To Everything there is a Season

Obviously it has been a while since I have posted on this blog. Why is that? I suppose it is because I have accomplished much of what I wanted to with Law Career Blog as a solo blog. I felt I had important things to say on teaching and classroom etiquette; on law career decisions; on law firm practice; on mentoring, and more. And I have said many of them, so there you have it.

I am very pleased, though, that my posts continue to draw strong traffic month after month, year after year. What I have said here remains relevant, I think--but that does not mean I need to always rehash the same ground, all in the name of having new posts just for the sake of it.

So for now, my existing posts stand for what they are, and I am proud of them. Call me the Antiblogger, I suppose: I am blogging by not blogging.

In any event, the following is a list of posts that have generated the most interest from readers, some posts on subjects I think are particularly important, and some that are just fun. Enjoy!

Posts on Law School in General:

In a series of posts, I argued that if we want law schools to truly provide the academic and practical education that students (and employers) expect and demand, we should consider adding a fourth year to the law school curriculum. Not surprisingly, my proposal was universally condemned. Check out the comments.

See Is the Third Year of Law School a Waste of Time and Money? and Is Law School Itself a Waste of Time?

I think that too often, law students don't step back and think about law school and their future careers in a broader perspective. That's understandable given the workload in law school, but it's still unfortunate. My friend and colleague Gene Theroux visited Mississippi College School of Law once to speak to students about his storied career--he opened the first western law firm offices in China and the Soviet Union--and he had wonderful advice for them. Ostensibly the talk was about globalization, but the heart of his message was to follow your heart and practice law the right way and for the right reasons. Sometimes we need to put our cynicism aside and hear things like what he said that day.

See Theroux Part Deux

Posts on LL.M. Degrees:

This trilogy of posts is perhaps the most popular series of posts on this blog--which proves that good things really do come in threes. Lots of discussion in the comments. See The Pros and Cons of LL.M.s, LL.M. Redux and LL.M.s Part 3.

Posts on Law School Exams, Teaching, and Class Strategies

Bainbridge v. Bowman. I wrote a law review article entitled The Comparative and Absolute Advantages of Junior Law Faculty: Implications for Teaching and the Future of American Law Schools--a piece I am quite proud of. In it, I use traditional neoclassical trade theory to analyze the advantages of junior and senior law faculty and make some recommendations regarding law school teaching. Professor Stephen Bainbridge of UCLA saw it, and he absolutely hated it. This posts includes our dialogue.

How to Improve your Law School Exams Grades. This wasn't a terribly controversial post--or so I thought until I received scathing comments two years after I posted it. Some fun back and forth on that one. Maybe I should've retitled the post Bowman v. Someone Very Angry.

Law School Orientation Advice. Pretty self-explanatory. My own favorite piece of advice: Don't spill a plate of food on your law school dean at the welcome reception. I actually did that--but lucky for me, I still graduated.

Computer-Free Week and Computer-Free Week, Part 2. There is a good deal of concern in the legal academy about computer use in the classroom. Is it beneficial? Is it harmful or disruptive? So one time I asked students not to use computers for one week to see what would happen. The results were pretty interesting, and as a teacher I found the feedback via the comments very useful. Perhaps the most interesting result was that student comments revealed just how prevalent the consumer mentality is among students--namely, I paid my tuition, so I can do what I want in class.

The Dilbertic Method. I definitely like this post about parallels between Dilbert's boss and the Socratic method. If you want to see the Dilbert cartoon I am talking about, you have to click the link in the article and then enter in the cartoon's run date on the Dilbert site.

Posts on Law Firms:

Much of the attraction to, and frustration with, big law firms has to do with the money they pay their associates. So I wrote some pieces on that subject--something I have firsthand knowledge about.

See Of Law Firm Culture and Compensation Schemes, The Problem of Law Firm Salary Distributions, and Big Firm Economics 101.

In another post, I wrote about associate pay and stress levels. In light of the recent savage downturn in the employment market, this post is perhaps more relevant than ever. See Why Associates Have More Stress than Partners.

On Interview and Job Strategies and Techniques

Job Interview Do's and Don't's. The name of the post says it all.

What NOT to do as a Summer Associate. You'd be surprised what some people do. Don't be one of them.

