If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!

Let's just agree that the case has already been made respecting the chronic and near-ubiquitous dissatisfaction among lawyers for their work. Let us also agree to agree that the pandemic of drug- and alcohol-abuse among lawyers (per social scientists at "x" percent above the national average) is not just a coincidence. What then are we to make of this and, further--aside from hand-wringing--what to do about it?

Let us also agree not to lie to each other, shall we? Let's agree not to tell each other that "it won't happen to me" for mere wanting. Let's agree not to believe that this only happens to attorneys of a certain generation and that "we" "new" "younger" attorneys won't suffer the same fate merely by virtue of our youth and more "modern" outlook. Do you (those under-30 types) seriously believe that your forebears did not start out with the same vitality and optimism?

Start Unpeeling the Onion

I suggest we actually begin to unpeel the onion of this occupational hazard and undeniably destructive drain on our profession as a whole, with all the detrimental affects this can conceivably have and has arguably already had on our society (footnote 1: just how many corporations claim (and truthfully) that their counsel signed off on their misdeeds before doing them?).

As I am not a scientist, not a sociologist and not a psychologist, I'll dispense with the niceties and proofs and just give you my theory straight out: our profession suffers from dis-ease because it emphasizes rational thought processes to the exclusion of emotion, of creativity, and, perhaps most importantly, of the "sub-conscious."

Hearkening Back to Jung

Those who have read Jung's last great work (and the only one accessible to the layman) "Man and His Symbols," may see his influence here. Let me paraphrase and "translate."

The unconscious (subconscious, whatever) is a vital and important aspect of human existence and sanity. It is not a relic of "primitive" man; it is not a sissy-haven and scapegoat for bad behavior. Rather, it is a font of creativity--perhaps THE font of creativity--of the human psyche. It is a vital part of (link to) our interaction to our own histories (memories) and that of the world at large. And, unfortunately, it is neglected, suppressed, and without a voice.

But for our dreams.

Dreams Matter

Jung's theory is that our dreams are vitally important to our mental, and even physical, health. Our dreams are the only way for "civilized" man to interact with (listen to, learn from) an entire thought process, almost another entire "being" within us--and one that we cannot live without. Primitive man (per Jung) had not lost the interaction between the strange, wonderful and grotesque projections that the unconscious mind projects onto every interaction, thought, and sight. Primitive man sees a shaman in a wolf, an angry god in a storm, a ghost in a rustle of the wind. Importantly, however, these fantastical associations have important meaning to us as human beings. Most importantly, they come from the same source (arguably) that all our creative, generative and new thoughts and ideas come from. We ignore it to our peril.

Yet, that is precisely what "modern" man (yes, woman, too) has done. We have collectively decided to--and "consciously" I might add, relegate the unconscious to "persona non-grata" status. As stated, what remain accessible to us, are our dreams.

The Source of Our Collective Discontent

I have not worked out just how we as modern professionals are to integrate the important messages that our unconscious gives to us, but I do know that we can and must do more to do so. We as attorneys particularly are in need of this integration. We work in a society-within-a-society that even more strongly and exclusively values "reason" and "rationalism" over emotion, sentiment, and the fantastical than the layman. I suggest, then, that our malaise, our depression, our destructive and compulsive behaviors, stem from a mind that is diseased because it is not nourished by the creative and generative powers of the unconscious.

Two Examples

I'm afraid this post is already far too long and I do not have the wherewithal to flesh out an entire system of analysis and integration. However, we fail to pick up this challenge to our peril.

Two quick examples. First, Jung relates the story of an otherwise high-functioning professional who had a recurring dream of walking off of a cliff. Jung, given the man's background, was gravely concerned. The individual had been engaged in a string of rather sordid financial and other engagements, and had begun to adopt a series of high-risk physical projects (involving mountain climbing) that Jung thought was some sort of unconscious intent to restore an equilibrium to that individual. Despite repeated warnings to re-evaluate his new-found passion, the individual continued to take ever-more dangerous mountain treks. Two weeks after the dream, his mountaineering friends related a telling and horrifying event--the man (otherwise apparently happy, fulfilled and successful) simply walked off the cliff--just as in his dream. Let me emphasis, he did not fall, he walked off. Trouble is, this unconscious obedience to a long-ignored call took another colleague with him to his demise.

Second story: I recall a vivid dream just before my wills and trusts final in law school. It was an intricate and peculiarly sharp, concrete and vivid dream; one that I could not understand, but knew was important. However, I had better things to do. I sat for the exam (and nearly failed it). I recalled only later that night the details of the dream--and realized that I had dreamed every detail of the exam fact scenario, and every single answer. Had I perhaps been more disposed to listen to, value and care about my dreams--indeed a full third of my human existence if you will--perhaps I might have averted a small (but painful nonetheless) perceived failure in my life.

I can't promise you can avoid all professional set-backs by paying undue attention to your dreams--but then again, you might.

subscribe to AD ARGUENDO now

return to today's post

It's OK to be Serious: The "Gay 90's" are Over

Interesting. I picked up a "fluff" magazine at the newsstand yesterday, just for kicks. (Time, September 3d issue). I hadn't read anything so gauche as a popular magazine for, I don't know, about a year, and so I was surprised to find out how the popular zeitgeist had shifted (um, I don't see much TV either). At any rate, I found a surprising theme running through the articles: a somber, serious mood, diffuse with a stolid determination.

The Terrible Secret

The lead article purported to reveal the "secret" life of Mother Teresa of Calcutta (remember her?). The upshot was that despite her public and frequent exhortations to live a spiritual life full of the joy and fulfillment that comes from service to others, Mother Teresa suffered from a half-century of nearly unbroken spiritual emptiness, doubt, emotional dryness, and longing. Tellingly, this cognitive dissonance between her message and ubiquitous smile and her inner torture was something she was fully aware of--she wanted her personal correspondence to be destroyed lest her possible hypocrisy (she used the word) damage her mission.

In Praise of Angst

At any rate, what interested the article's author was not so much the inner-turmoil of an Armenian nun, as the determination and consistency of this remarkable figure. What interested me is the unabashed, yet reserved, praise that the author had for this unwavering commitment to her work in the face of what was apparently for her a source of constant and intense pain. Since when does the popular press praise a lifestyle that causes and sustains personal pain as something healthy, valuable, laudable?

The Few, The Proud, the Dour

Next, the editor threw in a piece about the 2008 Presidential hopefuls. Again, they each appear to be competing for the prize of "the guy or gal best looking in a dour blue suit." Giuliani's claim on the big chair appears to be his Mother Teresa-like "smile in the face of adversity". Clinton's appeal, if charismatic, is definitely as un-huggable as one can imagine (although she tries). The rest appear to be stumping on a platform of claimed competence and experience--not the "I feel your pain" warmth of Bill's 1996 victory over then-too-dour Bob.

No More Tears

The capstone of the article is a one-page editorial by Michael Elliott on the "Diana effect." The gist of the article is that while the aristocrat's 1996 death lead to a very '90s-style outpouring of un-self-conscious and heart-felt emotion, 2007 Britain, and perhaps most of the Western world, is, conversely, in a far more "stiff-upper-lip"-ish mode. Tellingly, Elliott is neither surprised nor put off by this; rather, he embraces it. His final words? "You can't fuel a society on flowers alone." If that isn't the antithesis of the 20th-Century version of the "gay '90s" of the prior century, I don't know what is.

We Get to Fit in Now?

