Baum Stevens Bargman

I

Where's my Equity, Dude 2

David BargmanComment

Where’s ’my Equity, Dude, Part 2

By David Bargman, Esq.

Many big law firms have taken off their masks, so to speak. The nonequity partner tier mushroomed  starting in the second half of 2020 many, mostly Big Law, while far fewer firms shrank their nonequity tier. Meanwhile, the equity partner ranks at many big firms kept flat or contracted, despite upward trends in firm profitability.

Several factors are behind the trend: a movement of young lawyers into the partnership as others in the equity tier retire; hesitancy among firm leaders to let lawyers go when demand is not dramatically dropping; and the pandemic stiffening the criteria for equity partner decisions, and out of a concern to keep up profits. (You decide which is most significant.)  Conversations with recruiters and others with an ear to the industry, firms (especially BigLaw firms focused during the pandemic and performed triage on lawyers who were hot in hot practice areas, such as Bankruptcy and Real Estate Leasing.

Thus  far, 81 of these firms have seen their nonequity tiers grow, while 51 saw growth of more than 5% in the nonequity tier. By comparison, 46 firms of the

had fewer nonequity partners in 2020 compared with 2019, and 29 of Thus,

some firms deequitized “unproductive” partners because their business no

longer fit into the American Lawyer’s compensation profile.

 

A firm’s decision to expand its nonequity tier is based on varying criteria.  However, the pandemic has focused firms on the cost of equity partner promotions at many firms, making it more challenging to reach the equity tier, while law firm leaders reconsidered whether current equity partners were meeting expected performance.

One remarkable result of law practice is how quickly the firms returned to normal, loosened the frozen expenses and hording cash.  Indeed, the pandemic has lowered costs in reduced office space (although litigation to be resolved before we have the whole picture) remote work, and technology instead of employees.  Much of this is done in the name of efficiency and productively, but the brunt is being felt by profit participants to employees. And they are certainly factors at play. But try telling that to a partner who has been demoted from what used to be a partnership.  Same work, no equity.

These explanations also beg the question why firms waited until the pandemic to swell their non-equity ranks. 

 

Copyright 2021

Baum Stevens Bargman

WHERE’ S MY EQUITY, DUDE? 

David BargmanComment

By David Bargman, Esq.

President, Neena Legal Consulting

 

    Firms are carefully thinking about which partners should share in profits and the pandemic has complicated that question. By and large, the pandemic tightened criteria for equity partner promotions, as well as “underperforming” equity partners who could remain in the equity ranks. The nonequity partner tiers grew in 2020 at dozens of large law firms.  Far fewer firms shrank their nonequity tier. Meanwhile, according to reporting by the American Lawyer, the equity partner ranks at many big firms stayed flat. Several reasons could explain this: with declining profits during the pandemic, firms maintain their profits per equity for ranking purposes; more young lawyers moving into the equity partnership than equity partners who retire; less hesitancy among equity partners to demote less “productive”  demand isn't dramatically dropping; preserve profits and cut expenses, and the pandemic stiffening the criteria for entering equity partner ranks, and finally out of a concern to maintain high profits to draw or maintain clients.  

     Lawyers coming into firms, have to assess how future downturns will affect their upward mobility, especially swelling non-equity tiers.  Many lateral partners into firms with mandatory nom equity tiers in the beginning. It will be interesting to see how those who have their career paths slowed, when big firms return to satisfactory profitability.  It makes sense for a firm to maintain  profitability in metrics dominated industry.  Nevertheless, there is a risk to growth swelling the number of associates, counsel and non-equity  partners.  A perverse effect might be to stall upward mobility and, thus sustainability.  After all, retirement and attrition can make only so much of a dent in headcount.  Not to mention the competition to grow by seducing “productive” lateral” partners.  Or retiring senior partners that were being serviced by recently demoted non-equity partners

The lesson to be learned is that equity status, once based on excellence, contributions to the firm including originations, or servicing an important client or partner, is becoming only a function of originations in a hot practice area.

Young lawyers beware.  You may get what you work for.

Copyright 2021

David Bargman

 

Bye Bye Office?

David BargmanComment

David Bargman

President, Baum Stevens Bargman

 

           As brick and mortar law firms look increasingly either to reduce headcount or have  lawyers work remotely, Partners are increasingly looking to “cloud based”, “virtual”, or “distributed” law firms such as Fisher Broyles and Rimon.  These firms provide an international Law Firm structure without the typical Partnership obligations, e.g. leases,  staff, and associate salaries.

         Partners can make more money and bill their clients at lower rates because of the lack of overhead.  For example, at Fisher Broyles, 20% of collections go to the firm.  A Partner who originates a $10,000 matter the (“finder”) and does the work herself keeps 80% ($8,000) of collections. If a finder originates a $10,000 matter and refers it to a colleague, (the “grinder), the finder gets 28% ($2800) while the grinder receives 48% ($4800) (assuming, of course, that the clients follow you into new venture). Thus, if your practice is self-sufficient, and you do the work yourself, your share of collections exceed typical compensation on the same originations at most firms.

