The Purpose of 'The Process' in Your Job Search
Whether you've jumped in with both feet or have one toe in the water, the purpose of the job application and interview process is one of education and exploration.
May 15, 2018 at 10:00 AM
5 minute read
![](https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/403/2018/03/Julie-Brush-Vert-201803271507-1.jpg)
When assessing whether to apply for a job, legal professionals tend to view their submission of interest as a commitment they are locked into until the bitter end. This mentality affects how a candidate feels and behaves—and influences the opportunities s/he chooses to pursue … or not. I work with scores of lawyers who find themselves in the anxiety red zone because either they don't know exactly what they want when they look for greener pastures or they believe that going through an interview process means foregoing an escape hatch. Consequently, fear sets in and they don't pursue opportunities they should. Or, they go all the way to the end of a process only to reject an offer presented.
Sound familiar? These results are a detriment to everyone involved. So a paradigm shift in thinking about “The Process” is required.
Whether you've jumped in with both feet or have one toe in the water, the purpose of the job application and interview process is one of education and exploration. Designed to provide you with an increasing amount of information so that you can make the most informed decisions about your career. You don't have to know exactly what you want. You don't have to know exactly what you need. And you don't have to know whether you'd accept a job offer at the beginning of an application process. You do not need to commit to anything except entering a process in good faith. And if you do that, the rest is pretty straightforward.
When job hunting, it's prudent to cast a fairly wide net with regard to the types of opportunities to consider. Pursuing those that pique your interest … and leaving the nonstarters behind. The goal is to learn as much about an opportunity as you can. And in that process, you will learn more about yourself. Inevitably, there will be surprises as you continue to explore different employers, roles, cultures, leadership and geographies. And as the process advances, you will have more insight and precision with which to choose the role that's right for you—and move the needle closer to career satisfaction.
And if you reach a point in an interview process where you know the role isn't The One, it's OK to opt out and move on. I repeat: it's OKk to opt out. In fact, it's the professionally responsible thing to do. But this can be much easier said than done. Fearing the conflict and its consequences, legal professionals are unsure how to handle such situations. If you find yourself at this point, below are a couple of examples of how to effectively pull the plug:
“Jane, I wanted to reach out directly to let you know that I am withdrawing my name from consideration for the Director, Legal position. I sincerely appreciate the time and effort of your entire team. But as I've learned more about the opportunity, I don't think there is a fit. The company is at a stage that is a bit too early for what I am seeking and I'd like to be part of a larger legal department with a more defined infrastructure. This is a wonderful opportunity and I wish you the best of luck with your search. I look forward to our paths crossing again. Best, Alex”
“Robert, thank you for taking the time to meet with me this week. I appreciated learning more about the firm/company as well as the position. After careful consideration, I've decided not to remain in the process. I'm seeking a bit more responsibility than this role will offer—and combined with the compensation and long commute; I don't think it's the right career move at this time. All the best, Alice”
Withdrawal Message to a Recruiter:
Note: An unprofessional withdrawal or improper job rejection for a job represented by a recruiter can quickly get you blackballed in the recruiting world. So communicating the right message to this constituency is just as important as it is directly to an employer. Here's a good example:
“Julie, I had a good interview with Joe at Company XYZ. He was a nice guy and I think the interview went well. But after learning more about the role, I don't think it's right for me. Through the process, I've determined that I would like to stick to B to C companies. I wanted to let you know now before everyone put more time and effort into my candidacy. Thank you for thinking of me and I appreciate the opportunity to interview with your client. I'd like to reach out directly to Joe if you think that would be appropriate. If anyone comes to mind for this role that could work, I'll send them your way. In the interim, don't hesitate to reach out if there are other Solutus opportunities that you think might be a fit. Best Regards, Laura”
The pressure legal professionals place on themselves to be “perfect” in a job search can be downright paralyzing. From the resume to the network building to the interviews to saying no …and to committing to a path before they know where it leads. It's an unrealistic bar that serves as a set-up for a suboptimal experience—and results. So as you begin your next career journey … breathe. Cut yourself some slack. And heed the advice above to leverage The Process for the gift that it is meant to be.
Julie Brush is the founder and author of The Lawyer Whisperer (www.thelawyerwhisperer.com), a career advice column for legal professionals, also found on LinkedIn. She is co-founder of Solutus Legal Search, a legal search/consulting boutique firm, serving as a strategic adviser to lawyers, law firms and corporations.
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
© 2025 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 All![A Time for Action: Attorneys Must Answer MLK's Call to Defend Bar Associations and Stand for DEI Initiatives in 2025 A Time for Action: Attorneys Must Answer MLK's Call to Defend Bar Associations and Stand for DEI Initiatives in 2025](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/newyorklawjournal/contrib/content/uploads/sites/404/2023/03/LBJ-MLK-1966-A2133-10-767x633.jpg)
A Time for Action: Attorneys Must Answer MLK's Call to Defend Bar Associations and Stand for DEI Initiatives in 2025
5 minute read![Intentionally Caused Motor Vehicle Accidents in the Video Spotlight Intentionally Caused Motor Vehicle Accidents in the Video Spotlight](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/newyorklawjournal/contrib/content/uploads/sites/389/2023/03/Michael-Sirignano-767x633.jpg)
![Ninth Circuit Rules on Inherent Authority and FRCP 37(e) Ninth Circuit Rules on Inherent Authority and FRCP 37(e)](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/newyorklawjournal/contrib/content/uploads/sites/389/2023/07/H.-Christopher-Boehning-and-Daniel-J.-ToalH.-Christopher-Boehning-and-Daniel-J.-Toal.jpg)
Trending Stories
- 1States Accuse Trump of Thwarting Court's Funding Restoration Order
- 2Microsoft Becomes Latest Tech Company to Face Claims of Stealing Marketing Commissions From Influencers
- 3Coral Gables Attorney Busted for Stalking Lawyer
- 4Trump's DOJ Delays Releasing Jan. 6 FBI Agents List Under Consent Order
- 5Securities Report Says That 2024 Settlements Passed a Total of $5.2B
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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