TechnoLawyer: BiglawWorld

Originally published on February 8, 2010 in our free BigLaw newsletter.

Like so many other things in life, it's not the size of your public relations department that matters — it's how you use it. In the past two years, the PR departments of many law firms have been on overdrive, performing layoff damage control, spinning reduced compensation, and attempting to generate some good press in this era of bad news. The way a firm responds to press inquiries is often just as important (and telling) as the response itself. Let's explore three popular law firm approaches to dealing with the media. As you'll see, one is more successful than the other two.

The Ostrich

If a firm takes the Ostrich approach, it sticks its head in the sand, ignores the request for comment, and hopes the story blows over. Unfortunately, by the time media outlets request firm comment, they've typically verified the story and will publish it regardless.

Last February, Latham & Watkins pulled an Ostrich when Above the Law, a legal gossip site, contacted the firm for comment on rumored layoffs of 440 employees. Latham ignored the request. In its coverage, Above the Law discussed how Latham partners openly acknowledged the impending layoffs and blocked off conference rooms under the managing partner's name several days in advance of the cut.

Latham conducted the layoffs two days later, by which time firm personnel had already spent 48 hours terrorized and confused. By staying silent, Latham lost an opportunity to explain the cuts the moment the information leaked and to correct factual inaccuracies in the Above the Law article. Latham's Ostrich was so notorious that getting "Lathamed" became an Internet meme.

The Doublespeak

If a firm responds to a media request with the Doublespeak approach, it may deny accurate information, couch its public statements in cagey language, or deliberately convey different messages to firm personnel and the media.

When Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft laid off associates last year, a firm spokesperson called them "unrestricted sabbaticals."

While "sabbatical" conjures pleasant images of academic sojourns to Oxford in springtime, its use as a euphemism insulted and angered the sabbatical recipients who had to choose between leaving with three months' severance or leaving and taking a reduced salary with the possibility of rejoining the firm in a year. Generally, employees appreciate jargon-free statements that convey the facts, not dress them up to "hide the ball."

In another Doublespeak maneuver, WilmerHale told Above the Law last June that it had not conducted layoffs, and had no layoffs planned ... but had implemented a "career advancement program" that resulted in associate "departures."

One month later, the firm laid off associates and later poisoned morale by distributing an internal memo threatening to fire anyone who tipped off Above the Law about its activities. When Above the Law posted about the allegedly inflammatory memo, the WilmerHale spokesperson called it "a general reminder" and did not address the layoff back-story. Now, "WilmerHale layoffs" autopopulates the Google search field when users search the phrase "WilmerHale."

The Straight ShooteR

Straight Shooter law firms respond to press inquiries promptly and provide clear, detailed information. They recognize that firm personnel obtain information from both the firm and the blawgosphere, and deliver consistent internal and external communications soon after stories leak. The Straight Shooter approach best serves all concerned, especially the firm.

Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe switched from lockstep to merit-based compensation last July with a pitch-perfect press release. It explained the firm's rationale, gave pay calculation specifics, and set a timeframe for the switch. Orrick's informative approach empowered employees and ultimately made the lukewarm news more palatable.

Thankfully, more and more firms are embracing the Straight Shooter approach, realizing (if a little late) that good PR will set them free.

[Disclosure: Marin writes a weekly column for Above the Law.]

How to Receive BigLaw
Many large firms have good reputations for their work and bad reputations as places to work. Why? Published first via email newsletter and later here on our blog, BigLaw goes deep undercover inside some of the country's biggest law firms. But we don't just dish up the dirt. We also mine it for best and worst practices and other nuggets of knowledge. The BigLaw newsletter is free so don't miss the next issue. Please subscribe now.

Originally published on January 26, 2010 in our free BigLaw newsletter.

2009 was a bad year for large firm associates. A relentless tide of layoffs, widespread salary freezes and deferrals, and an overall shortage of billable hours left many unemployed, facing financial hardship, or consumed by the stress of job insecurity. Or all of the above. Despite these inhospitable conditions, optimists cite the emergence of "green shoots" in 2010. But where can you find them? Faced with this daunting task, former Boies, Schiller, & Flexner associate Samara Anderson found a solution: plant your own.

Anderson, now 36, spent six years toiling as a litigation associate. She worked long hours, traveled "all over the globe," and lived in what she refers to as the "6 minute world." But, says Anderson, while the work was interesting and challenging, she "wasn't passionate about it."

As a student, she had dreamed of working as an environmental lawyer; as an associate, however, her caseload was focused primarily on antitrust and securities litigation. "I hoped to get back to working on environmental issues one day," she explains. "I thought I would eventually leave the big firm world and find a position that would allow me to make a difference, whether as in-house counsel, as a government lawyer, or in some other capacity."

From Big Law to Big Trouble

Last spring, Anderson's long-term plan was derailed when her firm began downsizing. Facing imminent unemployment, Anderson suddenly found herself without the luxury of planning her next career move. Rather than panicking, though, she decided to take a leap of faith. Instead of hitting the job market, Anderson hit the road.

