If you didn't think searching for a non-legal job with either a J.D. or a three year resume gap during a recession was hard enough, here's another hurdle.
As I've noted before, I'm pretty open to starting off low on the totem pole if it means having the opportunity to eventually advance to more demanding and lucrative positions. A number of companies (particularly financial firms) have programs designed to let entry level candidates learn the ropes and eventually advance into analyst and managerial programs.
Usually, they're looking for business majors - sometimes just finance majors - but usually business or economics in general is okay (occasionally they'll take non-b school major). Sounds good, right? Well, I actually left out a phrase. They're looking for "recent graduates".
Yes, sadly, being out of undergraduate school for too long can actually work against you even if you were building career experience (and of course earning a graduate degree).
I also know for a fact that companies do often times seek to hire people directly from college if for no other reason but to "groom" people for their organization. My former boss told me they passed over a number of candidates with MA degrees for my position because they wanted to train somebody who was starting his career. I don't know how much sense this makes, but it's apparently a pretty standard practice.
Of course, I have nothing to lose, so I'm actually going to apply for some of these positions. This is definitely a time to knock the J.D. off the resume. I may also wanted to crack out some "Just for Men" to cover up the grey patches around my temples.
If I get one of these positions, it will be good for the kids there - They can sit back and listen to 'Ol Grandpappy Esq. Never spin a yarn about the disaster that awaits them if they ever head off to law school.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Friday, December 4, 2009
Have You Heard the One About Law School?
There are a number of bad reasons for going to law school. People who justify their decisions on these grounds should seek alternative paths.
Some people go to law school because they want to make the big bucks. Well, if you want to make money, you should get an MBA.
Some people go to law school because they are interested in the academic challenge. Well, if you want to pursue academic edification, you should get a PhD.
Some people go to law school because they're good at arguing. Well, if you like to argue, you should get MARRIED. :)
(Sorry, I can't remember where I first heard this joke.)
Some people go to law school because they want to make the big bucks. Well, if you want to make money, you should get an MBA.
Some people go to law school because they are interested in the academic challenge. Well, if you want to pursue academic edification, you should get a PhD.
Some people go to law school because they're good at arguing. Well, if you like to argue, you should get MARRIED. :)
(Sorry, I can't remember where I first heard this joke.)
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Review: Guerrilla Tactics For Getting the Legal Job of Your Dreams
For those unfamiliar with this book, it's written by Kimm Walton, a graduate of Case Western Law School, who broke into the law school publishing industry by creating the "Law in a Flash" study aid. Walton actually graduated from law school with an "Esq. Never" attitude - she decided against pursuing a career in the law and instead thought she could create and market her line of flash cards. In fact, she even went one step further and didn't even bother taking the bar.
Despite never actually working as an attorney herself, Walton was apparently approached by a publishing company to write a book about finding legal employment. The result was Guerrilla Tactics (GT), which was first published in 1995. The book itself is really a collection of guides for approaching the different aspects of the job search. It has now ballooned into a tome that is well over 1,000 pages long.
Despite branding itself as a guide for challenging the legal job search orthodoxy, GT is very much a part of the law school industry establishment. In my experience, throwing this book at law students has been career services' tactic for pretending they're doing their jobs. In addition, GT is now published by Thomson-West, the Lockheed Martin of the Law School Industrial Complex, which owns BarBri, Westlaw, and a legion of law school study aids. You'll also rarely find a greater apologist for law school career services than Walton, who leans heavily on them as sources for her book.
That said, GT certainly isn't a bad book. If one is dead set on finding legal employment despite the over saturation of the market, miserable working conditions, and the industry's inflexible business model, Walton's advice is probably the way to go. She offers up numerous tactics for getting in contact with the sorts of people who may eventually be a in a position to help you find employment. Aside from using Matthies' strategy of becoming friends with everyone you can in the legal industry the day you start law school, this is probably the only way of ever getting a decent legal job.
