One of the Most Important Decisions Attorneys Make When Searching for Positions Is Deciding Which Markets They Apply To

Instead of corporate M&A and general corporate, these law firms expect you to be experts in one form of M&A. For example, they may want you to be an expert in M&A as it applies to healthcare companies.  
 
Doing the job at these firms typically means you have experience at a firm doing very similar work. A law firm that is a “5” may rarely hire people from 4 firms but is more likely to hire from other 5 firms. Many 5 firms, such as Sullivan & Cromwell, Paul Weiss, Cravath, and others, rarely hire from “4” firms.
 
Most 5 firms are going to be in the largest markets. There are more 5 firms in New York City than anywhere else. There are also tons of 5 firms in the Bay Area and Los Angeles. For the most part, 5 firms are likely to be located in areas where there is a high concentration of attorneys with top credentials.
 
From a geographic aspect, most attorneys working in 5 firms will be best suited when they (1) try to get positions in firms in their existing market or (2) look at 5 firms in other markets. For example, an attorney at a 5 firm in New York could move to a 5 firm in Silicon Valley. Five attorneys can also move to smaller markets and 4 firms on those markets.
 
This is typically how the process works for 5 attorneys.
 
When a 5 attorney is laid off or is trying to find a new position, their first instinct is generally to try and get a position with another 5 firms in their existing market because 5 firms are difficult to move laterally to (they are like this because they prefer to hire from their summer associate programs so they can preserve their culture and not undermine their existing associates and have attorneys trained in their way of practicing law).  
 
Geographically, a five attorney that has exhausted the firms in their market that are 5s is most likely to get a position by moving to a 5 firm in a smaller market where there is less competition. For example, a 5 attorney in New York City that has exhausted this market will have an easier time in most cases moving to a 5 firm in a market like Houston, or Palo Alto, than getting a position in New York City. As this attorney gets more senior, they will be less marketable if they do not have a business. Therefore, the attorney will experience the most success looking at smaller markets.
 
It is challenging for most 5 attorneys that are relocating after getting several years of experience to other 5 firms. This is so even if they try to move to other large markets with 5 five firms. Therefore, the best option for these attorneys is often to try and find positions with 4 firms in their same or other markets. They can also try 3 firms. In fact, as attorneys start looking at smaller and smaller markets, the more likely they are to be able to get a lateral position if they are too senior, have too many moves, have a period of unemployment, and so forth. The smaller markets this attorney looks at, the better off they will be and the more positions they will likely get.
 
For example, if a 5 attorney works at a firm in Dallas and wishes to move to a 4 firm, they will likely start their search in Dallas. 
In terms of markets where they are likely to have more luck in their search and receive the most interviews, they are likely to get more interest in San Antonio, Ft. Worth, and possibly Austin. If they choose to go outside of Texas, they would likely have more interest in Cleveland than Chicago. For example, they would have more interest in Nashville than Detroit if they were trying to get positions in 4 firms.
 

Ranked 4 Law Firms 

A 4 firm is a firm that has an excellent reputation and is highly regarded. Most AmLaw 100 and AmLaw 200 law firms are 4 firms. Most boutiques comprised of top law school graduates representing large companies are 4 firms. Most 4 firms pay market salaries and are desirable places to work. These firms are not as difficult to get positions at as 5 firms, and the caliber of attorneys is likely to be a bit different, but these are the most desirable places to work. There are 4 firms in all sorts of markets. National law firms ranked 4 in markets all over the country. There are 4 firms in Detroit, Nashville, Sacramento, New Mexico, Idaho, and the suburbs outside major cities. 
These law firms open offices where 5 firms are not likely to do so. They are likely to have offices in most large markets and will have them in smaller markets as well.  
 
Most 4 firms are likely to be specialized in different practice areas. While the law firm may represent giant companies, these clients typically will pay more attention to bills than clients of a 5 firm. Also, they are less likely to be involved in “bet to company” matters than 5 firms. 
 
