While it was bound to happen sooner or later, opinions differ as to just how bad the credit crunch is. But it is generally agreed that the City is taking something of a kicking; for City lawyers this has raised some valid concerns about the safety of their current role.

With the dotcom crash but a distant memory, in recent years we have seen demand for corporate and finance lawyers at an all-time high as the deals continued to roll in. The City was at its most robust in recent history; the rise of activity in the private equity market and the innovative finance structures that dominated the market dictated a clear trend for increased specialisation. In larger City practices, it has become the case that many candidates have been pushed, not always willingly, towards a narrower remit. For example, corporate lawyers being herded towards a specialism in private equity or public company work, or finance lawyers being steered from early in their careers towards a particular expertise in acquisition finance, securitisation or collaterised debt obligations. All this is well and good when clients – and as such the market – demand skills sharpened to a pointy end, but what happens when the tide inevitably turns and there are those stuck in a department whose workflow has all but dried up?

There remains an air of optimism in many firms that they will continue to keep their highly-paid lawyers busy, and most have their PR departments in overdrive to send a clear message to the market that the prognosis is positive and to stifle mutterings of the dreaded 'redundancy' word. However, it can no longer be denied that we are feeling the effects of a downturn and the market is responding by shifting its needs. We have observed a higher demand for insolvency and restructuring lawyers as well as litigators of all shapes and sizes, as firms prepare for the worst, bulking up the teams that may assist inrecession-proofing them.

So, where does this leave the lawyer who, until eight or nine months ago, was more likely to be fending off head-hunting calls from firms absolutely
desperate to use their specialist skills and who is now wondering whether there will be a chair for them when the music stops?

Whether through loyalty to their staff, or to maintain an outward perception of stability (or more likely the cost and difficulty of getting new recruits into these new 'in demand' practice areas), a new management tool is developing: re-skilling. For example, taking an acquisition finance lawyer and turning them into a restructuring lawyer or shifting a capital markets lawyer into a more general (and more recession-proof) general finance role. In some instances, where transactional corporate work levels are not as buoyant as last year, moving into a more niche area may be the answer. Amanda Howard, a funds partner and head of Nabarro's indirect investment group, says they have "successfully retrained general corporate associates to undertake complex fund structuring work through both formal technical training as well as on the job training". In her experience, associates "typically are well up to speed within six months". In a similar vein, a recent discussion with a corporate reinsurance partner, frustrated with the lack of CVs coming his way, resulted in him considering as a candidate a securitisation lawyer from a large US practice who had noticed a sharp downturn in work. The lawyer's experience made him an ideal candidate for a corporate reinsurance role, a market seeing increasingly complex and highly-structured deals bearing asimilarity to securitisation structures.

So, you may be asked to consider a sideways shift or, indeed, you may feel this is an opportune time to refocus your career, making yourself more marketable in less favourable economic climes. It is not impossible to change practice areas, but there are a number of factors to consider and it is not a decision to be taken lightly.

Practicality

Your ability to change disciplines will depend upon your academic background, the length of time you have practised in your current area, the firm you are with and the market demand for areas you wish to leave or enter. You should have at least some level of interest in the area you are considering. Do some research, either through your own contacts or a recruiter, as to what the market for that practice area is like and what – if any – the future trends are likely to be. Consider how much you will have to relearn, or even cover from scratch, and decide whether the team you are moving to have the necessary training and support mechanisms to enable as smooth a transition as possible. It is safe to say that the easiest transition will be into 'like' areas – for example, a more specialised finance lawyer moving into a general banking role.

Your value

While an extra pair of hands in a busy department will always be welcome, there is a risk that some might take a rather more negative view of your transition and you may find yourself being dealt the less interesting, less high-profile work.

You should also consider that although still at the same post-qualification experience, your relevant experience to your new specialism could be significantly lower and as such you may need to be flexible with regard your level of experience and may be forced into a lower salary banding. Naturally, your task is easier if there is a possibility of reinventing yourself with the support of your current firm.

Future prospects

In recent years 'business development' and 'client facing' have become buzz phrases for any mid-level lawyer worth their salt. Moving to a new practice area may mean losing many of those even fledgling relationships you have worked hard at and set you significantly behind your peers in a competitive market. Consider if there are any common clients or specific sectors you can exploit and find out what opportunities there may be to get yourself in front of those clients. Failure to do so could see you lagging behind on the associate and/or partnership track when the crucial time comes.

Making a move across practice areas should ideally be seen as a long-term opportunity rather than a short-term fix and your reasoning will need to be compelling to convince interviewing partners, especially if you are changing firms. We have recent evidence of candidates failing to convince prospective firms of their motivation – you will need to persuade them that if the market takes another sudden turn that relivens your old discipline, you are in for the long haul. On the other hand, if there is a possibility of you taking a sideways step and remaining with your current firm, the likelihood is that you may be able to switch back when the storm passes.

Whichever way you look at it, in these times of increasing specialisation, a move to another discipline, or more likely a move to a broader role, can only help you to become a more rounded lawyer in the long term, and recession-proof in the short term.

Kristi Edwards is a consultant at Hughes-Castell.