Posts on Movies:

Finally, I have had some fun with movies on this blog, and for some reason they were always movies starring George Clooney. First, I blogged about Syriana--see Syriana Misrepresents International Lawyers.

Then I wrote a whole slew of posts on Michael Clayton--a movie that had a lot to say about what it is (and is not) like to be a lawyer. I was interviewed by the Chicago Tribune about the Michael Clayton series of posts. See the following (not too originally entitled) posts:

Clooney v. Clayton, which is my review of the movie

Clooney v. Clayton, Part 2, about hyperbole in legal dramas

Clooney v. Clayton, Part 3, on whether there is such a thing as a law firm "fixer"

Clooney v. Clayton, Part 4, on the perverse incentive/reward structure of law practice

Clooney v. Clayton, Part 5, on how law practice affects your family life

Clooney v. Clayton, Part 6, regarding legal ethics

Clooney v. Clayton--Again, regarding my Chicago Tribune Interview

* * * *

So for now, that is where things stand. I hope you enjoy reading these posts as much as I enjoyed writing them.

Greg

Mississippi Secunda and the Lateral Market of Doom

My friend and soon-to-be ex-Mississippian Paul Secunda has written an excellent article on negotiating the vagaries (treacheries?) of the law school lateral hiring market. The article is available on SSRN here. I highly recommend it as general reading for pretty much anyone interested in how law schools work--students, professor wannabees, current profs, and so on.

As Paul points out in the article, there has been a good deal of commentary on the entry-level hiring market for law faculty, but there is a paucity of literature on the lateral hiring market (the market for law profs who move from one school to another). So Paul, who is in the process of moving from the University of Mississippi School of Law to Marquette University Law School, has bravely set out to rectify that.

Personally, I think the article is great for a number of reasons. First, as already stated, it is a great resource. Second, it is an easy and fun read--not a common characteristic of scholarly writing. Third, while the advice is focused specifically on the law school lateral hiring market, some of the advice translates well to any interviewing scenario. Especially helpful, I think, is Paul's point that many of the variables in the hiring process are beyond the interviewee's control. Understand that, accept it, and focus instead on the factors you can control. That likely will increase your chances of success, and it certainly will reduce your stress level a good bit.

And finally, the article is a perfect example of how blogging can directly promote scholarship: parts of the article appeared as a series of blog posts by Paul on Concurring Opinions (see his first of eleven posts here). After all, novels by Dickens first appeared in serialized form, so why not law review articles? Dickens might even have been a blogger were he alive today--although perhaps not a law prof.

New NALP Interview Guidelines

The New York Lawyer has a report about revisions NALP has made to its "Principles and Standards for Law Placement and Recruitment Activities." The guidelines, while not binding, are followed by most firms. One big change is that instead of listing a deadline by which students must accept or decline summer offers (formerly October 15), the revised guidelines now give students 45 days to accept or decline an offer. Driving the change was the fact that many firms (and schools) were starting their interview processes earlier--with the result that offers were being held open up to four months. That's a long time. The article can be accessed here (you may need to register with the New York Lawyer to read the article, but registration is free). NALP's revised guidelines are posted online here. Both are worth reading.

The New York Lawyer article is (as usual) a piece of very good reporting. But I do take issue with the first sentence: "Starting next fall, law students will need to think fast when choosing which offer to accept for a summer associate job, due to a change in timing guidelines." 45 days? Think fast? Hmmm. Hardly my definition of an "exploding offer." I' ve received exploding offers before, and they were nothing like 45 days in length. That's 6 1/2 weeks! Good sensationalism, though. Draws you in and makes you read. Worked on me.

And it is an interesting--and needed--change to hiring practices. This will make it easier for firms to know how many slots they have left for summer hiring, since they won't need to hold slots open for a bunch of "maybe" candidates who are sitting on offers for a long time. That actually should help other students, since firms will know, on a rolling basis, who is accepting and who is declining, and spots will open up more quickly. So it seems like a good balance between giving students sufficient time to make up their minds--more than sufficient, really--and allowing firms to have some sense of definiteness regarding the size of their summer classes.

Interviewing Techniques Talk

I recently gave a talk at Mississippi College School of Law on interviewing techniques. The video is available online here. It's been broken into chapters for ease of viewing; it also can be viewed in its entirety if you prefer. I've used these techniques myself on the legal job market, and I really do believe they make a big difference.