An attorney searching for a 4 firm can often get a position in their own market. However, if this attorney is not having a lot of success getting a position in their market, they can look at other markets if there are not enough positions in their practice area. With 4 law firms, many of the same rules apply to 5 firms. It will be easier for a 4 attorney to get a position in most smaller markets than in major markets. Major markets have more people competing for the same jobs and can afford to be more discriminating. A 4 attorney who chooses to move markets will have far more success than one who demands to be in larger markets.
 
When a 4 law firm has an office in a smaller market, it often does not receive many applications. The local applications it receives may not be as strong as the attorney’s qualifications in the firm. Therefore, getting a position at a 4 firm in a smaller market is easier than a larger one.
 
Another option for 4 candidates is to move to a 3 firm from a 4 firm. If an attorney has experience working in a 4 firm and is having difficulty getting another 4 firm to hire them, they can generally move to a 3 firms. This has been the pattern for generations of attorneys. During 
recession, for example, 4 attorneys may find they have more luck moving to 3 firms than staying in 4 firms. 
When an attorney at a 4 firm gets senior and finds that the market is not welcoming, they are more likely to be able to get a position with a 3 firm.  
 
Law firms with a 4s typically do not have much difficulty attracting interest and applications. The reason is that they pay high salaries, have well-respected names, and are considered desirable places to work. Because of all of this, especially in large markets., these law firms have an easier time attracting attorneys than lesser-ranked law firms. The high salaries and prestige give them an edge in attracting the best attorneys.
 
Law firms ranked a 4 in smaller markets often hire 4 attorneys from larger markets. There are opportunities in smaller markets because these do not receive as much interest. Essentially, if you are a 4 attorney in a large market, you compete with other 4 attorneys and 5 attorneys for the same jobs. Because there are more people in a large market, you will have a more difficult time getting firms interested.
 
There is an important point to also understand about moving laterally as an attorney. Large, sophisticated markets with a high density of attorneys can always firm the people they want. They can take out advertisements, hire recruiters and generally attract and get a good inflow of people matching their needs. Because of these factors, large law firms in large markets rarely take a chance to hire people when they do not have positions because they are always going to have attorneys interested in working there. In contrast, if a 4-ranked attorney wants to move to a smaller market, they can often apply to firms there, even if the firm does not have any openings. The reason is that 4 firms in smaller markets may not receive a lot of applicants from different types of attorneys in different practice areas. 
In fact, one of my placement “secrets” is taking attorneys from larger markets ranked a 4 (or 5) and marketing them to law firms with 4 rankings in smaller markets—regardless of whether or not the firm has an opening.  
 
Law firms ranked a 4 typically hire people from the best law schools. They also are likely to have very well-defined systems (as 5 firms do) for attorneys moving up and out. They may recruit summer associates at law schools and have summer programs. They are likely to ask people to leave who do not have a business when they get more senior. They are likely to hire lateral associates and partners (unlike 5 firms). 
 
Here are some examples.  
 
An attorney with securities law experience may have difficulty getting positions with 4 firms in New York. This same attorney could be quite marketable for firms without openings in Detroit, Cincinnati, update New York, Madison, or Miami to other 4-ranked firms without openings. If this same attorney were marketed to 4 firms without openings in New York, they would unlikely get a response.  
 
Because law firms ranked a 5 are so difficult to get into, a 4 attorney is unlikely to be able to get into these sorts of forms. Their best option is generally to work at a 4 law firm in a smaller market.
 

Ranked 3 Law Firms 

An attorney ranked a “3” has several options. Law firms ranked a “3” typically represent companies primarily but are more likely to represent the middle market and smaller companies. These law firms are likely to pay under-market. Sometimes the amount they pay under-market is a lot, sometimes not. Law firms ranked 3 in most of the top 100 US cities. The best law firm outside the 25 largest US legal markets will likely be 3s or 4s. For example., several 3-ranked firms in Syracuse, New York, are considered some of the top law firms in this market. Law firms ranked a 3 tend to do more day-to-day work for their clients. The work is more likely to have several aspects of a certain practice area represented by individual attorneys than just narrow aspects of the practice area.
 
