do do doooo do do do do do do deee doo doo do do do doooo dod.

Finally, I decided I would call to check up on the writing sample. I was told by the court head Court Attorney that they were backed up but I should be hearing from them soon. Well what do you know, two months of waiting … but the day after I made the phone call I receive another call from the head Court Attorney’s secretary. She stated “the head court attorney would like to schedule an interview with you, when can you come in?” I scheduled the interview for the next week. I got ready for the interview by preparing to defend my written recommendation in the writing sample I put together. I memorized the cases and the positions I took and thought of the best arguments for each side of the case. Sure enough this is exactly what was asked about.

When I arrived I was greeted by a team of interviewers. Not a single interviewer, but every supervisor that works at the court, there were 5 in total. They sat on one side of the table I sat on the other. Inevitably they asked about the layoffs, and about what I was doing in the mean time. I didn’t have much to say on this point except that I attended a few trainings the NY Civil Court had run on volunteer lawyering for debt collection cases and landlord tenant matters and how this led me to pursue some more volunteer work in the area.

Then they proceeded to dissect the argument I had made in my paper. This didn’t worry me because I had thoroughly prepared on this point. I cited case law from memory and explained my reasoning. One of the supervisors asked if I believed the defendants had defeated the case against them. I said that it wasn’t defendant’s burden to disprove any of the claims but rather it was plaintiff’s burden to establish a prima facie case that the elements of their claim had been met. She didn’t push any further on this point, but did not seem impressed with my answer (which by the way is a correct statement of the law, so I could not understand why).

In any event there were a few softball questions on the paper asked and then the real shocker was announced. The head interviewer turned to me and said “my secretary told you there weren’t actually any positions available, right.” To which I felt like saying “oh yes right before my hands told you it would only hurt a little when they are squeezing around your neck.” But of course I didn’t say this, I just sat there for a few seconds at a complete loss for words (which as you may suspect doesn’t happen very often to me). I was just in total amazement.

Again I thought … you responded to my application by soliciting a writing sample, you had me complete the quite time consuming writing sample and then invited me in for an interview, you interviewed me and then explained after all that that there are no positions?

Maybe I’m old fashioned but I thought that the very fact an interview was granted (and a job description was posted) implied that a job was in fact available.

As I learned this is apparently flawed reasoning, I should have asked when I was invited to interview whether or not the interview was actually for a real and available position or if instead the interviewer simply wanted to meet and exchange pleasantries, maybe have some tea and crumpets and or possibly discuss ways to improve one’s golf game. Because meetings like that happen all the time, how could I be so naïve to think a position was actually available. Certainly I should have been clearer when I agreed to interview. Here I was (foolishly) hoping to actually interview for a position and not just say “hello” to the entire supervisory staff of the office.

For those of you keeping track, this interview counted generously as .5 in my 2.6 interview tally.

This is just about the worst thing that could have happened to me. Why you ask? Because it gave me a false sense of hope, here I was not even a week out of my ELF job and a firm looking for a legal analyst was already calling me.

I thought this was a sign of how sought after a well-credentialed ELF lawyer would be, even in a down economy. Boy was I wrong. After my early March interview with Bloomberg I did not get another serious interview until mid July, 5 months later!!! But enough about what happened after the interview let me explain a little bit about how the actual BLAW interview played out.

The Phone Interview

First, I was asked to schedule a phone interview, which I did. Someone from the BLAW group called me and asked me some generic questions about my background. She was nice, but the interview seemed routine, and I actually didn’t think it was going very well at the time.  After the woman had asked me about 8 minutes worth of questions she began to tell me about the BLAW group what it did and what her day to day work entailed. She also informed me part of the job was frequent travel to India (where much of the BLAW work is outsourced) – but only for those who “wanted” to go.  I got the feeling that those who were hired were the ones that “wanted” to go. Personally I couldn’t imagine traveling to some sweatshop in India to supervise computer coders for a legal citation software program. But to the woman on the phone it was actually a selling point. Unfortunately, I had trouble feigning this interest and I think it carried through. However by a stroke of luck my lackluster phone interview somehow landed me an in-person interview.

By the time I was granted an “in-house” interview as they called it, I was beginning to get a glimpse of how bleak the legal market really was.  At this time I didn’t really know the true depth of it but I cleverly scheduled each part of the Bloomberg interview a week later to give me a chance to schedule other interviews if they should arise. Since I was not personally committed to leaving the practice of law to work on a citation system, I was secretly trying to line up all my other options so if an offer from Bloomberg came I wouldn’t be forced to take it out of necessity, since I would have other traditional legal options available to me that I cleverly scheduled in-between my BLAW interview. The only problem with this plan was I received no other offers to interview.

