Electronic Trail Reveals Lawyer Resumé Lies, Costing Job Opportunities

Anon
Sep 22, 2009 9:19 AM CST

Once again, the legal search industry likes to have it both ways.

Just about every headhunter I’ve ever worked with has urged me to be far more aggressive with my resume than I’m comfortable with.  There are some I’ve declined to work with for that very reason.

Perhaps some of the candidates described finally gave in to their constant nagging.

Flag this comment

Crab Apples
Sep 22, 2009 10:52 AM CST

I find it curious how the ABA posts an article about unemployed debt-ridden graduates warning them about being ethical in how they market themselves.

Meanwhile, law schools are allowed to market themselves in the most flagrant, unethical way possible.

Flag this comment

sam
Sep 22, 2009 1:50 PM CST

What rule is there about what you have to list on your resume?  I worked at 3-4 different firms when I was in college.  I don’t list them on my resume.  They don’t have anything to do with the area of law I am practicing in now.  If they ask in an interview, I tell them. 

Omitting something is not telling a lie and not a big deal - only a big deal if they ask for it and you ommit it.

Flag this comment

JEF
Sep 23, 2009 8:05 AM CST

Sounds like Deborah and Martha have to validate the fact that they have a job in this economy.  Really? How many people believe any of the things written in a resume?  My favorite story is about the Harvard admissions officer for 25 years who wrote numerous books on the subject and was then fired for lying on her resume.

Flag this comment

Esq.
Sep 23, 2009 4:19 PM CST

I think career service offices are to blame for the fudging of certain dates to cover a gap in work history.  I graduated in a bad economy without a job.  It took me nine months to find a legal job, while a friend of mine found one in three months.  Both of us tutored at a local public college while looking for a job.  Five years later, my friend, who takes the word of the career counsel as gospel, still freaks out over how to “explain” the three month gap in her resume, and whether it should include the tutoring.  I refused to put the tutoring on my resume and simply tell employers that I graduated in a bad economy, and that it took me nine months (4 after the bar results) to find a job, which is technically true since I was waiting for a job in my field.

I honestly think it’s a form of classism.  Other than for purposes of a background check, I think it is really none of anyone’s business that someone had to tutor, sell shoes, or do some other odd job to pay the bills while they were between legal jobs.  People should be able to leave odd jobs off their resume, and let a prospective employer draw whatever conclusions they want.  If they assume that the applicant was well-off enough to stay home, or take a long vacation aborad, or even to just be lazy and sit on the couch, then so be it.

Flag this comment

hackneyednewenglandwoman
Sep 25, 2009 5:05 AM CST

The person JEF is probably referring to was Marilee Jones, who, according to my electronic sources, was Dean of Admissions at MIT, not Harvard.  She actually resigned in 2007 when she was found out.  She had lied about her degrees on an entry level application years     before.  One of my favorite true stories. (Citations omitted.)

Flag this comment

Older Guy
Sep 25, 2009 7:02 AM CST

What are the odds Caanan and Africa could work together? Kum-by-ya!

Flag this comment

Donald
Sep 25, 2009 7:03 AM CST

I like response #3. 

Generally, on the topic, I agree with the decision not to hire when an applicant has been less than forthcoming on his/her resume.  But that’s done on a case by case basis.  I do think lumping time spent as law clerk at a firm with your time spent as an attorney at the firm is misleading.  So what if you’re graduation date is on the resume?  It’s not my job to piece it all together because you’re being clever.  Let’s not forget that the applicant is the one seeking the job and are not in a position to do anything that might compromise their chances of being hired.

Flag this comment

pedro
Sep 25, 2009 7:52 AM CST

#9 what 5 month gap?

resume says an associate from 1999-2002 at X firm.

associate at X firm from 2002 to 2005. 

No one needs to know or cares that you were laid off for 5 months of 2002.

No one puts specific months on their resume.
Why even put the months - no one cares.

