Round-Up: Am Law 100 Job Listings

For my observations on this list and hiring at Am Law 100 firms, please refer to this post:  Firms Take Recruiting In-House and Other Am Law Job Observations.

Key: New jobs highlighted in green. If a firm removed any job(s), the firm’s name is highlighted in red.

— read. like. support. —

[ad#PostTech]

Round Up: Am Law 100 Job Listings, Backstory and Future

I’m glad so many people like the Am Law jobs round-up. I figured I owed you a long-overdue explanation about the column – why I decided to create it and where it is moving. So, stick with me and you’ll find the latest round-up at the end of the post.1

Long, long ago, when I was a job seeker, I longed for a service that compiled all the job postings in one place. Why did I have to visit Martindale, Lawjobs, Monster, Emplawyernet, PSLawNet, Craigslist, Vault, and firm websites to find jobs? No wonder they recommend to take your job search as seriously as a full-time job.

Recruiting firms have it a little easier if they subscribed to any of the products offered by Leopard Solutions, which are nothing short of amazing. (May I add that Laura Leopard is a genius?) For example, Leopard Jobs compiles a database of open jobs at over 460 firms and 80 Fortune 500 companies daily. No, wait, twice per day. Plus, they’re easily searchable by geography or practice area. Couple that with the Leopard Lists, which publishes information on every firm’s attorneys (e.g., name, e-mail, graduation year, law school, undergrad, practice area, specialty, & clients) and, you’ve got a winning solution to match openings with viable candidates.

The only problem? Well, the Leopard List is pretty pricey. To have access to the job listings in the North East only, it costs $1,250/year. For recruiting firms who compete on inside hiring knowledge, the product’s well worth the price.

But what about the everyday consumer? The qualified candidate who wants to apply on their own without a recruiter?2 Or, what about the recruiters who can’t afford the Leopard List?

With the utmost respect for Leopard Solutions, I figured I could come up with a reasonably priced alternative that would cater to the general public. And that was the beginning of the Am Law Job Listings column.

Since November, I’ve published this column for free. Those who subscribe to my newsletter gain access to the column a few days before I post it for everyone else. However, the plan is to move this column over to a members-only section of my site, as I mentioned yesterday.

Anyone who subscribes to my newsletter already and/or who subscribes to my newsletter before I implement the members-only section will have free access to the site forever. Otherwise, the cost to subscribe will be $8.00/month. My goal is to use the money that I earn from the subscriptions to update the listings more often – either by myself or hiring someone to help. (I also take donations or gifts!)

I hope you agree that this is a useful service and its just one of the many perks to which members will have access.

Now, back to the present. Here is the latest round-up of Am Law 100 job listings. I’ve switched to publishing with Zoho Reports rather than Google Documents.3 I think it’s easier for searching and sorting but let me know if you have any feedback.

1 Yes, this is the same round-up that was password protected when published last week. This was a way to show my appreciation for subscribing. Unfortunately, this past time, a few of the subscribers had trouble accessing the password-protected post. I had already started to think that I may need to change how I distribute the listings and this incident sort of sped up the process.

2 Note: If a job seeker signs up to search the Leopard List job board or to receive e-mail job alerts, they see mostly jobs posted by recruiting companies. They do not have access to the database of jobs posted by those 460+ firms and 80+ Fortune 500 companies.

3 Ironically, I saw how nicely professionally Law Shucks tracks layoffs and I got inspired. Hat tip to them!

[Jobs] Round-Up of Am Law 100 Lateral Positions

Since the last round-up, there are 29 new jobs posted! These include a few coveted “alternative” arrangements such as an hourly position at Hunton & Williams in Austin and a practice support attorney opening at Reed Smith’s offices in Pittsburgh.

My guess for 2010? You’ll see a lot more of these positions. They are smart for firms, smart for clients, and smart for employees.

Note: To keep track of the changes, I’ve highlighted the new positions in green (money, baby, money!). If a firm removed one (1) position or more, I’ve highlighted the name of the firm in red.

Still looking for feedback. Also, still considering whether to make these updates solely available for newsletter subscribers (hey, it’s a lot of work! plus, my newsletters are fun and informative!). Thoughts in the comments, please!

If you’d like to sort by city or practice area, you may view it as a Google document. Under view, change the preference to list view.

This series features job posts from around the web.

RecruiterEsq posts directly to the link where the job was found. In addition, RecruiterEsq posts pertinent information here for readers to assess interest.

Please do not apply to jobs directly through RecruiterEsq.