Previously I posted similar advice on this blog in written form. That post, Job Interview Do's and Don't's, can be found here.

As always, I appreciate any comments, suggestions, and/or war stories from your interviewing experiences that you may have, and I am sure other readers will too.

Law Exam Mistakes and Interviewing Mistakes

Yesterday I gave a talk on interview techniques to the 1L class at my law school. Hopefully I soon will be able to post a podcast of the event on this blog. In any event, I've discussed the points I covered in that talk in a previous post on this blog. I've interviewed in some very tough job markets over the years, and my advice has served me well.

As I was giving the talk yesterday, it struck me that some of my interviewing advice is relevant to the subject of law school exams and grades. Specifically, law students often internalize their exam performance and equate exam performance with self-worth, at least to an extent. Or they equate exam performance with their potential as lawyers. Those are mistakes, of course, but I see them happen all the time. And having been through the law school experience myself, I understand that saying "don't do that" is much easier said than done.

The point I want to make here, though, is that grades are final (except for clerical errors, which are pretty uncommon). And that point gets me back to the subject of interviewing. Much of my advice about the interviewing process rests on the premise that you should focus on the elements of the interview process that you can control, not those you can't. That may seem obvious, but I see far too many people expend a lot of time and energy worrying about whether they are going to get a particular offer. Yet interviewees never have actual control over whether they get offers! Instead, what they do have control over is how they approach the process, and how they interview. Focusing on what you can control means you are more likely to improve your interviewing performance, and also are more likely to reduce stress and obsessive attention paid to aspects of the interview process that are outside your control.

In the exam context, then, let those grades you just received go--good, bad, or otherwise. You can't change them. Focus now on what you can control: what you can learn from what you did right and wrong on those exams, and how you can improve your performance in the future. And next semester, worry about what you can do to improve your exam performance--which you can control--and not about what grade the professors give you, which you cannot. In other words, worrying about the process, and not about the end result, is a way to improve both your law school grades and your interviewing skills.

Stupid Resume Tricks

In previous posts I have talked about the importance of being honest in job interviews and on your resume. It's pretty obvious advice, but amazingly, people don't always follow it. In today's internet age, such honesty is more important than ever, since duplicity of this sort is easily discovered. (Not to mention that it's the right thing to do.) Relevant previous posts on this blog include one on Job Interview Do's and Don't's and one on a law professor whose resume apparently contained misstatements. And let's not forget such notables as New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, caught recently making resume misstatements.

So don't fudge your resume in any way, shape or form. Don't don't don't. And if you won't take my word for it, read a very good piece that appeared on MSN.com the other day. After all, it's online, and therefore it must be true, right?

Job Interview Do's and Don't's

Today's legal job market is tough, and there is a lot of competition out there. Each year thousands of students graduate from law school and go on the job market, and also each year associates at firms nationwide decide to make lateral moves. And while the number of applicants seems to be growing, the number of new jobs is staying fairly static at best--and in some parts of the country the number of available jobs is shrinking.

So that means that if you are on the market, you have to interview exceedingly well to give yourself even a decent shot at employment. And that is where this post comes in. Over the years I have interviewed extensively--for college scholarships, for judicial clerkships, for law firm jobs, and most recently for tenure-track law professor positions. Those are all different processes, to be sure, but they share important commonalities.

In other words, I have found there are core interviewing strategies that apply no matter what type of interview it is. I'm not talking about mundane aspects like "dress professionally" or "smile and look the interviewer in the eye." Those tips have their place, but they don't give you the bigger picture.

What will get you far? Here are the essential eight fundamentals that I have always followed. They invariably have been successful.

Step 1. Have a perfect resume. You've heard this before, but its importance cannot be overstated. The internet contains loads of advice on what equals a good resume, but I can tell you that in law, what equals a bad resume is one with a typo. I went into an interview one time with a resume containing a typo, and guess what? The interviewer saw it. And I did not get a callback.

At the end of the day, all a resume does is show that you pass the employer's minimum requirements on paper and are worth a closer look. Then it's on to steps 2 through 8.