Walton, however, first wrote this book in the middle of the 90's. I won't pretend to know what the legal market was like back then, but at the very least there were fewer law schools and law students. Moreover, this was back towards the beginning the economic boom of the 90's. You know, when economists were telling us this was "the new economy" and recessions and other such depressing topics were things of the past.
Just as the those economic forecasts seem outdated, Walton's advice now also seems a bit stale. Letting attendees at CLE courses know you're trying to "break into entertainment law" or stopping by a fellow alumnus' office to try sneak in an impromptu interview seems like it would be a little more profitable in an era where recent college grads were printing money at internet start-up companies. Even during the last economic expansion when plenty of law schools were feeding their best and brightest into the document review assembly lines, some of the book's optimism seemed far fetched. Today, with unemployment at ten percent, not even some of the best connections can help salvage your legal career.
To Walton's credit, this book isn't marketed to prospective law students. In fact, nowhere does she actually encourage anyone to go to law school. At one point she likens networking to find a legal job to going on a diet to lose weight: It may not be fun or fair that you have to do either to reach your goal, but that's just the way it is. I would amend this sentiment a bit by noting that if you don't want to (or better yet don't have to) find a legal job or lose weight, then there's also no need to network or diet.
Walton's most honest and best point comes in her chapter, "I want to be Not-A-Lawyer: Alternative Careers". While she dedicates a lot of space in this chapter to try to convince students to give law a chance, she seems to do so because she recognizes that's its not so easy to gain non-legal employment after graduation. As she puts it "Don't be misled by the idea that it's easier to get a non-legal job than a legal one.". In fact, later in the chapter and elsewhere in the book, she even recommends to people looking to get out of law that they may want to consider actually dropping out!
That's right, folks, Aunt Kimbo (at she often refers to herself), one of the biggest cheerleaders for the "Yes, we can!" attitude for your legal job search, doesn't buy into the "versatility of a law degree" argument. Can we ever expect the law school deans to be so honest?
I've already addressed the perils of legal networking in a previous post, so I won't critique the "meat" of the book again. I will say that many of the examples she uses of "networking success" don't really seem to inspire confidence. Many are just random instances of good luck: A law student strikes up a conversation at McDonald's with a federal judge who just happens to be looking for a summer clerk. A Starbucks customer watches an interview for a legal position fall apart and then strikes up an impromptu interview of her own (getting the job).
These unlikely scenarios are similar to people who happen to find their significant others through random encounters. Sure, you may bump into the love of your life on the elevator today after complimenting her on her jacket, but if you plan on getting married, I'd find a plan B.
Some of the other examples in the book also leave a bit to be desired. For example, she talks about one guy who just contacted everyone in the local Martindale-Hubble who went to his law school. He got a bunch of the attorneys to give him advice. Great, he got people to talk to him. Did it ever lead to a job?
The rest of the book - interviews, resume writing, negotiating salaries - seem to be things you can find in most job search guides. The real benefit of this book is that it lets the reader know what the job search is like for those searching for legal jobs. As Walton claims, this is what you need to do to find a legal job (outside of OCI).
While the book isn't marked to 0L's, maybe it should be. This book isn't being offered by Thompson-West as a charitable act. They publish it because it's profitable for them. Most law students don't get offers through OCI. Most law students have to resort to 'Guerrilla Tactics'. They need to talk every lawyer they've ever met. They need to grovel for internships. They need to take on volunteer work. Have their parents hit up their friends. Knock on doors. Harass alumni. Work at Wal Mart until a guy running for Attorney General just so happens to recruit you for his campaign and appoints you to a top position when elected. (Yes, that's an actual GT example.)
If you want to be a lawyer, this is what you'll be doing. It's not bad advice - I will probably even try a few tactics myself when looking for non-legal work, but I sure as heck don't want to do this to get a stressful $35k job fighting traffic tickets and chasing ambulances. I also didn't really have to waste three years and pay six figures to have the opportunity to implement these tactics either.