An attorney at a three firm who practices corporate law may do M&A, securities, general corporate, and some finance. However, an attorney at 4 firms would be more likely to just do one form of finance (for example, project finance). Law firms ranked a 3 provide an interesting mix of opportunities for the candidates from these firms seeking positions.
 
One of the more interesting aspects of 3 attorneys is that they often have the opportunity to move to 4 firms when the economy is a certain way. For example, during strong legal markets where certain practice areas are in high demand (such as corporate), and large markets do not have enough attorneys, attorneys ranked a 3 in certain practice areas can often move to 4 firms. Law firms ranked a 4 often like hiring candidates ranked a 3 because they are likely to be hungry, and looking like they are moving up is attractive to law firms. A law firm ranked a 4 hiring a 3 attorney may believe that this attorney will work hard and not have the same sense of entitlement that a 3 attorney has.
 
In addition, attorneys that are ranked a 3 often have an easier time moving between law firms because their salaries (and what they expect to be paid) are not as high as 4 and 5 attorneys. Law firms that are 3s know that the 3-ranked attorney is unlikely to have serious issues with their level of compensation or the prestige of the 3 firms and is unlikely to leave.
 
Three attorneys often can find positions in their own market. They certainly can move markets as well. However, they are less likely to be as “rate” and appealing to law firms in other markets as 4 and 5 attorneys. Unlike 4 and 5 attorneys, they are many more 3-ranked attorneys in most markets. Because there are so many 3 attorneys, law firms often do not need to hire laterally from others in smaller to mid-sized markets because there are already enough 3 attorneys in the market.
 
Some of the biggest exceptions to the ability of 3 attorneys to lateral to other markets are found with 3 attorneys that have experience in rare or hard-to-find practice areas in other markets. While a practice area and its marketability will depend on market conditions, some of the most in-demand practice areas are typically transactional, such as patent prosecution, corporate, land use, real estate, etc. Everything is about the law of supply and demand. There are far fewer attorneys in many transactional practice areas than in litigation, insurance defense, criminal, and other practice areas.
 
The important point to understand about 3-ranked firms and candidates is that they are most likely to represent companies, not individuals. 
The client of the 3 firms is less likely to care about the credentials of the 3 attorneys than the 4 or 5 firms. Moreover, the up or out and other rules followed by 4 and 4 firms are less likely to be followed by 3 firms. Because they are less demanding, 3 firms are easier to get positions with.
 
Ranked 2 Law Firms

Law firms ranked a 2 are most likely to represent individuals and may also represent smaller companies. Because of the size of these law firms’ clients, the law firms are unlikely to be able to pay as much as 3-ranked firms. 
These law firms could be in all practice areas; however, they are most likely to do things like insurance defense and family law and work in other practice areas where the billing rates and the amount that can be billed to clients are less. Where the majority of 3,4, and 5 firms are likely to have in-house counsel, with the exception of insurance defense, most clients of 2 firms are unlikely to have in-house counsel.
 
When a 2-ranked attorney is seeking to move, they often will have the best luck moving within their own market. There tend to be many 2 firms in both large and small markets. Because these law firms pay lower salaries than 3, 4, and 5 firms, there is less demand and competition to work in them. 
A 2-ranked attorney seeking a position may not always receive as good of reception when trying to move markets as a 3-5 attorney would. This is because there tends to be an overabundance of 2 attorneys in most markets—but not always.
 
There are sometimes pockets of massive activity for 2 attorneys when they are seeking to relocate. Attorneys in practice areas like trust and estates and family law (both common practice areas done by 1 and 2 firms) are often quite marketable in other markets. I have seen attorneys in these two practice areas often experience great success when trying to move markets. In some cases, I have seen attorneys ranked a “2” experience phenomenal success when moving markets, getting ten or more interviews if their practice area is in high demand.
 