Perhaps, then, we as a profession may find ourselves for once in a half-century not at odds with the popular "world feeling." After fifty years of overt hedonism, rebellion, exaltation of emotion, destruction of traditional mores and embrace of the material, the indulgent and the weepy, we as lawyers may actually be on track. Perhaps our temperament as cautious, cynical, careful and perfectionist may finally have found a voice that is not dissonant with our non-lawyer acquaintances. Will we now fit in? And if we do, is this a "good" thing? It remains to be seen.

subscribe to AD ARGUENDO now

return to today's post

Bringing Leadership Thinking to your Resume

What follows is an in-depth analysis and re-statement of what the legal resume should resemble in the early 21st-Century. Executive summary: throw out your old resume and begin thinking about the eight golden keys to describe your work experience: degree of autonomy; caliber of client; sophistication of the work; volume of the work; client industry; degree of client access; dollars involved; and social/political significance of the outcome. The point is to incorporate "leadership" thinking to your resume: emphasize action, functional qualities, success stories--de-emphasize mere description.

A Little Less Conversation-A Little More Action!

When I sit down to write an article, I usually try to come up with some reference to classical antiquity, or perhaps Enlightenment-era philosophy. I like to think that the progenitors of our society have something relevant to say that sheds light even in our relatively “dumbed-down” pop-centric, go-go culture. But when I sat down to write this article on re-approaching the professional resume, I felt that the sedate, reasoned approach to life exemplified by our intellectual forebears just did not catch the spirit of the modern job search. Not at all.

Fleeting Romance

I am not the first to notice that the interview process is analogous to a dating relationship. Moreover, in this age of increasingly short law-firm tenures, the law firm/attorney dance can resemble a singles’ bar scene. If this is the case, then recourse to the timeless Justice Holmes is in order. Recall his admonition: “the timid may stay at home.”

You do not want to stay at home—you want to fulfill your professional goals and get into a platform that creates the synergies you need. You have to get your name noticed, and for any given person, you do not have two chances to do it. Just one.

I pride myself on writing extremely detailed and evocative cover letters. I do my best to answer in a cover letter all the questions that a hiring partner would want answered before extending an offer. A fantastic cover letter will open doors and get you past multiple gatekeepers, but a resume must still deliver. At some point, a decision-maker is going to pour over that resume and hope that the skills and experience that she has been looking for will finally appear. And this person does not want to guess and surmise—she wants answers. I hasten to add that your resume has approximately 11.3 seconds to communicate those answers. This is why your resume very likely needs, “A little less conversation, a little more action.”

Action v. Conversation

While I would normally hesitate to quote the King of Rock ‘n’ Roll for the centerpiece of anything worth writing about, I have to admit that his injunction “action over conversation”, is the perfect synthesis of the interview process as dating ritual, and the need to truly communicate and impress in a resume. Basically, what I mean is that your resume must be taut, dense, full of “answers,” not “questions.” In short, your resume must be an action saga, not a job-description, or mere ‘conversation’.

With this as a philosophical basis, I provide the following broad perspective and practical advice on how to re-imagine your resume as a fearless piece of pointed advocacy, rather than a timid, milquetoast recital of unsupported conclusions.

A vital preliminary word about format.

Many of my candidates initially have a difficult time listening to my suggestions because they cannot get out of their minds the outdated rubric that a resume can be only one page long. They hear about the extra detail I want them to add and they are afraid that they will exceed this outdated and lifeless magic circle, which they conceive of as a cardinal rule. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. A resume, if well-read, is a pleasure to read. In the context of a professional resume--especially for a lateral attorney with at least one year of experience--two and even three pages are perfectly acceptable. Thus, if you are following me, I hope that you have allowed yourself to completely deconstruct in your mind your current resume and its format, the better to begin your reconception of that document anew.

First: The “Legal Experience” portion of your resume is going to be reconstructed to demonstrate your abilities, not describe them.
Think of your resume as a piece of advocacy. A good brief shows a judge how and why your client’s position is the only reasonable one. Similarly, your resume must be designed to answer the “how?” and “why?” behind statements like: “Experienced in all aspects of litigation” or “complete mastery of corporate formation tasks.” Something like that lyric “A little less conversation . . .” is going through the mind of someone who reads multiple resumes in a week. The hiring partner or recruiting coordinator is thinking “why can’t this highly educated person tell me something interesting about themselves—why does this resume look like every other one I’ve ever read except for the name, the school and the graduation date.” You as a candidate must make it your mission to foreclose the possibility that those thoughts go through the mind of the decision-maker at the firms you approach. Thus, I want you to conceptualize of your resume as a showcase for success stories that highlight your skills, and puts them into a particular context.

Second: Write the perfect bullet point with my “eight golden keys” to grabbing attention.
Your resume is going to be full of detail, but it must be snappy. The best way to draw a reader in, without making him or her feel ‘trapped’ by undifferentiated text, is to use bullet points. You have seen bullet points before—short sentences, or perhaps two or more sentences, set off by text above and below it by a dash, arrow or round dot, a “bullet.” Your resume should use them strategically, but the most important aspect is to craft the text. In my view, the way to view bullet points is similar to how you may have used them in a brief—as a recitation of evidence supporting a conclusion. The first line or two of any heading under the “Legal Experience” portion of your resume is your firm name, and title (“associate” or “partner”). If the firm is a well-known one, your “conclusion” may already have been stated (“I am a world-class [litigator, corporate attorney, etc.]”). Further, you may want to simply write out a two-line “conclusion” just under this information, to give the reader an idea what you have practiced. The idea is to communicate the way you frame yourself to other attorneys—you are communicating to the reader that you are a competent and well-rounded litigator (for example) that has lots of experience in sophisticated work. Alternatively, this could also be done at the very outset of your resume in a “Profile” section (a 3 to 5 sentence narrative paragraph summarizing the most important points about your legal skills).

Regardless how you frame the “argument” of your resume, the “bullet” points are the meat that backs up the conclusion already made. And those bullet points need to deliver. Note that these are not simply “further information” for the reader. No. They are a presentation of facts that prove—that demonstrate--your competence. The way to prove competence is through the eight golden keys, which individually or in combination provide the “scope”, the “context” of your work. They are:

a) degree of autonomy;
b) caliber of client;
c) sophistication of the work;
d) volume of the work;
e) client industry;
f) degree of client access;
g) dollars involved; and
h) social/political significance of the outcome.

Ideally, each bullet point throws in powerful phrases or word-clusters that allow each bullet text to contain 3 to 5 of these “golden keys.” Let me demonstrate. A bullet point in a litigation resume may say: “Took the lead in several complex commercial litigation matters.” I see this type of phrase every day in resumes. The candidate should have focused on one of these matters and touted his own, individual work. For example, the following communicates much more: “Wrote, argued and won summary judgment defending a Fortune-100 worldwide chip manufacturer in a $50 million licensing and distribution lawsuit based on appropriate application of choice of law provision.” Notice that I have used at least five categories including: a) degree of autonomy (“wrote, argued and won”), b) caliber of client (“Fortune-100”), c) sophistication of the work (“motion for summary judgment” and “choice of law provision”; e) client industry (“chip manufacturer”); g) dollars involved (“$50 million”). If I didn’t have any of these facts, I would try to find at least two categories that did apply. The point is to take the time to dig back into your past successes and mine them for gems. In the day-to-day practice, we tend to think only of our current projects, forgetting past successes—don’t make that mistake.

Third: Make sure you covered the basics.

Every attorney resume should have at least the following sections: a) biographical information (name, cell-phone number and email address); b) legal experience; c) education; and d) affiliations/admissions. If applicable, add the following: e) “Other Experience”; and f) “Publications and Presentations”. Try to use the above principles when describing your law school and undergraduate careers.

Fourth: Honesty--The ONLY Rational Policy.