Please e-mail melissa@recruiteresq.com if you would like to post a relevant job in the legal industry and/or would like a job that is posted here to be removed. Thank you.

[ad#PostMisc]

[Jobs] Round-up of AMLAW Lateral Positions

Folks, this is something special that I’ve been working on for the past week.

Ongoing Project: AMLAW Tweeple

Last updated: February 1, 2010
Updated version is color coordinated by role in the firm. See below for key. Will publish the full version for members-only. Lists role (partner, associate, counsel, etc.) and practice area for attorneys.

twitter_bird_01

BigLaw Tech Score: First Reactions and Goals for Improvement for 2010

When I compiled the list of top global law firms, I had to guestimate which firms would make the list. With a number of firm closings this past year, I knew a few of the AMLAW 200 firms would need to rise to the occasion.

Some of my guestimates turned out to be incorrect. So is life.

For the first 25 firms (alphabetical), two firms that I bet on lost: Bracewell & Giuliani (Texas oil!) and Cahill Gordon. I should have bet on Boies Schiller (litigation) and Blank Rome (full service, Philadelphia! firm), as they both made the AMLAW 100 list.

Therefore, the list of the first 25 BigLaw Tech Scores (in alphabetical order) includes Bracewell and Cahill and skips over Boies Schiller and Blank Rome.¹

I’ll include Boies Schiller and Blank Rome next time in my effort to be complete. Therefore, the next list will be comprised of 27 firms.

Observations:

It is obvious that law firms are reticent when it comes to embracing new technology. Thus far, however, the BigLaw Tech Scores serve as a vote of confidence for the law firms – who no doubt assessed the risks and benefits – and, ultimately, decided to take the leap to develop their presence on the web.

The firms with the highest BigLaw Tech Scores – Alston & Bird (19 points), Crowell & Moring (18 points), Cooley Godward (15 points), and Bryan Cave (15 points) – all jumped up in rank in 2009 and realized an increase in revenue.

The firms with the lowest BigLaw Tech Scores – Baker Hostetler (6 points), Bingham McCutchen (6 points), Cadwalader (6 points), and Cravath (6 points) – all jumped down in rank in 2009 but the firms split as to how their revenues changed. The two B firms realized an increase in revenue whereas the two C firms saw a decrease in revenue.

Coincidence?

Perhaps.

Obviously, there are a lot of factors that can change the AMLAW rankings, even assuming some of the players from last year were still around.

For example, each firm’s practice areas and specialties may explain the differences in rank, change in rank, or change in revenue. Maybe each of the firms that rose in rank on the AMLAW chart – those that simultaneously scored the highest on the BigLaw Tech Scores – focused on bankruptcy or securities litigation or practice areas that remained busy throughout the financial crisis. On the other hand, perhaps, each of the firms that decreased in rank on the AMLAW list – those that simultaneously scored the lowest on the BigLaw Tech Scores – specialized in capital markets or mergers and acquisitions or real estate. In other words, the practice areas that got hit the hardest.

Therefore, I decided that it would be prudent if I also considered the specialty areas at each of the top ranking BigLaw Tech Scores as well as at each of the bottom ranking BigLaw Tech Scores.


Here are the profiles from each of the firms U.S.A. Chambers & Partners rankings:

Alston (BigLaw Tech Score = 19)

Baker & Hostetler (BigLaw Tech Score = 6)

Bingham McCutchen (BigLaw Tech Score = 6)

Bryan Cave (BigLaw Tech Score = 15)

Cadwalader (BigLaw Tech Score = 6)

Cooley Godward (BigLaw Tech Score = 15)

Cravath (BigLaw Tech Score = 6)

Crowell (BigLaw Tech Score = 18)

Interestingly, out of the lowest ranking tech scores, Cravath seems to be the only one heavily weighted towards the financial services industry.

While there are discrepancies, there are also a lot of similarities. The high BigLaw Tech Scores do not stand out as “experts” in highly lucrative fields compared to the low BigLaw Tech Scores. The firms seem pretty even.

(Of course, with the caveat, that the types of clients these firms represent may vary.)

To reiterate, the BigLaw Tech Scores compared to the AMLAW rankings may be coincidental, especially because this was a very small sample. Once I go through all 100 firms, the evidence to support this claim may or may not be stronger. Again, I realize, there are a lot of factors that may change a firm’s profit and/or their rank on the AMLAW list.

Nevertheless, law firms need to revitalize their business structure and embracing technology – though scary (!) (for everyone!!) – is a cost-efficient method to improving client services and internal morale.