Despite never actually working as an attorney herself, Walton was apparently approached by a publishing company to write a book about finding legal employment. The result was Guerrilla Tactics (GT), which was first published in 1995. The book itself is really a collection of guides for approaching the different aspects of the job search. It has now ballooned into a tome that is well over 1,000 pages long.
Despite branding itself as a guide for challenging the legal job search orthodoxy, GT is very much a part of the law school industry establishment. In my experience, throwing this book at law students has been career services' tactic for pretending they're doing their jobs. In addition, GT is now published by Thomson-West, the Lockheed Martin of the Law School Industrial Complex, which owns BarBri, Westlaw, and a legion of law school study aids. You'll also rarely find a greater apologist for law school career services than Walton, who leans heavily on them as sources for her book.
That said, GT certainly isn't a bad book. If one is dead set on finding legal employment despite the over saturation of the market, miserable working conditions, and the industry's inflexible business model, Walton's advice is probably the way to go. She offers up numerous tactics for getting in contact with the sorts of people who may eventually be a in a position to help you find employment. Aside from using Matthies' strategy of becoming friends with everyone you can in the legal industry the day you start law school, this is probably the only way of ever getting a decent legal job.
Walton, however, first wrote this book in the middle of the 90's. I won't pretend to know what the legal market was like back then, but at the very least there were fewer law schools and law students. Moreover, this was back towards the beginning the economic boom of the 90's. You know, when economists were telling us this was "the new economy" and recessions and other such depressing topics were things of the past.
Just as the those economic forecasts seem outdated, Walton's advice now also seems a bit stale. Letting attendees at CLE courses know you're trying to "break into entertainment law" or stopping by a fellow alumnus' office to try sneak in an impromptu interview seems like it would be a little more profitable in an era where recent college grads were printing money at internet start-up companies. Even during the last economic expansion when plenty of law schools were feeding their best and brightest into the document review assembly lines, some of the book's optimism seemed far fetched. Today, with unemployment at ten percent, not even some of the best connections can help salvage your legal career.
To Walton's credit, this book isn't marketed to prospective law students. In fact, nowhere does she actually encourage anyone to go to law school. At one point she likens networking to find a legal job to going on a diet to lose weight: It may not be fun or fair that you have to do either to reach your goal, but that's just the way it is. I would amend this sentiment a bit by noting that if you don't want to (or better yet don't have to) find a legal job or lose weight, then there's also no need to network or diet.
Walton's most honest and best point comes in her chapter, "I want to be Not-A-Lawyer: Alternative Careers". While she dedicates a lot of space in this chapter to try to convince students to give law a chance, she seems to do so because she recognizes that's its not so easy to gain non-legal employment after graduation. As she puts it "Don't be misled by the idea that it's easier to get a non-legal job than a legal one.". In fact, later in the chapter and elsewhere in the book, she even recommends to people looking to get out of law that they may want to consider actually dropping out!
That's right, folks, Aunt Kimbo (at she often refers to herself), one of the biggest cheerleaders for the "Yes, we can!" attitude for your legal job search, doesn't buy into the "versatility of a law degree" argument. Can we ever expect the law school deans to be so honest?
I've already addressed the perils of legal networking in a previous post, so I won't critique the "meat" of the book again. I will say that many of the examples she uses of "networking success" don't really seem to inspire confidence. Many are just random instances of good luck: A law student strikes up a conversation at McDonald's with a federal judge who just happens to be looking for a summer clerk. A Starbucks customer watches an interview for a legal position fall apart and then strikes up an impromptu interview of her own (getting the job).
These unlikely scenarios are similar to people who happen to find their significant others through random encounters. Sure, you may bump into the love of your life on the elevator today after complimenting her on her jacket, but if you plan on getting married, I'd find a plan B.