It should go without saying that every single statement and every portion of every statement in your resume, transactions list, bio, or any other piece of writing you submit to a potential employer must be 100% accurate. There is no puffing, no stretching of the truth, no artful lapses of completeness to convey the wrong idea. Most real or perceived ‘blemishes’ can be handled. What CANNOT be ‘handled’ is even the hint of misdirection. The legal market is too tight to deal with the cognitive dissonance that results from partners having to re-think their analysis of a candidate’s fit for a firm, after realizing some important aspect of their profile that wasn’t immediately obvious from the original submission or resume.

Action, Action, Action.

Basically, this all boils down to making the job of the hiring firm easier. By doing the analysis yourself of what you have done, where you’ve done it, what the results were and how it impacted on clients, you are leading the reader to the conclusion you want, without the reader having to work to prove or disprove any representations you’ve made. Thus, less conversation—less space-taking chatter about “abilities”—and more action: more direct demonstration of your proven successes. If you can make that cognitive leap, you are much farther down the tarmac than your competition. And believe me as someone who is in a position to see trends in the industry, competition for premier positions will only increase.

No pressure!

Festina Lente: Taking Appropriate Action During the Wait for an Offer

Octavius Augustus Caesar was the first and "real" Augustus, the first heir of Julius Ceasar, and some say the first true emporer of Rome. It is easy after the fact to see the amazing prowess, endurance and wit the man had, and it is easy to think of his reign, like that of every other wildly successful monarch, as inevitable. He had, however, a very shaky start.


Named as Julius's heir and assuming his position at the tender age of 18, Augustus (Gaius, then) had no money, no connections, no power and no family to fall back on. Worse, he had very, very powerful enemies.

Someone to Listen To

You may remember Marc Anthony was running around claiming the 'throne' for himself (sorry for the anarchronism). At any rate, it all worked out, obviously. It helped to have the greatest orator of all time take up his cause (Cicero) and it helped to be completely ruthless (siding with the Senate as he did at need against Antony, then, when more powerful, switching alliances and "purging" the Senate of the traitors to Julius). Either way, I believe Augustus and his brilliant success sufficiently makes his case as someone to listen to for advice.

World's Greatest Aphorism

And Augustus was all for aphorisms, most of which he coined himself. My favorite? Festina lente. Now, many of you have heard this one, roughly translated "hurry slowly." But there is more, far more, to it than mere irony. The point is, of course, that one must have plans and move as direcctly toward their fulfillment as possible. And, of course, one must have the determination, patience and "stick-to-it-ive-ness" to take the long view when necessary--switching alliances when convenient, professing loyalty the next, and taking direct and perhaps ungentlemanly action when prudent. (You can see how this philosophy might appeal to a headhunter).

Gloss on the Phrase

More importantly, however, is a further nuance to the injunction. "Lente" also carried with it the connotation of "toughness", "durability", "flexibility" and "suppleness." It makes me think of trying to put a nail through stucco--the hammer just bounces back at you. Thus "festina lente" is an encouragement not to just be "deliberate" (which attorneys often use as an excuse to simply "bide their time" and take no action) but also to be tough, to be tenacious, to be able to bend with the wind.

Bringing it Home

And thus I finally come to my point: One must take action where one's actions will count. Simply to strike without knowledge of where to place the hammer is fruitless at best, possibly injurious (you can hit your own hand) and even fatal (if the hammer bounces back into your face). This is particularly true when dealing with transition between law firms. (Yes, I realize this is not a partiuclarly graceful segue).

Right Thinking

At any rate, firms have their own pace; their own way of making decisions. In other words, they make decisions about bringing on new attorneys at in their own sweet time regardless but not heedless of the consequences. Firms are completely aware that taking too much time will mean that some fantastic candidates will simply move on and look for new positions. But even in a tight labor market (which we indeed have and will continue to have), firms know that eventually they will find the fish in that great sea that will fit within their framework, and that will put up with their impossibly opaque and glacier-slow decision-making processes.

Strategic Mind

Thus, my moral for dealing with a firm after the interviews are done, the conflicts statements are written up and the offer is yet to be seen: relax! The firm will either act or it will not. In the meantime, keep looking for more possibilities. There is no one perfect firm for you and simply "willing" for that "perfect" firm to act is pointless.

Rather, demonstrate the strategic mind that Augustus had: find your target, move in towards it, but do not hesitate to take the mountain-trail-like switch-backs sometimes necessary to move in a straight line.

subscribe to AD ARGUENDO now

return to today's post

Bruised Reeds: "Counseling"--A Distinct Paradigm for Attorneys Contemplating an Exit Strategy

In a continuing effort to encourage high-functioning attorneys to compete at the highest levels, I’ve asked the attorney career counselors at Celia Paul Associates in New York to chime in on the benefits that such services can provide. I have found it interesting to compare their approach to that of other professional coaches that specifically target attorneys (for example, click here). Regardless, it is clear that these professionals bring immense value-added to the lives of the professionals they work with.

The Celia Paul group refer to themselves as career "counselors", not coaches. The distinction being that as counselors, they focus on working with attorneys who are contemplating an exit from practice. Conversely, coaches focus on working with attorneys who are committed to remaining in practice. My questions:

What are the three most important reasons that (first) a rising associate (and second) a partner needs your service?

A lawyer's career counselor is one who works with an attorney who is not satisfied being at a firm, or being in house, or being a traditional lawyer. The career counselor:

(1) identifies the options (maybe a venue-change, maybe a change in direction within or outside of the law, maybe an entrepreneurial activity) available to him or her;
(2) helps identify whether those options exist in the actual marketplace; and then
(3)helps the individual land the job. (A "career coach" is one who works with a lawyer who's planning to stay on the job).

The three most important reasons that an attorney might wish to see a 'career counselor' are...

1) the attorney is dispirited, distressed, disappointed, or fed up with the law or his job;
2) the attorney is looking for more satisfaction, balance, fulfillment, or a well-lived life;
3) the attorney has been downsized, fired, excessed, or made redundant.

In short, the career counselor's focus is not the firm's efficiency or bottom line, but rather the attorney's career well-being. (These are not incompatible.) In fact, we've developed a "Career Well-Being Inventory" which you can scrutinize to compare yourself against those lawyers who have changed career directions and who say their new or current career provides career satisfaction and well-being. We have been using this 47-item career well-being inventory to help partners and associates measure their satisfaction at work, and how readily they could change directions if they wish.

Okay, what's the point of having a career counselor who claims an expertise in lawyer's problems? For that matter, are there really problems particular to lawyers that other business professionals don't have?

The point is twenty five-years of experience counseling lawyers has given us the perspective that lawyers’ career issue are both unique to them, and also shared by other professionals like doctors and scientists. This counts when lawyers refer other lawyers to us.

Are there problems unique to lawyers? The unique problems: law-firm work-life balance, partnership demands, rain-making, long hours. “Getting tenure” and “making partner” are not unique.

In a study of why lawyers are unhappy, three reasons emerged:

1) much law, especially litigation, is a 'zero-sum game', meaning someone wins, someone loses;
2) most lawyers (partners & associates) have a small 'locus of control', meaning others tell them what to do;
3) people who are attracted to law tend to be prudent; prudent people may tend be pessimists (optimists live longer, but pessimists are more realistic); some pessimists may tend to become disaffected or depressed.

These issues are not unique to lawyers, as we have found physicians and scientists with similar career issues.

Alright, what is this counseling thing all about anyway? Lawyers are so socially conservative as a group (I don't mean politically, of course)--and they get only more so with "age" in the industry.

Is your life a worthy expression of who you are? Is your life a well-lived life? How does it feel to get up in the morning to go to work?