Fisher Broyles requires an annual minimum practice of $600,000 over the past three years, experience with an AmLaw 200 firm, and at least a $300/hour billing rate in order to join the Partnership. Fisher Broyles Joel Ferdinand sums up the value of virtual laws firms:  “Our model allows lower billing rates by drastically reducing overhead and passing on cost savings directly to our clients. This all results in a better work product, at a better rate for our clients, with Partners that are actually happy.”

           Another virtual firm, Rimon is also growing rapidly, with 23 Partners joining in 2020, 32 locations in nine countries on four continents,45 areas of expertise, and dozens of clients.  One Partner “…was drawn to Rimon’s unique model, in which clients receive excellent services with flexible, creative fee structures, and attorneys are incentivized to work efficiently and collaboratively, using cutting-edge technology. “  There is no question that cloud-based law firms are well suited to some practices and are experiencing rapid growth.  According to Julie Inman, Recruiting Partner at Fisher Broyles, the firm is opening offices in Europe and expects to be in the AmLaw 200 next year.

        The underlying theory of virtual law firms is that, Covid or not, and with the exception of gym memberships, Partners generally do not like to pay for things they do not use. For example, why should a Partner foot the bill for office space when she can work anywhere? And why pay for part of an associate’s or paralegal’s compensation in a different practice group?  

        Covid19 is clearly a major reason why Partners who have been downsized staff  or face excessive overhead are looking for an alternate solution. Since July 1, Fisher Broyles counts 35 new names since the start of 2020, including seven Partners since July 1, and. Rimon Law has announced five new Partners since the beginning of May.

     Still, these firms preceded the Covid scourge and plan to grow after it.  Fisher Broyles co-founder James Fisher says, “When all traditional firms went remote, a funny thing happened. They figured out working remotely isn’t as difficult as they though it was.”

     Working remotely may attract many partners (especially who do not rely too much on employees). However, virtual firms have no permanent law associates, who are trained and integrated create an ongoing firm culture.  As the pandemic wears on, firms are increasingly wrestling with how to train, coach and develop their talent in an effective and equitable manner. This is will be especially complicated as segments of their workforce return to the office, integrate them into firm culture. while others practice remotely for a variety of reasons. How do firms avoid falling into the trap of giving more work to the people who are physically present simply because it's more convenient?

    After Covid is a bad memory, law firms and Partners will be faced with the options of either keeping the brick and mortar tradition, creating a collegial atmosphere remotely, or finding a hybrid solution.  Stay tuned.

AN OFFICE of ONE'S OWN

David BargmanComment

By David Bargman

 

“Collegial” used to be a common promotional description of a law firm. The term implied teams working together at all levels toward a common goal. I remember weekly department meetings (and first class dining), all night drafting and editing sessions, and the proverbial nights at the printer. Now, in the poet’s words - All changed, changed utterly?

But has the virus, forcing all of us to work “remotely”, without physical companionship in a common workplace, auguring a new professional style: “Why continue to commute” said a corporate partner from Westchester; “I love my kids, but they do interfere with my work” said a BigLaw Litigation Partner. With today’s scanning, email, and redline technology, attorneys do not need to be physically present in their offices to do their work.  Moreover, and largely due to the pandemic, the question is whether they want to work in an office at all. Although working remotely  has been available for years, during this crisis it was mandatory,  Now the crisis has forced all lawyers to go virtual, it remains to be seen  how many lawyers will be required to work in an a office setting and, given a choice, how many will want to.

 

The UK has already relaxed its lock down requirements and a major international firm has reopened its London office, subject to safety and health considerations, but is doing so as an option for attorneys who prefer to work in an office; attorneys have the option of working in the office or in a remote location.  For many, the fully virtual operation has been so successful that there is no need for anyone to work in the firm’s office .Those prefer to return to a regular office-based working environment may do so.

 

“Well-being “falls into three categories: job security, health and work-life balance (social).  A recent survey of associates found that job security, followed by cost cutting measures, work-life balance and wellness issues were their principal concerns having to do with do with practicing law during the pandemic and in the future. Furthermore, associates are generally satisfied with their firms’ efforts to maintain camaraderie and transparency in firm finances and cost cutting.

We cannot know the duration of our professional isolation.  “Rollouts” are begging to make physical office space more available subject to  safety and health considerations’”.  Will lawyers want to leave home for even a minimal risk of catching the virus?  Will their firms give them the choice? How  will the considerations spelled out in this article and others affect professional decisions.

Only time will tell.  And it certainly is not telling us.

