Apropos of Resume Headers for Experienced In-House Attorneys

Every inch on a resume needs to be filled with substance. A pet peeve of mine are self congratulatory lawyer resume headers.  They are often filled with all kinds of laudatory language which, to my mind, tells me that the candidate things well of themselves but fails to provide evidence of why I should concur.  

 I have read numerous studies that managers typically make their preliminary hiring decisions based upon a cursory look at the first resume page . The resume header is useful, then, to pull out that really important information which might not be on that first page or which might not otherwise come to the hiring manager's immediate attention. I am talking about a a couple of phrases pithy references to independently verifiable information.

This is especially helpful if the candidate is senior and has a resume which reaches onto a second (or worse still) a third page.  So, what kind of information is essential? For an experienced lawyer seeking another in-house position, I like to reference the core practice areas, the industries with which she has familiarity, whether she has worked with public or private enterprises, and, if strong, her academic and formative legal training. An example of this would be

High level in-house legal counselor, problem solver, and manager with particular strengths in labor, employment and compliance.  Experience with publicly traded global consumer electronics, and pharmaceutical manufacturing companies. Established and managed annual budgets of up to $____ . Managed up to __member legal teams. Top law school cum laude educated. SDNY clerkship. Big Law firm trained.

If the position is in a relevant area-- typically for a patent litigator or prosecutor-- a reference to relevant pre-law school experience and education is helpful. I.e., add

Big Deal Engineering School. Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering. Five years pre-law school technical experience.

How law firm partners can work more effectively with recruiters

I recently worked with a terrific partner who was interested in bettering her current situation by moving to another law firm which fit her specific criteria.  What made her a joy to work with was the way she engaged in the process.   It helped ensure a better outcome for all concerned: the firms, candidate and me. Of course, it didn't hurt that she was a strong candidate because of the raw strength of her academic credentials, practice experience and book.   

If you get a call from me it’s because you I have evidence of academic credentials, practice experience, appropriate book and billing size for an opportunity which I believe is suitable, realistic and genuinely could be of interest to you.  When you get a call from someone else about a firm which might be attractive but is also wildly unrealistic, given obvious variables, in some cases it’s because a recruiter hasn’t taken the time to understand the economics and character of your firm, of you, or because your web entry is misleading.  In other cases, it’s “bait and switch,” an attempt to get your ear at any cost.

I identified the candidate through our databases and reached out to her by phone.  The stages and elements of this effective relationship were as follows:

1.Wish List.  The candidate was not interested in the opportunity about which I called her.  However, she shared with me her wish list of the characteristics a firm would have to have if it were to better her current circumstances .  It took some work and research but I did find several opportunities which met her criteria. Elements on someone's list might be particular law firm characteristics or management model (ex, transparent compensation and management vs. corporately run, closed compensation structure; hub and spokes relationship of branch offices to a Mother Ship home office vs. a model of distributed power, and resources across peer offices), geographic footprint, practice mix, compensation, absence of mandatory retirement, lack of client conflicts, potential for a leadership role, or the reputation of the firm with a particular type of client.  

 2.  Basic Channels of  Communication were Quickly Established.  In this day and age, everyone has their preferences—text, home phone, cellular phone, office email, home email.  I am not clairvoyant.

3.  Meeting Face to Face.  There are, unfortunately, times when it doesn’t  happen—if the candidate’s schedule doesn't permit or if  she is not based  in New York.  When a meeting can happen, it helps to establish mutual trust and also gives me the opportunity to get  a feel for the intangibles which contribute to a successful “fit.”   At the partner level, it is safe to assume that a candidate presents herself well in person.   However there are times, not present in this particular case, where there might be an element to the candidate’s presentation which, if discussed up front with the firm, will prepare and is less likely to distract, an interviewer.  I am thinking things such as visible pregnancy or physical disability.  If we don't meet, you do yourself a favor by volunteering this information.

4.  Frank Discussion of Practice Needs. As a former practicing lawyer, I have a pretty good sense of what kinds of ancillary practices are necessary to support a particular practice area.  I really know what a derivative is and what a patent prosecution practice requires.  Still, it’s always good to have this confirmed.   It is also helpful to indicate whether a candidate’s clients require the prospective law firm to be on an “approved” list of legal services providers.  

