Wow, you guyz (for the record, "you guys" is a Western US version of "y'all"; it doesn't mean "you male persons" so get over it right now)! Joe is blushing! Joe can't stop using exclamation points! Somebody help Joe Right Now!
Sorry, a momentary fit of excitation. Actually, Joe knew a beagle who used exclamation points in EVERY sentence the beagle ever wrote! Ever! Apparently, a bad reaction to law school! Funny thing was, the Beagle was boring as hell! Do you find that as annoying as Joe does?! (Joe meant that one.)
Okay, so WHY is joe blushing? Joe has received many MANY (more than one) accolades in the past few weeks from actual beagles doing actual beagle work, and not just a few were in support of Joe against the BAD BEAGLE. So thank you, beagles, bunnies, and future beagles, all. . .Joe is, well, touched (in fact, Joe is being touched RIGHT NOW, but that's another topic for another day). just kidding. Oh yeah, about the speling errers, Joe apologises, but apparently, this low budge system doesn't spell check, and Joe apparently types faster than he can think, but wanted you to know that he sort of knows how to spell. He just can't read so good. Let's see. . .other administrivia. . .oh yeah, the Gloss is COMING. Some Day. I know, so's your raise. Let's bet to see which one comes more faster, shall we?
So, Joe said "Joe is Listening." "Why, Joe", say the beagles, "what ever do you mean?" Let Joe tell you. There is a FIERCE debate amongst recruiters as to whether 'tis better to call the beagles at work, and talk to them about yobs, or whether 'tis nobler indeed to just leave a voice mail so the beagle can respond when and if they have a mind to. Oh, and what to say when you talk to a beagle, which is MUY importante. Questions such as these, and the debate engendered therefrom have raised tempers more than you might have guessed, and vicious fights have ensued, including fistfights, and more than one yelling of the word "BITCH!" (Joe regrets the incident, but he SO deserved it).
Accordingly, Joe wanted to bring it to you, his faithful, wise, all-knowing, and not-at-all-influenced-by-cheap-flattery readers, to clear this up. What do YOU think? What do YOU like? What do you hate? Is Orange REALLY the new pink? Joe wants to know. Here, in a nubbin (Joe knows this should be a "nutshell" but, since the untimely death of Spy magazine, nobody uses nubbin anymore, and Joe misses it), is the question (actually, the "multi-part question."):
Prolegomenon: Recognise first that you ARE going to be called by recruiters. A lot. Unless you suck. Learn to live with it. If you really CAN'T stand being called by legal recruiters, find another profession. And stop whining. Really. Just stop whining.
Part the First: Since you ARE going to be called by recruiters, how would you most like to be contacted, recognizing that we TRY to be a little bit coy since we don't want to get your ass in trouble with your CURRENT law firm, and so we have to be a BIT vague (on the other hand, we could say "hey, screw ya" and describe in excruciating detail another MORE BETTER job while your senior partner looks at you picking up your email/vmail/phone notes, or stands in the room whilst you're on a call)?
Part the Second: When an opportunity is being described, do you just want a brief outline of the position, or do you want LOTS of detail ("Hi, Bill, this is Rastro Recruiter from Jiffy LawJobs, and I have an opportunity I want to discuss with you at your convenience. Please call me at 1-800-LAW-SUCK at your convenience." vs.
"Hi, Muffin, this is Lara LaLou at Frisky Recruiters, and, as you probably know, we place more attorneys in different jobs every day than graduate each year from all the law schools in the known universe. Even though we're so big we don't even know who you are, we deigned to come down to your pitifully small level to discuss a position as the third attorney of five to be hired at a Law Firm in Detroit whose name I can't mention, but whose name rhymes with "FigPaw", and who has forty-thousand attorneys practicing in the following cities and countries (exhausting list ensues). The position will pay 22 Million coconuts, has 12 days off per year, automatic overdraft protection, and will lead to a life completely devoid of satisfaction, but you won't know it because you'll be required to bill 3000 hours per year in compensation for your overly inflated salary. They reject 15 of 16 candidates we send to them, and they take forever to pay, but I'm calling you because you're just another cog in the wheel, and, by the way, they almost never hire from outside regardless of what they tell you, so I'm frankly your only chance to get out of that hellhole you're currently practicing in, only to stick you in a newer, fresher, hotter hell. With that in mind, please take a moment, avoiding the steely gaze of the Senior Partner who just wandered into your room and made you regret picking up your voicemail on speaker phone, and call me back, since it's very unlikely you'll ever get a raise again, let alone make partner. And you've been an associate there for HOW long again? I can be reached at 916-4-A-BEAGLE, and the clock is ticking. Thank you for your time.")?