Here’s what career well-being feels like . . . You fully enjoy the exercise of your talents, skills, and signature strengths. Your work is ‘a worthy expression of who you are’. Your work (in law at a firm, in-house, or in public service) feels as if it is inevitable, like the good fit of a hand-in-glove. You feel energized by an area of law (working on a matter, or with a client, or in the courtroom, or doing public service, or simply ‘lawyering’). You feel good when learning new legal skills or exercising your favorite muscles. You often think of new ways to use these skills, or others related to the job or career.

Thus, if I talk with you as a counselor , are we going to be doing funky guided meditations? Group hugs? Or is this something that a hard-boiled professional can get his/her arms around? We are NOT going to be talking about our childhoods, right?

Career counseling for lawyers is a logical, systematic, and orderly approach to lawyers’ career circumstances period. No hugs, no meditations -- no ‘ands’, ‘ ifs’, or ‘buts’. (It’s not astrology, not touchy-feely, on the one hand -- but on the other, it is not Newton's Laws or Quantum Mechanics either. Indeed, our career counseling instruments quantify “career disappointment” and give you, the lawyer, concrete next steps.)

Your profile, you and the market place, and organizing your campaign are the three concrete steps that our lawyer-clients find orderly, systematic, and logical:

(1) your profile…
The purpose in the first step, "Assessment", is to identify a range of desirable career options for you, given who you are, and to help you acquire the ability to describe yourself clearly, fluently, and self-confidently during interviews in your new career direction(s).

(2) you and the marketplace…
The second step, "Options Exploration Research", develops timely knowledge and realistic marketplace data -- as they pertain to you -- for each of the options above.

(3) organizing your campaign…
The third step, "Implementation", gets you where you want to be. Our purpose is to produce an efficient job-landing in a career direction that provides career satisfaction. For details, click here.

What do you see as the major challenges facing first, partners, and second, associates, in living up to their potential as practitioners/ rainmakers?

The major challenge -- from our perspective of 25 years counseling lawyers -- is to find the type of (legal or other) environment that makes you, the lawyer, feel "this career or job was inevitable for who I am--the best possible career circumstances I could hope for at this point in my life". In short, finding a balanced life.

So why should I have my candidates contact you? What makes someone a great counselor?

You shouldn't! They should decide for themselves if career well-being is important to them, and discuss with us if we are able to deliver the goods...career well-being.

Many of our former clients say we're good at what we do. Take a look at our success stories.

By the way, we pioneered distance career counseling to lawyers anywhere in the US and overseas.

What if I as a potential candidate really do have some problems (performance issues, personality deficit (wink), maybe some other inappropriate behaviors)? Can you handle this?

Short answer: some we can deal with, such as pessimism; others such as clinical depression we refer to appropriate professionals. In several cases, we were given permission to exchange views with our client’s clinician. See the study referred to above...”Why lawyers are unhappy?”

To sum up, what is your operating philosophy towards success and professional development in the legal market? How do I know you and I would have a similar idea about what constitutes a "healthy", "successful" career?

If you fully enjoy the exercise of your talents, skills, and signature strengths, your work will be “a worthy expression of your life”. This is what it feels like…

1. a sense of ownership, authenticity in exercising your skills (‘this is the real me’)
2. a feeling of excitement when using or displaying them
3. a rapid learning curve as the strengths or skills are developed and used
4. continuous learning of new ways to enact the strengths or skills
5. a sense of yearning to find ways to use them
6. a feeling of inevitability in using them (‘try and stop me’)
7. invigoration rather than exhaustion while using the skills or strengths
8. creation and pursuit of personal projects that revolve around signature strengths, that tap skills and strengths
9. joy, zest, enthusiasm, (perhaps even bliss or rapture) while exercising them
10. the sense that you could “whistle while you work”
11. the central feeling that your job, career, or vocation is “nice work”. (Based on M. Seligman)

If you agree that you possess all of these qualities… no further improvement is possible. You already have found “nice work”. You do not need to change jobs or careers. You do not need career counseling. You have a "calling".

Bios of Stephen Rosen & Celia Paul.

Celia Paul Associates specializes in career change, career planning, and career coaching for lawyers. Since 1980 we have guided over two thousand lawyers to satisfying careers both within and outside of the law. Celia Paul Associates is the largest, oldest, and most well known U.S. career management firm specializing in attorneys. Articles about the firm's premium career planning services have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, National Law Journal, New York Law Journal, and in Bar Association publications. Several thousand attorneys have participated in the career transitions programs developed especially for lawyers by Celia Paul Associates. The firm is also consulted by well-known large law firms on the outplacement of their partners and associates, and on the professional development and retention of senior and junior law firm associates.

subscribe to AD ARGUENDO now

return to today's post

Don't Succumb! Unlearning "Learned Helplessness" Among the Attorney Ranks

A psychologist friend of mine and I were lamenting the antics of a mutual friend. The three of us are in leadership roles in a high-minded fraternal organization. Admittedly, however, we don't always live up to our ideals of efficiency, orderliness and professionalism when it comes right down to it. At any rate, my psychologist friend bandied about the phrase "learned helplessness" in a half-joking jab at our friend, who tends to hang us up until the last minute, and in unpredictable ways. His point, I came to find out, is that our friend's overbearing and unpredictable behavior was teaching us to just "put up with it" rather than take effective action.

The Ravages of a Lack of Control

The concept intrigued me and we began to chat about the phenomenon. Apparently, in researching depression in the 70's, Dr. Martin Seligman discovered that animals do not respond well to situations they perceive as not under their control. A dog, for instance, will recover eventually from the trauma of having electric shock administered to him, if he is given an environment where he can learn that a particular action will consistently grant him a reprieve. Conversely, a dog given the same doses of shock therapy, but in an environment where no action on its part has any effect on administration of the pain of electric current, will eventually lay down passively and take repeated shocks, despite the fact that the animal (once so conditioned) was permitted to simply walk away from the trauma at any time. In short, the dog gives himself up to his fate and enters a semi-fugue, or even catatonic, state. This, in a nutshell is "learned helplessness." Under some particular controls, humans have been demonstrated to react in the same way.

Been there; done that!

Of course, all of us who have worked in law firms already know this! The legal industry has been pretty consistently immune from increased humanity in human management in the corporate world. Thus, lawyers still tend to exist in a milieu of inconsistency and incredible power imbalance where the whims of high-producing partners are catered to, no matter how counter-intuitive and destructive they may be. Indeed, many associates simply learn do keep their heads down, bill, and take what comes, "hoping" they will eventually make partner, or that things will somehow just get more humane. And we wonder where all the lawyers go!

Break Out of the Mold

The good news is that even in the canine world, many do not fit the pattern. A healthy number (but a minority) of dogs subjected to the barbaric treatment outlined above refused to give up and did not succumb to "learned helplessness." In psychological terms, these canines, and their human counterparts, did not "internalize" their trauma. Neither did they succumb to the belief that their condition was permanent. This fundamental belief that the individual indeed has control and that things do indeed change--no matter what evidence to the contrary--is a strong indicator of mental health going forward.

Take Effective Action

The moral? We always, always, always have control in our situations, no matter how bleak they can appear. And this doesn't mean just "walking away" as last resort. Rather, we can as professionals take positive steps within our firms and alongside our "tricky" partners and colleagues, to make terrible situations better. To maintain our effectiveness and our sanity, we must always react to disappointments and complex problems with the attitude of what ACTION we intend to take. Analysis is our stock and trade, but if our "logic" leads us to conclude that we have no acceptable options, we must remember the fundamental truth that we do have options, and we do have the power to act on them.

subscribe to AD ARGUENDO now

return to today's post

Carrot and Stick: Why You Have No Choice But To Lead from the Vanguard

I am not a determinist, really. But I do believe that movements within societies are inexorable, ineluctable, unavoidable. That means that new ideas and new values and new social morés come about seemingly of their own accord; and they cannot be stopped, cannot be forestalled, cannot be ignored--at least not ignored without risk.

