Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[toast]

Serious question.

Suppose one has been asked to leave one's firm for bad performance.  If the recruiter asks why you are looking for a new firm, do you tell her the truth?  Or make something up?

[lukertin]

"I was let go by my previous employer"

[toast]

waht if one's former employer tells one that the reason for the separation is going to be kept secret?

[UVAgal4]

That is a tough one.
I don't know what I would say.
Was it your first experience with a law firm?
Perhaps you could say something like "It was my first time working with a firm and I didn't really know what to expect, but now I have learned what is required by a firm."

[DogDayPM 9er9er9er]

Don't lie to the recruiter, but you needn't propagate the baloney your firm is throwing at you either. Don't tell your own lies, and don't tell their lies.

Unless there is something pretty darn meaty hiding behind this "bad performance" thing, then face the lay off and tell the recruiter you were let go because your position wasn't profitable for the firm.

Along the same lines, if still interviewing after your current employ terminates (given the economy), once you've come up with your honest and tactfully stated way of describing what happened in your situation, practice it with friends by having them toss the question at you in random situations.  Be sure even if caught off guard that you can state what happened simply and with dignity, and without getting angry or upset.  (And yes, I suppose this is easier said than done). 

I had a friend in like situation who just wanted to bury it all and wouldn't let us do mock interviews or otherwise help him prep.  He got the chance to interview for a plum in-house slot but when the question came up just before lunch he had nothing prepared to say, and apparently went to pieces a little and ended up giving a short bitter diatribe against the old employer.  They actually showed him the door without continuing the remainder of the interviews.

EDIT: P.S. Great screen name shows you haven't lost your sense of (gallows) humor!

[petethebody]

Serious question.

Suppose one has been asked to leave one's firm for bad performance.  If the recruiter asks why you are looking for a new firm, do you tell her the truth?  Or make something up?

By statutes in most states, you can demand to see your personnel record.  I know in my state, if you make a written request to access your record either during or up to one year after the termination of your employment, your employer must either grant you access and a copier (i'd recommend bringing a good camera just in case), or make copies for you.  Law firms are no exception.  And they will comply because the penalty is on the order of $500 (if i recall correctly) and a potential investigation by your state's labor department. 

Once you get your file, you will know exactly what the said about you and you can frame your answer accordingly.  Yeah, my performance dipped during February 2009, which incidently corresponded with the crash of the market, the de-equitizing of 10 partners, the firing of 50 other people, the drop in profits of $X per partner, etc.  Frame the facts in a way that's really favorable to you without being a turnoff to your potential employer.  You're an attorney - you'll figure out how to walk that really fine line after some practice run-throughs (being careful to not go on a diatribe like DogDayPM mentioned above). 

As a final note, don't worry too much about this as it is likely out of your control.  Absent some egregious record, your interviewer will know your "performance" is all pretext.  Whether they want to acknowledge it is beyond your control.  In fact, they are probably doing the same thing.  Just put your bet foot forward, bury the hatchet, but try not to lie down completely.  Either your interviewer will understand or they won't - but that will likely be determined long before you step into that room. 

Good luck man

[petethebody]

waht if one's former employer tells one that the reason for the separation is going to be kept secret?

I just read this another way.  If they are keeping it secret from you and your potential employer because you didn't screw up and they let you go because of the economy, see my above advice.  If they are keeping it secret from your next potential employer for your benefit (ie you maybe did screw up, but they're willing to cover it up for you rather than tank your career), you should take advantage of it:
(a) if you quit, see if you can honestly say "it just wasn't working" or "I wanted a change up - man did I pick the wrong time. hahaha," 
(b) if you want the unemployment and you let them fire you, you need to be honest and frame whatever happened as a growing experience.  Because, if you trash the firm, they will probably let your new employer know what you did that warranted termination.

EDIT:  be real careful if they are keeping it secret for your benefit.  It's a wholly different fine line to walk between lying to a potential employer and only disclosing enough to sell yourself.  Employers have a way of talking and secrets don't stay that way forever.  And if your new employer finds out you lied about what happened, that lie WILL tank your career forever.

[Wiscagent]

Let's face it. You've been asked to leave because your position wasn't profitable for the firm, ...

Don't you think that office politics, racism, sexual impropriety, age discrimination, personal issues, pissing off the wrong client or partner, working too long or too short hours, a "poor attitude", and so forth are sometimes reasons for getting fired even if an employee is making money for the firm?

[Wiscagent]

By statutes in most states, you can demand to see your personnel record.

Don't expect to see much in the personnel record.  The personnel record might say something as simple as "Employee Smith resigned."  or "Employee Smith was asked to resign because he had little long-term potential in the firm."  There is generally no good reason for the personnel record to provide any substantive reason for the dismissal.