Part the Third: Do you really want or need the recitative about the firm's skills, background, and who they represent, or do you make a decision to call back based on how the recruiter sounds, or are you smart enough to call everyone who calls you with a position that's within your area of expertise?
Part the Fourth: Do you want to hear about just ONE position, or, if you might qualify for multiple positions with multiple companies, would you rather hear about that, recognizing that good recruiters often have more than one related position with more than one law firm (as an example, Joe knows "bubbela bubbela law" really well, so his firms tend to pack him with "bubbela bubbela law"; in one city in a particular state, Joe has 11 positions with 7 different firms, all in "bubbela bubbela law").
Part the Fifth: Related to many of the above: What are the credibility factors? For example, some recruiters think you need to give precise, detailed info. about everything you're looking for, so the associate knows you really HAVE a job. Others say, NO, just tell them you only recruit for current openings. Still others say, Look, beagles have been burned forever, so they don't believe anyone, but, being lawyers, they're compelled to call and listen, just to satisfy their own belief that all recruiters are scum. Another group says that Beagles only trust the BigRecruiter firms, while another one says "Hey, boutique recruiters are where it's at." Given all the philosophical differences, the differences in jobs and job types, and the differences in beagles and law firms in general, what do YOU, as a beagle, want ME, as a recruiter to SAY to you, and HOW do you want me to say it in order to communicate that:
1. There is a real live job opening right now.
2. For whatever reason, I think you might be a match to this job.
3. For whatever reason, I would like to know if you're considering a move, or
4. You've been an associate since 1999, and you're still an associate, and I'm not going to say it out loud, but, uh, WTF?! Is this REALLY the firm for you?
5. I only get paid for results, so I don't tend to waste my time unless I reasonably believe you fit the requirements of the position. You need to call me to confirm or invalidate that impression.
6. Regardless of how good a beagle you are or think you are, you have a much better chance of being placed if you go through a recruiter, unless a firm calls YOU. How do you know if your chances are better with a recruiter? Simple. Unless a firm calls YOU and either offers you a job or invites you to interview, you have a much better chance with a recruiter. If you don't believe Joe, go on an informational interview with an attorney you KNOW will tell you the truth, and ASK them. Even better, see a hiring partner or the lead Recruiter, and ask THEM.
7. Even with the imprimatur of a recruiter on your materials, as a recruiter, I'm only interested in the BEST candidate, but if I call YOU, at least I'm interested enough in you to LOOK at your materials, which just improved your odds by a factor of 3 or 4.
Part the Sixth: How should a recruiter "BE" when they present their pitch? Should they be "serious and reserved and highly professional" or "cute and fun and cuddly" or, "light and competent, but not taking themselves too seriously" (the way Joe tries to be. . . whether he succeeds or not is open to debate). Should we talk fast and get it over with, or slow and methodical, highlighting every nuance with polished and professional prose, or what?
ACT NOW! Joe has set up an email account specially for Beagles to respond. Comments will be accepted, results tallied, and presented here in future. Joe asks you to respond, and to get everyone you know to respond, so that we can do a better job for YOU, and for US as recruiters. Joe is hoping, if the response is big enough, to publish an article in a major Journal, which could make recruiting less painful for EVERYONE. So your contribution could absolutely CHANGE the process of recruiting as we know it. Who KNEW you had so much power?
Send your comments to: telljoerecruiter@hotmail.com .
Joe thanks you in advance. Remember to spread the word, and keep them comments coming.
