Dear Diary:
Someone recently sent me an email complaining about the job market and lack of jobs. In the email was also the following job post by Michael Lord & Company (an attorney recruiter):
“A small NY law firm with interesting client base and very good lifestyle is seeking a corporate associate with 4-6 years of experience. Candidates should be currently employed at a major NYC firm, have strong academic credentials, and have experience in drafting various commercial agreements.”
Most of the time, attorney recruiters will say “prestigious law firm” or “top rated boutique firm” if the tiny law firm is still reputable. It only says “SMALL law firm” which makes me think it’s a tiny ass firm with pompous partners/members who think their tiny ass firm is too good to consider BigLaw laid off attorneys.
Now tell me, what possible reason would this itty bitty law firm limit its candidate pool to those that are “currently” employed in BigLaw?
Wow, the itty bitty firm can offer an “interesting client base”? Arguable, doing deals for the mob would constitute an “interesting client base.” But the real question is, can this firm offer $$$–what we BigLaw lawyers really are in it for. Can they offer enough $$ for a currently employed BigLaw midlevel with good credentials leave his or her BigLaw job for?
True, it claims to offer a “very good lifestyle” but so does drug dealing.
Look, I’m just annoyed that this nobody law firm, which probably doesn’t pay that much because it can’t be that busy if it can offer a “very good lifestyle” feels it needs to limit its candidate pool to those who are currently employed when, in any other market, tiny law firms would be thanking their lucky stars to have one of the currently laid off attorneys with stellar credentials and qualifications even consider their firm.
I know there are some of you out there who scoff at the credentials of laid off attorneys but you have to admit that to get into BigLaw, you had to have been in the top 10% of all lawyers out there to begin with and you have to admit that not 100% of lay offs could really have been pure performance based lay offs, but even if you stubbornly cling to the notion that only the bottom 10% were cut, well bottom 10% of the top 10% is still overqualified for a nobody small law firm with an “interesting client base”.
What’s the point in limiting your candidate pool that way?
I give this firm an F.
If you come across any job postings, or anything else you want to rant about, feel free to email me at laidoffdiary at lawshucks dot com.
Related posts:
I really hope that the "currently employed" comment is just an oversight left over from "typical" language used during the boom times, and that it was just a thoughtless move on the part of the recruiter to use that language instead of adjusting it for the times. I haven't gone on that many interviews with small firms (there haven't been that many places hiring period and I'm focusing on non-private sector employment), but I know that for the one I did, their attitude was "BIGLAW is in a big mess of their own doing and taking it out on associates." I had hoped that this attitude would be more prevalent than the "only the bottom 10% get fired" attitude sometimes demonstrated on Above the Law.