Most of us are "at will" employees, so the employer doesn't need any reason to fire us.  The employer's main concern is that the personnel record not provide anything that would help the fired employee in a potential law suit.

[petethebody]

Don't expect to see much in the personnel record. 

Yeah, there won't be anything citing the reason for termination (at least not with anything specific).  But all of his prior performance reviews will be included.  Those will have hours and sometimes even bonus recommendations.  If he shows a spotless record for 3 years, then he is fired the quarter his hours are lowest, he can say that he couldn't make hours because there was no work - or that the partner he worked for left.  Then again, it could merely say average performance, or worse.  But, no way to know what's in there until you ask. 

There's definitely some risk to asking: they may destroy the file, they may put stuff in the file that says you are a horrible employee and backdate it, or they may try to blackball you.  Then again, they may just give it to you. 

Decide for yourself if its worth the fight. 

[Jim_W]

Say your position was eliminated because of the current economic circumstances.

Many firms are allergic to saying the word "layoffs" so they try to make it seem like the attorneys were underperforming when it's really just a shitty economic climate that's responsible for the damage to the bottom line.

[ChrisWhewell]

Serious question.

Suppose one has been asked to leave one's firm for bad performance.  If the recruiter asks why you are looking for a new firm, do you tell her the truth?  Or make something up?

I'd tell the truth, as always.

It sometimes happens that people just don't click together, like if you tried to put Donny Osmond in the place of John Lennon in the Beatles.  Imagine Donny singing "Instant Karma" - it just won't work !!   It probably helps to analyze the situ a little and identify reasons why things didn't click, and when asked by the recruiter what you're looking for, mention the criteria you've identified as having been lacking at the previous place.  enough for the serious answer.....

Or work it into the conversation that you like/dislike Donny Osmond and be sure to also ask the recruiter what their zodiac sign is.
LOL.   I was in an interview and I knew I didn't want to work for the place (huge paper company) b/c none of the lawyers could answer the question of how many products the Co. was selling that were covered by patent - or even name ONE !!!  So when interviewing with the final two people, I asked them their "sign" at the end of the interview (with a straight face, it was hard keeping it), and never heard from them again !!  One guy resented my question so much and his inability to answer how many patents covered products being sold, he started to scratch his eye with his middle finger !!    Right afterwards while still in his office, my eye started itching too, and I successfully employed the technique he taught me moments before !!

[DogDayPM 9er9er9er]

I was in an interview and I knew I didn't want to work for the place (huge paper company) b/c none of the lawyers could answer the question of how many products the Co. was selling that were covered by patent - or even name ONE !!! 

I may be colorblind in that region of the spectrum, but I'm kind of wondering nowadays what there is left to patent in the world of paper products.   

Design on Bounty's new "quilted quicker picker upper" look?  Whoever has Brawny did finally get rid of the `70's-looking mustache and hairdo on the Brawny Dude, but that wouldn't be patentable.  New fine writing papers with just that right amount (26.3409845876 wt. %) of linen to give some surprising result?

That said, I couldn't have told you even a round guess as to how many products sold in my last 2 companies were covered by patent.  Unless the answer "many" would have satisfied you.  (OTOH, I could have named several products off the top of my head which were; it's just the "how many" I couldn't answer.)

[klaviernista]

I may be colorblind in that region of the spectrum, but I'm kind of wondering nowadays what there is left to patent in the world of paper products.   

Many aspects of paper products are patented, and enw developments are made every day.  Heck there is an entire art unit at the PTO devoted to woven and non-woven products, which can include products such as paper, diapers, newsprint, etc.

[ChrisWhewell]

That said, I couldn't have told you even a round guess as to how many products sold in my last 2 companies were covered by patent.  Unless the answer "many" would have satisfied you.  (OTOH, I could have named several products off the top of my head which were; it's just the "how many" I couldn't answer.) 

Indeed, but they couldn't even name ONE !!   Often a mfr will obtain patents on end use products that they work deals with their customers on, providing exclusivity, trading IP, etc. and if the boss says to file on invention X that the company will never make a product under, and if the boss is signing the paycheck, then filing it is the right thing to do provided one wants to keep their job.  But I've seen enough fat and largely commercially-worthless dockets and the eventuality of same that my preference is to not be in a Co. that isn't seeking sustainable competitive advantage via IP.   Especially a huge one with fat resources.  If the organization isn't organized and/or doesn't have the talent to innovate in their core areas, then they're competition will be based on price alone, and racing to the bottom means only those with the lowest operating costs will survive.  Having practitioners on payroll who don't generate IP on innovations seems to merely add overhead and eventually, cuts will need to be made if the business is to remain competitive on price.  A large worthless docket, plus $ 4.95 is good for a large cup of bean juice at Starbucks(TM).