Love and Kisses,
JoeRecruiter
Love Your Recruiter!!!!!!!!!!!!(For that crazy Beagle)
ADDENDUM!:
Joe should have realized he'd have to say it to Beagles. So he's saying it now: Your comments will be kept completely confidential. Your emails will be kept completely confidential. Any opinions offered or comments generated will be only aggregated commments, not specifically attributed to any beagle. Your email address(es) will not be kept, tracked, analyzed, confabulated, used, or manipulated in any way, except insofar as they'll be deleted like so much old news at the earliest opportunity. C'mon people, recruiters read this site too. . .they need your help, as does Joe. Thanks, many, to those who have already contributed, and to the rest of you. . .get it in gear.
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
The Best Dancer at St. Bernard-ettes.
Ay, Mamelita! Has it actually been two weeks since JoeRecruiter put finger to key? Joe finds this almost impossible to believe. Joe apoogizes, and hopes you will forgive him. Work has taken over Joe's life. Have you ever had more work than you could actually DO? Joe has this problem now. They say success kills, and it's starting to kill Joe, although apparently not fast enough for some. What Joe means is that he has more assignments than he could POSSIBLY fill, even if he worked 24/7, which is SO not about to happen. But even if Joe did work 24/7 there aren't enough candidates that meet the Law Firm criteria, so why bother. And THAT is what is on Joe's mind.
Let Joe go back a ways, kay? It was Friday, and Joe was at dinner with Miss ChaCha DiGregoriJoe (yes, the Best Dancer at St. Bernard-ettes), and it was perfect. Not Miss ChaCha, mind you. . .Miss ChaCha is NEVER perfect. Miss ChaCha is always bad, which is why Joe likes to take her to Dinner. But she is NEVER perfect.
Ennyways, the Foie Gras was wonderful as was the Inniskillin Ice Wine, which Joe highly recommends as opposed to Chateau Y'Quem or some other Sauternes. Joe KNOWS this is a classic pairing, but, just TRY Ice Wine (or Eiswein, even better). You'll find that the comparatively higher acid cuts the richness of the Foie Gras very nicely, but still gives you the wonderful taste balance of a Sauternes. Where was Joe? Oh, yes, the Foie Gras was wonderful, the Duck, even better (Joe is fond of Duck. . .so much so that Duck and Foie Gras, at the same meal, didn't seem terribly wrong. . .on the other hand, there was also Beef Rossini, and the salad had Duck, slivered black truffles, and other nummies too. . .and it still didn't seem TOO over the top).
Now, you would think a meal like that would have almost anybody basking in WAVES of pleasure, and normally you would be right. But Joe was, I don't know, out of sorts for some reason, and it wasn't until the Port (Taylor 20-year Tawny) that Miss ChaCha said, in her warm purring voice "Yo, mister, snap out of it!" that Joe realized his mind was still on work, when it SHOULD have been on the spectacular dinner.
And Joe's mind was still on WORK because Joe had just had a little tiff with a VERY BAD Beagle, on one or another of them there message boards. Miss ChaCha made Joe ignore what had happened and concentrate on Dessert, and a good thing too, because it was a wonderful Coconut Cream Vacherin, with a Bittersweet Chocolate Ganache, accompanied by the TINIEST little Molten Chocolate Cake, Coconut Sorbet, and Coconut Syrup. It was amazing. So Joe put it out of his mind for the rest of dinner, but now feels he has to share it, with you.
And here it is: It's all well and good if you're a high-powered associate at a high-powered law firm, and bully for you, but don't think for a second that you know any more about what's happening in the recruiting office of your law firm than the average guy on the street, because you don't. And please, be a civilized beagle and don't foist that garbage off on unsuspecting bunnies, because they'll BELIEVE you, and they're the ones that are gonna get hurt, not you.
First of all, if you have a bad opinion of Recruiters, that's your right as a citizen, but don't for even a fraction of a second lump Joe in with anybody else, because Joe is, let's face it, a particularly unique character. The Bad Beagle questioned Joe's character, motives, background, experience, and commitment, all without even knowing the first thing about who Joe is or what Joe does, and then made claims regarding Law Firms that are flatly untrue, to the point that little beagle bunnies are probably all in a daze not knowing what they should do or when they should do it. SHAME on the Bad Beagle.