Flag this comment

DH
Sep 25, 2009 8:12 AM CST

This looks like a puff piece so these recruiters can get their names publicized.  I’ve read articles advising job seekers to tailor their resumes to the prospective job, so it should not come as a surprise that there are different resumes floating around.  Mispresentation is unethical, but there is no guidance here about the distinction between mispresentation and the crafting of a resume to suit the job.

Flag this comment

df
Sep 25, 2009 9:22 AM CST

As others have noted, omission is not the same as lying (there are exceptions). For instance, having an LL.M. or being a registered patent attorney or being admitted in a foreign jurisdiction are I think relevant to any legal position, and so one should always include them even if one thinks it might overqualify you or make you seem like a dilettante. By contrast, if I pursued a part-time degree in fine art or history or religious studies or something out of interest, I don’t think omission from my resume would be problematic for most jobs if I genuinely think it’s irrelevant (similarly if I couldn’t find legal work and worked as a gas station attendant, how is that relevant?). I do some volunteer work, the nature of which discloses my religious affiliation. I’ve chosen to include it on my resume in a volunteer work section, but I could understand someone feeling that privacy concerns meant it would be okay to omit it.

As lawyers, one should be able to be persuasive without being deceitful. For instance, if one worked on contract state the law firm and in parentheses or the first line underneath note e.g. “on contract” or “through agency” or whatever. My advice to someone who e.g. worked about 18 months doing document review for one law firm but spread out with some gaps over 2 years, was to list the law firm employer and 2-year range, and then in the description note that it was a series of contracts doing document review totalling 18 months within that period or something like that. Presents well in the bold heading (“Prestigious law firm 2005-2008”) but is still honest in the description. The intern example from the story, could have listed the same years and in the description noted that the first year of work was as an intern or something like that. Whether or not the recruiters liked it, it would have been honest.

I do have sympathy for those not intending to deceive employers but merely to survive the initial crude culling by recruiters, with deception. I still think it’s wrong, but I’m sympathetic based on the experiences of myself and others with recruiters’ ideas of what the employer wants not matching what the employer wants. I could give examples but then my comment would be even longer…

Flag this comment

greg
Sep 25, 2009 10:22 AM CST

As someone currently looking for work, it’s tough. One recruiter tells you to put the months employed on a resume (and some websites require it), another tells you to leave it off. A third tells you to put your legal experience in a ‘legal experience’ section and the other stuff in an ‘other experience’ section, and a fourth tells you that’s not the way to do it. A fifth says ‘one page only’ and a sixth says ‘pages be damned’.

Meanwhile employers nitpick because it’s a buyer’s market. I’ve seen ad saying ‘candidate must be currently employed,’ or ‘candidate must not have been unemployed for more than four months’. I’ve seen very specific requirements, which I know are very rare, and it makes me wonder if the posting isn’t just a sham so the company can promote a specific person from within, while still being able to say that they advertised the position. I’ve seen jobs that were posted that morning, only to be told that they were filled a while ago, and ‘IT doesn’t take these things down timely’. I’ve listed stuff on my resume, and found it’s the stuff I’ve left off that they’re looking for - or maybe that’s just an excuse to not interview me. One friend who was hired for a non-legal position resorted to leaving off her legal background because it was preventing her from getting interviews.

I’ve had friends tell me that recruiters have told them they don’t really check messages, too. One wonders if, after you leave, the recruiter even looks back at what they have or just moves on. Kind of like buying a new screwdriver when one is out in the garage. Silly, but easier than looking for the one in the garage, I guess.

It’s frustrating, to say the least, and there are days when you think HR people are just f***ing with you because they can, and companies/firms are just like the person looking for the perfect mate.

Sorry for venting, but maybe you can see why people alter their resumes and leave stuff off. Is it wrong to leave things off? No. Is it wrong to make false claims? Yes, but in this environment, it’s understandable why someone would. No one wants to be poor & homeless, and you do what you have to do. Jean Valjean, right?

