Law Information

Your dream job may seem like a mere daydream right now, especially if you feel stuck in a nightmare job. By taking action, you may be able to turn your dream into a reality.

To reach your goal, you may need to take time and a zigzag path consisting of several intermediate steps. Frequently, people are discouraged because they want to take a direct route. When their expectations are not met immediately or they see someone seemingly fall right into the position they are seeking, they give up and settle for their current circumstances, even though they are dissatisfied. Developing a career that suits you requires patience, adaptability and a positive outlook.

DEFINE YOUR DREAM

� Start by defining your dream job.

I often hear statements from attorneys that they would like to do something in an area such as business or entertainment or international or public interest. That is much too broad and vague. Within any field, there are many different types of positions. You have to ask yourself whether you are being specific enough regarding the type of work that interests you.

Research is a key element when you are trying to figure out your niche. You may not be certain about the types of positions that are available. By reading about the field and talking to people who are already in it, you can sort out your options. Even if you already have some idea of the direction in which you would like to head, you can still learn about other types of opportunities that are generally known only to insiders. As you gain more understanding, you may find that your dream job changes.

On a number of occasions, I have counseled attorneys who have started out considering anywhere from five to 10 possible career paths. Since they knew very little about the work that some of those careers entailed, they conducted research. Very quickly, they eliminated half of the careers for a variety of reasons including work that involved skills they had no interest in using, limited opportunity to advance, lack of prestige, and salary way below their expectations.

By acquiring more specific information, they were able to determine positions that satisfied their interests and needs. In one instance, while he was on his way to finding a full-time position that met his criteria, an attorney held several part-time positions, each of which incorporated an aspect of his ideal job. He also networked extensively. His exploration helped him define and recognize a satisfying full-time position.

Two areas that seem to attract a great deal of interest are sports and entertainment law. To many attorneys, initially, it sounds interesting, exciting, glamorous. They have not thoroughly examined the type of work performed by entertainment attorneys.

After it sinks in that they are more likely to be in a conference room working out contracts with other attorneys rather than gadding about town with celebrities, many attorneys change their minds and the direction of their careers.

� Think about the kind of moves that will advance you closer to your dream job.

This is an essential step, especially if you are trying to break into a field that has limited opportunities, such as sports or entertainment law. If you are not fortunate enough to find a position in that area right away, look for a position in which you can develop transferable skills, such as drafting and negotiating contracts. Another way to gain background and experience is through attending continuing legal education programs, participating in conferences and engaging in volunteer work.

As you acquire related skills and knowledge, be sure to include them on your resume so that they stand out. For example, I encountered an attorney who was interested in elder law and was working in a government position in an unrelated field. To make her transition, she obtained elder law training that was offered by a bar association, represented a few clients on a pro bono basis, and networked with the attorneys who were conducting the training sessions. After approximately a year, she secured a position as an entry-level elder law attorney. She was aware that she was starting over and took a significant pay cut to achieve her goal.

� Be prepared to pay your dues on your way to your dream job.

Generally, the further afield from the practice of law, the higher the cost. You may very well have to start at the bottom, just like the elder law attorney.

This is not the time to stand on your law degree or your expertise in your field and demand special treatment such as more money, deluxe office space, or your own support staff. You are not the star. You are just as much a beginner as anyone else who is on this career path.

Some years ago, I met an attorney who was very interested in working in television in a non-legal capacity and had been offered an entry-level position with an entry-level salary. He had no prior experience in the field. Yet he turned down this offer that would have allowed him to break into a field that is so difficult to enter. Why?

He was outraged because the position was too junior and the salary was too low; he felt that he deserved more than anyone else starting out, even though his research had indicated that he would have to begin at this level. Unlike the elder law attorney, he did not consider where the position would ultimately lead; he was not willing to pay the dues necessary to taking that first step along a zigzag career path.

� Networking is crucial.

Networking is essential when you are making a transition. You may very well discover other attorneys who have gone through the same process of change. Listening to their stories can help you find your way. They can suggest ways you can apply your background and experience and avenues you can pursue to gain credentials directly related to your desired career. As always, they can also provide you with valuable additional contacts in the field.

A striking example of the power of networking is the situation of a recent law school graduate who pursued other interests for a year before embarking on a career in entertainment law. While she was in law school, she had gained experience in that area. After her one-year hiatus, she began networking in earnest, reconnecting with contacts she had previously made and building on them. She established a vast network that led her to a position in entertainment law.

