BigLaw: Lawyer Samara Anderson Plants Her Own Green Shoots

Monday, February 01, 2010

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

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

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

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

From Big Law to Big Trouble

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

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

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

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

Blazing New Trails

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

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

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

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

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

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

BigLaw: Managing Your Online Reputation: Five Tips for Paranoid Associates

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

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

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

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

1. Monitor All Your Social Media Accounts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Think Twice Before Posting Under Your Real Name

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

5. Manage Negative Search Results

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

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

BigLaw: Above the Law Founder David Lat

Monday, December 14, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's on your night table?

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

BigLaw: A Tale of Two Large Law Firms: Which Model Will Emerge From the Recession?

Monday, November 30, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

The Differences Between Firm A and Firm B …

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BigLaw: When Associates Bear the Cost of Cost-Cutting

Monday, November 16, 2009

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

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

Going Somewhere? Didn't Think So.

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

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

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

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

You Are What You Eat

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

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

Robbing Peter to Pay Paul

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

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

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

			About Us \| Advertise With Us \| \| Privacy Policy \| Terms of Service TechnoLawyer • PeerViews Inc., 100 Church Street, FL 8, New York, NY 10007 Copyright © 1997-2010 PeerViews Inc. All rights reserved.