Is the Market Turning?
Openings for inside counsel remain static, but here are some tips.
October 13, 2010 at 08:00 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Apparently the recession officially ended earlier this year. Indeed, major bleeding within the legal profession generally has stopped. “Major bleeding,” in this context, means widespread layoffs at large law firms and deep cuts in-house within struggling industries, such as finance and automotive. So, there is a basis for thinking that the job market for attorneys must be turning for the better.
Sadly, however, the supply of unemployed attorneys remains far ahead of demand. I think “static” is a fair assessment of the current job market, especially for inside counsel. When a company loses an attorney to retirement or a lateral move, at least that position is getting filled and legal departments are not losing headcount. However, my general counsel friends and clients tell me it's harder than ever to get approval for additional headcount. In fact, I'm hearing that many GCs risk a viscerally negative reaction and political capital if they even ask.
I perceive a significant cultural change among Fortune 500 companies with respect to the legal function generally. Whether the lawyers are outside counsel or inside employees, corporate America is reassessing the cost and importance of attorneys. General counsels no longer wield open checkbook power. Chief Financial Officers, procurement departments and even human resources professionals are intruding profoundly on legal's turf. In corporate-speak this is called “teamwork” and “managing to budgets.” Make no mistake that, in reality, what's happening is a tectonic power shift.
This leads me to the “tips” portion of this particular column. When a staff attorney opening exists, it's more and more likely that HR will lead on the search effort. That means a job posting, and these will be done at the lowest possible cost and within HR's comfort zone. Look for more attorney positions on general job boards such as Monster and CareerBuilder, where companies have bulk order accounts. The most successful inside counsel jobs board since 1990 has gone virtually dry compared with just a few years ago. This website is the Association of Corporate Counsel site (www.acc.com), which gets some activity from legal staffing firms that buy in bulk, but fewer direct employer posts. It's expensive, and HR is less familiar with it. I can always tell that a legal department is at least influencing HR when a posting appears at acc.com.
A site called Go In-House (www.goinhouse.com) has been gaining a lot of traction, and I highly recommend this one to my readers who are in the market. This site is about two years old and the founders have done an excellent job of getting HR's attention. For now, postings are free at Go In-House, which has certainly helped it build critical mass. Once the site starts charging for the postings, it will be interesting to see if the HR folks remain as enthusiastic.
You may be wondering why a legal search consultant is recommending job boards. After all, I make my living placing lawyers with corporate legal departments. Nonetheless, I don't stick my head in the sand. It used to be that recruiters were engaged for almost any in-house opening, at the discretion of general counsel who had more political power. Those good old days are gone.
Yet, legal recruiters have not gone away. There are fewer of us and we compete for a smaller number of job orders. But at least they tend to be high quality job orders. Companies turn to recruiters to source and screen on leadership-level searches and to fill positions requiring esoteric subject matter expertise. And much of our work flow comes from smaller companies that lack the HR resources to handle an attorney search properly.
So, don't forget to get your resume into my hands, and the hands of my competitors. You want us to know about you and your credentials as we get new assignments. In a static job market, go with the clich? – leave no stone unturned. Look at a broader range of job boards, and spend more time getting to know recruiters. All of this is, of course, in addition to pursuing leads via your own network of corporate and personal contacts.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBallooning Workloads, Dearth of Advancement Opportunities Prime In-House Attorneys to Pull Exit Hatch
The Reason a GC Abruptly Departs May Not Be What You Think
Trending Stories
- 1Steve Bannon 'We Build The Wall' Fraud Trial Pushed to February 2025
- 2'Nuclear Option'?: Eli Lilly Taps Big Law Firms in Federal Drug Pricing Dispute
- 3Questions About Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act Remain Unanswered
- 4Santa Clara County Superior Court Authorizes Electronic Recording of Proceedings
- 5Ex-Deputy AG Trusts U.S. Legal System To Pull Country Through Times of Duress
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250