Don't Get Caught With Your Pants Down

In short, a leader can never be comfortable in his/her own skin. A leader can never believe that s/he has "found" a mode of being that will maximize his/her personal reputation, fortune or standing. Rather, a leader is always open to perceive needed changes in his/her approach, philosophy, and style of implementation. A leader realizes that what is acceptable, even laudable one year, may be actionable or even criminal the next.

I can't help but bring up a startling example of this type of "sea-change" in outlook from the early 19th Century. Lord Nelson (once again), shows us that a true leader always leads from the cutting edge of society's cultural milieu.

Yet Again, Nelson as Management Guru

Nelson is famous for his approach to battle. In case you aren't familiar with it, he was known for the shocking proposition that the enemy existed merely for him to annihilate. In short, he did not believe in "saving" his men or material for a later day. He did not believe it advisable or permissible to consider how much he might lose in the relentless pursuit of his enemy. Rather, Nelson thought only of how he might destroy his enemy, and utterly remove his enemy's ability to carry on a fight.

While the above description sounds blood-thirsty, it is does not sound terribly innovative to our 21st-Century ears. After all, the entire last Century is full to overflowing with examples of "total war." But in Nelson's time, nearly precisely 200 years ago, this was a new way of thinking.

A Bygone Era of Manners

In the prior century (the 17th), naval tactics had favored equipoise, balance, synchronicity and even beauty to be higher values than destroying one's enemy. The ruling paradigm was that of courtesy, sensitivity and prudence--and prudence to the exclusion of action. In the extreme case, it was thought more gentlemanly to dissemble, even prevaricate, rather than to offend.

Moreover, there existed rules of engagement so intricate as to seem laughable now. Ships in a line were disallowed from engaging their enemies any closer than that of the flag ship engaged its chosen target. Movements of ships were timed not for efficiency, but for perfect uniformity of motion. Basically, the movement of ships in battle was dictated more by the artistic flair of a choreographed underwater swimming routine than of the hurly-burly and quick-decision-making required (now, at least) in battle.

Nelson Smashes the Paradigm

Imagine then what a dashing figure Nelson made. He routinely gave orders to his captains that specifically authorized them to take decisive and independent action; to react as they saw fit once the chaos of battle began. He gave few guidelines. Basically, once the ideal alignment of the fleet was achieved, captains were to simply get a close as they could to an enemy ship of their choice and blow it to kingdom come. The beauty and symmetry of "the line" be damned. This new approach took root quickly in the officer ranks.

Politics and Public Sentiment Dictate the Terms

But the swiftness of the shift among the naval community was nothing compared to the swiftness and abruptness of the shift in mood of the populous back in Britain. One of Nelson's colleagues, admiral of a different fleet, took the standard approach in attacking a Spanish armada. After engaging the enemy and decisively trouncing it, Nelson's fellow admiral decided not to follow up the battle the following day. Rather, the admiral allowed his enemy to limp back to port, and took his fleet to a safe harbor nearby. His reasoning? A very 17th-Century concern that he not lose a single ship (basically, why tempt fate?), and also, that he preserve those ships that he had taken from the Spanish and were now his by right of conquest. This sort of gentlemanly and rather passionless take had been doctrine just a few years earlier.

Notably, however, these actions, sanctioned and approved for a century at least, now became the subject of a court-martial, and end of this admiral's career in ignominy. After a bloodbath in the press and a strongly worded reprimand by the Admiralty, he was never given another command.

No "Comfort Zone"

Just what was the "crime" of this very stately admiral? Only this: that he did not keep his eyes to the horizon. He did not feel it necessary to push the boundaries of his own experience and read the writing on the wall. In short, he was smug with his own (quite vast) success, and sat on his laurels.

How much less can leaders today afford to rest on any laurels? Our markets and our style of business are changing beneath our feet. It might be risky, yes, to take a new direction, but it is very likely more risky to adopt the status quo. It is often more prudent to continue on a path where the end is not in sight, than to wait for the press of the known inevitably to crush you.

Thus, leaders of all levels of honor may do well to heed the conflicting and changing movements within our society and the emergent, (developed) world zeitgeist. If one is small-minded and petty, one can at the least realize that to protect oneself one cannot simply do what worked before. If one has the desire to create something new and lasting, he must take the same course. The seas may be choppy, but there is only shame and death for the captain that hides his ship from the battle.

subscribe to AD ARGUENDO now

return to today's post

Seize the Fire!: Lord Nelson, Passion and Radical Dedication--to Colleagues

A regular reader gave me a ring today to ask what he could do to get his own career kicked up to the next level. He likes where he is, but he opines that as an associate with a subject-matter expertise and clientele that do not lend themselves to incorporation into some global, über-Nietzschean, $1000/hour practice: does ad arguendo still have any thoughts?

Well. There is a saying that masters in a field do not so much have learning that their neophytes to not have access to, but that instead they are masters at the basics. I'll share one of those basics now: build a network.

Seize the Fire!

I am having tremendous fun listening to Adam Nicolson's "Seize the Fire", a fantastic and really ingenious look into the battle of Trafalgar and what it had to say about naval history, the English (not the British!), leadership, and genius. I'm sure I could fill a dozen posts with the insights that Nicolson brings to bear, but one will suffice: Lord Nelson was insanely commited to his network.

Nelson As Leader

Nelson built an entire career around building and sustaining trust in his subordinate commanders, and by extension with all of the men under his command. Like some sort of 19th-Century Achilles, Jack Welch and Tony Robbins rolled in to one, Nelson expected the world from those around him, but also paid scarce resources of time and energy to ensuring that the needs of these men were satisfied.

Lord Nelson and Radical Commitment to Colleagues

This was not a mere matter of logistics, tack bread and lemons (read the book). Rather, it was a monomaniacal dedication to the soul-life of these men. He appealed to their honor, their avarice and their deepest drives. In short, Nelson became the most famous sea-captain in British naval history not by dogmatism and distance (although both were present) but by dogged and undeniable dedication to a network of trusted advisers and subordinate commanders. By means of that dedication, he was able to lead, mobilize, demand and expect respect, total loyalty, and crushing victories.

It All Begins with a Thought

But it had to start, my friends, with a philosophy of valuing and a practice of implementing an ever-increasing network of contacts, confidantes and colleagues. And that work, I can tell you, can never be shortcut. It takes painstaking attention to detail and determination to keep on meeting new prospects, for investing bit-by-bit in relationships that may or may not pan out, and to continue to dedicate oneself to the realization that the value of a man or woman is not in his or her individual successes, but in the aggregate value they can bring to bear in service of some greater ideal.

Start small, dream big, implement like hell. If you want more practical tips and a step-by-step on building your network, click here.

subscribe to AD ARGUENDO now

return to today's post

Zen and the Art of Deciphering Law Firm "Culture"

Deconstructing the Communication

For associates, picking a law firm is like picking a mail-order bride, only worse. You start with a healthy number of glossy marketing fliers in your hand; you see a hundred smiling faces; you read a hundred vapid, nearly identical descriptions of each firm's "culture" and how "nurturing" each is. Just as untrustworthy as you may conceive of a "bride" (or "groom"!) catalog to be, don't believe a word of this nonsense.