Some of the other examples in the book also leave a bit to be desired. For example, she talks about one guy who just contacted everyone in the local Martindale-Hubble who went to his law school. He got a bunch of the attorneys to give him advice. Great, he got people to talk to him. Did it ever lead to a job?
The rest of the book - interviews, resume writing, negotiating salaries - seem to be things you can find in most job search guides. The real benefit of this book is that it lets the reader know what the job search is like for those searching for legal jobs. As Walton claims, this is what you need to do to find a legal job (outside of OCI).
While the book isn't marked to 0L's, maybe it should be. This book isn't being offered by Thompson-West as a charitable act. They publish it because it's profitable for them. Most law students don't get offers through OCI. Most law students have to resort to 'Guerrilla Tactics'. They need to talk every lawyer they've ever met. They need to grovel for internships. They need to take on volunteer work. Have their parents hit up their friends. Knock on doors. Harass alumni. Work at Wal Mart until a guy running for Attorney General just so happens to recruit you for his campaign and appoints you to a top position when elected. (Yes, that's an actual GT example.)
If you want to be a lawyer, this is what you'll be doing. It's not bad advice - I will probably even try a few tactics myself when looking for non-legal work, but I sure as heck don't want to do this to get a stressful $35k job fighting traffic tickets and chasing ambulances. I also didn't really have to waste three years and pay six figures to have the opportunity to implement these tactics either.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Not Even a T-14 Degree Will Save You
Sadly, one reader who attended a T-14 bought the old canard that a law degree is a versatile one. Folks, if a T-14 degree doesn't earn you respect outside of the legal community, your TTT degree isn't going to do you any favors either. Fortunately, she is optimistic about the future and has a few tips for EN readers.
Thanks for the helpful tips. Reader feedback is always appreciated at Esq. Never. Readers, this person was kind enough to share her experiences with us. Do you have any advice for her? If so, please leave a comment.
I've been really enjoying your blog. I went to a T14 and really am one of those people who NEVER wanted to practice law, at least not in the sense that a lot of people do. I actually wanted to go into gov't or public service but as you know even those jobs get 800 gazillion resumes responding to them, too, and a lot of those folks have biglaw experience, etc. Anyway, I truly regret my decision to attend law school, especially since I gave up some scholarships (I know, stupid me) to good schools to attend the T14 which promised me employers beating down my door, etc., you know the story...and now I'm looking back on two years of earning less than I did before law school. It's hard to be bitter, though, because now I'm pursuing my dream job (which I should've done all along) and getting technical training that is both practical and potentially very lucrative.
Anyway, I have actually some well-paying temporary jobs (secretarial, which is what I did before law school) by telling the employer I was staying home with my child during the three ugly law school years. It seems to have worked, because a lot of people are stay at home parents now, and it's a good excuse if you have kids, whether you're a mom or dad as there are a lot of stay at home dads now, too. So, this could help someone. I am actually looking for a low level job in my NEW field now, and am contemplating whether to reveal the JD which could actually help me later on or keep it secret so I can break in without looking like a weirdo. Any advice would be appreciated.
Anyway, I have actually some well-paying temporary jobs (secretarial, which is what I did before law school) by telling the employer I was staying home with my child during the three ugly law school years. It seems to have worked, because a lot of people are stay at home parents now, and it's a good excuse if you have kids, whether you're a mom or dad as there are a lot of stay at home dads now, too. So, this could help someone. I am actually looking for a low level job in my NEW field now, and am contemplating whether to reveal the JD which could actually help me later on or keep it secret so I can break in without looking like a weirdo. Any advice would be appreciated.
Thanks for the helpful tips. Reader feedback is always appreciated at Esq. Never. Readers, this person was kind enough to share her experiences with us. Do you have any advice for her? If so, please leave a comment.
J.D. Never?
This is a followup to my last post. Read that first if you haven't done so already.
As I mentioned, I'm not 100 percent convinced the J.D. need always be omitted when applying for non-legal positions.