"I am absolutely passionate about being out in nature," she explains, "and I realized that I could use this sudden break as an opportunity to go out and explore some of the most beautiful places in America." So, with the tenacity and organizational skill of an associate, Anderson (along with her partner, Melissa Frenyea) planned a trip that would take them to 10 states and 20 national parks.

Anderson spent more than a month traveling the country and touring the parks on her checklist. A seasoned triathlete, she immersed herself in the experience by running, biking, and hiking wherever she went. "The world is a beautiful place," she says emphatically, "and we have to be cognizant of our natural resources. I firmly believe that the only way to do that is to get out of the car, go to the top of the highest mountain, wade in the water … whatever you have to do to make the connection with nature."

The trip did more than provide Anderson with great vacation memories: it gave her career a new direction. "It was mind-blowing," she says of her journey. "It opened up my perspective, and supported my reasons for leaving the world of law. If not for this experience, I probably would have fallen back into what was familiar, and headed back to firm life. But I realized that I had to be true to myself, and find a career that reflected my passion for environmental issues."

Blazing New Trails

Anderson's next challenge was to figure out how, in a seriously depressed job market, she could make her newly clarified goals into reality. Upon her return, she began networking furiously and searching for work in the environmental field.

Then, at one meeting of a breakfast club focused on environmental issues, she heard speakers from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. Fascinated by the substance of their presentation, Anderson saw a potential opening — despite the fact that both agencies' legal departments had been decimated by budget cuts and were subject to indefinite hiring freezes.

"I offered to volunteer my services," Anderson explains. Soon, she was spending several afternoons a week working at the DEC, handling several of her own cases. Although she is still a volunteer, the work has already started to pay off. "I'm getting great experience, and learning a tremendous amount," she says. In addition, she may be able to parlay her volunteer position into a full-time job at the DEC.

Most importantly, Anderson appears to have found her calling. "I love what I'm doing," she reports, "and it ties in with everything I want to do." She is thankful for the experience she gained at Boies, Schiller, & Flexner, which she credits for giving her the confidence to face formidable adversaries and handle complex litigation.

But, she says — with evident satisfaction — "I'm so much happier, and I feel so much more fulfilled than I did there. I had a good run, I learned a lot, and now I have the chance to do something I'm truly passionate about." For Samara Anderson, the dark cloud over Big Law did, in fact, have a silver lining.

How to Receive BigLaw
Many large firms have good reputations for their work and bad reputations as places to work. Why? Published first via email newsletter and later here on our blog, BigLaw goes deep undercover inside some of the country's biggest law firms. But we don't just dish up the dirt. We also mine it for best and worst practices and other nuggets of knowledge. The BigLaw newsletter is free so don't miss the next issue. Please subscribe now.

Originally published on December 14, 2009 in our free BigLaw newsletter.

With all the advice out there about online social media — Refine Your Use of LinkedIn, Have LinkedIn Groups Lost Their Appeal?, The Value of Twitter, What About the Twitter Naysayers? — to name just a few recent articles, it's hard to know which to follow. To complicate matters, most large law firms have not yet adopted social media policies. That leaves proper use of social networking within the discretion of associates.

Having work-inappropriate content in your profiles — or in the Google search results for your name — can cause embarrassment or worse at work. And for unemployed law school graduates and former associates, an unsavory online footprint can inhibit job prospects. You may not think so, but BigLaw is watching. The tips below can help associates and would-be associates draw the online shades.

1. Monitor All Your Social Media Accounts

In your zest to put up a new profile, don't forget to make it private. Keep whatever profile information visible to others in Google searches conservative. Avoid featuring alcohol, suggestive clothing, or guns in your primary picture and review your "fan of" settings with a critical eye.

Also, remember to link all your profiles to email addresses that you check regularly so you can monitor information posted by others to your account (such as tagged photos, @username replies or comments).

If you use Facebook, take note. Two weeks ago, the world's largest social network made it easy to publicly disclose formerly private information. Carefully review the new privacy settings in your account.

2. Keep Your Friends Close and Your Co-Workers Further

Don't add partners or counsel as friends on Facebook or Twitter unless you intend to keep your profiles G-rated and business only. You should also think twice before adding co-workers who may not have your best interests at heart as friends or giving them full access to your profiles.

If you've already added colleagues that you wish you hadn't, put them on limited profile view settings retrospectively or even block or de-friend them. Most people have so many friends that when the "lose" a friend online, they can't easily determine the offender's identity.

3. If Your Firm Has a Group on Facebook, Don't Join It

Both officially sanctioned and rogue law firm Facebook groups are monitored by human resources and media relations. Your mere presence in the group alerts co-workers and the powers that be to your Facebook profile and reminds them of your greater online activity.

4. Think Twice Before Posting Under Your Real Name

Many associates have interests outside of law that they hope to keep invisible to partners and clients. Unfortunately, Google can't create multiple search results for your name. Once you publish an article on bird-watching, your colleagues may soon know about your avian hobby. So before you publish anything, decide whether you care if firm colleagues discover it. If yes, consider using a unifying pseudonym for your outside interests. That way you can build a separate trail (and a resume) for your "alter ego" without tampering with your name's Google search results.

