Ann Israel is the legal profession's Dear Abby. A New York legal recruiter since 1979, Ann is a past president of the National Association of Legal Search Consultants. Advice for the Lawlorn is updated every week.

Q: I am a 1991 graduate of Columbia Law School, Law Review, top academics, who has worked at several different types of litigation, including government work for New York City. Although I've had several different types of jobs, they were all in litigation and I have several successful federal court trials under my belt.

Because of life changes -- greater emotional maturity and having a family to help support -- I am more suited to a big firm job than I was when I was younger, although I did previously work at Debevoise & Plimpton for about 4 years. But I've found that big firms will not consider me for any position, even though I would work for mid-level associate pay at big-firm scale.

Why do law firms systematically favor less experienced candidates when there are more experienced lawyers with the same credentials who would do the same job and do it better for the same money? Why is this anything but age discrimination?

Thanks for any thoughts,
Frustrated in N.Y.

Dear Frustrated: I can understand your frustration. On the surface it would certainly seem to be age discrimination. But if you thought about it, and if it truly turned out to be age discrimination, don't you think someone, somehow, would have eventually broken through and successfully sued one of these firms that refused to hire an attorney with 17 years of experience who was willing to work as a 4th or 5th year?

It has been very frustrating for me, as well, to try to explain why I cannot present someone such as you to my clients for their junior or mid-level associate needs. And equally frustrating, over the years, to try to convince my clients that my senior candidates will reclassify themselves -- and will honestly be satisfied doing the same level of work that an associate 10 years their junior will be doing.

Although I do not believe age discrimination is the main factor that prevents the firms from hiring the experienced attorney over the junior lawyers, it may play a very small part. The small part may be due to the need for junior attorneys to stay up all night photo-copying or drafting or doing whatever grunt work is generally assigned to typically young attorneys.

As we age, it becomes more and more difficult to pull all-nighters. Perhaps the firms are concerned that more mature attorneys will not be able to withstand the work hours that junior attorneys are required to maintain. And perhaps this concern is unfounded. But this is a very small part of why the firms do not hire more senior attorneys for the junior positions. In fact, I have only read about this occasionally in blogs and columns and have never actually heard anyone tell me that this is why they won't hire someone.

The real reasons are some very understandable factors. First and foremost, past bad experiences. Firms that have hired senior attorneys for more junior positions have found that these individuals are easily bored and unchallenged by these jobs (understandable, don't you agree?). They are doing work that they did years ago and probably never thought they would ever be doing again.

Eventually, because they do their work so well and so quickly, they go to their supervisor (who generally turns out to be an associate who is quite junior to them) and asks for work that is more challenging and stimulating. Unfortunately, the position they have been hired for does not allow them to be billed out to the client at a rate that allows them to take on the more sophisticated work. That work goes to the more senior associates who want -- and deserve -- those assignments. So inevitably, someone is unhappy.

Or let's say that the firm decides to take matters in a different direction, and to recognize that this person who has been hired in at a lesser rate is a real find. They decide to move him or her up the ladder to a higher classification, maybe even to a counsel or partnership opportunity. What do you think happens to the morale of the rest of the associate base ... all of those home-growns who have been loyal and toiling away for years, waiting to move on up themselves?

There is a place for bright, experienced, talented individuals who have so much to offer. Unfortunately, it is not in the BigLaw community based on the way it is now currently set up. And especially now, when BigLaw firms are hemorrhaging associates, I wouldn't think they would dare bring in someone out of the system.

But there are so many other places besides BigLaw where someone with your experience can be put to great use. Particularly in this economy where smaller firms are placing a greater emphasis on maturity and experience, I would think someone with your background would be in greater demand than ever before.

In these rough economic times, we all need to start rethinking what we want. I understand that ideally, you would like to be working in a BigLaw firm. Good times or bad, that is going to be difficult for you (no matter what the reason may be) -- and particularly difficult right now. So instead of being frustrated, start thinking of different types of places to work. Perhaps some of those smaller law firms might provide the stimulation and challenge that you never thought possible. Give it a chance -- you never know unless you look. Best wishes!

Sincerely,
Ann Israel
President, Ann Israel & Associates