But how does this affect you, and why should you care? Good question, and thanks for asking. Let's look at a couple of facts, in no particular order, but, in terms of overall impact, we can prolly start with the raises for First Year associates.
The first announcement occurred probably on Jan 19, or thereabouts (Joe has an email dated 1/19 that announces a change, and nothing much before then), announcing a retro raise to Jan. 1, followed by another and so on, until, if you weren't paying attention, you'd think that EVERY law firm in the world, certainly in New York, and certainly EVERY BigLaw firm was pushing to $145K. But that's only half the story. Remember, SOME firms are dropping bonuses, SOME will institute a formula, and some will do some sort of disco combo, to the extent that, according to JoeMath, the actual raises add up to from about $3000-$7000 for MOST firms, and up to about $10K for virtually all of the rest. OF the reamining firms that claims stratospheric raises for first years, when you look at the comp formulas, they may be better OR worse than they were before.
The Second thing to remember is that this means ALL associate pay levels in the affected firms have to be recalculated and recalibrated, and, from what Joe hears, there MAY be concommitant increases in minimum billable hours. So, is this in fact a raise or not? Joe says, mostly, sort of. But the firms haven't all finished with their math, and anyone who tells you ANYTHING different isn't in touch with the firms on a regular basis. Even the few FEW firms with "published" associate pay plans advise that they're tentative.
The most amazing thing is that, like in years past, associates almost overwhelmingly say they'd rather have less pay and fewer required hours than MORE pay and MORE hours. So would the firms. Some senior partners have even said that they'd prefer to not have to mess with beginning pay at all and reduce the number of required billables for the first few years to give associates time to actually LEARN the art of lawyering in a firm before they go out for their "first kill." Nobody really believes you learn to be a lawyer just because you can bill 2366 hours your first year.
Third, associates still seem to believe that pay is some sort of negotiable issue, and that, if they simply apply, they'll be offered a job, and then, boy, they can negotiate a GREAT package that'll leave their fellows languishing in the dust of their victory. Sorry, but, in most firms, pay is NOT negotiable (at least not base pay), and usually bonuses are set too. You want a raise, you have to RAISE your value as a revenue producer by billing in excess of the minimum, if that option even exists, and, in some firms, because of the jacking up of minimum associate pay, the option to work, dare Joe say it. . ."Overtime" will be severely curtailed.
Fourth, and you know Joe wouldn't say this to anyone but you, but you can handle it: No matter how good YOUR opinion of your ability is, the offer, if you even get one, is going to be contingent on the offering firm's assessment of your ability, no matter how great a lawyer you think you are. For example, Joe is completely certain that Bad Beagle considers him/herself to be a GREAT lawyer, worth his/her weight in platinum. Perhaps. But Joe talked the issue over with some people at a number of BigLaw firms, where Bad Beagle claims to work (A BigLaw firm, not THE specific firm), and was told, before he could even ask, that an associate with that attitude would probably be either "slowed down" on the track, or invited to apply at another firm. Modesty and patience, and just generally being "nice to work with" still count at law firms, even BigLaw, so be careful of your attitude, and remember, you're a bunny until you get "promoted" by not being referred to as a bunny anymore, and it has a LOT to do with what the senior attorneys think of you, not what you think of yourself.
So, what does this mean? Is Joe a total sellout to the Law Firms? Oh, HELL no! But it does mean that Joe, like many people with MANY jobs, is responsible to both the Law Firms AND the associates, and he has to balance the reality of the situation with the "dreams" of the beagles, and sometimes that means "tough love."
So what do we do now? Keep listening, paying attention, and snuggling up to your recruiter. Firms are still hiring. They still want the best associates. Externals have the best associates (simple math. . .good attorneys are too busy to be futzing around on job boards, know what they want, and are prepared. . .they let recruiters do the work finding them a job whilst they go out and lawyer), and the Law Firms know that. It's simply a question of managing your priorities and making sure that you use resources that work FOR YOU, not resources that you WORK FOR.
To that end, and recognizing that not everybody has the same perspective, coupled with the fact that Joe is busier than a one-legged man at a butt-kickin' contest, Joe says make your choice. Either you believe Legal Recruiters are good or you don't.