So, without further ado…

My wish list for BigLaw Tech Scores 2010:

  • Attorney cell phone numbers listed on firm profiles

Think this is outlandish? Many attorneys include their cell phone numbers on their “in case of emergency” out-of-office replies. That is, of course, if their firm even allows out-of-office replies.

Many sales trainers advise sales people to give out their cell phone numbers (and recruiting trainers). Meanwhile, clients tend to respect personal lives as much as they appreciate convenience.

Free. Video. Conferencing. Look tech-savvy and service oriented at the same time. (For firms who do this already, consider entering this competition – deadline June 15, 2009).

Based on what I’ve seen so far, I’d be surprised if law firm web designers have ever heard of those concepts.

  • Shortcuts to LinkedIn profiles (law firms or individual attorneys)

Wouldn’t it be that much easier for colleagues, clients, or potential clients to connect with a firm or an attorney if the LinkedIn profile was listed on the firm’s website?

  • Firm and/or individual Twitter accounts
  • Blogs

Rule of thumb: if the first 5 hits on Google highlight recent layoffs, attorney suicides, or pending lawsuits – it’s time to get involved in the conversation.

  • A consistent look-and-feel across blogs including their URLs²

This is about branding and presentation. A global law firm should look like a cohesive, organized entity. This takes planning, a little bit of foresight, and a helpful IT department to clear up any confusion.

(See also : user experience design and human factors.)

  • Podcasts

I’ve never been in the A/V club. I was a cheerleader and I rowed.

Earlier this year, I went out and bought this microphone to make my YouTube video for my first webinar.

PC users can create podcasts with Audacity (open source) and Mac users can use GarageBand . After the file is created, a firm can host it on its servers. Once there is a permanent URL or RSS feed, the podcast can be submitted to iTunes.

Law firms have plenty of content too. They simply need to find the person with the best radio voice to read all of those client alerts or firm newsletters.

Domain? Check. Host/server? Check. Design and layout? Check. Check.

(See : firm’s home page; see also : uniform web pages).

Cost? Free.

(What can I say? After using Blogger, WordPress, and Joomla, I’m a WordPress junkie.)

And, a report placed on every attorney’s desk so he or she knows who visits the website, how they found the website (i.e. what search words did they use), whether they are a new visitor or a loyal visitor, how many minutes they spent on the site….

(Note: Attorneys should be able to decipher the analytics report to assess their current marketing strategy.)

Google and other analytics solutions encourage users to optimize solutions with supplementary data.

  • Feedburner for RSS feeds

Once a user decides to subscribe to a site’s feed, they continue to receive the content but they no longer need to visit a website. Without clicking on the site, their visits and behaviors will not be picked up by services like Google analytics.

Nevertheless, these subscribers – arguably the site’s most loyal readers – are important in terms of analyzing trends and marketing goals. This is why services like Feedburner are beneficial.

  • Personalized domains for WordPress.com, blogger, or typepad

Again, this is a branding issue that some may find nit-picky or silly. Using a blogging platform is one solution to maintaining a blog. These solutions make blogging accessible to people who do not know computer languages such as HTML or CSS . Nevertheless, a blogging platform – used as a hosting site – and a website domain are two separate entities.

If a lawyer is blogging professionally, whether independently or on behalf of his or her firm, it seems like a sensible purchase to splurge on a professional URL at $22.50 per year, $9.99 per year, or $9.99 per year. True, those are affiliate links to sites that offer domains (read! like! support!). However, the advice still stands (and, feel free to research domain services on your own!). Think of it as the modern day equivalent of printing your résumé on good quality paper.

Ok, Ok. These are long term goals. I know not all of them will work and not all of them will be implemented by next year. But, these are simply suggestions to keep law firms moving forward.

I have to say thank you to the first 25 firms that I research. In this type of scrutiny, the first group always has it the hardest (especially if the group – the first large law firms in alphabetical order – has no idea they are being scrutinized).

I’m excited to see how the next firms compare!

¹ My incorrect assumption about Bracewell & Giuliani pains me because the firm came out on top with a BigLaw Tech Score of 22 points. (On the other hand, their high tech score and failure to jump up to the AMLAW 100 list sort of ruins my analysis below.)

For similar but opposite reasons, I hate to leave out Cahill because it was one of the lowest scoring firms with a BigLaw Tech Score of 6 points and, well, it didn’t rise to the occasion.

² It also pains me to criticize firms for their inconsistent URLs when they are way ahead of the curve in terms of embracing technology.