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

David Bargman, Esq.  is President of Baum Stevens Bargman

646-710-4941, d,bargman@bsblegalsearch.com

It's Not Only Bankruptcy

David BargmanComment

By David Bargman

A month into the lockdown, many lawyers are wondering how coronavirus will affect the legal profession and how lawyers will fit into the post-coronavirus economy.  If your practice seen a downturn, now is a good time to think about the horizon. Some of the changes brought by this will be hard to predict.  How deep will the recession be and how long will it last?  Will the lock down and quarantining at home accelerate law firms' increasing openness to telecommuting? Will employees who were anxious to take a change use the opportunity of working from home to begin new ventures?  Time will tell.

Other changes, however, are predictable, even now.  In addition to the obvious need for Bankruptcy and restructuring lawyers, the downturn will require other specialties. Discomfort and uncertainty are the nectar of the legal profession. In addition to the obvious need for Bankruptcy and restructuring lawyers, other specialties will be in demand.  Firms with strong employment, insurance, litigation, private equity, and banking practices will also play significant roles in the revival of a severely damaged global economy.

Litigation

Class actions for price gauging and other consumer class actions are under way and more are sure to follow. In addition there will be an abundance of bank loans, commercial contracts, and real estate leases to work out.

Employment

Aside from discrimination claims based illegal discrimination in terminations, lay-offs, or payment deferrals, both New York and the Federal Government have provided relief to unemployed workers and small businesses suffering due to COVID-19. Both will require legal guidance or litigation.  All the while, lawyers focus on following the advice they are giving to clients.

Government Assistance and Insurance Recovery

New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Ohio are considering legislation that would obligate Insurers to Pay COVID-19 business interruption claims – even when the policy contains virus exclusion.Not surprisingly, these bills have been met swiftly with a swift backlash from the insurance industry and its lawyers, claiming that the bills set a dangerous precedent by requiring insurers to re-write or ignore policy provisions in policies that have been approved by state regulators such as force majeure. Insurers also view these bills violating the Contracts Clause.

In response to the pandemic, the federal and state governments have launched several initiatives to address the economic hardship suffered by businesses.  There are programs to pay off existing SBA Loans and to acquire new ones, to support security related businesses, payroll protection to keep folks working, mortgage relief and relief for small business bankruptcies.

Mergers and Acquisitions

One group of lawyers who don’t benefit from downturns is dealmakers. Lawyers representing sellers in existing deals want to go forward, while buyers delay or pull out altogether.

This is the short list.  Tax lawyers, Divorce lawyers, and Labor Tenant lawyers may find their practices benefit from the crisis even as they wish for its rapid demise.

David Bargman, Esq. is the President of Baum Stevens Bargman

 

 

 

The Non-Citizen Attorney in a United States Law Firm

David Bargman2 Comments

By David Bargman, Esq.

President, Baum Stevens Bargman Legal Search

          In the Age of Globalization, and multi-jurisdictional law firms, I counsel non-citizen lawyers trained outside the United States or with Law Degrees from American law schools on finding employment in United States firms. There are a number of factors that affect the ability of a non-citizen lawyer to practice law successfully with a United States firm. Among them is the type of visa a lawyer or the hiring firm obtains. Three significant U.S. visa programs affect the ability to practice law in this country.

          The H-1B is a visa in the United States under the Immigration and Nationality Act that allows U.S. employers to employ temporarily foreign workers in specialty occupations such as law. A “specialty occupation” requires the application of specialized knowledge and a bachelor's degree or equivalent work experience, usually outside the United States. The duration of stay is three years, extendable to six years; after which the visa holder may need to reapply. (Many of the top law firms will sponsor and finance visas for lawyers with specialized international legal experience.) Laws limit the number of H-1B visas that are issued each year.  Employers must generally withhold Social Security and Medicare taxes from the wages paid to employees in H-1B status.

          The exchange visitor (J1) non-immigrant visa is for individuals, such as attorneys, who have been approved to participate in, and are integral to, a work exchange visitor program.  The J1 visa can be a prelude to longer status with an H1-B visa and Permanent status through a Green Card.

          Finally, a TN visa is a special non-immigrant status in the United States, Canada, and Mexico that offers expedited work authorization to a citizen of these countries. It is similar to the U.S. H-1B visa, but applies only to citizens of those three countries as part of NAFTA. The North American Trade Agreement.

          Non-citizen attorneys seeking employment in the United States must familiarize themselves with applicable visa programs as part of the application process.  Other requirements include:

  • a J.D. or LL.M. from an accredited U.S. law school or a foreign equivalent;

  • a resume and a detailed description of any non-U.S. law practice; and

  • for foreign trained lawyers, a transcript with an explanation of the grading method for the purpose of comparison with a United States law school transcript.