Ranked 1 Law Firms 

With respect to 1-ranked attorneys and firms, there tend to be more opportunities in the attorney’s current market than in other markets. A 1-ranked attorney typically is in a consumer-facing practice area. The clients of the 1-ranked firm have the least amount of money for their legal services. Whereas a 4-ranked firm could bill its clients $200,000 a month without the client batting an eye, a bill of $5000 might be too much for a client of a 1-ranked firm. Because the 1-ranked firms’ clients are unwilling to spend a lot of money on legal services, the training of the 1-ranked attorney is likely to focus more on getting stuff done as quickly as possible as opposed to being thorough. Therefore, the skills of the 1-ranked attorney are not the same as the 2, 3, 4, and 5-ranked attorneys. 
 
The educational, work, and other qualifications of the 1-ranked attorney are not likely to be as high as the 3-5 ranked attorney. There are far more `1 an2 ranked attorneys than 3 attorneys, fewer 4 attorneys than 3 attorneys, and fewer 5 attorneys than 4 attorneys. As you move to lower-ranking numbers, the case for a law firm in a smaller market hiring you because much less pronounced                                                                                                                        
 

2. Will You Do the Job Long Term?

When an attorney moves laterally, the law firm reviewing your resume and background will be concerned about whether or not you look like you will stick around. This is especially so for attorneys moving laterally. They want to make sure that the attorney is likely to stay if they are hired,
 
It is a well-known fact in my profession that attorneys that are relocating to a market where they grew up or where a spouse is from, for example, are far more likely to get hired in the market they have family and other related ties to than in the market they are currently working. One of the main reasons is that when you go to a market you are from, the law firms believe you will move there and stay. They also have fewer concerns about why you may be relocating to that market. They believe you are moving back to set up roots and are unlikely to move again.
 
In contrast, when trying to move to a firm in your existing market, the law firm asks a series of questions. The law firm starts wondering if you are moving because (1) you are not doing good work at your current firm, (2) you are not liked at your current firm, and similar questions. You also start looking like you are being a little disloyal to your current firm. If you leave your current firm to join a similar firm in the same market, law firms know you will likely move again. I see resumes on an ongoing basis of attorneys that seem to move firms in their existing markets like clockwork every year or two.
 
Law firms do not like hiring attorneys who are unlikely to stay for many reasons. One reason is that it creates issues for the law firm’s clients. Law firm clients do not like it when people working on their matters are constantly rotated in and out. Another reason is that when an attorney leaves as firm to go somewhere else, it can lower the other attorneys’ morale, who wonder if the attorney is leaving for greener pastures. Also, hiring new attorneys costs a lot of money and time. When the law firm seeks a new attorney, work may not get done, and the law firm is losing money.
 
When you are relocating from one area of the country to another or another market, even within your own start, the law firm wonders if you are going to stay there if hired. There are numerous markets in the United States where law firms know that the odds of you staying if hired are better than others. For example, an attorney relocating from Miami to Bakersfield, California, is unlikely to stay there without a connection to the area. Bakersfield is just not an area people are dying to get to. An attorney from Los Angeles is unlikely to stay at a firm in Birmingham, Alabama. Law firms in smaller markets, or markets off the beaten path, are smart enough to know that they need to hire people more likely to stay than those who will not.
 
If you are a lateral attorney trying to enter a different market, your case will be strongest if the law firm believes you will stay there if hired. Law firms can surmise you are more likely to stay if they have a position perfectly suited to you or they do a specific type of work in which you are an expert, and there are few jobs. For example, there are very few positions outside of Washington, DC, for attorneys with expertise with the FDA. If a law firm in San Diego has a very nice job doing this sort of work and an attorney from Washington, DC, applies, the firm in San Diego might pay attention because there just are not many people in the market doing a given type of work.  
 