Worse, neither should you take at face value the bracing assurances from third-year associates who promise the firm isn't too harsh and the partners are really great people after all (even if a few do scream just a little). Likewise, take with a grain of salt what interviewers say about firm training and "development." Nor should you put stock in the dark and usually spurious rumors spread by disenchanted senior or mid-level associates that their firm (otherwise stable and highly respected) really has some deep flaw or is about to "go under." None of these sources can give you the information you really need. At best, this information is irrelevant to a proper analysis.

On the other hand, neither do I suggest that you pick at firm at random. Instead, I suggest that you take an entirely different look at what "firm culture" is and apply this new paradigm to your analysis. Doing this is both easier and harder than you may think.

Whatever Happened to "Culture?"

First of all, just what "firm culture" is has changed in the last 10 years. It used to be that even the larger firms truly had unique approaches. There was a slightly different mix of perspectives, attitudes, and energies. Some firms just felt right; other didn't. That quantum of culture was never easy to describe, but "you knew it when you saw it." Things have changed. If I may rely on a rather humble analogy: Recall to mind your high school physics class.

You may have conducted a simple experiment of taking water chilled to below the freezing mark, but under pressure. Amazingly, although the temperature of the water was below 32 degrees Fahrenheit, the pressure applied to it would not permit the water to freeze; it remained a chilled, uniform liquid. Something like that has happened to many law firms. While it is almost by definition that we could say each firm has a nascent cultural "feel," you often can't "feel" it anymore.

Previously, the pressures upon partners to manage cases, market existing clients, cross-sell with other departments, lecture and write, serve on committees, and, oh yes, "mentor" junior associates were not as great, nor as varied. Now, however, I perceive that the immense pressure on partners to perform all of these tasks (and well) has created an atmosphere of pressure so pronounced that what would otherwise coalesce into a cognizable firm "culture" remains cold, immobile, and sterile. Thus, I posit that an aspiring lawyer cannot trust whatever "cultural" signals he or she is receiving; they are being transmitted in a necessarily distorted way. Rely on these signals to your peril.

A New Paradigm

Next, what validity does "culture" still have in terms of law firm "fit"? I still believe that some firms are better suited to certain lawyers than others. But there is a better way to divine which is which. As alluded to above, partners (and by extension their firms) simply cannot and do not take the time and effort to put their individual stamps on their firms. Instead, these functions are being carried out by professional vendors. Marketing companies help write fliers; consultants help write mission statements; specialists are brought in to conduct training classes; coaches are brought in to groom the up-and-coming (at best).

With all these mixed and often disharmonious voices added to the mix, how does a prospective associate decide what is a good fit? By returning to basics. I hate to betray my deterministic leanings, but the best way to find out if a particular firm is a "fit" is by looking at the market forces that will inevitably shape the firm's practice.

Here are the criteria I look at:

What region did this firm originate in?
What are the component merged entities that have led to the current monster mega-firm you are considering?
What is the firm footprint (where are they now, and what has been the progression through markets)?
What are the firm's stated goals in terms of growth?
What are the last few "leaked" merger partners that may have fallen through?
Where did their managing partner come from (is she homegrown or a fairly recent lateral)?
What is the mix between litigation and transactional work? Who are the firm's clients (are they "mid-market," Global 50, or merely Fortune 500)?

A New 'Gestalt'

The above and other similar questions attempt to understand where a particular firm is going. This is all you can realistically hope to see as an associate. In reality, how the firm "feels" for the first several years of your career is not terribly relevant anyway. Junior associates are shielded from the forces that are really shaping the firm; and by the time associates do begin to discern the realities, they may be confronted with the necessity of a lateral move to find a better "fit"-or with the realization that one may have to shape one's career in a way inimical to his or her temperament if they want to continue to thrive. Thus, what I have tried to describe is more a gestalt of culture rather than seeing culture as a static state of being.

All firms are going through growth pains as the legal industry begins to catch up to the market realities that have been shaping corporate America for the past 25 years. Culture-as-process is the new paradigm. The insightful attorney is the one that understands her or his own interests, working style, and goals and finds a firm that has demonstrated through its market decisions the intention to create a practice that is in sync with those personal traits.

New Realities

Face it, firms are larger now; they are almost small societies in and of themselves. They are being shaped by individuals, but the totals are greater than the sum of their respective parts-and more complex than perhaps any one attorney can really get his or her arms around. Frankly, the realities of the direction of a particular firm may not be in sync with the "culture" exhibited by the current rank and file. If you want to succeed, you need to think a little beyond whether the firm offers margarita parties or yearly retreats. You need to think about a future practice.

The 'Zen' Part

Thus, my proposed "gestalt" of law firm cultural analysis becomes a nearly "zen" approach. This is because no matter how much you analyze a firm, it is hard to know whether the "right" firm is really the "best" for you. You are going to grow and change as an attorney: Your interests will change; your skills will change; your temperament will change; your personality itself is definitely going to undergo some realignment. It comes down to a gut-level decision-but a gut-level decision made after an appropriate analysis. Regardless, you have to make your choice and run with it-and be prepared to be flexible down the road.

Good luck!

subscribe to AD ARGUENDO now

return to today's post

"To Dare Mighty Things"--Thanks Bill!

Thanks to Bill Lerach, I have been saved from having a dreaded "dark" day on my precious blog. I was sitting before my screen, my beautiful 'tabula rasa', waiting for inspiration to come. The seconds were ticking away. Thankfully, Bill Lerach's resignation memo to his firm was put up by the WSJ Law Blog. I have to say, I've read scores of resignation memos (even written one or two!) and none of them were this good. The guy can write.

At any rate, what I liked most about his congratulating and self-congratulatory memo is that he included a wonderful quote from Teddy Roosevelt:

“It is far better to dare mighty things to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.”

As I sit contemplating the impending further stratification of class in the legal field, the potential melt-downs that always threaten our economic security, the challenges of new technologies and technologies yet-to-be implemented, and the increased complexity and unknown pitfalls presented by a true globalization of legal markets, it all boils down to this: guts, sweat, blood, and yes, tears. What are we as lawyers (and those that serve them) if we are not pushing boldly on the borders of our current experience, skill and paradigms? It is we who are or should be leading our clients into new terrain, over hidden obstacles, under ensnaring regulatory thickets.

As you psychically pause for breath before the impending storm of activity that will overtake us all after the "Labor Day" weekend, let's remember that it always, always comes down to the basics. It is not whether we stumble or even fall, it is whether we get back up, and quickly.

Have a great rest of your week!

subscribe to AD ARGUENDO now

return to today's post

Read the Market : San Francisco mirrors the National Market for Legal Services

Sitting down to pen a report to my clients and candidates about the state of the San Francisco market report, I note that it sounds just like the reports of my colleagues for every other US market for legal services. Executive summary: Strong, but schizophrenic. Hire/don't hire. Grow/sit. Reach out/pull back.

Overview

Law firms are still in desperate need of corporate and securities attorneys at all levels. Firms have been chronically understaffed in the associate ranks in all transactional areas for at least 18 months and there does not seem to be any immediate end in sight. Partners who want to switch platforms need to be thinking of a seven-figure number before expecting to get any buzz from AmLaw 100 firms. Litigation remains at zero-growth—there are still legion opportunities, but these are all the result of natural attrition, not growth. Thus, credentials are still very closely scrutinized.

Now for some niche reports:

General Corporate, M&A, & Securities

Unchanged since the Spring. Firms are looking to hire, but they want the best. As usual in this market, a corporate candidate must be a generalist, but with a few niche-specialties under his or her belt to bring to the table. Resumes must emphasize the broad-based nature of the candidate's experience, and what value-added they can bring to client, now.

