New York Lawyer
July 2, 2002

Q:
What can lawyers with wanderlust who want to switch cities (or continents) expect on the job hunt?

Submit Your Question

Find More Answers

A:
A number of inquiries of late have touched on transferability of legal training and experience to different countries -- from both foreign-schooled lawyers curious about their changes in the US legal market and US-trained lawyers interested in practicing abroad. Others asked aboutg moving to New York from elsewhere in the US or vice-versa.

A grad from a top-tier US school wants to know "if there's a way for me to practice in England."

A licensed advocate in Israel (with Israeli citizenship and legal education) wants to know if he/she meets the requirements for the New York or California bar exam.

An associate at a large New York firm who "is thinking of joining a law firm in Atlanta."

A lawyer who has been practicing in DC is considering a move to the Big Apple.

Each of these queries touches on two distinctly-different issues: 1) the technical requirements for admission and practice in a given country or jurisdiction; and 2) one's marketability as an "unconventional product."

I cannot and will not purport to be an expert on standards for eligibility and admission for various bars and jurisdictions worldwide -- there's too many of 'em, and, former lawyer that I am, I do not want to risk the potential liability for someone's detrimental reliance on technical advice that proves incorrect.

In each case, however, such information is comparatively easy to obtain: call, write or e-mail the licensing body(ies) in question and obtain horse's mouth information about requirements, prerequisites, reciprocity, etc. Prior articles about an English-trained attorney trying to gain admission in the US demonstrated that it as a crucial first planning step it is essential to get a full and complete understanding of eligibility criteria. This is a research assignment, just like in law school. Just do it.

Marketability is a different issue -- one I can address, at least generically. In the world of legal employment, as elsewhere, everything has happened at least once. Camels have won appointment as appellate judges. Zebras have found ready acceptance among the giraffes. Corporations have hired convicted felons to manage their litigation. Vermonters have spoken more than six syllables to carpetbaggers from The City. Almost any move is possible; the practical question is how likely the move is: what factors will most support or impact the employability of a transplanted lawyer?

As far as law firm employment goes, law is a conventional, highly-structured, closely-regulated way of making a living. As a rule, it does not embrace the unconventional -- in background, age, geographical origin, practice discipline, whatever. Law wants people to keep on doing what they've been doing, and any change or anomaly puts one at some disadvantage to marketplace competitors with more conventional credentials and backgrounds.

It follows that the bigger the disparity between your point of origin and your career destination, the lower the probability that an employer is going to take the risk of "seeing if you can get up to speed in our [firm][city][bar][part of the country][practice area]."

Even a relatively less dramatic shift -- let's say from toxic tort litigator in New York to toxic tort litigator in Atlanta -- puts one at something of a disadvantage vis a vis local talent. Your law shool/education may get you full faith and credit. Ditto your tenure with a New York firm that presumably does not hire complete turkeys off the street.

But there's always the issue of local admission (and perhaps the requirement to take or retake the bar exam). There's that funny way you talk. There's your lack of familiarity with the local court system and its regional protocols. There's the question of why you want to move South. There's the question of how long you intend to stay, or whether you really will learn to enjoy grits with red sauce.

A move like this is doable, but be prepared to defend your reasons for moving and to demonstrate the almost instant and total transferability of your "deliverables:" your expertise and experience. A move by an auslander to New York is probably no easier. Even when it's not a tough market nationally (as now), New York is a tough market locally. Culture, savvy, knowin' the ropes, knowing what to order at Zabar's -- all these factors impact marketability to some degree.

And, by the way, the older and more experienced you are, the more weighty these factors become. Young folks are generally seen as more malleable and therefore more fungible. And cheaper, too.

It pains me to say that I think aspirants from other lands face a stronger uphill battle. They may be regarded as "interesting," and they generally get credit for strong personal motivation. But even if they present absolutely no language issues, they are regarded as presenting a steeper learning curve in their assimilation -- to this firm, this bar, this country. Hiring committees do not automatically embrace them.

Unless, of course, the candidate possesses some esoteric knowledge set that would translate promptly into a unique class of billable hours (Sub-Saharan Administrative Law, for example) or a leverage-point for some new multinational practice area (or attraction to a particular client). This is happening more and more as the world of business gets more global and the practice of [large firm] law gets increasingly specialized.

The more exotic one's background or education, the more succinctly one must be able to articulate one's "value proposition." That is, firms (and corporations too, for that matter) are more interested in what they want than in what you want. You must be able to demonstrate the economic value you can add (ASAP, please); the statement "I really want to work in the US" does not make one marketable. For any transplant, the "conventional job market," ads and recruiters, are unlikely to be very effective unless you have a high-demand legal skill. Lobbing your unconventional resume atop a pile of scores of uncontroversial candidates is likely to get you screened out -- perhaps before you are given a "serious look." Screening someone out represents almost no risk -- and once your resume is discarded, you have no avenue of appeal (or even a way of knowing what really happened).

Yes, some legal recruiting firms do get search assignments for nationals from certain countries, possessed of certain skills. And yes, you can canvas such firms -- but it's a pretty time-consuming and often discouraging task.

You can try posting your "features, benefits and differentiators" in a "position sought" ad on the web or in the local legal newspaper -- but don't hold your breath. In the legal market, employers usually don't spend a lot of time reading reverse ads.

Ergo, in one regard conventional wisdom is absolutely correct: for any form of career shift or transplant, networking and informal contact development is your only effective self-marketing lever. You have to get seen face-to-face. This is the only way for you to become real, to become interesting or unique, to build the rapport that overcomes resistance to your offbeat credentials.

A networking campaign can be expensive and difficult for a foreign national (or for a US lawyer contemplating transplantation to Paris): basically, you have to go to your intended market and do all in your power to get face-time with as many people as possible. Letters of inquiry and mass mailings simply have proved ineffective. One solid approach is to plan a two or three-week trip to your desired market, the first week of which you fill with as many pre-scheduled networking meetings and cold calls as you can muster.

Hopefully, these initial meetings then generate enough further contacts and offers of introduction to fill up the succeeding weeks. Once someone (or firm, or company) has actually seen you, further levels of negotiation are possible later on by remote communication. But do not count on surviving an initial screening process without a personal contact or interview.

One truism about transplants emerges over and again: perseverance is essential. It is harder. It may take longer. It may not seem fair and egalitarian. The people who make successful shifts usually do it by grinding it out. Friends can help open doors. A speech or presentation can get you some market visibility. A little luck can't hurt. But overall, selling yourself in a foreign market is often more a triumph of perspiration than inspiration.

Sincerely,
Douglas B. Richardson
President, The Richardson Group