5. Manage Negative Search Results

Unfortunately, you can't delete negative Google results for your name query (short of asking the webmasters of the offending sites to remove your personal information). However, profiles registered under your name on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and other high ranking Google sites can help bury negative results that originate from lower ranked sites.

Creating a Google Profile can further help you combat negative information with positive information that you add, but it won't drive down negative results because it appears on the bottom of search pages.

How to Receive BigLaw
Many large firms have good reputations for their work and bad reputations as places to work. Why? Published first via email newsletter and later here on our blog, BigLaw goes deep undercover inside some of the country's biggest law firms. But we don't just dish up the dirt. We also mine it for best and worst practices and other nuggets of knowledge. The BigLaw newsletter is free so don't miss the next issue. Please subscribe now.

Originally published on December 7, 2009 in our free BigLaw newsletter.

At age 34, David Lat has already compiled an illustrious set of credentials. After graduating from Yale Law School, Lat clerked on the United States Court of Appeals, worked as an associate at mega-firm Wachtell Lipton, and spent several years as an Assistant United States Attorney. But it is his career as a blogger and journalist that has made him a household name in legal circles, where he is known as the founder of the wildly popular online legal tabloid "Above the Law."

Above the Law amasses 8-10 million page views each month with a stream of news, gossip, and humor focused on legal personalities and the world of large firms. "There was a hunger in the market," for a site like Above the Law, Lat told the ABA Journal last month. "These law firms are large, wealthy and powerful institutions that generally don't like to talk about how they work. So when you proffer information, people get excited. They are peeking behind the curtain." This hunger for information, Lat maintains, has had a measurable impact on the world of large firms. "Other sites and Above the Law have changed the ways firms communicate. We are moving in the direction of greater and greater transparency."

Last month, Lat was recognized by the ABA as one of its "Legal Rebels." Recently, he took a break from his hectic schedule to chat with BigLaw about such topics as the changing face of law firms, Facebook in the workplace, and, of course, the joys of legal gossip.

The ABA recently named you a "legal rebel." What, in your opinion, makes you a legal rebel? Is it your approach to a changing legal profession, or do you tear around on a motorcycle in black leather?

More the former, I'd say! Motorcycles and leather are scary. The ABA was looking for folks who are shaking up the legal profession, and Above the Law is certainly doing that.

Speaking of Above the Law, is it driving law firms toward greater transparency, particularly with respect to "personnel" decisions? And why is transparency important?

Transparency keeps institutions honest. It has a civilizing effect on our sometimes brutal profession. It forces firms and other institutions, such as law schools, to treat their people fairly. We've had numerous cases over the three years the site has been around when a firm or law school revisited a decision after seeing how it was received on Above the Law.

So, how would you say the movement — perhaps driven by sites like ATL — toward greater transparency has impacted large firms?

The biggest change, as a hiring partner of a large New York law firm told me, is that it has accelerated the pace of change. Whether it's pay raises or layoffs, trends spread more rapidly now thanks to the freer flow of information. This may be a good thing, or it may not be. But it's the way things are now.

There's a lot of talk about what will become of law firms, given the vagaries of this economy. Where do you think they're going?

Oh, if I knew the answer to that, I'd be a very wealthy man! This isn't earth-shattering, but I'd predict that BigLaw is going to become smaller and more flexible. Firms will grow smaller, partly because it's possible to do more with less thanks to technology and outsourcing. As for flexibility, firms will have to become more nimble to navigate a rapidly changing economy and profession. For example, instead of hiring in large numbers and then laying off in large numbers, firms might start to rely more upon contract attorneys and freelancers, who can be drawn upon and then let go with greater ease.

There's a lot of talk about salaries getting lower. Is this a good thing for the market?

Some of our associate readers won't want to hear this, but my personal opinion is yes. Clients aren't as willing to pay for junior associates who aren't that useful in their first years of practice. So it probably makes sense to pay them less and focus on training them more, which a number of firms are starting to do.

You were an associate at a law firm known for its demanding work conditions. Realistically, is there a way for profitability and the humane treatment of associates to coexist?

That's a big topic. But one overall change I'd suggest is allowing lawyers greater flexibility. For example, let them decide if they'd like to work reduced hours in exchange for reduced pay. A number of firms already have multiple-track systems, but I think the hours and pay levels could be even more customized, and the trend should spread to more firms.

If, as some predict, small-to-midsize law firms gain market share, will we get less deliciously juicy gossip on sites like atl? In other words, will anyone leak, will anyone care?

Oh, small and midsize firms generate lots of great gossip! Some of our juiciest stories have come out of smaller firms, which often have more freewheeling, uninhibited office cultures than their BigLaw counterparts. The problem is getting those stories out there. With a large law firm, you can tell a tale without fear or being revealed as the tipster since hundreds of people have probably heard the story. This is not as much the case at smaller firms.

Speaking of buzz, you've certainly embraced social networking using services like Twitter and Facebook. Are you surprised to see them becoming tools of the trade for certain practitioners? Do you think that social networking belongs in the workplace?