My initial e-mail from Bloomberg wanting to schedule a phone interview was March 3, I scheduled the interview for March 9. When I was contacted about an in-person interview on March 10th, I scheduled it for March, 17th. This gave me 14 days to look for another job before I would, in my mind, be forced into making a decision over Bloomberg (little did I know I would actually have no decision to make).

Unfortunately, this did not work out- as no one seemed as eager to interview me as I was eager to send my resume to them,  but at least I had trusty old Bloomberg ready to interview me… right?

The Three Piece Suit

The interview fell on a Tuesday. That Monday I decided I needed a new suit, a new three piece suit.  At this point, since I have no other interviews scheduled despite my best efforts, I realized I could no longer take the Bloomberg opportunity for granted I had to lock down the position by giving a stellar interview. I needed to dress to impress, I found a sharp, pin-striped, three piece suit– had it tailored right in the store and took it home that day. Once I arrived home I thought to myself that it might seem pretentious to wear a three piece suit on a job interview. I then convinced myself  that this was not the case, I was an ELF lawyer afterall and ELF lawyers had to dress the part it was part of our whole persona. Bloomberg agreed to interview an ELF lawyer, that is what they wanted so that was what they were going to get. I did some quick internet research to see if wearing a three piece was taboo but unfortunately  found conflicting recommendations. One website advised “You should wear a two or three buttoned, two-piece suit. Four buttoned suits may be seen as too trendy, and three-piece suits may be viewed as ostentatious.” whereas users on  Style Forum responded to the question “when is it appropriate to wear a 3-piece suit” by answering ” anytime, a three piece suit is a timeless classic like a double breasted suit. They come in and out of style for the masses, but any well dressed man can wear them at will.”  Since the internet research was a wash I did what I wanted to do anyway—I wore the three piece suit.

The Preparation

The day before the interview, I scoured the internet for any and all references to the BLAW system. I read reviews from libraries that tested the system, I read reviews from Lawyers that used the system– I read critiques on the price of the system, in depth analysis of its features, how it compared to WESTLAW and LEXIS, what students thought of it, and what codes it recognized. I read the BLAW reports that were written by BLAW analysts and accessible through the BLAW system. If it was available on the internet and it involved BLAW or the BLAW group at Bloomberg it was read by me, wholly digested and then committed to memory. That is just how I do things, I over-prepare, and then I prepare some more. I even found a rogue YouTube video that featured a jovial employee giving a tour of the BLAW group’s factory… I mean work environment (you’ll see what I mean by factory if you watch the video).  I even developed a strategy for how I would show support for the system by demonstrating I saw niche areas where BLAW could have a specific advantage over its competitors. I further prepared new features and ideas that I though could be incorporated into the system to make it better. I wanted this job, because there was nothing else out there ,and  I was ready.

The Live Interview

The morning of the interview, I put on a brand new pair of shiny shoes, I carried my stylish leather litigator bag, I wore my freshly pressed three piece suit, and a bold dark purple tie with a light blue shirt. I looked sharp if I do say so myself. In fact, maybe too sharp for my own good.

When I arrived at the Bloomberg headquarters I didn’t believe I was actually in a place where people work. It looked like some sort of adult playground for people who enjoyed StarTrek a little too much. I honestly had never seen so rooms made completely out of glass, and I certainly never saw so many colored lights, and so much futuristic furniture coexisting in a real place of business (as opposed to a videogame or a gadget spread in “Stuff” magazine). Nevertheless, I thought like it could be a cool place.

A member of the BLAW team greeted me in the lobby, she walked me up a flight of stairs which was above a pond filled with live coy fish to one of many glass rooms in a series of glass rooms. We made chit-chat about the building. Once we sat down in the room the interview marathon began. And when I say marathon I mean marathon. The interview lasted for nearly 2 and 1/2 hours, and I met with 4 separate people. As I interviewed I felt like I was in a giant fishbowl, everyone around the office could see inside the room. How I was moving, what I was looking at, who I was talking to… it was strange and a bit surreal. The worst part about it was I could see interviews being conducted directly alongside of me as clear as day as I interviewed … quite possibly even for the same position. Although I did not let all of these interior design antics faze me, it is something the those with light sensibilities should be aware of in advance. The interview process at Bloomberg is intense right down to the set-up of the physical interview room itself.

At first I thought the interview was going well. I made sure to include interesting and innovative ideas I had for the BLAW product (one of the interviewers was so impressed with one of my ideas that she confessed she actually had suggested the same improvement during a recent group meeting), I took out my iPhone which had a Bloomberg application on it so I could demonstrate some of the ideas I had, I provided bound copies of several articles I had published in law journals—which visably impressed the interviewers. As far as I was concerned I was passing the interview with flying colors. The only question, in my mind that I really I needed to answer was whether I was going to ask for a higher salary once they offered me the position.