Flag this comment

df
Sep 25, 2009 2:21 PM CST

I was with #24 until the date-changing. That’s lying. If you actually stated, to cover a four-month gap e.g. “Jan. 2008 to Dec. 2009” when you only worked Mar. 2008 to Oct. 2009, that’s clearly lying. For anyone to claim otherwise is the sort of ridiculous self-serving justification that leads even IP lawyers to download movies from torrent (“I’m too busy to go to the theatre, so they’re not losing any money…”).

By contrast, if someone graduation in 2006 and didn’t find work until 2007 I don’t think they need to specify “May 2006” graduation, “2006” is fine. If you worked Mar. 2008 to Oct. 2009 and your resume said “2008-2009” I think that’s fine (though if it were me I’d probably refer to a 20-month contract or something in the description). If you worked Dec. 2008 to Jan. 2009 and your resume says “2008-2009” I think the job description better make clear it was a few months or yes, you are lying.

Flag this comment

Sustenance
Sep 25, 2009 9:55 PM CST

Oh, get off your high horse #25. So what if I lied about a 4-month unemployment gap in order to get a job? Who did it hurt? The law firm that finally hired me? I was more than qualified for the job. I worked long hours for them and brought in plenty of billable hours as well. Why do they need to know that I was unemployed for 4 months anyway?

At the time, I had two small kids and a cancer-stricken mother with no health insurance. I needed a job desperately. A person who sacrifices the health and welfare of their loved ones in order to be “perfectly honest” is more sick than a person who tells a victimless lie in order to save their loved ones.

And when you consider the recent corporate and legal scandals plus the taxpayer bailouts for negligent and even fraudulent corporate behavior, a small lie about an unemployment gap is nothing.

Should I have told the truth and risk being unemployed for a longer period of time - leading to welfare and possibly homelessness? Would you have respected me more? Not likely.

There are so many people suffering now in these tough economic times. Show some compassion.

Flag this comment

crabapples
Sep 28, 2009 8:48 AM CST

If he had been truthful, he would have gotten the job?  What planet are you living on?  The job market is glutted beyond belief thanks in part to the fraud of the law school, NALP, and the ABA.  If the resume is not cookie cutter perfect, you aren’t getting any job.  I respect 27 for trying to feed his kids and support his cancer stricken mother.  Anyone who is completely honest and plays by the rules gets totally screwed over in this cesspool of a profession.  That’s just the way it is.

Flag this comment

mak70
Sep 28, 2009 11:46 AM CST

Just another excuse NOT to hire attorneys…

Flag this comment

Sustenance
Sep 28, 2009 2:05 PM CST

#25/#28 Did you read my original post (#24) carefully? If you claim to have skills and experiences that you don’t, that is clearly a case of fraud and that could hurt the employer that eventually hires you.

For example, if you claim to have years of practicing bankruptcy law when the truth is you never practiced bankruptcy law in your life, that is clearly fraud and the law firm that hires you could suffer as a result of your inexperience.

I wasn’t lying about the skills and experiences that I possessed. I was more than qualified for the job (in fact, I was way overqualified and the job paid much less than my previous job did). I just didn’t tell them that I was unemployed for four months. That wouldn’t hurt them in any way as it does not take away from the skills and experiences I have to offer them.

Many years ago (because I am an old fart and quite proud of it), employers used to ask applicants if they were married and/or had children. Employers wouldn’t hire or promote men or women who had children because they felt they would be too distracted with family issues. Eventually, thanks to feminist groups, the law prohibited these types of questions but before the law was changed men and women who had children lied and said that they didn’t have children. Women usually lied more because they were more likely to suffer if they told the truth.

The point is, employers don’t have to know every single detail about you as long as those details do not affect your work performance. So what if you are married with children? So what if you were unemployed for a while? Why should you lose a potential job just because you are a parent or were unemployed for a while?

As Jackie Mason once stated, “Is it lying if you are lying to a question the person had no business to ask in the first place?”

And besides, “honesty” is different from “truthful.” Honesty means telling the truth with good intentions. Telling an ugly person that s/he is ugly is truthful but it is not honest because you did it to hurt the person, not to help them. If I were truthful about my unemployment gap, I would have hurt myself, my children and my sick mother, who passed away nearly 40 years ago, God bless her.