However, although firm needs are still at all-time highs, the recent credit market bumblings have made the hiring process EVEN LONGER. Firms are “checking their lists and checking them twice.” Even after call-backs, firms are hand-wringing before pulling the trigger on a hire. Kind of like the US Postal Service: they deliver, but it takes forever.

Project Finance

Of course this work is usually a DC or NY thing. However, lots of firms say they want to expand in this area. Bring your pedigree and get your transactions list together; it will be reviewed with a fine-tooth comb.

Labor & Employment

Still weirdly hot. It had appeared to cool down in Spring, but is back up to full strength. The L&E door is the only door open for some litigators now.

ERISA; Corporate Benefits

Unchanged. The few. The proud. The ERISA lawyers.

Energy; Environment

Firms are thinking growth and integration. There is lots of room here, but what it takes to break in seems in flux. If you have a story, let’s here it; firms are open-minded.

Tax

Just like your typical tax lawyer, the market for the same is not terribly interesting (no offense!). Must have LLM, must have top-drawer experience, must be well-versed. Firms are not going to train you.

Bankruptcy

Unchanged from the Spring but still stronger demand than Summer and Fall of ’06. Needs still are not extremely stronger however. We’ll see what happens in the next six months. Of course, if the economy tanks, suddenly firms will be knocking down your door.

Trusts & Estates

Unchanged from last quarter. The needs are few and not-well communicated. However, on balance, needs slightly outweigh available talent, so the diligent find positions.

Intellectual Property Litigation

There are still scores of opportunities here. Of course, patent is the sexiest of the markets, but soft IP is still in demand also. If I was still a commercial litigator, I would be doing my darndest to convert myself into an IP litigator.

Intellectual Property Transactions

This area is humming along quite well, but I haven’t seen any continued growth since my last report. Candidates that have corporate governance and other transactional experience combined with some litigation and other IP experience may find such positions a good fit. The practice area calls upon a fair number of disciplines. The standards are high; you MUST have been doing intensive IP transactions work for a full year to get any buzz.

Patent Prosecution and Litigation

I think last quarter I downgraded this area to “warm.” Well, I’m calling it “hot” again. As usual, technical degrees-especially BSEEs and MSEEs--are coveted. If you have one, call me! The needs are constant and varied, and there is a perceived lack of adequate talent. As one would expect, with respect to patent prosecution, the higher degree of technical expertise you have, the looser the standards will be on the legal experience and credentials side. Obviously, strong performance in science as well as in law is desired. If you are interested in patent litigation, the same is largely true, but make sure you that you have solid experience. General commercial litigators need not apply, generally speaking, unless academic and firm credentials are of the highest order.

Real Estate

Only “warm” I’m afraid. The needs are still strong, but movement has been sluggish. Still, there are numerous positions available to qualified candidates. If a particular candidate's credentials are not stellar, but there is solid, broad, and well-documented experience, that may suffice. There was significant movement in this area in Fall 06 and firms still need people, but the market is still coagulating.

Commercial Litigation

Same story we’ve had for two years. Firms can cherry-pick litigators now. If you are a fifth- or sixth- year, you had better make the change yesterday if you want to get noticed. If you are in the senior associate ranks, stay put. Partners? Be ready to demonstrate either a rock-solid plan for growth, or have a significant transferable book.

And now a word about business:

As stated at the outset of my report, firms are growing. If you have a book of business, now is an excellent time to consider finding a more appropriate platform. This means that firms are not only looking to expand the depth of existing practice areas, but many are seeking to add as many niche practices as they can. The new paradigm is full service. Partners looking to change platforms need to think more about the existing (and nascent) culture of target firms and a firm's recent and anticipated business moves with respect to geography, client base and practice group, ahead of the existing depth or quality of a current practice.

Conclusions:

Universal growth, market pressures for further consolidation (merger), and clients’ demands for firms to be all things to all people, mean that the market for talent is hot. However, after the burned hands of the dot-com bust, firms are still slow to hire. Plus, the recent reminder that markets do actually come down and that discrete market sectors are subject to stupidity and cupidity, firms are again wringing their hands about whether to actually hire to fulfill their current needs. They have to hire, but don’t want to get hung out to dry. It makes for a very interesting scenario.

As a candidate, you need to get your irritation-o-meter up to snuff. It is going to be a slow and jarring ride.

subscribe to AD ARGUENDO now

return to today's post

Calling Dr. Friedman!

Perhaps I just don't read the right stuff, or enough of it, but it seems to me we are not getting a strong diet of solid analysis on the current rumblings and bumblings in the credit markets. Where is Dr. Friedman when you need him?

I enjoyed reading Bruce MacEwen's post (in turn reviewing two other articles) on the possible fall-out for law firms in the current "uncertain" market. His advice, of course, is that firms need to be as diversified as possible, combined with some strategic thinking. In short, "kindly refrain from knee-jerk reactions." I couldn't agree more.



The trouble is that we seem to have entered an era without an economic guru or beloved "grand-dad" to help us interpret just what is going on. After Greenspan's retirement, we seem to be adrift in uncertainty. Perhaps the invisible hand has gotten just a tad more inscrutable.

Be that as it may, as "Uncle Milton" would say: "there is no long term." Thus, we must sit squarely on the fence-post between planning for future growth and taking advantage of present opportunities.

It seems to me that we might be better off strategizing how to create new service "products" for our skittish clients, than worrying about whether we should downsize in the midst of the greatest labor shortage in the legal industry we have seen in ages.

My own advice is the same today as it always is: Keep a watch on your billables, keep an open eye to opportunities ripe for exploitation, and keep moving.

subscribe to AD ARGUENDO now

return to today's post

Whisper Sweet Somethings: An Interview with Neil Olson, Lawyers’ Coach

I have harped incessantly on the need for lawyers to step up their strategic game. Most of the advice I have given centers on external observations: What is the market doing? where are the next great opportunities? How can I revolutionize my practice to create synergies within my practice group, my firm, my client base?

Ratchet it up . . .

But to really bring the game up to world-class, a lawyer needs to think who s/he can bring on to the team. A vital part of that team is a professional coach, and one that intimately knows the challenges and opportunities presented by the practice of law. There is a fairly new and growing cadre of lawyers-turned-coaches.

Saving you five hours’ worth of research . . .

I thought I would save you the research time in finding out what this coaching thing is all about. I asked the premier lawyers’ coach in my hometown of San Francisco to submit to questions I thought you might ask, and ask them as bluntly as I possibly could.

Below is a quick question-and-answer session with world-class lawyers’ coach, Neil Olson. Neil is a lawyer, a former law firm partner and a trained counselor and professional coach. (Scroll down to see more of Neil’s credentials.)

Neil, what are the three most important reasons that (first) a rising associate (and second) a partner needs a lawyer coach?

“The education, training and skills that lawyers have in common create a particular way of approaching, analyzing and solving problems. When groups of lawyers get together in business they tend to be highly competitive, highly independent and fiercely analytical not simply in their approach to solving their client’s problems but in their approach to solving their own. Modern law firms, however, are large organizations engaged in the business of law – not simply the practice of it.

“For both associates and partners, the value of a lawyer-coach – one who has ‘been there, done that’ – is having a mentor that is not competing with them for business, money or advancement. Having an experienced and committed confidant to sort through issues such as business development, management, leadership, and career satisfaction is the heart of why most lawyers who turn to coaching will want their coach to have practiced law.”

Okay, what's the point of having a coach who claims an expertise in coaching lawyer's problems? For that matter, are their really problems particular to lawyers that other business professionals don't have?

“The general problems lawyers face such as advancement, career fulfillment, in-office interpersonal relationships, effective management and leadership and life/work balance are challenges faced by a great many professionals today.