The Observation

It wasn’t until the end of the interview that I began to realize that although I was interviewed by a variety of people from the BLAW group I was not faced with a variety of questions. It was more like I was asked the same exact questions by 4 different people.  By the time the interview was over a pattern had emerged that I did not catch on to quickly enough — for if I did the end-result may have been different. My unfortunately late observation was that these people who were interviewing me where the type of people that hated law school. These were the students that from the moment they stepped foot into the real world, away from their hallowed law school halls, couldn’t wait to find something that did not require them to actually be lawyers and they didn’t ever want to look back.

During my interview they asked me questions like:

• Why have you decided you want a non-traditional legal job?
• Have you definitively determined you no longer want to practice law?
• Did you really like working for a large law firm?
• Did you really enjoy law school?
• It seems like you like to write, you do realize there will be very little writing as part of the job?

At the time I just answered each question as it arose, not realizing that the star candidate profile would have been a young lawyer disgruntled by big law looking for a permanent life change never to have to practice law again. Had I known this was the ideal candidate profile in advance, I would have tailored my answers accordingly. Instead and unfortunately for me, I blabbed on and on about how this was a turning point in my life and that although I still hoped to someday practice law I would be content, if I was offered the job, in putting my legal and analytical skills to use for an innovative law product

Mentioning that I still wanted to practice law, in retrospect, was the kiss of death, not only did I not get offered this position, but any future position I applied to with Bloomberg (and their have been several) I now get immediately rejected from their system within approximately 2-3 hours of applying.  Here I was the well dressed commercial litigator, playing the part of a practicing attorney in every way possible and no-doubt intimidating the heck of the BLAW group reminding them of all the reasons they hated law school.  They must now have my candidacy on auto-reject.

The Advice

Of course this is only a theory based on my reflections, but the pieces fit together so perfectly it’s a hard one to overlook. My advice to anyone who gets an interview with the BLAW group, if you want a  job, pledge allegiance to non-traditional law jobs. Play the part of a disgruntled attorney who wants nothing more than to leave the profession. Good luck!

During law school I was courted heavily by many large Wall Street firms.  I was treated to lavish lunches, sent gift baskets in the mail, was provided with tickets to the newest Broadway shows and hottest sporting events.  At the outset, let me make clear I never felt an “entitlement” to this kind of lifestyle, or even condoned these type of recruiting tactics.  In fact at times, even as the one being wooed, I could only laugh to myself at the absurdity of such unnecessary opulence these elite firms would go through to land top legal grads.    But, at the end of the day, in my mind, all the hard work– long nights intently reading and marking up law books, editing journal articles,  and more often than not skipping enticing offers to socialize during College and Law School— had finally paid off.   I was all set to start the ascent towards my American dream.  After-all, I was being paid handsomely for what I loved to do and was learning to do so in one of the best environments anyone in the profession could hope for.  Best of all, I had the unique opportunity to help clients through the substantial pro bono efforts of the firm.  At the time, I thought to myself, “how could it get any better than this?”

Unfortunately, the economy, and perhaps even fate, had other plans for me.  I was included in what the firm called a “reduction in attorney force in response to the current economic conditions” (along with one hundred and ninety colleagues of mine).  Within one day after the announcement, my desk had been cleared, my security badge deactivated and my matters transferred to other attorneys. I went from riches to rags in a matter of one day.

I am a member and frequent searcher of: theladders.com, attorneyjobs.com, laterallink.com, careerbuilder.com, and monster.com. In addition to these sites, I regularly check the postings on simplyhired.com, lawjobs.com, and craigslist.

Since March, I  have applied to over 300 direct attorney job postings and have sent over 100 inquiry letters to firms with no jobs posted asking about lateral attorney positions.   On average I send my resume out and a personalized cover letter 10 times per week day and spend 3-5 hours each of these days searching for and applying to attorney jobs. I also have somewhere near a dozen headhunters/recruiters working to find me a position. These efforts over the course of 6 months have landed me 20 written rejection letters,  16 rejection e-mails and a whopping total of 2.6 futile interviews (the use of this odd number will be explained in a subsequent post). One with Bloomberg (see post), one with a litigation boutique in DC (the only normal interview), 1/2 of an interview with the 2nd Appellate Division of NY (see post), and 1/10 of an interview with a  NY litigation boutique ( interview was cancelled by the firm).

Welcome to my Blog.