5.  Realistic, Consistent Estimation of Client Number and Book Size, Accurate Chronology of Work Experience.  Candidates don’t do themselves any favors by inflating their books to recruiters or omitting brief stints with past legal employers from their resumes.  Overly optimistic estimates or omissions will be discovered, sooner or later, and lead to the firm and recruiter to more generally question the candidate’s veracity.  This is especially important as confidentiality concerns means that there is a limited amount of due diligence possible at the early stages in the process—initial conversations are usually initiated on the strength of a resume and website entry

6. Ongoing, Straightforward, Honest Communication.  When it comes to communicating with me,  I don’t enjoy working with candidates that I have to chase in multiple means of communication and who don’t tell me that they are pursuing opportunities through multiple recruiters. Life and work can wreck havoc with an interview schedule . That's to be expected.  Pay me the courtesy of letting me know that you will be unavailable for some period of time-- instead of just falling off the map.   I would prefer and like the opportunity to show why I should be a candidate's only recruiter. But I can deal with competition and I don't expect to know detailed information about a firm opportunity in which I am uninvolved. However, I hate being ambushed with fast approaching deadlines of opportunities, the general potential for which I had no prior knowledge.  When it comes to the candidate’s communications with a prospective law firm, I can’t reinforce a strategy or emphasis that I don’t know about.   Enough said.

     7.   Everyone Needs to Feel Special.  When the candidate is quickly and promptly responsive, I am able to swiftly and timely relay information to and from the prospective law firms, the principals and representatives of those firms feel respected and their opportunity appreciated.  Everyone is in a better mood.   If conversations with a particular firm don’t result in a deal, neither of me or the candidate need to concern ourselves with future bad will.  However, when the candidate makes herself inexplicably unavailable or drawn out, the momentum gets broken, the firm begins to wonder whether the candidate is serious--and no one wants to waste their time if they are not. 

8.  Employing Me as a Resource.  I look to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. I am hapy to offer my own, generally well informed, opinion on most anything, including how to present something in the most favorable light possible, and to ask the kinds of questions of a firm that a candidate might not feel comfortable asking themselves.  I am also happy to be as much or as little involved in any compensation negotiations as the candidate and/or the firm desire. 

9.  Employing me to Help Accommodate Timing Considerations.  I can often help speed up or delay a stage in the process, if need be, to accommodate personal considerations or competing deadlines.   My being a nudge and a pest will not affect whether the prospective firm will extend an offer.

Law Firm Transactional Lawyers Moving to Firms in Other Markets

For law firm partners looking to move, the size and characteristics of their book of portable client business are primary considerations. They need to consider the differences in billing rates in various markets.  A partner moving from Toledo to New York, let’s say, might find his clients unwilling to pay the higher rates often called for in the NY market.  This is an issue especially in practice areas which are more “low margin,” that is where supply of lawyers in a particular practice area has pushed down the hourly rate, and/or the tendency for established corporations to take certain kinds of work in-house.  I am thinking of areas such as patent prosecution and immigration. 

In-house opportunities are governed by different variables which correlate strongly to the kind of business activity in which the company is itself are engaged, the location of the corporate headquarters and whether there is a centralized or distributed management decision making structure.


Most of what I have to say today relates to transactional lawyers lateraling to a law firm, at the junior and mid-levels, in a different city.  It’s true that, for many purposes, you can be physically located almost anywhere with a computer and skype access. For more junior folk, you need to consider relative market characteristics from the stand point of subject matter and local business activity. The kind of legal activity in a market follows from the business activity in that market. There is not, for example, much maritime legal activity in a landlocked city. 

Going back to when a attorney chooses his or her law school, you will find it easier to find work in a market where there are alumni from your law school.  Employers respond more favorably to law schools where they know alumni.   If you don't go to a nationally known, top 20 law school, go to the best law school that you can get into in the region where you want to work.

In choosing your practice area in anticipation of a later move, the associate should consider what kind of business activity is most common in the region where she wishes to relocate.  An associate who is a Eurobond lawyer may need to retool themselves to market himself to firms in, let’s say, Omaha, where there is not much business or legal activity in that practice area.  However, someone who gets experience in New York in, let’s say transactional IP, will find it relatively easy to transition to the Silicon Valley market.

In New York and certain other major markets, like Chicago, LA, DC, large firm transactional lawyers are typically encouraged to become highly specialized.  The reasons for these are twofold. On the one hand, clients are often unwilling to pay for an associate’s learning curve in new kinds of matters. However also in these major markets there exists a volume of work in these respective specialties and subspecialties which makes specialization possible.