So quit being such a stickler for the truth.

Flag this comment

Sustenance
Sep 29, 2009 2:49 AM CST

#34 (B. McLeod) No, I never went to a Jesuit school. All of my education was received in public schools. In fact, I was the first in my family to graduate from elementary school let alone college and law school.

I suppose when a law firm partner or manager sits in her/his cushy office chair, s/he can speak of moral relativism and rationalization. S/he can also decide to deny a job to someone who is qualified but who omitted a 4-month unemployment gap on their resume.

But maybe this law firm partner or manager can look beyond the gilded boundaries of her/his own life to realize that not everyone has it so easy and that compassion, understanding and sympathy might be better words to live by than simply the strict truth.

After all, surely that law firm partner or manager realizes that we are all subject to forces beyond our control and that one day s/he may wind up having to cover up a 4-month or longer unemployment gap in order to get a job.

In my many years on this planet, I have seen people rise to the top from the bottom and fall from the top to the bottom. I am sure many have witnessed this too. Yep, bad things happen to good people. And if it takes a lie or two to pull yourself out of the pit you may have fallen into, then so be it.

Flag this comment

Sustenance
Sep 29, 2009 1:03 PM CST

#36 df. When you have many years of experience as I do, I don’t think a 4-month unemployment gap makes a difference whether you are applying for a job or seeking admission in another jurisdiction. That was the point of my posts.

If an employer hires someone who lied about a 4-month unemployment gap but has well over 10 years of experience, works for the employer for a couple of years and does a great job - do you honestly believe that the employer has the right to fire that person because the employer found out about the 4-month unemployment gap?

You know, even the law recognizes different levels of crime - murder 1, murder 2, manslaughter 1, manslaughter 2, as well as the doctrines of self-defense and insanity (which of course vary from state to state). Sentencing differs based on the nature and circumstances of the crime. We don’t have one charge of murder where everyone gets the same exact sentence regardless of the circumstances.

Enlightened individuals in an enlightened society analyze the circumstances of every case and make decisions based on those circumstances. You can’t just go through life with one way of handling every single situation. According to this article, too many employers may simply fire someone because they may have lied about something that may not be that material even if they are good employees. Is that fair?

Well, if you judge people too harshly, maybe you will fall under the harsh judgment of someone should the circumstances in your life change.

If you can’t provide understanding, compassion and sympathy for others then you have no right to ask it of others.

Flag this comment

Sustenance
Sep 30, 2009 8:34 AM CST

df #37. You lie about a 4-month gap because you know that if you tell someone that you were unemployed for 4 months, they probably won’t hire you. Everyone knows that you have a better chance of finding a job when you are currently employed. This has been the case for years and years and it’s even more so nowadays.

And you attacked me for my response to an article that discusses how employers simply fire employees for resume gaps. I simply responded to your attack. Don’t you like discussion and debate? Or do you just want to be right and have the last word all the time?

I told the truth about how I feel about employers who fire employees who lie about small resume gaps when it’s not that relevant. As someone who seems to want the truth all the time, why are you offended? Or do you only want the truth as you see it?

And you say that you don’t like hypocrisy but then in the next sentence you stated that under the same extenuating circumstances you would have done what I did too. Now who is the hypocrite? You would have done what I did under the same extenuating circumstances but I am the hypocrite?

I am not seeking approval and endorsement for anything. I am seeking understanding and compassion for people who may be desperate to find a job. You actually seem to agree with me but you just don’t want to admit it. Lies that are irrelevant (such as a 4-month unemployment gap or whether a person has children as I discussed in previous posts) are irrelevant so why fire someone because of them?

How am I worthy of a fiduciary trust with clients? Because I don’t judge harshly the way you seem to do. Because they know I have compassion and understanding. You are uncompromising and judgmental and that kind of behavior only encourages lies from the people who have to deal with you - if they choose to deal with you at all.

Besides, I’ll bet you anything that in your life you have lied too - you just won’t admit it. Those who push the truth all the time often hide the biggest lies - lies that actually hurt people.

Flag this comment