There are many examples of attorneys who have successfully moved into new careers. Some of them are quite well-known, such as David E. Kelley, producer, writer and creator of “Ally McBeal” and “The Practice,” and John Grisham, author of “The Firm,” “The Client” and other best-selling novels. Sometimes, they have made the transition purposefully, and at other times, through a series of fortuitous circumstances. Some have succeeded with ease, and others by overcoming significant obstacles. In “Alternative Careers for Lawyers,” Hillary Mantis includes the profiles of a number of attorneys who have changed careers.

Changing careers is one of life’s greatest challenges. Prepare yourself for its ups and downs. Be ready to adjust your course as you go through the process and choose your moves wisely. Look at each zig and zag as a step that brings you closer to your goal.

New to the firm, fresh out of law school, and alone in his office finishing work late one night, a young associate at a large firm received a phone call from his supervising partner, who had just gotten finished reviewing his billable hours for the month.

“He said, ‘This is just unsustainable. If this continues I’m going to have to intervene,’ ” recalled Joshua Levenberg, an associate at San Francisco’s Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe. “That was really heartening.”

Levenberg describes an act of mentoring that’s hard to institutionalize. But in the age of furious associate job-hopping and correspondingly high associate attrition rates, law firms are beginning to pay careful heed to the timeless notion of mentorship.

Determined not to leave such important matters strictly up to chance, firms across the country are innovating their mentoring programs. They’re doing their best to institutionalize structures they hope will facilitate the relationships that have heretofore been left to chemistry.

Nearly all of the major San Francisco Bay Area firms have some sort of mentoring program in place, though each appears to be exploring ways of retooling them.

Some firms have devised elaborate step systems for moving associates through a succession of mentors. And some have implemented bureaucracies so they can monitor the progress of mentoring programs. Still others have balked at institutionalized measures, instead pairing new associates with more senior ones in an effort to help them get oriented, and “encouraging” lawyers to forge mentorship relationships as a way to nurture associate career development.

Still, it’s clear that the firms are not simply shooting in the dark. Jennifer Foster, director of associate development at New York’s Debevoise & Plimpton and the director of the Professional Development Consortium, has done extensive research on mentoring, and says it has a crucial impact on helping associates bond with the firm.

This is becoming obvious to the large, national firms in her consortium, she said, and agendas in recent years have been peppered with sessions on implementing effective mentoring programs.

A LOWER RATE OF ATTRITION

The trend of increased emphasis on mentoring is still new, and it’s premature to tell how effective it’s been. Data on associate programs and attrition rates is only available dating back to 1997, when lay opinion had it that associate attrition was at an all-time high.

The current year’s data from the National Association for Law Placement shows that firms with mentoring programs enjoy a slightly lower rate of attrition: 38.1 percent attrition for third-year associates, as compared to 38.8 percent at firms without programs. The most recent NALP study also showed 38.3 percent of associates leaving their firms after the third year and 59.6 percent leaving after the fifth year, down since 1997 from 43 percent and 64.6 percent respectively.

In the San Francisco Bay Area, a handful of the major firms are radically innovating their mentoring programs. During the peak of associate attrition — 1998, by most estimates � San Francisco-based Morrison & Foerster surveyed its associates and concluded that they desired more mentorship.

This fall, the firm rolled out a pilot mentoring program that shifted its focus from firm integration to professional development, and lays out loose guidelines and minimum expectations governing the frequency of mentoring contact and the gamut of professional experiences the associates will be exposed to. The firm’s attorney recruiting manager checks in with the pairs monthly.

Heller Ehrman’s program appears to be the most innovative, as the firm has charged the human resources department with enforcing a series of rules made to ensure that associates receive a baseline standard of assistance from their mentors. The program mandates the “counseling” of associates by partners, but with the hope that deeper “mentoring” relationships will arise from the structured mandates.

Heller Ehrman HR director David Sanders got the idea for the program after a convention of law firm training professionals he attended several years ago left him with the feeling that mentoring programs — including his — were nothing more than trite titles with little effect behind their efforts. And worse, he recalls concluding, the programs ran the risk of breeding cynicism among associates.