If you do, find one, make sure there's a great fit, and take their advice. . .it's in their best interest to help you find the PERFECT job. In that way, everybody wins: The Law Firm, You, JoeRecruiter (or the other not-quite-as-luscious recruiter), and other lawyers, as well as clients, and, well, you get the idea. If you don't, strike out on your own, manage your own job search, and take responsibility for what happens. The choice is yours. . .just don't whine.
Meanwhile, Joe is negotiating with Miss ChaCha to plan another dinner. This time, Joe is hoping for a little less duck, and a LOT more attention to the dinner itself.
Love Your Recruiter!
JoeRecruiter
Let Joe go back a ways, kay? It was Friday, and Joe was at dinner with Miss ChaCha DiGregoriJoe (yes, the Best Dancer at St. Bernard-ettes), and it was perfect. Not Miss ChaCha, mind you. . .Miss ChaCha is NEVER perfect. Miss ChaCha is always bad, which is why Joe likes to take her to Dinner. But she is NEVER perfect.
Ennyways, the Foie Gras was wonderful as was the Inniskillin Ice Wine, which Joe highly recommends as opposed to Chateau Y'Quem or some other Sauternes. Joe KNOWS this is a classic pairing, but, just TRY Ice Wine (or Eiswein, even better). You'll find that the comparatively higher acid cuts the richness of the Foie Gras very nicely, but still gives you the wonderful taste balance of a Sauternes. Where was Joe? Oh, yes, the Foie Gras was wonderful, the Duck, even better (Joe is fond of Duck. . .so much so that Duck and Foie Gras, at the same meal, didn't seem terribly wrong. . .on the other hand, there was also Beef Rossini, and the salad had Duck, slivered black truffles, and other nummies too. . .and it still didn't seem TOO over the top).
Now, you would think a meal like that would have almost anybody basking in WAVES of pleasure, and normally you would be right. But Joe was, I don't know, out of sorts for some reason, and it wasn't until the Port (Taylor 20-year Tawny) that Miss ChaCha said, in her warm purring voice "Yo, mister, snap out of it!" that Joe realized his mind was still on work, when it SHOULD have been on the spectacular dinner.
And Joe's mind was still on WORK because Joe had just had a little tiff with a VERY BAD Beagle, on one or another of them there message boards. Miss ChaCha made Joe ignore what had happened and concentrate on Dessert, and a good thing too, because it was a wonderful Coconut Cream Vacherin, with a Bittersweet Chocolate Ganache, accompanied by the TINIEST little Molten Chocolate Cake, Coconut Sorbet, and Coconut Syrup. It was amazing. So Joe put it out of his mind for the rest of dinner, but now feels he has to share it, with you.
And here it is: It's all well and good if you're a high-powered associate at a high-powered law firm, and bully for you, but don't think for a second that you know any more about what's happening in the recruiting office of your law firm than the average guy on the street, because you don't. And please, be a civilized beagle and don't foist that garbage off on unsuspecting bunnies, because they'll BELIEVE you, and they're the ones that are gonna get hurt, not you.
First of all, if you have a bad opinion of Recruiters, that's your right as a citizen, but don't for even a fraction of a second lump Joe in with anybody else, because Joe is, let's face it, a particularly unique character. The Bad Beagle questioned Joe's character, motives, background, experience, and commitment, all without even knowing the first thing about who Joe is or what Joe does, and then made claims regarding Law Firms that are flatly untrue, to the point that little beagle bunnies are probably all in a daze not knowing what they should do or when they should do it. SHAME on the Bad Beagle.
But how does this affect you, and why should you care? Good question, and thanks for asking. Let's look at a couple of facts, in no particular order, but, in terms of overall impact, we can prolly start with the raises for First Year associates.
The first announcement occurred probably on Jan 19, or thereabouts (Joe has an email dated 1/19 that announces a change, and nothing much before then), announcing a retro raise to Jan. 1, followed by another and so on, until, if you weren't paying attention, you'd think that EVERY law firm in the world, certainly in New York, and certainly EVERY BigLaw firm was pushing to $145K. But that's only half the story. Remember, SOME firms are dropping bonuses, SOME will institute a formula, and some will do some sort of disco combo, to the extent that, according to JoeMath, the actual raises add up to from about $3000-$7000 for MOST firms, and up to about $10K for virtually all of the rest. OF the reamining firms that claims stratospheric raises for first years, when you look at the comp formulas, they may be better OR worse than they were before.