When you are attempting to relocate markets, law firms believe you are more likely to stay if you have children, a significant other with contacts in the market, family in the area, or if you have taken the bar there, or even are in the process of buying a house. All these sorts of actions give the law firm the belief that there is likely to be a sense of permanence to your move.
 
For example, if you have children, the law firm knows you are unlikely to find a new job in the middle of the year in another city and move. If you purchase a house, law firms know it could cost you a lot of time to sell it and move elsewhere. Law firms want the ability to feel like they have control over you and you are bound to the area. It is difficult for them to commit if a law firm feels you will likely leave.
 
As might be expected, if you are a 4 or 5 candidate, even when there are doubts, your relative scarcity in the market may make firms interested in you even if it does not look like you will stay. Additionally, the relative scarcity of attorneys in your practice area will determine whether a law firm will likely hire you.  
 
An important point I have seen repeatedly is that 4 candidates often experience extraordinary results when they try to relocate markets. Regardless of whether or not the law firm believes they are likely to stay, they still take a chance because of the rarity of the attorney. Thus, for example, attorneys get positions moving from San Francisco to Bismark, from New York to Savannah, and so forth. Thus, you are in the door if your qualifications are good enough.
 

3. Can You Be Managed?

When you are considering relocating, law firms will always be interested in whether or not they believe you can be managed. There are many issues with managing attorneys; however, law firms often encounter the most issues when dealing with attorneys with the best overall qualifications.  
 
The meaning of being able to manage an attorney means the attorney will do what is asked of them, not make trouble, try to respect management, and be easy to get along with. The best analogy I can give for being managed is the difference between soldiers and generals. Soldiers are expected to do what is asked of them and follow instructions without much thought. They are expected to respect authority, believe in their country, and defend it. They are expected to put the group’s needs above their own. They do not question why they are given certain orders and expect that those giving them the orders know best. You can imagine how difficult it would be to manage an army if all the soldiers thought they were in charge and questioned orders.
 
Generals, in contrast, give orders, strategize, and lead soldiers. They are in charge, responsible for outcomes, and expected to use their soldiers in the most strategic and efficient means possible.
 
When hiring laterally, most law firms are looking to hire soldiers. Most law firm associates and partners are soldiers who follow and do what they are told to do. Most law firms have committees and other governing bodies, but regardless of the attorney’s title, most attorneys are soldiers.
 
Law firms want to hire people willing to be part of the group, follow instructions, and not question leadership. Certain people are good at working for others, and some are not.
 
I tell the story often in webinars and to candidates about some of my first hires of recruiters. Two of my first hires had very good career histories when I started recruiting. One woman worked for her previous employer for fifteen years and the other for eight years. In addition to these hires, I hired probably 15 other attorneys as recruiters who had worked with their previous employers for between one and five years. The difference between the various hires was notable.
 
In almost all cases, the attorneys who were at their previous jobs for a year stayed with me for a year; the ones that were there for two years stayed for two years; the ones who had been at their previous jobs for three years. It is the same pattern with most attorney resumes—people tend to jump to different firms at similar times. The woman who had been at her previous job for fifteen years stayed with me for fifteen years, and the one who had been at her job for eight years stayed with me for eight years.  
 
The difference between attorneys, recruiters, and others who stay longer than shorter periods is striking. The attorneys who stay the longest typically do not get aggrieved and upset by various issues. They do not complain, try to be removed from office politics, are not too concerned with what competitors and others are doing, and put their heads down and work. They may not be the most brilliant or the hardest working all the time, but they are consistent and take supporting their employer seriously. In contrast, attorneys and recruiters who do not last constantly find problems and other issues to be annoyed about. They will look for issues, complain, never be fully committed, be interested in places where the grass may not be greener, and be upset about assignments, clients, etc. They may not be interested in being managed. They may pay lip service to being managed for a time and then change their tune later.
 
When an attorney moves from one market to another, the last thing a law firm wants to do is hire someone who cannot be managed. One of the biggest obstacles many law firms face is hiring attorneys from higher-ranked firms.
 