I'm not surprised at all. The overall trend over the past decade or so has been in favor of lawyers doing more marketing. To make partner these days, you don't just need legal ability; you need the ability to bring in clients. Social networking is perfectly appropriate for the workplace. Your Facebook friends might someday send you work. Say you make Facebook friends with a law school classmate. Ten years later, you could be a law firm partner, and they could be in-house. Law is a lot like journalism, or finance, or a whole host of other fields — it's all about your Rolodex (so to speak).

What do you think the role of legal journalists is in a volatile market like the one we've observed over the past year? In airing the dirty (or at least slightly unclean) laundry of the law firms you report on, are you hoping to hold their feet to the fire, force greater accountability, or just entertain your readers?

Honestly, I try not to philosophize too much. I do my job because I enjoy it on a day-to-day level. I give people information, and they decide what to do with it.

I don't have an agenda. In terms of my identity as a blogger and journalist, I'm more of a reporter than an editorialist. One of my favorite quotes, listed on my Facebook page, is this one, by Jeffrey Hart:

"I confess to a fondness for gossip, which, indeed, is a conservative genre. Gossips do not want to change the world; they want to enjoy it."

What's on your night table?

A review copy of Union Atlantic, the forthcoming novel by Adam Haslett. Haslett is a brilliant young writer who wrote an amazing collection of short stories, You Are Not a Stranger Here. He's also, incidentally, a fellow graduate of Yale Law School (although we didn't overlap there).

How to Receive BigLaw
Many large firms have good reputations for their work and bad reputations as places to work. Why? Published first via email newsletter and later here on our blog, BigLaw goes deep undercover inside some of the country's biggest law firms. But we don't just dish up the dirt. We also mine it for best and worst practices and other nuggets of knowledge. The BigLaw newsletter is free so don't miss the next issue. Please subscribe now.

Originally published on November 23, 2009 in our free BigLaw newsletter.

Jeremy, a mid-level associate at a large New York law firm (Firm A), thought he had a bad cold. One night while toiling on a brief due in a week, his condition worsened. "I couldn't breathe, and I thought I was going to pass out." He called the partner, notorious for working her teams hard even in the absence of deadlines, and told her he was seriously ill, and that he thought it best to leave. She told him to "tough it out," and stay to finish the brief. Jeremy stayed all night and left the office the next morning. On his way home, he fainted on the train.

Jeremy's wife picked him up and drove him to the hospital, where he was diagnosed with acute pneumonia and dehydration. When he called the firm to tell them what had happened, they sent him a copy of the file and told him to get back to work on the brief upon discharge.

The incident upset Jeremy so much that he found a position at another law firm (which was, at the time, still possible). "I couldn't believe how inhumane they were at Firm A," he recalls bitterly. "They treated me — and all of the associates — like we were disposable. If I had succumbed at my desk, I'm pretty sure they would have kicked my body out of the way and installed someone else to finish that brief."

Jeremy's landed at another large law firm (Firm B) where he "probably billed as many hours" as he had when he was at "Firm A." But, he says, "I loved it there. I had a great experience, and even though my billables were about the same — pretty high — my quality of life was exponentially better."

The Differences Between Firm A and Firm B …

Jeremy's experience raises several questions, which are particularly topical given the heavy toll that law firms have suffered in the era of economic decline. What was the difference between the two firms, and why was one demanding experience so much more palatable than the other? Given that law firms are business ventures above all else, is it possible for them to maintain profitability and to foster a humane work environment? Will "quality of life" end up as another casualty of the financial collapse?

Despite his unfortunate experience at "Firm A," Jeremy believes that the pressure to produce need not render associate life unbearable. The solutions, he says, are relatively simple.

"At Firm A, it was not acceptable to go home, even if you didn't have work. So everyone stuck around for hours, waiting to see if they could get an hour of work here and there." At Firm B, however, attorneys could leave at, or at least near, the end of the business day. "Working remotely was totally acceptable, so no one felt guilty about it," explains Jeremy. "You could go home, have dinner, see your family, and then get a few more hours of work done. It made an incredible difference."

Project management also differed markedly. Firm A created an environment in which associates competed indiscriminately for work, no matter what it was. "Whether you were a first year or an eighth year, you were expected to review documents if you could get a few more hours out of it. There was no attention to capability, class year, or developing expertise," he says. By contrast, Firm B made an effort to match associates to assignments, and, by removing the pressure to "maintain a presence in the office, even if you weren't busy," eliminated the desperation underlying the dynamic that existed at Firm A.

But, Jeremy insists, the biggest difference between the two — and what he considers the most important aspect of Firm B's approach — is "that Firm B gave associates a sense of control. Even though we billed a lot of hours, we had more control over when and where we could get work done."

"Having even a modicum of control over your schedule translates to an immeasurably better quality of life," Jeremy says. "Even a big workload doesn't feel as overwhelming. You feel better, more balanced. You feel like you can take care of personal needs and family priorities without being penalized with disapproval. At the end of the day, I was happy to stay up late and put in extra hours for a firm that understood that I had a life outside of work."