It is an exciting and challenging time to be a lawyer.  For the non-citizen lawyer, practicing in the United States involves you in the global economy and enhances your career if and when you return to your home country.

Happy hunting.

Copyright David Bargman 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 


Bottom of Form




A Career in Structured Finance

David BargmanComment

If you are a Corporate or Finance lawyer seeking an interesting and durable specialty, you need look no further than Structured Finance. Structured Finance is a broad term whose definition is limited only by the creativity and range of instruments and transactions it encompasses.  Businesses use structured financial products to create income flows that parallel traditional financial instruments with less risk than traditional lending or capital raises. 

 

A good working definition of "Structured Finance" is a synthetic transaction that transfers risk; a financing transaction where legal structures are used to isolate asset or entity risk; or the monetization of any right to payments by a party which has the legal right to transfer these rights to others. Typical structured instruments are encompasses derivative financial instruments or transactions that transfer risk or the monetization of rights to payments having the legal right to transfer those payments to others, e.g. securitization of such widely used financial products as Commercial and residential Mortgage Bonds, Structured Finance Lawyers represent issuers, mangers, loan seller, and underwriters in public and private offerings of various financial products, such as residential and commercial backed mortgage backed bonds, private and public offerings of those bonds, including single assets, pooled loans, and
whole companies.  Especially popular are Collateral Loan Obligation (“CLO”) a single security backed by a pool of these classes of debt.debt. Key global industries such as energy, transportation, infrastructure, and space rely heavily on structured finance products.

Moreover, structured finance is a creative and expanding practice. The market for structured products is international and requires advice on European, American, and, probably, British, venues, and on applicable laws and regulations.  Structured Finance is not strictly a finance practice. Corporate lawyers create entities to manage and hold these products capital markets lawyers make the structured products pass muster with securities laws package the instruments for sale, there are intricate tax issues, and litigation inevitably arises, usually breach of contract
litigation between issuers and holders over non-payment. Indeed the litigation arising from the 2008 Recession still lingers.

Based the revival of demand for structured products, this field has
resilience and a good choice for a lawyer considering his or her going
deeper into the arcane world of financial products or thinking switching
specialties. 

While I was General Counsel of a public corporation, I was directly involved
in the company's capital financing strategy including equity and debt offerings.  Please contact me to explore opportunities in Structured Finance or making a transition into the field.

David Bargman, Esq.
President, Baum Stevens Bergman
646-710-4941
d.bargman @ bsblegalsearch.com

Don't Run when a Headhunter Calls

David BargmanComment

Don’t Run When A Recruiter Calls

 In the jungle, headhunters were after grisly trophies. In the jungle of the legal profession, we only want your resume. While the term "headhunter" -- we prefer "recruiter" or "search consultant” -- often invokes the same distaste as our primitive namesakes, we can turn out to be lifesavers in career guidance. Recruiters are privy to the best jobs, have insider knowledge of the legal marketplace and do a lot of the dirty work that comes with job searches than you will likely want or have time to do. Best of all, we make our living on fees from the employer, so it costs you nothing. It would be silly, then, to pass on a free consultation on your career and the market. So when the phone rings and it's a recruiter on the other end, don't be so quick to brush her off, even if you're totally content with your job.  Here’s why: A Lawyer's Friend Lawyers and recruiters need each other and not just because both have less-than-flattering images. You have nothing to lose but some billable time; a good recruiter will help you focus on your career, define you and your position, provide a window to what's going on in the market and provide an outsider's view of your firm. The more information you have, the better. Find a reputable recruiter through referrals and websites.  Even in down times, lawyers should maintain relationships with recruiters because we keep up with the market much more doggedly than most lawyers do. First, there are openings and a good headhunter can advise you on marketing or retooling yourself for what is available. Touch base with a recruiter every six months or so even if you're not looking for a job. You owe it to yourself to keep an eye on your field, and you want your name to pop up when a recruiter has an opportunity you may not have heard about.  Do not get to know the recruiter when you’re looking for a job. Establish a relationship and a comfort level. Most associates don't have time to scan the horizon looking for possible jobs; recruiters can help narrow that search. Again, it is vital to maintain a relationship with recruiters no matter what your current situation is. In fact, given how hard it is just to make initial contact, it's a good idea to pursue a relationship when you don't have the pressure of finding a new job weighing on you. Maxims to Practice By Think of recruiters as deal brokers or agents for professional athletes. It is our job to follow industry trends and gossip, so we can fill you in on what's going on. In addition to providing perspective, we can prep you for interviews, inform you about companies and even negotiate your salary. Play one recruiter against another. If one is not helpful, knowledgeable and responsive, call another and explain the situation. Odds are this will make everyone focus on your needs. Always keep in mind that you have the final say. Sure, recruiters are in the sales business. But we can only sell opportunities to motivated lawyers. Remember, you have to be sold as well as the firm. A car dealer does not have to persuade the car that the Joneses are the right owners for it. Take care of your career like you take care of your health. Schedule a check-up with your recruiter today. David Bargman is president of Baum Stevens Bargman in New York.