“It makes associates think that something good was going to happen: that you’re going to have a counselor, and the counselor’s going to take care of you and give you advice. And then nothing ever happens!” Sanders said. “The problem is that the counselors don’t really know what they’re supposed to do, the counselees don’t really know what’s supposed to happen, no one in management is tracking what’s happening … so nothing happens!”

So Sanders came back and started the Results-Based Counseling Program, which requires the associates and their partner mentors to agree to three achievable goals at the beginning of each six-month mentoring session.

The goals are to be submitted to the HR department, which then follows up over the course of the session and requires that the pair fill out a form at the end outlining to what extent the goals were met.

“Left to your own devices, I think it would be difficult as a new associate to come up with a few things you want to get done, and to come up with your own internal timeline,” said third-year associate Robb Adkins, who in his first session chose to focus on deposition skills, brief-writing and oral argument, all three of which he was ultimately able to spend time working on.

So far, the program has been through three six-month sessions. The completion rate of goals has been between 67 and 70 percent, a result Heller Ehrman chairman Barry Levin said he’s pleased with. And Heller Ehrman has been able to bring its attrition rate down to 18 percent, from a 1996 and 1997 all-time high of 31 percent, a drop both Levin and Sanders are not ready to attribute solely to the new mentoring program.

Another trend Foster has noted nationally is a break from the traditional model of matching a new associate up with a seasoned partner. “The new perspective on mentoring that’s coming out is that a young person in whatever field needs a variety of mentors,” Foster said.

ASSOCIATES AS MENTORS

In a model that is taking hold at firms such as San Francisco firms Pillsbury Madison & Sutro, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, Thelen Reid & Priest and Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, junior associates are being matched up with more senior associates to get them through the initial acculturation process. Then they’re “graduating” to having partners mentor them, once they have mastered the law firm fundamentals and are more ready to scrutinize the direction of their professional development.

At Brobeck, the newly implemented mentoring program brings associates through three stages of mentorship, each with its own campy name: The “guide” stage, where brand-spanking-new associates are paired with associates only slightly more their senior; the “coach” stage, where the more senior associate mentor begins to dispense advice on work assignments and career decisions; and the “advocate” stage, where a non-supervising partner is eventually brought in to begin opening doors professionally and within the firm.

“Partners can be sort of godlike at the beginning; also, they may not have the time to devote,” said Brobeck firmwide training manager Sue Trigg, who said new associates need more of a peer in their initial months at the firm.

Still, while nearly all major San Francisco Bay Area firms are formalizing or innovating their mentoring programs, some remain convinced that only a minimum amount of structure should be institutionalized.

“If we start asking for a written report every three months saying exactly what they’ve done, then that can be off-putting to people,” said Christopher Latham, a senior counsel in Pillsbury’s San Diego office. Latham said he wondered whether forms like those being used by Heller Ehrman might feel intrusive to the lawyers involved.

San Francisco’s Farella Braun & Martel has only paired associates up with other “associate buddies,” and has left professional development guidance up to the supervising partners. An experiment in having the supervising partners and their associates draw up a personal plan for goal-setting was scrapped quickly after its implementation two years ago, when it became clear that lawyers didn’t appreciate having more paperwork to fill out.

“We started a few years ago with some pretty lofty goals, and we’ve found that we need to move a little more slowly,” said Farella’s professional development director Mark Peterson. “Developing mentoring relationships is not something you can legislate, and what we try to do is create mentoring opportunities.”

At Thelen, the current mentoring program links new associates up with more senior associates, and with supervising partners within their work groups only. “We provide a lot of guidance in general terms, but we’ve resisted reducing things down to a checklist, because we feel the role is very elastic, and the relationships very individual,” said Thelen partner Walter Brown Jr., who does associate development work for the firm.

Still, only time — and more research — will tell whether intricate mentoring programs really influence associate morale levels. But even at firms with the most structured of programs, partners are still mindful that chance and chemistry will trump all other factors and give way to the most rewarding relationships.

David Brownstein, Heller Ehrman’s San Francisco managing partner, said he knows full well that his firm’s program will never rise to the level of importance that natural mentoring relationships hold. And that’s the reason that Heller’s program uses the term “counselor” instead of “mentor.”

“In other words, we try not to let the perfect get in the way of the good,” he said. “We really hope that mentoring relationships grow out of some of these counselor-counselee programs.”