Thursday, May 24, 2007

How To Land A Document Review Position

While it is often quite difficult to screw up an agency/law firm screening interview (typically, many jobs are just seeking out those with a license and a pulse), here are some answers that will guarantee you that coveted doc. review position:

Q. What makes you want to undertake document review work?

A. I have alot of student loan debt that I need to pay off.

Q. Are you interested in long-term or short-term work?

A. I'll take anything.

Q. Do you have any future ambitions? Do you plan on looking for permanent work?

A. No, I am too fixated on my student loan debt to worry about the future.

Q. Do you have any outside interests or any other professional undertakings?

A. No, I have too much debt to concern myself with any of that.

Q. (A favorite of Update Legal): The client is very flexible (an obvious lie) and would just like to know for scheduling purposes if you plan on taking any days off in the coming months?

A. No, I have nothing going on in my life in the next six months.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In other news, Cardozo and Fordham jacked their tuitions up over the $40,000 mark for the first time today.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

This blog has largely focused on a range of factors which reflect on the humane and professional treatment of legal professionals or a lack thereof. A case can and should be made that sound business and human resource practices do effect the bottom line as well as the quality and quantity of work produced. Agencies and law firms that recognize the importance of how they treat interim staffers and the ergonomics of the work place will find that it impacts not just their short term profitability but also perhaps the ultimate success of their case and the relative satisfaction of their clients. Sadly, most have interpreted this as requiring a need to monitor and control with gestapo like efficiency (poor work enviornment, greater and greater spread for the agency without regard to the actual hourly rate to lawyers) That is very shortsighted. Further debasing and dehumanizing professionals who already recognize their second class citizenship does not in any way move the ball forward or advance the interests of their clients. Law firms will not get this advice from agencies. Anything which is a "cost" or takes from their cut is viewed as a negative. Law firms would be well advised to also consider the "ergonomics" of their contract attorney work space and whether it enhances production the production of their interim staff.

THE NOTORIOUS UPDATE LEGAL BLACK LIST is very real and my premise is that it ultimately is disservice to the legal profession, individual lawyers who are unfairly discriminated against for consideration of employment as well as law firms and their clients. How you ask? The Blacklist "spin" is that agencies use it as a "quality control" or "QC" technique to weed out undesireable candidates who less than stellar workers. Nothing could be further from the truth. In point of fact, Update Legal staffers, most of whom are not lawyers, paralegals and not only have never worked in the law firm enviornment but many lack actual workplace, human resource and real life professional experience. Yet these very same people often make wrong or discriminatory decisions about qualified people. Many are young sales girls who see your overtime as their next pair of shoes and will sooner try to staff that guy who always finds a way to get 14 hours of work out of 9 hours than the professional who is a tad more ethical. Firms like Update Legal reward mediocrity by assigning greater value to those who do not rock the boat, bill the most hours (regardless of whether the work justifies it) and never leave a project for a better opportunity.

ISSUE: How does the Update Legal Black List or lists of such kind impact a law firm's and their client's bottom line?

ANSWER: Many agencies seek exclusives or semi-exclusives to staff a project. The problem is granting an agency that has a questionable means of blacklisting qualified and desireable candidates means that said law firm will never see the resumes of many people who might be of greater assistance to that law firm than those presented. What they are getting is the people whom that agency has most control over. While many think of doc review as a skill-less exercise, it is usually the first layer of review of evidence in a case. Hence, hence the eyes reviewing your client's evidence might be relevant. I would not have believed it if I would not have seen and experienced first hand how Update drones are regularly staffed while highly qualified people remain on the sidelines.

SOLUTION: Law firms should require agencies to sign an agreement that their screening and qualification criteria does not discriminate unfairly against candidates based upon highly subjective and personal criteria (reminder: screening is often by a 24 year old sales girl). Law firms should eliminate exclusives and semi-exclusives and look into whether those making decisions about what agencies to use or not use are not receiving kick backs, payments and/or and gifts from Update Legal, Lexolution etc. Law firms should instead staff their projects on a rotation basis with several agencies so that they will see a more diverse and more qualified applicant pool. And lastly, they should consider seriously the ergonomics of the work space for interim staff and whether it enhances the success of their overall effort.

ttt said...

OP: Thank you for the e-mail. I was planning on posting it in the coming days.
ttt

Anonymous said...

This proves that certain agencies are just looking for people that are desperate and willing to bill as many hours as possible.

No wonder there are so many psychos on this project.

Anonymous said...

Seriously, I drink everyday. I have so much student loan debt, and my job makes me sick. Hopefully, Sallie Mae can go screw herself when my liver blows out in 10 years.

Anonymous said...

Q: Now we know you sent us your resume and are going through a conflicts check... I know we originally said the project will start on Tuesday, but it's been pushed back a week. So can we still put you down as available?

A: Yes; absolutely.

Then take another project if it comes up.

Anonymous said...

Q: I have my head so far up my arse, I can see the french crueller I had from the coffee cart this morning. Any tips?

A: How was the coffee?

Anonymous said...

Q: Do you like my french manicure?

A: Almost as much as the french crueller.

Anonymous said...

Q. Do you like my new Prada shoes?

A. They are lovely.

Anonymous said...

LAW FIRM ADMINISTRATORS--LISTEN UP, READ THE POST ABOVE. Diversify from whom you source resumes for your projects and interim staffing needs. Exclusives and Semi-exclusives do not show you the current crop of available talent. Instead, it allows Update & Lexolution, two of the least ethical and humane agencies to regularly staff projects at your firms with people who have greater loyalty to them and are playing the game to rape you and your clients. Eliminate exclusives and require the agencies to pick their best people and you will actually get access to the entire labor pool and not just whom a couple of agencies want to dump off and to BILK you and your clients. Clean up the cesspool in legal staffing. Many people have had to chase down the likes of Scott Krowitz for money and have been threatened by EP Dine for having their pay witheld for work performed. You are on notice. Your independent contractors are corrupt and regularly violating the labor and employment laws.

Anonymous said...

Q: I am the only male recruiter working here. Does that mean I'm gay?

A: There's nothing wrong with being gay.

Anonymous said...

Lexolution is scum. E.P. Dine, Lexolution, and Update are all on the same level, in my opinion. My issues with Lexolution:

A) Hours were, on more than one occasion, missing from my paycheck. I subsequently found out from others that I wasn't alone.

B) On one project, I found out that they were secretly paying my co-worker $2 more per hour for the same work.

C) They were bribing my supervisor with expensive spa tickets.

D) They jerked me around for two weeks about an upcoming project that they were deliberately overstaffing.

The people that own that place are the worst. That Nora lady is a fat, ugly, nasty hag who has no social skills and whose only claim to fame is that her daddy is/was a partner at Hogan. Scott Krowtiz (sp?) is a slippery, shady miser who will screw you over for a nickel. One of the recruiters they recently hired is a fat, nasty blowhard.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Q. Do you like the Botox I just got, paid for by the money I stole out of your last paycheck?

A. Of, Course.

Anonymous said...

I'm surprised no one has commented on the tuition hikes.

Is there a weblink to the tuition increase? Cardozo's site still says $39,100 base tuition. Which is a complete rip-off anyways.

Anonymous said...

Good Top Post. Repeat as needed.