YOUR RESUME By David Bargman

David Bargman1 Comment

The purpose of a resume is to induce the employer to interview you.  Therefore, good resumes are factual, not descriptive.  Your resume should recount your education and experience.  Stay away from general descriptions of yourself since  they do not give your potential employer useful information about you. Separate clearly your education and professional experience.  As a rule of thumb, if you are fewer than 4 years post J.D., you should place your education first.  After that your professional experience becomes most relevant.  Summer jobs in law school and Clerkships are jobs, internships and research projects are education and should be designated as such.  Your resume tells your prospective employer whether you are qualified for a job and you are using it to get in the door.

Do not use your resume to persuade anyone.   Interviewing will determine whether you are the right person for the job.  As Joe Friday [look him up on Google] used to say, “Just the facts Ma’am.” Furthermore, the origins of the “rule” that a resume should be one page are lost in the mists of time. If your job history or list of representative transactions or cases requires more than one page, provide all of the relevant history without regard to space.  While you never, never, omit anything relevant [such as a job so as to  avoid seeming like a jumper], you need not include a G.P.A or class rank unless that will reduce your chances of being interviewed for a job for which you are qualified. Of course, the resume needs to be legible without using a magnifying glass so use a font that is easy to read . Finally technical or personal information (admissions, interests outside the law, and languages, unless a job requirement) should be at the bottom of your resume.

When it comes to your resume less is more and a little goes a long way.  

David Bargman is President of Baum Stevens Bargman, a legal search consultancy.  He works with lawyers on placement, marketing and career development

Want the job? - Sell yourself

David BargmanComment

Want the job? – Sell yourself

          OK, you have submitted your resume and have been called in for an initial interview (screenings are for movies).  Whether you are desperate to make a move, need a job, or following a recruiter’s suggestion, your goal is the same:  to get an offer.  At each stage of the process, your goal is to get to the next round.  Until you have an offer, you have nothing to decide. First, you must sell yourself. The best salespeople are authentic, knowledgeable and, most of all, good listeners.

          The firm called you in because your resume tells them that you can do the job. Because the firm has made that fact-based decision, the interview is a “chemistry” visit. You want to be prepared for some “getting to know you” small talk; I recommend that my candidates ask for coffee to give themselves time to get to know the interviewer, by looking at photos, non-legal books, or knick-knacks that tell you about the interviewer’s interests outside the law.  However, you must have in mind at all times that this is a business meeting, not a cocktail party.

          You are there to convince your prospective employer that you are the perfect lawyer for the position. They need you more than you need them because, in most cases, you have a job and they have a need

          Remember:

·       You have no needs or desires until you get an offer, so stay away from questions about your personal needs e.g., salary, partnership track, office, parental leave.

·       Interviewing is about convincing prospective employers that you are the best person for the position.

·       As the firm and you begin to get excited, you can introduce your needs.

          The first question will usually be some variation on why you are there. Tell the interviewer how much you have learned and enjoyed your current firm (they do not want to hear negatives).  In three sentences, including your good standing at your current firm, mention the highlights of your experience and then your goals.  (You must convey that are moving toward something, not away from something.

          Ask questions about the interviewer's practice and respond with specific examples how you (not your firm) dealt with comparable situations.  Have several matters in mind so that you can discuss your experience in detail in order to help the interviewer visualize you working.

          The more you come across as a knowledgeable and valued colleague, the more likely you are to get an offer.  People want to be around people they like.

          Enjoy!

Lawyers' Lives

David BargmanComment

Lawyers’ Lives

 

Once upon a time, in 2007 to be exact, the American Bar Association began tracking the careers of almost 5,000 law graduates for a project called “After the J.D.”  The ABA Journal reported that a whopping 76% of those surveyed were either ‘extremely of moderately satisfied with their decision to become an attorney”.

Two years later, the ABA terminated the project immediately because 50% of the lawyers interviewed originally were still practicing law and those who still had jobs was either disinterested or downright abusive to interviewers.

“It has been awful, just unbelievable,” said one interviewer.  The lawyers I spoke to treated me as if I were a headhunter.”

I am the President of Baum Stevens Bargman, one of New York’s oldest legal recruiting firms.  I have been a litigator at a New York firm, General Counsel of a company that went public and four years later went bankrupt, and a solo practitioner.  As a recruiter I hear stories of lawyers’ varying levels of satisfaction; some welcome my help, some are downright hostile.  When I was deciding between law and graduate school, a relative told me that law school is a great education even I you don’t practice. My second career owes very little to my legal education except, perhaps, credibility with clients and candidates. I ask myself what these responses and what surveys like Post J.D. say about the state of our profession and lawyer satisfaction overall especially the role of recruiters.