In smaller and secondary markets, like New Orleans or Denver, large firm transactional lawyers tend to be generalists because lawyers there do not typically have the same shear volume of specialized work.  

Moving from a highly specialized practice to one more generalized and visa versa is most easily done when you are more junior—let’s say in the first three years of post law school practice.

The reason for this is a very practical one.  A NYC transactional lawyer who moves to Minneapolis will find himself with skills and experience which are different to that of his Minneapolis peer.  He will be stronger in some areas and weaker in others.  The more senior a lateral is, the more difficult it is for this prototypical Minneapolis law firm to plug him into their hierarchy.

On the other hand, the more senior generalist large firm lawyer from, let’s say New Orleans, will have a more difficult time finding  a position with a peer firm New York because those firms have a much more segmented corporate practice.  This lateral candidate will lacks, for his class level, the sheer volume of experience in any one  practice specialty.  Once again, the large firm will have trouble slotting him or her into their hierarchy.

The generalist attorney will probably find herself more in demand at smaller, middle market law firms since these firms, like the firms in their former jurisdiction, will lack the kind of volume in a any practice specialty to justify segmenting of their corporate practice.


It goes without saying that a change in geography may very well call for the candidate to become admitted, by exam or on motion, in her new state. 

Staffing, Client Development and the Glob of Work

In this day and age, the economics of law firms requires that their constituent members/employees be fully deployed. Partners can only project their hiring needs to the extent that their clients themselves can predict their own business activities. Given today’s economic uncertainties, law firms are generally pretty cautious in hiring.  They hire permanent employees for client business which is in hand or immediately on the horizon and  at levels which they have every reason to believe will be sustained in, at least, the medium term.

Any one client matter  contains tasks calling for different levels of lawyering skill and experience.

 There are different constituents, internal and external, vying  at every experience level  where candidates are being hired to service, as opposed to originate,  some element of the client business, which I will call the “glob of work.”   

 At the top of the pyramid are the originating partners who bring in the client and its glob.  These folks usually have the most say in who, within a law firm, does the work.  For institutional clients, there might be a single or group of key partners charged with staffing a matter. 

The element of the glob which calls for the most junior level of skill and experience has the fewest kinds of lawyers competing for that work.  They are internal associates and prospective lateral associate hires.

For that element of the glob of work which calls for senior level experience and which is not being done by the originating partner, the landscape changes and becomes more competitive. You have internal senior associates, counsel, service partners and originating partners whose clients are having bad years, all competing internally for that work.

On the outside, as with more junior work,  at a senior level you have folks looking to be hired based upon the strength of their academics, skills and experience.  However, there is also another competitor.  There is the usually junior prospective lateral partner whose client base does not make her quite self supporting but who has the prospect of becoming so in the near future.

Take it as a given that the successful external candidates has to, first and foremost, be equipped to do their share of the glob, to have the appropriate academics, skills and experience.  However, bringing in of client business is seen as strong evidence of excellence, of partnership material. It demonstrates that the candidate understands the business of law firm practice in the present day. 

In most circumstances, the solid senior lawyer looking to be hired without evidence of client development interest or skill is in worst position of the outside contenders.  Most of the time, they will lose to the prospect who has demonstrated client development skills.

The better a case you can make for yourself that you are that entrepreneurial candidate who will become fully self supporting in the near to medium future, the easier time you  will have to be hired at a senior level.

It’s never the season for inside baseball

To Company/Government/Big Organization Lifers Looking to Move On


I’ve seen a great many long time employees of large employers—government, UN-type organizations, corporations.  Often resumes contain mindnumbing detail about work environments which do nothing to  advance their case with new prospective employers.

If you have been with a single large employer for a bunch of years, you have probably had shifting responsibilities, different titles and reporting lines.

In describing a long career with a single employer, candidates often get bogged down in the minutiae of internal politics.  That is, in looking at the resume, the relationships between various committees and departments  is meaningful only if you intended to look for a job elsewhere in the same organization. 

 To the rest of us, it’s inside baseball and not terribly informative.

In addition, for the more senior candidate, getting bogged down can be deadly.  It raises the question of whether the candidate is flexible enough to adapt to a different organization or operational structure.  It’s the question whether you are steeped in nostalgia for the halcyon days of your professional youth or whether you have absorbed lessons and are flexible and nimble enough to move forward.