Here's my current strategy:
Research and Writing Intensive Jobs: I think a law degree may be able to be properly spun when applying for jobs like these. We can legitimately claim that law school has exposed us to a considerable amount of research and writing. (Even more so if we were on journals or moot court.) Obviously, why we went to law school needs to be addressed, but it seems like it really should be an asset.
Analyst and Managerial (and other business positions) Positions: For the most part, the J.D. should probably be dumped when applying for these jobs. It confers no real benefit, and in addition to the "over qualification" problem, people plain don't like lawyers. I have the problem that I actually had a "managerial"/administrative role in law school that could benefit me. It's going to be hard to invoke this experience without referring to where I received it.
Skilled Labor: If you're planning on being a cake artisan, IT professional, or accountant, it's probably not even reasonable to acknowledge the J.D. unless you absolutely have to. It has absolutely nothing to do with the job. If you happened to acquire a practical skill set despite going to law school, just emphasize it and any experience you have in exercising it. Most other education is entirely superfluous. Your JD is just a distraction.
Unless there are any obviously transferable skills from law school, I'm going to try my best to conceal my J.D. If I go the IT route, I'm going to definitely do what I can achieve certifications and build up a portfolio and only emphasize those. I think the J.D. would just look silly.
As I mentioned, I'm not 100 percent convinced the J.D. need always be omitted when applying for non-legal positions.
Here's my current strategy:
Research and Writing Intensive Jobs: I think a law degree may be able to be properly spun when applying for jobs like these. We can legitimately claim that law school has exposed us to a considerable amount of research and writing. (Even more so if we were on journals or moot court.) Obviously, why we went to law school needs to be addressed, but it seems like it really should be an asset.
Analyst and Managerial (and other business positions) Positions: For the most part, the J.D. should probably be dumped when applying for these jobs. It confers no real benefit, and in addition to the "over qualification" problem, people plain don't like lawyers. I have the problem that I actually had a "managerial"/administrative role in law school that could benefit me. It's going to be hard to invoke this experience without referring to where I received it.
Skilled Labor: If you're planning on being a cake artisan, IT professional, or accountant, it's probably not even reasonable to acknowledge the J.D. unless you absolutely have to. It has absolutely nothing to do with the job. If you happened to acquire a practical skill set despite going to law school, just emphasize it and any experience you have in exercising it. Most other education is entirely superfluous. Your JD is just a distraction.
Unless there are any obviously transferable skills from law school, I'm going to try my best to conceal my J.D. If I go the IT route, I'm going to definitely do what I can achieve certifications and build up a portfolio and only emphasize those. I think the J.D. would just look silly.
J.D.? What J.D.?
I've had a good time bashing the law school industry and the economic ruin it has imposed on its hapless victims (namely me). While this is part of the blog's purpose, my main focus is to explore the options available to those of us trying to escape the clutches of the industry before we get sucked in even further.
I'm, therefore, implementing a self imposed moratorium on law school bashing until probably next week. Look for the next several posts to be about my personal job search or job search strategies overall.
Today, I'm going to address a decision most law school graduates need to make when they decide to put their legal career aspirations behind them: Should they even bother disclosing that they went to law school?
This is a painful decision. Just as many current law students hold out hope that the legal market isn't as bad as the JD Underground crowd claims it is, law school graduates are wedded to the idea that a law degree MUST count for something? Surely, we didn't waste $150k for academic edification! We have graduate degrees from William and Mary, GW, Baylor, Villanova, Pitt, and Pepperdine - those are good schools, right??? I mean, we're even Juris DOCTORATES! Who wouldn't want someone with doctoral degree working for them?
I'm still not 100% convinced that the J.D. is the kiss of death on any resume for a non-legal job, but the more I investigate it, the more it seems like it's not the sort of thing you want to advertise when hiring is slow as it is.
Remember, certain elements of the population still regard lawyers as professionals almost akin to medical doctors. If you were hiring for an entry level jr. account manager or systems administrator position, and you got a resume from someone with an MD, what would you think?