But, Jeremy wonders, will the economic pressure faced by law firms today, combined with a particularly desperate workforce, lead to more "Firm A"-type work environments? "I hope not," he says. "Firms need to look at the big picture. Firm A had a ridiculously high defection rate, whereas Firm B fostered incredible loyalty. In the long run, that loyalty has real value."

How to Receive BigLaw
Many large firms have good reputations for their work and bad reputations as places to work. Why? Published first via email newsletter and later here on our blog, BigLaw goes deep undercover inside some of the country's biggest law firms. But we don't just dish up the dirt. We also mine it for best and worst practices and other nuggets of knowledge. The BigLaw newsletter is free so don't miss the next issue. Please subscribe now.

Originally published on November 16, 2009 in our free BigLaw newsletter.

"Make the client happy" has long been a law firm battle cry. Traditionally, that meant 24/7 availability, lavish steak dinners, and box seats at sports games. Grueling hours and expense accounts remain part of the happiness recipe, but today reduced legal bills are the surest route to a client's heart. However, we live in a zero sum world. Some associates learn that so-called cost-cutting initiatives come at their own expense — literally.

Going Somewhere? Didn't Think So.

In January 2009, Christine, a third year private equity associate at a large firm, booked a two week vacation for August with her husband. When a partner in her practice group staffed her on a fast-track deal in August, she sent an email reminding him of her upcoming absence. The partner advised against going.

"The official reason, stated in the email, was that this was an important client and it was an all-hands-on-deck situation," says Christine. "The undertone was that I should be grateful to have my job at all in light of the layoffs everywhere."

Up to this point, Christine's story sounds fairly typical — associate cancels trip because of work. But when Christine submitted her credit card statement for the cancelled hotel and flight for client reimbursement, the partner refused to sign it.

"He said that he never officially okayed the trip in the first place, which meant that the client did not have to reimburse me under firm policy. But it was just an excuse to get me to eat $6,700 and spare the client. This partner never okays trips because he never wants the client to be on the hook for cancellations," she laments.

You Are What You Eat

Keith, a first year litigation associate at another large firm, shares a less dramatic but no less troubling example of a refusal to reimburse.

Keith ordered a small lunch spread for a client getting deposed at noon. The deposition got cancelled through no fault of the client's, and, as usual, Keith charged the food to the client. When Keith submitted the bill for approval, the supervising partner circled the charge and wrote "personal." The firm's billing system prohibits associates from charging food services to the general office account, so Keith had two choices: ask the partner to fork over his personal charge number or pay out of pocket. We know how this story ends.

Robbing Peter to Pay Paul

Large firm associates already "pay" for their jobs in so many ways — slavish hours, an unpredictable schedule, and a constant fear of unemployment. But as Christine and Keith can attest, when associates incur legitimate work-related expenses, they rightfully expect the client or the firm to make them whole. They do not expect to pay out of pocket.

Saving the client money is a worthy goal, but shifting the burden of reimbursement to associates creates illusory savings. Firms that require associates to pay out of pocket for work-related late night cabs, food spreads, and cancelled vacations save face with clients but abuse their bargaining power with associates and destroy firm morale.

Firms that do not seek expense reimbursement from clients should allow associates to charge appropriate expenses from the general office account or clearly communicate to associates the firm's reimbursement policy in advance. Cutting client costs by shunting them to associates is not a fair solution.

How to Receive BigLaw
Many large firms have good reputations for their work and bad reputations as places to work. Why? Published first via email newsletter and later here on our blog, BigLaw goes deep undercover inside some of the country's biggest law firms. But we don't just dish up the dirt. We also mine it for best and worst practices and other nuggets of knowledge. The BigLaw newsletter is free so don't miss the next issue. Please subscribe now.

Originally published on October 26, 2009 in our free BigLaw newsletter.

Traditionally, there exist but two options for lawyers who want to work in the private sector: law firms or in-house. But modern times call for alternative careers. Fortunately, the Internet can lend a helping hand. Online legal publishers offer a career path especially suited to those attorneys who want to use their JDs but get out of the rat race.

Sharon Makower is one such attorney. She spent three years at Willkie Farr & Gallagher as a securities and M&A associate, racking up more and more billables and seeing less and less daylight. She left Willkie for Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel where she eventually transitioned to part-time to take care of her children.

However, Sharon found that fast-paced deal work did not lend itself to her reduced schedule, so after nine years she departed for Cablevision's legal department. As associate general counsel at Cablevision, she thought she would enjoy those mythic in-house perks: challenging work with a 9 to 5 schedule. Reality set in when Sharon discovered that her in-house job was full-time plus an hour commute each way.

"Cablevision was a terrific place to work, but I still didn't have a work-life balance," says Sharon. "At the time, I thought my only options for a flexible schedule were staying at Cablevision and seeing what happened, or going back to a smaller firm."

A Practical Alternative Surfaces

In 2007, Sharon's options broadened when a recruiter told her about an open editorial position at Practical Law Company, an online legal publisher that creates practical guidance for transactional attorneys. The job involved Sharon's areas of expertise — capital markets, corporate governance, and public company regulations. Sharon agonized over whether to take it.