The Second thing to remember is that this means ALL associate pay levels in the affected firms have to be recalculated and recalibrated, and, from what Joe hears, there MAY be concommitant increases in minimum billable hours. So, is this in fact a raise or not? Joe says, mostly, sort of. But the firms haven't all finished with their math, and anyone who tells you ANYTHING different isn't in touch with the firms on a regular basis. Even the few FEW firms with "published" associate pay plans advise that they're tentative.
The most amazing thing is that, like in years past, associates almost overwhelmingly say they'd rather have less pay and fewer required hours than MORE pay and MORE hours. So would the firms. Some senior partners have even said that they'd prefer to not have to mess with beginning pay at all and reduce the number of required billables for the first few years to give associates time to actually LEARN the art of lawyering in a firm before they go out for their "first kill." Nobody really believes you learn to be a lawyer just because you can bill 2366 hours your first year.
Third, associates still seem to believe that pay is some sort of negotiable issue, and that, if they simply apply, they'll be offered a job, and then, boy, they can negotiate a GREAT package that'll leave their fellows languishing in the dust of their victory. Sorry, but, in most firms, pay is NOT negotiable (at least not base pay), and usually bonuses are set too. You want a raise, you have to RAISE your value as a revenue producer by billing in excess of the minimum, if that option even exists, and, in some firms, because of the jacking up of minimum associate pay, the option to work, dare Joe say it. . ."Overtime" will be severely curtailed.
Fourth, and you know Joe wouldn't say this to anyone but you, but you can handle it: No matter how good YOUR opinion of your ability is, the offer, if you even get one, is going to be contingent on the offering firm's assessment of your ability, no matter how great a lawyer you think you are. For example, Joe is completely certain that Bad Beagle considers him/herself to be a GREAT lawyer, worth his/her weight in platinum. Perhaps. But Joe talked the issue over with some people at a number of BigLaw firms, where Bad Beagle claims to work (A BigLaw firm, not THE specific firm), and was told, before he could even ask, that an associate with that attitude would probably be either "slowed down" on the track, or invited to apply at another firm. Modesty and patience, and just generally being "nice to work with" still count at law firms, even BigLaw, so be careful of your attitude, and remember, you're a bunny until you get "promoted" by not being referred to as a bunny anymore, and it has a LOT to do with what the senior attorneys think of you, not what you think of yourself.
So, what does this mean? Is Joe a total sellout to the Law Firms? Oh, HELL no! But it does mean that Joe, like many people with MANY jobs, is responsible to both the Law Firms AND the associates, and he has to balance the reality of the situation with the "dreams" of the beagles, and sometimes that means "tough love."
So what do we do now? Keep listening, paying attention, and snuggling up to your recruiter. Firms are still hiring. They still want the best associates. Externals have the best associates (simple math. . .good attorneys are too busy to be futzing around on job boards, know what they want, and are prepared. . .they let recruiters do the work finding them a job whilst they go out and lawyer), and the Law Firms know that. It's simply a question of managing your priorities and making sure that you use resources that work FOR YOU, not resources that you WORK FOR.
To that end, and recognizing that not everybody has the same perspective, coupled with the fact that Joe is busier than a one-legged man at a butt-kickin' contest, Joe says make your choice. Either you believe Legal Recruiters are good or you don't.
If you do, find one, make sure there's a great fit, and take their advice. . .it's in their best interest to help you find the PERFECT job. In that way, everybody wins: The Law Firm, You, JoeRecruiter (or the other not-quite-as-luscious recruiter), and other lawyers, as well as clients, and, well, you get the idea. If you don't, strike out on your own, manage your own job search, and take responsibility for what happens. The choice is yours. . .just don't whine.
Meanwhile, Joe is negotiating with Miss ChaCha to plan another dinner. This time, Joe is hoping for a little less duck, and a LOT more attention to the dinner itself.
Love Your Recruiter!
JoeRecruiter
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