Step back and extract from these relationships the significance and state that, for example, if you found yourself at different points working with different kinds of players within an organizations, pull out from it that you had the flexibility to deal with different kinds of corporate constituents and parties.  Or that moving from x to y within the organization meant that you were only one hop away from the C-suite instead of three.   Or that the change in committee role meant you got to control more $, people, decisions, etc.

Also, look to last week's entry about helping people to understand what your title(s) within the organization mean.

Another argument against minutiae is that a resume is not meant to be exhaustive.  It is meant to convey enough about your experience to show the interviewer that you can do the job for which you have submitted your resume and that you will do it cheerfully and reliably. It's meant to get you the interview. So, list your most impressive achievements and summarize, as tightly as you can, the less impressive recurring day-to-day responsibilities.  Edit and focus what you write about your past. 

Your Place in the In-House Hierarchy

There are certain key differences in the structure of in house environments versus that of law firms.

In a law firm hierarchy, junior associates report to senior associates and/ or counsel or partners. 

Each in house corporate structure has its own organizational chart. In one, there may only be three lawyers, in others there may be layers of lawyers with different kinds of titles—senior, assistant, deputy, associate, vice president, senior vice president. 

How do you expect the prospective employer to know what your title means?

Help the reader to understand where you are in your own company’s particular universe. How many people do you supervise? What kinds of people-- lawyers, investigators, patent prosecutors, assistant counsel, etc.Who do you report to? Do you have dual reporting responsibilities—ex., an attorney supporting sales might be embedded in an operations division and report to both the head of the operations and someone in legal. If you are one of only a handful of people with your status, say so—i.e., “ Sole Deputy GC.  Direct Report to the General Counsel.”

In-house Job Entries

Context and "I Love Me" are Key


You need to give context for the business, what you do in the business and underscore that you understand that you hook into business realities as opposed to living in the land of abstract legal principles which is where many in the business community generally think law firm lawyers reside. We know how important lawyers are and you, in particular, are to the prosperity of your company.  You need to let the reader, your prospective employer, know how your actions contribute to the fiscal well being of the company.

Below the name of the employer, title and dates of employment, you should help give the reader some context .  If the enterprise is not a household name, a phrase which states its size, business niche and the size of the legal department to help accomplish that goal. 

       Ex:  Karate Chop Cooking, Inc., New York, NY  Assistant General Counsel , / /  to present

        Member of a six lawyer legal department of a publicly traded manufacturer of cooking implements

You should state the kinds of legal and business related subject matter with which you work and the activities in which you engage.  


It goes without saying that you describe the substance of what you do-- negotiate, supervise, draft, oversee, devise, review, implement, etc. Cite legal regimes with which you work-- FMLA, HIPPA, Investment Advisor Act, etc.

Businesses exist to make profit from the goods or services they manufacture/distribute/broker/provide. In a law firm resume, you have the luxury to just talk about the law that you practice because your business is the practice of law.

As in-house lawyers, you more closely further the business.  Attorneys enhance and facilitate the activities of the business and protect the business against legal liability. One of the unfortunate aspects of in-house practice, however, is that your actions rarely inure directly to the bottom line.  This can make you vulnerable to downturns in lean times when the bean counters want to cut expenses.

Another danger an in house lawyer faces is to be seen as the “no” person rather than the facilitator who moves the deal or activity along with the long and short term interests of the business in mind.

Accordingly, attorneys need to justify their keep and show that they are attuned to the business they support.  You should identify, in business terms, how your actions tie into to the business of the company, its goods and services and help it prosper. Yes, you are taking some credit for what the business side accomplishes.

If you supported a sales force, mention the number of salespeople you supported and the dollar value of widgets sold.

If you directed litigation, describe big matters and the prayers for relief.

If you negotiated a big lease, mention the square feet.

If there is a quantitative measurement to an outcome for anything you do, mention it.  So, the $ saved from instituting some cost cutting measure you documented, is important.  If you managed to save $ by eliminating employee redundancies, indicate numbers and $.

If you negotiated an acquisition, financing, or IPO, state the $ value.

If your role is in more of a compliance function, state the size of the operation you support in dollar terms, if possible, or in number of employees, offices, or by reference to a business regime that  flags same. Ex., “such and such for a NYSE Euronext listed manufacturer of widgets.”