"I was very much on the traditional path, and leaving an established legal employer for a job in a relatively young industry — that was scary," she recalls.

Ultimately, PLC's lifestyle and mission won Sharon over. Sharon now writes how-to guides, practice notes and model documents for PLC four days a week, and retains the flexibility to work from home as needed.

"I very much enjoyed practicing law, but I easily got over the 'thrill' of getting a call on Friday for a deal signing Monday. If I can distill my experience into something straightforward that lawyers can use, that's pretty rewarding."

Benefits and Compensation Aplenty

Legal publishing jobs, of course, don't pay salaries commensurate with those of large firms, but the money is nothing to sneeze at. Publishers such as PLC, Westlaw, LexisNexis, and Bloomberg recognize that to attract and retain top talent, they must approximate, in some way, law firm compensation. Salaries for editorial/analyst attorneys at LexisNexis and Westlaw reportedly start around $70,000 and up, depending on job function and seniority. Roles that require more significant practice experience can pay much more.

Despite the flexible schedule and competitive pay, online legal publishing is not right for every attorney. Those who live for the "thrill of the deal" will miss the adrenaline rush of day-to-day practice, and junior attorneys may not have enough practice experience to inform their work. Applicants for editorial/analyst positions also require an especially rare talent among attorneys — plain English writing skills.

"Legal drafting is a different skill than regular writing, and my job involves both," says Sharon. "For lawyers, it can be tough to break the 'why use three words when ten will do' habit, but it is a necessary skill if you're going to succeed at this job."

And if Sharon hadn't discovered online legal publishing, where would she be now? "Probably at Cablevision. I guess I would still be trying to find something that worked for me within the traditional legal model. I'm not sure it exists, though."

How to Receive BigLaw
Many large firms have good reputations for their work and bad reputations as places to work. Why? Published first via email newsletter and later here on our blog, BigLaw goes deep undercover inside some of the country's biggest law firms. But we don't just dish up the dirt. We also mine it for best and worst practices and other nuggets of knowledge. The BigLaw newsletter is free so don't miss the next issue. Please subscribe now.

Originally published on October 19, 2009 in our free BigLaw newsletter.

"They smile in your face. All the time they want to take your place. The back stabbers." — O'Jays, Back Stabbers

Law firms are hierarchical institutions. Your place in the pecking order is well defined. You may not be thrilled about taking orders from a particular partner, but that's law firm life, right? Besides, if you work hard and distinguish yourself, greater autonomy is sure to follow. And look on the bright side! As your career progresses, at least you don't have to take orders from self-important associates. Or do you?

Ari, The Backstabber …

Christa, an eighth-year associate at a large Washington, D.C. law firm, recently learned that, sometimes, a track record of demonstrated competence and the respect of one's colleagues (or at least those who occupy the top tiers of the food chain) are not necessarily enough to stave off the demands of a power-hungry attorney. In this instance, however, Christa's tormenter was not a temperamental partner. He was an associate — specifically, an eighth year associate. Like her.

Christa is a rising star. She is up for partnership this year, and has always enjoyed good relations with her colleagues in the firm's litigation practice group. Indeed, she considers herself "lucky" to work in an environment in which, she says, "everyone really does value teamwork, and there is a prevalent sense that we're all in it together," no matter what the project is or what it demands. So, when Christa was assigned to a sprawling new matter (in which attorneys from a number of practice groups were involved) she was somewhat surprised to find herself on the receiving end of some slightly less diplomatic treatment. Even more irksome — it was being doled out by a peer.

The associate in question was another eighth-year associate, whom we'll call "Ari." From the outset, Ari approached Christa with a degree of dismissive insolence that, she says, "wouldn't be appropriate to use with a secretary or a paralegal." On mass emails, Ari made a point of replying to "all," with messages issuing orders to Christa or instructing her to perform lowly research tasks. In meetings with other attorneys, Ari studiously ignored her input. But, Christa says, the tipping point in their (less-than-warm) relationship came after she wrote an important brief.

The firm had to file the brief by noon on the due date. Christa had put her finishing touches on the document, and was ready to send it off when, ten minutes before the deadline, Ari called her to say that he needed to see it. He directed her to send it over. The brief was filed on time without any changes. But, about a week later, when Christa looked over the brief to refresh her recollection of an argument she had raised, she noticed that Ari had removed her name from the front of the document.

Christa was furious. With a few keystrokes, Ari had deleted the proof of her considerable effort, and denigrated the importance of her rather significant contribution. Although she had done her best, until then, to let Ari's rudeness roll off her back, she finally decided to say something. But what? Pointing out a colleague's less-stellar qualities to a superior can seem petty.

Partners Know All — And That's Probably Good Enough

"I decided to talk to one of the partners in my practice group, with whom I have a great working relationship." She also mentioned her difficulties with Ari in a somewhat understated way. "I said something like, 'have you noticed anything weird going on with Ari?'" she recalls.