I frequently work with attorneys who come from 5 firms and move to 4 firms. While nothing is wrong with this, many of these attorneys believe they are better than the 4 firms they go to. They believe that in their previous firms, they worked with better attorneys on more important matters and are more special than those they currently work with. They may resent moving oversight and supervision on matters at a 4-firmcompared with what they received at a 5 firm. They may think they are special compared to their peers at a 4 firm when they worked at a 5 firm. They may believe the location of the firm, its attorneys, and its clients are beneath them.
 
Lawyers that believe they are better than their employers are not manageable. They turn off their employers and peers. When a lawyer is moving from a major law firm or major market, they need to take pains to make themselves look like they will be manageable and follow directions at the new firm. No one wants to hire someone who believes they are better than everyone around them.
 
If you are an attorney at a 3 or 4 firm and moving to a larger market and a similar type firm (or better one), the law firm will believe that you are likely to be manageable—especially if you have stability in your previous position. If a law firm is in a larger market and you are moving from a smaller one, they are likely to believe that you will appreciate working in a bigger market and be more manageable. Law firms in larger markets hiring attorneys from smaller markets often believe that they know how things are done and that the attorney from the smaller market will follow them.
 
When attorneys move from larger markets to smaller markets, law firms are often a bit nervous and think the attorney may have issues with being manageable. Some attorneys in smaller markets believe that attorneys from larger markets look down on them. The last thing a law firm in a smaller market wants to do is bring someone in who thinks they know how to do things better. 
Therefore, if you are relocating from a larger market to a smaller one, you need to convince the firm in the smaller market you will be able to be managed.
 
One of the final issues with the manageability of attorneys is their seniority level. As a general rule, the more senior an attorney gets, the more the law firm will question how manageable they are. When attorneys get more experience, they typically start to feel they know how things are done. They become resistant to training and learning new things. If they have had a few positions and some disappointments along the way, they may start to be defensive and difficult to manage. Because of all these factors, if you are a senior attorney moving to another market, the law firm will likely be concerned that you may be difficult to manage.
 
Senior attorneys must convince employers that they will follow orders, do what is asked, take the position seriously, and commit to wherever they are working. This is more difficult for senior attorneys relocating because there will be preconceptions (discussed above) that they will be difficult to manage. 
 
When a senior attorney is moving markets, they will often have better luck moving to a smaller market than a larger one. This is because the idea that they may be difficult to manage will more likely make them undesirable applicants in markets where there are many applicants without this baggage.
 
Similarly, if an attorney has a lot of moves on their resume and wants to look at other markets, they are likely to have better luck moving to smaller markets than larger ones. Many moves on a resume suggest the attorney is difficult to manage.
 

4. Do You Want the Job?

When an attorney is moving markets, law firms are eager to hire people who really want to work there. While it is common for attorneys to investigate multiple markets when looking for a job, law firms are much more likely to hire attorneys who want a particular job compared to attorneys who do not. 
 
Some positions are absolutely perfect for some types of attorneys. Depending on your practice area, seniority, and special skills, you may find a position in another market so perfectly suited to you that you know you really want it. This sort of thing happens all the time. For example, a patent attorney may have rare skills and abilities in a certain aspect of patent law. Although they might be working in Houston, Texas, a position in Minnesota is perfect for them and what they really want. When a law firm has a perfect position for someone, and the individual really wants the job, the law firm is quite likely to be interested in the person.
 
When an attorney is relocating, they have the best odds of getting a position when they find one they really want. The more you investigate the market and look at various job postings, and the more niche your experience is, the more likely you are to find a position you really want. I’ve had countless occasions when an attorney found a position in another market that they were incredibly well-suited for and wanted. 
 
When law firms see that they have jobs that you really want and are good fits for you, they get excited. It is smart for law firms to hire people who really want the position they have. This enthusiasm carries over to client service, raising the spirits and enthusiasm of other attorneys in the firm. Attorneys who really want to work in a given law firm are more manageable and likely to stick around.
 