To start, I reached out to several partners, active and retired, and one General Counsel, asking why they became lawyers and why they made their careers in the law.

BigLaw Partner specializing in International Litigation

He majored in Sociology in college and was active in the peace movement.  As a result of his academic and political interests, he became interested in peaceful resolution of disputes. He went to Law school because it seemed like a way to pursue his interest in conflict resolution.  Toward that end, he took a joint degree in public policy.  He was a Federal Circuit Court Law Clerk after Law School, but was not convinced that law was his calling. He did need a job and a friend told him about the International practice at his firm. The friend put his resume in front of a partner in that group.  He received an offer and has been at the firm for 17 years, the last three as a partner.  He met woman who became his wife and stayed in New York. . He asked his friend to get his resume in front of her and accepted an offer from the firm.  He has been at the firm for 15 years.  He became a partner this year after his group promoted him the firm for several years.

 

His practice is primarily international commercial litigation and arbitration; he feels that representing companies in peaceful resolution of disputes without jurisdictional and choice of law issues prevents cross border hostilities and trade wars, consonant with his original interest in the peaceful resolution of disputes.  (And the money’s not bad).

 

He has thoughts from time to time about policy work, but he is satisfied, for the most part, very happy with his decision. He still enjoys the practice and writes and lectures in his field.  Occasionally, he considers the roads not taken but is happy he chose the law.

 

The Tax Lawyer

 

He set out to be a surgeon like his Dad.  He abandoned that goal after he observed an operation.  Lacking not only the stomach but the manual dexterity for a surgeon, he rejected Architecture his second choice at the time.  He was an excellent student, attending an Ivy where he mentioned in European Literature.  What else was a good Jewish boy to do but go to Law School, also Ivy, in order to make a good living?

 

Glad he decided to be a tax lawyer, suits his intellectual bent and attention to detail.  Also wanted to be valued for his skills as a lawyer and avoid the pressure. rainmaking He would make the same decision except for the debt he might have to accrue. Can’t think of anything he would have done having ruled out Medicine and architecture (always wanted to be a professional).

 

Worked a at first class Manhattan firm for several years before going in house for major financial institution where he remained for many years until a merger left him back on the street.  He found himself in precisely the situation he had always tried to avoid. He became a partner in a small firm which dissolved; he worked at a Big 4 Accounting firm, but returned to private practice.  He recently retired from his potion there as Senior Tax Counsel.

 

He made the right decision because being a tax lawyer proved to be well suited to my temperament and skills.  He would make the same decision if I had it to do all over again.

 

 

One reservation he would have would be, since law school is so much more expensive than I went, I would probably incur considerable debt.

 

He chose to work at a fist class Manhattan firm in midtown for the prestige and as a reward for the hard work I had put in at Harvard College and Law School. At one point, he decided to move my practice in-house. At another point, after small where he was a partner dissolved, he decided to join a major accounting firm rather than express myself to the risks of another law firm from which I had an offer.

 

He decided to become when he received assignment to prepare “a schedule of documents for a corporate transaction. He had no idea what the transaction was and nobody told him. The next transaction was to prepare a memorandum of law related to a litigation. The work was interesting, but he knew that he lacked the aggressive temperament to be a litigator.  The third assignment was to prepare a memorandum regarding whether a “profits interest” was deductible interest or a non-deductible dividend.  He found the work intriguing and intellectually challenging.  A tax lawyer was born.

 

The high point of his career was preparing a protest to the appellate division of the Internal Service.  The protest was successful and the client saved millions of dollars.

 

The low point was being laid off near the end of his career. Although it was due to a large reduction in force, it still stung and left me wondering how I would continue my career.

 

He would become a tax attorney were he faced with the same decision (unless his personality were different.)

The most significant change to the practice during his care has been the decline of tax planning lawyers and the increase of tax compliance lawyers. He believes that this is due in part to there being a smaller number of clients willing to pay high fees for sophisticated tax planning. Instead, major accounting firms employ significantly more tax lawyers.  Also, the availability of online tax research has permitted lawyers in smaller (and less expensive) to keep clients up to date as readily as their counterparts at large firms.  When he started practicing, the Internet was a dream in Al Gore’s mind.

Do you recommend a career law?  This is a difficult question. The practice in large firms has in his view become more “hard-nosed” and competitive than he started. And the required number of billable hours is as staggering as it always was. Life/work balance is desirable goal but I don’t know how associates can achieve it.  It has been my experience that small firms and corporations have been less draconian. Because I have never worked in academe or government, He has no feeling for those venues.  Lawyer can be stimulating intellectually and can provide a good living.  It also provides opportunities for social service for persons with such a bent.