He confirmed her suspicions. The partner told her that he had, in fact, noticed that Ari did not treat her as an equal member of the team. The partner's theory was that, in addition to the fact that Ari certainly viewed her as competition (both were candidates for partnership), there was a "gender issue." In other words, Ari had trouble viewing a female colleague as a true peer.

The partner (who was, of course, chagrined to learn about the removal of Christa's name from the brief) told her that he intended to talk to Ari and straighten things out. She demurred. "I didn't want to make it more of an issue," she explains.

"I'm relieved to know that the partners I work with are aware of what's going on. For now, I'm determined to show Ari that we can work together. I'm hoping that, eventually, he'll have to accept the fact that I'm smart and experienced, and that other people take me seriously." In the meantime, though, knowing that the partners on the team understand her predicament helps her put up with the annoyance of Ari's disrespect.

"I also consider myself lucky," she says. "I was able to talk to my superiors with confidence, because I know that they respect me and view me as a valuable contributor. And I have a long history of working with them, so I knew that they could put this incident in context."

Christa acknowledges the difficulty of dealing with a hostile co-worker and navigating the minefield of office politics. She advises others confronting such a situation to "talk to someone you feel comfortable with," and who will give you the benefit of the doubt. "I wouldn't confront the person making you miserable directly," she warns. "At the end of the day, you all have to work together. The best way to prevail in the face of a dispute with a colleague is to be a valued by everyone else on the team. Sooner or later, their voices will drown his out."

How to Receive BigLaw
Many large firms have good reputations for their work and bad reputations as places to work. Why? Published first via email newsletter and later here on our blog, BigLaw goes deep undercover inside some of the country's biggest law firms. But we don't just dish up the dirt. We also mine it for best and worst practices and other nuggets of knowledge. The BigLaw newsletter is free so don't miss the next issue. Please subscribe now.

Originally published on October 12, 2009 in our free BigLaw newsletter.

Law firms today are kinder, gentler places to work. Or at least they aspire to be. Many have diversity initiatives, or regularly stage events designed to promote harmonious relationships between employees. Most plan outings or gatherings intended to promote "team building," and strengthen the bonds between those who work long hours together in tight quarters, and probably spend at least some of those hours fantasizing about the pie they'd like to throw in a co-worker's face.

Nella, a senior associate at a large urban law firm, recently sat through one such event — a seminar on "managing conflict in the workplace." But, although she tried to take it all in, "engage" with the material, and learn something from the presentation, she found her mind wandering.

"My firm puts these things on all the time," she says, a note of boredom creeping into her voice. "After a while, they're all the same. You sit around, holding hands and singing 'Kumbaya,' but …" She pauses, and then sums up what may be the fatal shortcoming of such efforts. "At the end of the day, you still work at a law firm."

The seminar on resolving office conflicts is but one of the programs Nella has attended recently. Like many others, her firm devotes considerable time and attention to scrutinizing and, ostensibly, attempting to improve, workplace dynamics and "quality of life." The firm tries to address work-life balance, iencourages its employees to exercise and get flu shots and tries to promote harmonious workplace collaboration between attorneys and staff.

Given These Worthy Pursuits, Why So Cynical?

While these efforts are commendable, the problem, according to Nella, is that, when a huge filing is looming or a project hits an unexpected bump in the road, "conflict management" skills and well-intentioned "team building" fall by the wayside. Stress takes over, and the focus shifts to getting the document out, redoing the exhibits that should have been done right the first time, or editing the brief that, at the 11th hour, still doesn't look the way it should.

For example, she says, shortly after she attended the conflict management seminar, one of the secretaries in her office had a "minor meltdown" occasioned by the looming deadline for submitting various documents in a multi-district litigation. It was a Friday afternoon, Nella recalls, and the secretary announced, in a panic, that she couldn't prepare all the documents by herself. "You can't leave!" she told Nella. "I haven't finished putting everything together!"

"There were a few problems," explains Nella tactfully. "For one thing, the documents in question were cover letters, forms, and other items she was supposed to have done earlier. They were her responsibility, and she simply hadn't done her job. Second, this particular secretary worked for an important partner." What could Nella do? "My main concern," she says, "was making sure that she didn't go to the partner and complain - even though I knew I hadn't done anything wrong. It was just a headache that I didn't need." So what did Nella do? "I snapped at her, but then I sat there by her side, staying late on a Friday, and helped her complete the task."

"So much for effective communication and problem-solving," she adds. "When you're under a deadline and a co-worker — who may have a partner's ear — is freaking out, it's all about damage control."

Phooey on Feel Good?

Given her experience, does Nella think that initiatives designed to foster workplace warmth and encourage a "Go Team!" attitude are worthless?

"Well," she muses, "sometimes I resent having to sit through these things, knowing all the while that I have work to do and hours to bill … and that there probably isn't going to be a productive payoff. But, I suppose, if they make one person feel as though they have more of a voice, and that their concerns are important, then it's a net gain."