If you are moving markets, convincing a law firm that you want to work there and that the position is meaningful to you is hugely important. I’ve seen people do the most amazing things getting positions they wanted. When you really want a position, you can move from small to larger markets, from 3 firms to 4 firms, and so forth. If you really want to work with someone at a specific job, law firms will be more likely to open up to you in other markets.
 

5. Do We Like You? 

When moving to another market, nothing is more important than being liked. In fact, one of the most important components of any move is your ability to be liked by the people hiring you. Human nature is about a lot of things, but if you are moving to another market, being likable is important.
 
Law firms in different regions of the country like different kinds of people. Certain parts of Texas, for example, are very conservative, while other parts of Texas are not (such as Austin). Different legal markets have different cultures and types of attorneys that work there. Some law firms may have many athletes, people of similar religions, and people close outside of work. Regardless of the culture of the law firm, there may be a law firm culture in another region of the country that is perfect for you. 
 
When I have moved attorneys laterally, I am often incredibly surprised when I realize that the law firm that hired them had something odd in common with my attorney. For example, an attorney with a lot of experience skydiving interviews with a firm with some other skydivers. An attorney with stuff related to the Federalist Society on their resume interviews with a firm with many politically minded people the same way. An attorney is interested in the Grateful Dead interview with a law firm with many similar people.
 
Lawyers who have similar backgrounds tend to like each other.  
 
If a law firm likes you, they may hire you if you are less qualified than their typical attorney. Law firms that like you are also willing to take a chance on you compared to similar attorneys they may not like as much. Time and time again, especially with attorneys switching markets, the likability of the attorney being hired is incredibly important.  
 
While I hesitate to bring this up, some of the most likable attorneys are just incredibly likable, open, and accepting. They smile, make people feel good, are not defensive, and people feel good around them. You meet them and like them and feel good about them. When an attorney is switching markets, their likeability is important. A law firm wants to feel good about hiring someone from another market and bringing them over.
 
I have noticed that when an attorney is relocating from another market to the market they may have grown up in or otherwise have very strong connections, they are more likable to the firm interviewing them. This is because they are from the same area and may know the same people, places, things, etc.
 

6. Can We Make Money Off of You?

While this should be obvious, it bears mentioning. Law firms are businesses and need to make money. If a law firm does not believe it can make money off you, it will not hire you. If a law firm hires you from another market, it needs to be convinced it can make money off you. Either you have clients or can be plugged into the firm’s work and make the law firm money.
 
Law firms typically have a good understanding that they can make money off of associates when they are hiring laterally. The law firm has existing businesses it can plug the associate into.
 
What is most troublesome for firms is when they are hiring laterally at the partner level. Here, they spend great amounts of time trying to understand the business case for a partner hire, whether the attorney has a business, how likely the business will materialize, and more. Law firms get burned frequently by hiring partners without substantial business who represent otherwise in interviews.
 
Law firms hiring laterally need to believe they can make money from you. If you are moving from another market and have a partner, they will be more concerned than if you are an associate.
 
Associates relocating should have the bar exam of the state they are relocating to or be able to waive in. For example, law firms in California are paranoid (rightly so) about hiring lateral attorneys from other markets without the bar. This is because it is very difficult for attorneys to pass the California bar without at least a month or so of study. Accordingly, attorneys always move to California for new jobs, do not study for the bar enough, and fail it—sometimes multiple times. If you are an attorney moving to California, law firms will not be convinced they can make money off you until you have passed the bar.
 
It makes sense when you think about this from the law firm’s perspective. Why would they want to go through the hassle of hiring someone from another market who has not passed the bar in California? From their perspective, this is exactly how they think. If you need to take the bar in a state you are trying to work in, most law firms will not bother you unless you are admitted. It is difficult for them to be assured they can profit from you.
 