 

The General Counsel

 

He decided to become a lawyer in college because he was attracted to the intellectual and analytical aspects of lawyering and that the practice of law is not just bout money (although the financial aspect worked out very well for him.)

 

With hindsight, did he make the right decision?  The jury is still out. He sometimes wishes he had chosen something less stressful.  He also tires sometimes of having to the enforcer of the rules. So even after a partnership in a major firm and being GC of a multi-billion public company, he still muses on paths not taken, e.g., teaching or engineering.

 

He chose his first firm after a second summer because he liked the people and the practice.  He became a partner so he obviously made right decision.)  He decided against returning to his first summer firm.  He thought that their motto ought to be “We are fucking going to kill you.”

 

As successful as he was as a litigator, he wanted to blend law and business.  He was successful in landing a General Counsel position for the North American division of an Asian Company and is now General Counsel of a $3Billion Company based in New York.

 

His moves have been based on being able to do more interesting work, to take on more responsibility, and to support his family.

 

His specialties have evolved unintentionally.  His first firm needed a litigator, so he litigated.  A recruiter called with an in-house corporate law position after he made partner and he grabbed it.

 

The high point of his career was crafting the winning strategy for an Entertainment client in a hotly contested breach of contract case.  The low point came when a jury returned a large verdict against his client which fortunately war reversed on appeal.

 

Technology has totally changed the practice of law from electronic discovery to the ability to quickly create documents and turn multiple drafts to being available to clients 24/7.  If there was ever any down time in the, it is gone. Ironically, he believes that technology while increasing efficiency in the practice, has made the practice 24/7, which was not the norm at the start of his career.

 

He would recommend law to someone who enjoys intellectual stimulation and wants to earn a nice living but cares about things other than money.  There are, however, a lot of dues to pay for professional and financial success, so he is not sure it is right for everyone.

 

The Retired Litigation Partner

 

He decided to become a litigator because it suited his pugnacious and outgoing character. As Law Review at a top ten school, he had his pick of firms for his second summer; he chose his firm because he liked the offices and accepted an offer permanent employment.  He has no regrets about his choice, especially because his career ranged being a federal prosecutor, a commercial litigator, and one of the top insurance coverage specialists in the country.  Of course, he would have d0ne certain things differently (e.g. choosing a specialty earlier) if he knew then what he knows now.

 

His best memory is wining the conviction and life sentence of a major drug lord who had scoffed at attempts to bring him to justice.  His low point was realizing he was not going to make partner at his first firm.  It took him almost 24 hours to recover.

 

These four lawyers were fortunate.  Each chose the law and had no major regrets. Each found work that suit them and they could commit to. They also were immunized from the need to make, except for the Insurance litigator, who welcomed challenge.

 

The takeaway

 

Four professional portraits do not a survey make. They do offer anecdotal insight into professional lives in the law. They may help in evaluating your experience and your goals.  They may help answer questions posed by a recruiter

such as: Why did you go to law school?  Are you glad you did?  What do you want for the future of your career?

 

Grab the reins before they grab you.

 

Kick the Tires During Due Diligence

David Bargman1 Comment

 

As any biglaw attorney knows, "due diligence" is a term used in business transactions. It refers to the purchaser's analysis and evaluation of the value of the property and the assets and liabilities it is assuming in a prospective purchase.

Associates often tell me that they want to do their due diligence on a firm or in-house opportunity that I have brought to their attention before submitting a resume.  I have found that, sometimes, this is the attorney's way of rejecting my suggestion without actually saying no. More often, however, I think it  is a good  lawyer's natural inclination to deliberate before coming to a conclusion.  After all, we are trained to analyze all relevant  aspects of a situation before coming to a conclusion.

In my experience, when a lawyer tells me that she wants to do her due diligence, she is talking doing one or all of the following:

1.  reading the website for information about the firm's practice areas and attorneys;

2.  reading firm profiles on NALP or Vault; 

4.  searching the web for articles about the firm or cases and transactions in which it has been involved; and

5. contacting connections either at the firm or who have had experience with the firm.

This type of due diligence is an important adjunct to considering a lateral move.  Yet it is just that, an adjunct. Unlike due diligence in a business transaction, the information a lawyer obtains about a firm such as compensation, practice rankings, profitability, or partnership statistics are no substitute for "kicking the tires" or taking a test drive. Whether for a better work environment, different specialty, better compensation, lifestyle, or partnership track, lateral moves at any level are deeply personal decisions. You cannot make an informed decision until you have sat across the table from your potential colleagues and getting a feel for what it will be like working with them.  Relying on "due diligence" alone to decide whether to interview is akin to  predicting the final score before playing the game.