Here's the three suspicions I think most employers have when they see a J.D. on a resume (particularly with mostly legal experience/internships).
Loser: Why is someone who is this well educated and trained in an entirely different profession looking to get into our industry? He's only qualified for entry level positions, but lawyers are professionals who make a lot of money. He must have really fouled up either in law school or in practice. He's probably here because he got crummy grades, couldn't pass the bar, or no law firm wanted to hire him. If we wanted to hire losers, there's plenty of anthropology majors out there looking for jobs that we could pick up.
Flake: Let me get this straight - This guy invested a small fortune and three years of his life into going to law school and studied for and passed the bar, and now, he wants to make his living dressing up as an anamorphic mouse - Sorry, buddy, Chuck E. Cheese is no place for flakes.
Liar: So you've invested three years...etc. for "intellectual enhancement", but your life long goal has always been to be an assistant manager at a Food Lion? Son, I may have a GED on the wall, but don't think everybody is as dumb as somebody who fell for "versatility of a law degree" line.
Okay, maybe my lame humor isn't for everyone, but the point is there are some serious hurdles someone with a J.D. needs to overcome when applying for non-legal jobs. Nobody want to hire somebody who just couldn't hack it in his chosen field. Employers are also going to be wary of somebody without any real direction in their career (or life), and it's certainly a real concern that an "overqualified" is just going to jump ship if something better (like a law firm job) becomes available.
There seem to be two options for dealing with these concerns: address it directly or leave the J.D. off of the resume.
Addressing it directly allows you to spin the the degree in your favor. Usually this will be done via a cover letter (unless you've been put in touch with a potential employer directly). You can emphasize "critical thinking skills", your public speaking ability, and writing/research experience which is useful to many employers. Still, you should have obtained those skills in college and could have found better avenues to enhance them besides going to law school. You still have to answer the question of "Why did you go if you didn't want to be an attorney?"
(Remember, employers don't want flakes, so you didn't ever want to actually practice. *wink* *wink*)
Based upon the guy from the "Barely Legal" blog to which I linked in a recent post, here's the only line that works. (This is worth the price of admission, kids.)
I went to law school not because I wanted to practice, but because I wanted to mature both intellectually and personally before commencing/continuing with my career.
You may then want to include the aforementioned residual skills you picked up in law school. Throw in a few classic lawyer jokes to show you're not a brother of the bar, and with any luck, you may be able to convince an employer that you're genuine in your desire to work in a field other than law.
Now, will some employers look at this justification as being as flimsy as the el cheapo, K&G suit you're wearing to the interview? Sure, but I can't think of any other response that's going to avoid the three previously mentioned pitfalls.
If you respond with - I couldn't get a legal job, so I figured I'd try this. I changed my mind about the law. It turns out I don't like being an attorney. I would practice law, but I don't want to pass up the opportunity to sell annuities to gullible seniors. Etc. - I just don't think it will wash.
The other option is to take the J.D. off the resume. Not only is this painful, it can create some new problems. For one thing, what exactly have you been doing for the past three years? For another, if you have most legal internship experience, your work history may tip off an employer that something is askew.
The best way around this is probably to list your education and experience as "relevant" education and experience. This will allow for some gaps on your resume (though three years is still a stretch) because only relevant information is being provided and prevent you from getting busted for concealing something from potential employers.
This can still be problematic if you don't have much work history or many skills that aren't law related. After all, you can't expect to be taken too seriously if all you have on your resume is an undergraduate degree, some college activities (being secretary of the College Republicans or Feminist Majority in 2002 isn't going to impress anybody), and working summers at the GAP. Fortunately, I don't have this problem, but readers if you have a work around for this, let us know in the comments.
If you're have trouble getting anyone to respond to your resumes for jobs for which you're qualified, you may want to try removing the J.D. You'll probably have to eventually come clean in an interview, but at least you've gotten your foot in the door, and you can make your case to the interviewer in person.