“The specific nature and the solutions to those problems often lie at the heart of the special education and training that lawyers share as well as the business model used by most law firms – the exchange of services valued by an hourly rate or fee.

“Lawyers are also challenged by the high ethical obligations they have to their clients, to the bar, to the courts and to the public. If a coach does not ‘get’ that, it will be especially challenging for him or her to provide effective coaching.”

Alright, what is this coaching thing all about anyway? Lawyers are so socially conservative as a group (I don't mean politically, of course)--and they get only more so with "age" in the industry.

Thus, if I talk with you as a coach, are we going to be doing funky guided meditations? Group hugs? Or is this something that a hard-boiled professional can get his/her arms around? We are NOT going to be talking about our childhoods, right?

“No ‘kumbaya’ – I promise.

“I come from the point of view that the lawyer-as-professional is typically highly functioning. Less common is the well functioning lawyer-as-business professional and less common still is the satisfied lawyer. It is the creation of a sense of balance between the professional services a lawyer provides and the business the lawyer is in – in the context of what the individual lawyer wants out of his or her life – that creates the biggest impact on the lawyer and the lawyers firm.

“So here is what we do – we take stock of where the lawyer is, we evaluate what needs to be done, we set metrics to determine how we will know if things are moving in the right direction, we create an action plan and we get to work! The coach provides support, inspiration, honest feedback, accountability and, in my case because I have been a practicing lawyer I provide insight on whether the actions are likely to yield the results desired in the context of the real life demands of the business of law.”

In that vein, what do you see as the major challenges facing first, partners, and second, associates, in living up to their potential as practitioners/rainmakers?

“In my experience the challenge is the same for both the associate and the partner – it is the desire to generate business purely by the quality of their services. It is, of course, absolutely critical that the lawyer produce excellent work product – and if he or she is in a narrow and highly specialized practice area that alone might indeed bring in sufficient business.
But that is the rare exception.

“For the most part professional service providers get business because of the relationships they have with the people who can give them business. For the new associate this means treating the partners in the firm as a highly valued client. As the associate rises through the ranks he or she must also then add the current clients of the firm to their list of highly values clients – and as he or she approaches partnership consideration he or she must have developed strong relationships with people in the industry he or she wishes to practice. It is the regular, consistent, and disciplined attention to relationships that, over time, brings in business.

“And you still need to produce high quality work product.”

So why should I have my candidates contact you? What makes someone a great coach?

“First: Why contact me? If you are looking to make your career more satisfying, call me. I work with successful lawyers who have become a bit un-tethered from the satisfaction and (dare I say) fun of practicing law. I use a business-centered approach in that the work I do focuses first on the business of the lawyer, then on the profession of the lawyer and then on the life of the lawyer. And I say this emphasizing that it is the same for the lawyer working in a law firm, as part of a general counsel’s staff, in government or practicing as a solo.

“And, Second: What makes a great coach? Personally, I think great coaches are mature, experienced, grounded, self aware and have the capacity to consistently see the best in their clients. Most of all, like any processional service, the judgment of the quality of the coaching lies in the experience of the client. Like a dentist or a doctor or a lawyer for that matter, it is how the clients feels about the coaching that makes the coaching worthwhile or the coach ‘great’.

“And by the way, if your Coach does not have a Coach --- that should tell you something about his or her commitment to coaching as a professional service.”

As a practical matter, is a telephone relationship with a coach really effective? I know that many people in the business world are used to this model, but I don't think my candidates get it yet--convince them.

“I hold that once the relationship with the client is established, phone coaching can work. I discourage it as a regular habit though simply because so much more is communicated face-to-face. I meet with my clients twice a month for 90 minutes and I much prefer it face to face. I can meet at my office in the Financial District or I can go to their office. One caveat is the need to be generally undistracted by phone calls, email and the like for the 90 minutes.

“Of course, lawyers are busy professionals and sometimes their schedules are unpredictable and effected by the actions of others (like Judges, clients, opposing counsel and so forth). I find that using the phone for occasional meetings works just fine and is often the easiest way to reschedule appointments.”

What if I as a potential coach candidate really do have some problems (performance issues, personality deficit (wink), maybe some other inappropriate behaviors)? Can you handle this?

“I am not a psychologist or mental health professional. I do not provide mental or emotional therapy. I work with healthy and successful attorneys. I would refer those issues to a licensed professional.

“As for behavioral issues – I have been hired to help lawyers become more organized, to manage their time better, to develop more positive relationships with other lawyers and/or staff. Those issues can manifest themselves as short tempers in the office or a lack of interest in practicing law or even the spending of too much time at the office—often without an increase in work product or billable hours. I still hold that the first focus of my coaching is on the business of the lawyer and in that context an assessment of what the behavior is costing him or her and his or her law firm.

“I would also add here that every lawyer I know has an important reason of why they chose to practice law. Some aspect of the practice was interesting, or compelling or fun. That reason can become lost or obscured by the sheer demands of the profession or as a result of the business realities of being in a law firm – but the original reason is still there. Reconnecting the individual to that source of satisfaction is my passion and forms my greatest successes.”

To sum up, what is your operating philosophy towards success and professional development in the legal market? How do I know you and I would have a similar idea about what constitutes a "healthy", "successful" career?

And a corollary question: if you don't really have a fixed opinion about the same, what's the point of coaching? Is this really going to consist only of open-ended questions, sage nodding and warm handshakes?

“Perhaps I responded to this already --- my operating philosophy is that every lawyer I know has worked very, very hard to become an attorney. For each there was a core reason for doing so. I work to help uncover that reason and to place it in the context of the lawyers business, their profession and in their lives.

“As for the warm handshake – my coaching is “time-bounded”. I offer four separate modules. (“The Lawyer in Business”, “The Lawyer as Manager”, “The Lawyer as Rainmaker”, “The Lawyer as Leader”) Each module is six months long. Each module is stand alone and when you are done you are done. You’ll get a binder of information, an action plan, a certificate and you’re off. Before a client begins any module they must first complete a Personal and Professional Accounting and Assessment process which usually takes one month to complete. That includes a full day meeting with me.

“I also have two additional programs which are a bit more advanced and go a bit deeper – the first is “The Lawyer as Satisfied Professional”. It is a year long program and takes a broader look at the lawyer’s entire life. The second is a program for groups or teams of lawyers focusing on communications, team/group dynamics. It is designed for small firms or practice groups. It is designed to be completed over the course of a year but can be completed in a retreat setting over a three or four day weekend.

“And the warm handshakes are free.”

Thanks, Neil!

Short bio for Neil:

Neil Olson is a certified coach and licensed attorney who specializes in helping lawyers reach their fullest potential. Prior to launching his coaching practice seven years ago, Neil practiced law for over 10 years as an associate and partner in a large San Francisco law firm. Neil also founded his own boutique firm and practiced there for nearly 10 years. Neil has trained, coached and consulted with attorneys in AmLaw 50 International Law Firms, Bay Area regional and boutique law firms, in-house counsel for major corporations, as well as sole practitioners. Neil is on the 2007-2008 Executive Committee of the State Bar of California Law Practice Management & Technology Section. Neil is also the National Board President of the Professional Coaches and Mentors Association, and a founding member of the Renaissance Lawyer Society. Neil is dedicated to coaching lawyers in the San Francisco bay area, where he lives with his wife and two children.

Neil Olson - The Lawyer Whisperer
e: neil@neilolsoncoaching.com
w: www.neilolsoncoaching.com


Captioned artwork: Whisper to Tree, by Gregory Gallo.

subscribe to AD ARGUENDO now

return to today's post