Step 2. You are not competing; you are self-maximizing. There is an important distinction between the two. On the one hand, if there is 1 job and 3 applications, you are by definition competing for the spot. But do not focus on the other people. Your job is to show the employer why you deserve the job--not why the other 2 candidates don't.

Think about it this way: there is always going to be someone with better grades than you, who speaks more languages than you, who is dressed better than you. Always. Don't worry about them. Worry about yourself. You bring something to the table that the other candidates don't. Which leads me to--

Step 3. When you interview you are telling the story of you. Your story is unique. There is something in your background that makes for a compelling story. What is it? The answer lies in surprising and often ordinary parts of your past. I grew up in West Virginia, and when I interviewed with big firms in Chicago I often brought that up--why I was living in the midwest, why I wanted to make my mark in a big city. I also talked sometimes about how I worked in fast food as a college freshman, how I hated it, and how it gave me additional drive to succeed in life.

The point is that the facts of your background may not be absolutely unique, but the meaning you attach to them and the lessons you learn from them are. And using them in an interview helps you tell a story, stand out from the crowd, and portray something important about yourself and your character.

Step 4. Practice, practice, practice. This one is huge. Remember how in college you thought you had your term paper all figured out, and then when you tried to write it the words just wouldn't flow? Don't let the same thing happen in a job interview. Practice your answers. Think of what questions the employer might ask, and answer them. Out loud. Do it in your car. Do it in the shower. Do it late at night when everyone else is asleep. (Do not do it while shaving. I learned that the hard way.)

I'm completely serious about this. You will catch yourself saying some really dumb things. But better to say them in front of a mirror instead of in front of the person interviewing you.

And here's a trick: if you are embarrassed about being seen talking to yourself in your car, just stick your cell phone ear bud in your ear and chatter away. No one will know the difference.

Step 5. Research, research, research. All firms are not equal, and the same goes for interviews. What does the firm do? What are its specialties? What does it not do? These are important things to know. This really should be obvious advice, but when I sat on the interviewer's side of the desk I saw this rule violated over and over again.

If you do your research, you will avoid major gaffes and will be able to ask intelligent questions. Questions show the employer you have done your homework and are taking the interview seriously. You don't have to sound like an expert--you just have to sound eager and on the ball. Something along the lines of, "I see your lawyer Jane Schmoe closed the Acme deal last week. That looks like it was an interesting project," is a good way to display that you are determined. And in this age of the internet, a little research is easy to do. That wasn't the case 10 years ago.

There's another advantage to doing your homework in advance: you may decide you would never want to work for that employer. If you figure that out in advance, that's good--you save everyone some time.

Step 6. Treat Each Interview as Special and Unique. Each interview is with people who may be your colleagues for years on end, so treat it that way. And all law firms (and companies) are not equal. Some do corporate law, some do litigation. Some are big, some are small. Not to mention how their cultures vary. So try to find out what you can about the firm, and tailor your interview to that. Don't interview at a corporate law firm for a litigation position. Again, this should be obvious, but I have seen the rule violated as often as I have seen it followed.

But this does not mean you engage in merciless spin about yourself. Rather--

Step 7. Always tell the truth. Tailoring your message means presenting yourself in a favorable light, not changing yourself or lying about yourself. It's like a date: you want to look good and come across well, and there's nothing wrong with that. But don't be dishonest. For one thing, you are a lawyer. You have been given a monopoly by your state government to practice law. With that right comes responsibilities, one of which is to hold yourself to a higher standard of ethical behavior. So do it.

Think of it this way: interviewing is like writing a legal brief. You recite the facts and make the arguments in a manner that is most favorable to your client (in this case, you). But you do not lie.

Step 8. Relax before the interview. This is a key step. Arrive at the interview a few minutes early, and sit still and breath deeply. By that time you have done all you can do (although perhaps not as much as you like); now what you need to do is be poised. Clear your mind and smile.

I have done it both ways: take a few moments to relax, or rush into an interview at the last minute. From experience I can tell you the former works far better.

These steps should serve you well. And in fact, I have found that steps 2 and 3 (not competing; telling my own story) are a wonderful way to live my life in general. To focus on improving myself instead of competing with others is healthy, I think. And to think about my own personal story has allowed me to chart my life's journey--to look at who I am today and decide where I want life to take me. That's far better than backing through life and succeeding by accident.