Look for my next post in which I'll discuss how I have approached (and plan to approach) this issue.
Readers, if you've successfully bailed out on the law industry, let us know what worked for you in the comment section. If you have a particularly lengthy (but successful) strategy, e-mail me at esqnever (at) hotmail.com, and I'll be happy to post it on the blog.
I'm, therefore, implementing a self imposed moratorium on law school bashing until probably next week. Look for the next several posts to be about my personal job search or job search strategies overall.
Today, I'm going to address a decision most law school graduates need to make when they decide to put their legal career aspirations behind them: Should they even bother disclosing that they went to law school?
This is a painful decision. Just as many current law students hold out hope that the legal market isn't as bad as the JD Underground crowd claims it is, law school graduates are wedded to the idea that a law degree MUST count for something? Surely, we didn't waste $150k for academic edification! We have graduate degrees from William and Mary, GW, Baylor, Villanova, Pitt, and Pepperdine - those are good schools, right??? I mean, we're even Juris DOCTORATES! Who wouldn't want someone with doctoral degree working for them?
I'm still not 100% convinced that the J.D. is the kiss of death on any resume for a non-legal job, but the more I investigate it, the more it seems like it's not the sort of thing you want to advertise when hiring is slow as it is.
Remember, certain elements of the population still regard lawyers as professionals almost akin to medical doctors. If you were hiring for an entry level jr. account manager or systems administrator position, and you got a resume from someone with an MD, what would you think?
Here's the three suspicions I think most employers have when they see a J.D. on a resume (particularly with mostly legal experience/internships).
Loser: Why is someone who is this well educated and trained in an entirely different profession looking to get into our industry? He's only qualified for entry level positions, but lawyers are professionals who make a lot of money. He must have really fouled up either in law school or in practice. He's probably here because he got crummy grades, couldn't pass the bar, or no law firm wanted to hire him. If we wanted to hire losers, there's plenty of anthropology majors out there looking for jobs that we could pick up.
Flake: Let me get this straight - This guy invested a small fortune and three years of his life into going to law school and studied for and passed the bar, and now, he wants to make his living dressing up as an anamorphic mouse - Sorry, buddy, Chuck E. Cheese is no place for flakes.
Liar: So you've invested three years...etc. for "intellectual enhancement", but your life long goal has always been to be an assistant manager at a Food Lion? Son, I may have a GED on the wall, but don't think everybody is as dumb as somebody who fell for "versatility of a law degree" line.
Okay, maybe my lame humor isn't for everyone, but the point is there are some serious hurdles someone with a J.D. needs to overcome when applying for non-legal jobs. Nobody want to hire somebody who just couldn't hack it in his chosen field. Employers are also going to be wary of somebody without any real direction in their career (or life), and it's certainly a real concern that an "overqualified" is just going to jump ship if something better (like a law firm job) becomes available.
There seem to be two options for dealing with these concerns: address it directly or leave the J.D. off of the resume.
Addressing it directly allows you to spin the the degree in your favor. Usually this will be done via a cover letter (unless you've been put in touch with a potential employer directly). You can emphasize "critical thinking skills", your public speaking ability, and writing/research experience which is useful to many employers. Still, you should have obtained those skills in college and could have found better avenues to enhance them besides going to law school. You still have to answer the question of "Why did you go if you didn't want to be an attorney?"
(Remember, employers don't want flakes, so you didn't ever want to actually practice. *wink* *wink*)
Based upon the guy from the "Barely Legal" blog to which I linked in a recent post, here's the only line that works. (This is worth the price of admission, kids.)
I went to law school not because I wanted to practice, but because I wanted to mature both intellectually and personally before commencing/continuing with my career.
You may then want to include the aforementioned residual skills you picked up in law school. Throw in a few classic lawyer jokes to show you're not a brother of the bar, and with any luck, you may be able to convince an employer that you're genuine in your desire to work in a field other than law.