 

Don’t Run When a “Headhunter” Calls

David BargmanComment

 

By David Bargman

In the jungle, headhunters were after grisly trophies. In the jungle of the legal profession, we only want your resume. While the term "headhunter" -- we prefer "recruiter" or "search consultant” -- often invokes the same distaste as our primitive namesakes, we can turn out to be lifesavers in career guidance. Recruiters are privy to the best jobs, have insider knowledge of the legal marketplace and do a lot more of the dirty work that comes with job searches than you will likely want or have time to do. Best of all, we make our living on fees from the employer, so it costs you nothing. Don’t pass up a free consultation on your career and the market. When the phone rings and it's a recruiter on the other end, don't be so quick to brush her off; listen to what she has to say and ask about the market even if you're totally content with your job.

Here’s why:

A Lawyer's Friend

Lawyers and recruiters need each other and not just because both have less-than-flattering public images. You have nothing to lose but some billable time; a good recruiter will help you focus on your career, define you and your position, provide a window to what's going on in the market and provide an outsider's view of your firm. The more information you have, the better. Find a reputable recruiter through referrals and websites.

Even in down times, lawyers should maintain relationships with recruiters because we keep up with the market much more doggedly than most lawyers can. There are openings and a good headhunter can advise you on marketing or retooling yourself for what is available. Touch base with a recruiter every six months or so even if you are not on the market. You owe it to yourself to keep an eye on your field, and you want your name to pop up when a recruiter has an opportunity you may not have heard about.

Do not wait until you are looking to get to know your recruiter. Establish a relationship and a comfort level. It is vital to maintain a relationship with a recruiter no matter what your current situation is. Most associates do not have time to scan the horizon looking for possible jobs; recruiters can help narrow that search In fact, given how hard it is just to make initial contact, it is a good idea to pursue a relationship when you do not have the pressure of finding a new job.

Maxims to Practice By

Think of recruiters as deal brokers or agents for professional athletes. It is our job to follow industry trends and gossip, so we can fill you in on what is going on. In addition to providing perspective, we can prepare you for interviews, inform you about companies, and even negotiate your salary.

Play one recruiter against another. If one is not helpful, knowledgeable and responsive, call another and explain the situation. Odds are this will make everyone focus on your needs. Always keep in mind that you have the final say.

Sure, recruiters are in the sales business. But we can only sell opportunities to motivated lawyers. Remember, you have to be sold on the firm. A car dealer does not have to persuade the car that the Joneses are the right owners for it.

Take care of your career like you take care of your health. Schedule a check-up with your recruiter today.

David Bargman is president of Baum Stevens Bargman in New York.

In House Only

Carlos WilliamsComment

If I have heard it once, I have heard it 1,000 (and probably more) times as a recruiter:  “I am not interested in another firm, but I am interested in in-house opportunities.”  When I ask why a lawyer is limiting her career plans to in-house, the responsibilities include: law firms are all the same, I want more predictability in my schedule, I don’t want to bill my time anymore, or I want to be part of the business.”  Other than the first (law firms are not fungible), these are valid reasons; the risks of going in-house are ending your training, losing your legal skills, thus, exposing yourself to a different type of insecurity.

After six years of burning the post-midnight oil as a midtown associate, I took a job as a 9-6 staff attorney at an advertising agency.  The work was varied and interesting, I never worked a weekend and the only reason I ever stayed in the building past 6 was to attend a concert or party at the Company bar.  I would probably still be working there had there not been a hostile takeover and lay off of 80% of the legal department.

I was fortunate to land a position as General Counsel of a newly NYSE listed motion picture production and distribution company.  On my first day on the job, the CEO and majority shareholder welcomed me and told me to make legal a “profit center.”   I nodded, left his office, and asked the first person I found what a “profit center” was. The company president told me I had to reduce the legal budget. When I suggested using an excellent regional firm I knew well instead of our first-rate Manhattan outside counsel, he told me that was impossible because of the close relationship between the CEO and that firm’s relationship partner. How I managed those goals is the subject of another blog.

The job consisted of exciting 12-hour days managing the day-to-day legal function, regular travel to Hollywood and London and, ultimately, a Chapter 11 filing (which was tremendous learning experience for what it’s worth).  I had developed management skills and learned a lot about how clients use and view their lawyers; I decided that my in-house experience had best suited to me to private practice where I could apply my new skills and grow my legal skill set before it atrophied completely. [How I became a recruiter ten years later is also the subject of another blog or maybe a screenplay.]

I have fond and grateful memories of my days in-house. What I especially liked about it was that my clients were my colleagues.  Many became clients in my private practice and remain friends. If you are not happy in private practice, the right in-house job can be a perfect antidote.  You may have to make trade-offs in compensation and upward mobility. And the pressure of having one client and one boss can be excruciating. My advice is to consider all your options, both firm and in-house. And bear in mind the old adage: watch out what you wish for, because you may get it.