Nella warns, however, that this feeling is usually illusory. "We may work in a fairly genteel environment," she says, "but we still work for 'the Man.' It's nice to believe that we're engaged in a collaborative endeavor, and that your feelings and input are valued, but at the end of the day the imperatives of the task at hand trump all of that."

She summarizes her view with an analogy. "It's like Santa Claus and Christmas spirit" she explains. "We all want to believe so we let ourselves get carried away. You decorate your tree, wait for Santa to come, and lose yourself in the spirit of the season … but you can't lose sight of reality. At the end of the day, you'll have a lot of cleanup to do, and a giant credit card bill to pay."

How to Receive BigLaw
Many large firms have good reputations for their work and bad reputations as places to work. Why? Published first via email newsletter and later here on our blog, BigLaw goes deep undercover inside some of the country's biggest law firms. But we don't just dish up the dirt. We also mine it for best and worst practices and other nuggets of knowledge. The BigLaw newsletter is free so don't miss the next issue. Please subscribe now.

Originally published on October 5, 2009 in our free BigLaw newsletter.

Phrases like "today's economy" and "cost cutting" have become cliches in the large firm world thanks to their prevalence. Law firms continue to defer the start dates of new associates, reduce salaries, eliminate lockstep salary increases, outsource secretarial and other support functions, etc. The lust for thrift cuts both ways. Clients, fed up with the high cost of legal services, seek to reduce their bloated bills. Many demand "alternative fee arrangements," suggesting to some that the billable hour is on its last legs.

But all of these cost-cutting measures present certain challenges. Associates, after all, remain a necessary component of legal services, and outsourcing can result in poor quality control. And, while alternative fee arrangements may pose a viable threat to the billable hour, reports of the latter's death are greatly exaggerated to use another cliche. How, then, can clients — and the law firms who love them — balance their needs in "today's economy"?

Legal Project Management to the Rescue?

One emerging trend is the movement toward efficiency (rather than hours-driven profit) and the bundling of legal services. The movement toward Legal Project Management (Discovery Management) serve as examples of how the provision of litigation services can streamline operations and reduce costs for all involved.

Steven Levy, until recently a Director at Microsoft and now a principal of Lexician, describes Legal Project Management in a recent post on his "No Secret" blog. "Legal Project Management ("LPM") is a new field," writes Levy, which "at least for firms serving corporate clients, is not about the practice of law per se, but about the mechanics of that practice. As such, it goes counter to almost all of what attorneys have learned at law school and in the practice of law since getting that precious JD

According to Levy, the traditional focus of law firms has been on "doing whatever it takes," "doing whatever the client asks," and billing for these functions on an hourly basis. In addition, he asserts, lawyers have tended to focus on their role as legal advisers, ignoring the necessity of project management and viewing their role as one restricted to solving their clients' "legal problems, not their business problems" But, Levy asserts, in an age in which many corporate clients find themselves "being pushed by the recession," firms need to respond. So, he says, "smart firms are turning to LPM," which envisions a "new approach" to the usual imperatives of client service.

Under the LPM model, Levy explains, the first discussion with the client should concern "what their goal is for this matter, what they and we need to do to be successful, and what they will spend to achieve that goal." The focus is still on doing "whatever it takes, but only if it moves the ball toward that goal." LPM contemplates billing models geared toward efficiency (not just racking up hours), project management techniques, and approaching the legal problems of any "business" client as a "business problem."

The Electronic Discovery Field Leads the Way

While LPM may seem somewhat abstract (Levy notes that he is reluctant to call it an "emerging field, but you have to first crack the eggshell before you can emerge"), other, more concrete, examples of this emerging trend exist. In the area of electronic discovery, for example, forward-thinking companies are focusing on a complete, "soup to nuts" approach to document review and production, designed to reduce costs by minimizing the number of vendors and streamlining the process of document review and production.

In the past, says Kristen Johnson Gluck, Director of Business Development at Excelerate Discovery, clients might use one vendor to process and analyze their electronically stored information, another to supply their review platform, and a separate staffing agency to provide temporary or contract reviewers.

But, Johnson Gluck explains, "this is not necessarily the most efficient way to manage a project. With each additional person, company, or vendor, the chances for miscommunication increase." And, she says, "clients are looking for a more efficient method. Companies that offer pull to production services can provide this by familiarizing themselves with the universe of data from the outset, staffing the project intelligently based on their estimate of the work involved, and providing a review platform tailored to the project."

Another added benefit? "The predictability of pricing when you have one vendor handle your document review and production from beginning to end," says Johnson Gluck. If you have an overview of — and are familiar with — your client's needs, you can provide a better estimate of costs. Because your approach is specifically tailored to those needs, you can offer much better value." The days of unbridled expenditures and spiraling costs are over, according to Johnson Gluck. "Nowadays," she asserts, "less is more."

How to Receive BigLaw
Many large firms have good reputations for their work and bad reputations as places to work. Why? Published first via email newsletter and later here on our blog, BigLaw goes deep undercover inside some of the country's biggest law firms. But we don't just dish up the dirt. We also mine it for best and worst practices and other nuggets of knowledge. The BigLaw newsletter is free so don't miss the next issue. Please subscribe now.