Now, will some employers look at this justification as being as flimsy as the el cheapo, K&G suit you're wearing to the interview? Sure, but I can't think of any other response that's going to avoid the three previously mentioned pitfalls.
If you respond with - I couldn't get a legal job, so I figured I'd try this. I changed my mind about the law. It turns out I don't like being an attorney. I would practice law, but I don't want to pass up the opportunity to sell annuities to gullible seniors. Etc. - I just don't think it will wash.
The other option is to take the J.D. off the resume. Not only is this painful, it can create some new problems. For one thing, what exactly have you been doing for the past three years? For another, if you have most legal internship experience, your work history may tip off an employer that something is askew.
The best way around this is probably to list your education and experience as "relevant" education and experience. This will allow for some gaps on your resume (though three years is still a stretch) because only relevant information is being provided and prevent you from getting busted for concealing something from potential employers.
This can still be problematic if you don't have much work history or many skills that aren't law related. After all, you can't expect to be taken too seriously if all you have on your resume is an undergraduate degree, some college activities (being secretary of the College Republicans or Feminist Majority in 2002 isn't going to impress anybody), and working summers at the GAP. Fortunately, I don't have this problem, but readers if you have a work around for this, let us know in the comments.
If you're have trouble getting anyone to respond to your resumes for jobs for which you're qualified, you may want to try removing the J.D. You'll probably have to eventually come clean in an interview, but at least you've gotten your foot in the door, and you can make your case to the interviewer in person.
Look for my next post in which I'll discuss how I have approached (and plan to approach) this issue.
Readers, if you've successfully bailed out on the law industry, let us know what worked for you in the comment section. If you have a particularly lengthy (but successful) strategy, e-mail me at esqnever (at) hotmail.com, and I'll be happy to post it on the blog.
Monday, November 30, 2009
This Really Says it All
Take a look at this Craigslist ad (credit to JD Underground).
To summarize, a Northern Virginia firm (right outside of DC) wants to hire an entry level, licensed attorney with "excellent academic credentials". Starting salary: $35k.
I assume by excellent academic credentials they mean graduating from one of the VA or DC tier one schools in the top quarter (or maybe the top third) of the class.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, here is your reward: for studying hard enough in college and for the LSAT to get into one of these top 50 schools, working yourself silly to be in the top of your class, and paying the big bucks for the prestige, you get $35k at a small firm doing traffic and PI work. The DC area is also one of the most expensive areas in the country. Good luck getting by on $35k with sky high rental prices and hefty student loan payments.
To underscore just how lousy of a deal this is: I made the exact same salary coming out of college. I also worked for a NOT FOR PROFIT (which today would make me eligible for the 10 year loan forgiveness unlike this joke of a job). Furthermore, I didn't have the stress of being an attorney. In fact, on most days, the most difficult task I had was determining which take out restaurant I was going to go to for lunch.
Game over, man. Game over.
To summarize, a Northern Virginia firm (right outside of DC) wants to hire an entry level, licensed attorney with "excellent academic credentials". Starting salary: $35k.
I assume by excellent academic credentials they mean graduating from one of the VA or DC tier one schools in the top quarter (or maybe the top third) of the class.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, here is your reward: for studying hard enough in college and for the LSAT to get into one of these top 50 schools, working yourself silly to be in the top of your class, and paying the big bucks for the prestige, you get $35k at a small firm doing traffic and PI work. The DC area is also one of the most expensive areas in the country. Good luck getting by on $35k with sky high rental prices and hefty student loan payments.
To underscore just how lousy of a deal this is: I made the exact same salary coming out of college. I also worked for a NOT FOR PROFIT (which today would make me eligible for the 10 year loan forgiveness unlike this joke of a job). Furthermore, I didn't have the stress of being an attorney. In fact, on most days, the most difficult task I had was determining which take out restaurant I was going to go to for lunch.
Game over, man. Game over.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