7. Can We Do Any Better?

Law firms are businesses, and they are concerned with making the best business decisions possible. With all the possible issues of hiring attorneys from other markets, it is no surprise that law firms will ask themselves if they can do any better than you.
 
Doing better means a lot of things. It is all of the issues discussed above (can we hire someone more manageable; can we hire someone with a better experience, can we hire someone we like more, or can we hire someone likely to stick around). If a law firm believes it can do better than you, they are unlikely to be interested in you. 
 
One of the reasons that attorneys from 4 and 5 firms do so well when moving to smaller markets is that the law firms there cannot do any better. They do not get many people applying, and whoever you are, you are the best applicant they will see for a while. In contrast, if they have a lot of applicants who are as good as you, they are unlikely to be interested. If you have very good qualifications and are moving to a market where few of you are, the law firms might be unable to do any better than you, and you can get hired.  
 
This is not limited to being a 4 or 5 candidate. I have seen some remarkable moves from attorneys ranked 1 or 2 in practice areas like family law, trust and estates, and personal injury law get incredible results when moving to underserviced markets. For example, I once saw a family law attorney from a small town in Colorado gets 10+ interviews in a remote county in northern Wisconsin. I’ve seen similar things happen with trusts and estates and other types of attorneys.
 
If you are in a niche practice area or have very good skills (or a pedigree) that are rare in a given market, the firm may be unable to do any better.
 
During various points in history (especially in 1999 and the first half of 2000), there has been such a demand for corporate attorneys that strange things happened. I remember representing an attorney with average qualifications from a five-person firm in a law firm in Central New Jersey that did corporate law in the 2000s. He got several interviews with major law firms in Silicon Valley. There was so much demand during that time that law firms ranked a 4 in New York City were hiring laterally graduates who were between 2s and low 3s in terms of their ranking. The issue was that the law firms could not do any better.
 
The concept of not being able to do any better is incredibly important. If you have rare skills, you can move markets, and the law firm in many markets may be unable to do any better. If you have an exceptional background, you may be able to move to other markets where the firm cannot do any better.
 

Conclusions

I always tell attorneys that the more markets they choose, the more interviews they will get. This is something that is so obvious that I am astonished that more attorneys do not use this strategy in their searches. For the past few decades, I have worked with hundreds of attorneys not experiencing as much momentum as they would like in their searches. These attorneys have exhausted all the firms they would be interested in working at in Los Angeles, New York City, Houston, and others. In some cases, there were not enough openings; in others, they applied to all of the firms in their market they would be interested in working in. 
In many cases, they were being “blackballed in their existing markets through having a bad reputation, or otherwise.
 
Regardless of the problems, people have found positions in one market. This can change quite rapidly if these attorneys start looking at other markets. 
This has occurred so often I will provide a few recent examples to show you how powerful this strategy is.  
 
Early in my career, I worked with a former securities partner in Chicago who was in his 60s. He had been looking for a job for over a year. The attorney had difficulty getting hired because he had not practiced law in five years. His most recent experience was starting and failing at starting a diaper company in Russia. 
I urged him to give up on Chicago and look at other markets when I started working with him. I told him that he was senior, Chicago had a huge pool of securities attorneys, and most law firms would be more interested in hiring someone younger, currently working. They had plenty of options besides him. This attorney ended up finding a position in Seattle.
 
Another attorney I worked with years ago was a corporate attorney in Atlanta who was fired from working for a large law firm. After several months of unsuccessfully looking for a position in Atlanta, I urged her to search nationally. In one interview at a Chicago law firm, she started crying because she was nervous, she would not get the job. We kept trying and doing everything we could. She ended up getting hired by a large New York law firm’s office in Silicon Valley. Had she not looked at other markets, this would not have happened. She ended up working for this firm for a decade and then started her own law firm, which became successful.
 
I have seen more stories of attorneys moving markets and improving their careers than I can count. Just because things are not working out for you in your present market does not mean that you will not have great success if you look at other markets. Many attorneys are limited by searching for positions in one market when they should be looking at several.
 

---