I agree with you Vivia Chen but it totally depends on particular firm that what are the expectations from the employee or the newly hired person, after this also if there are conflicts then it is a different matter.

I would agree with this article as a general rule, but there are more exceptions being made these days. Yes, large law firms are unlikely to view any of this work as sufficiently engaging in the practice of law to the extent that the applicants will be given credit for it towards their legal experience and ultimately leading to the applicant’s hire as an associate. But when it’s an employer’s market, those high-end firms can afford to and will be picky.

However, those same firms will consider and have hired (I’ve personally known several) contract attorneys directly as Staff Attorneys; essentially having a salaried position to do doc review, and supervise some temps and contract attorneys. Some firms even have express policies about maintaining a certain core group of such positions. Whether such positions ever allow for further upward mobility is another question, but if we’re talking employment vs. none at all, there are certainly worse options, and these people were hired specifically because of their experience doing doc review.

While I would agree that there remains a negative stigma about temping/contract attorney work, I don’t think that the stigma is quite as much of an impediment to a career as it used to be. Given how the FRCP has expanded clients’ responsibilities for document retention, as well as all of the various electronic sites where such documentation may be retained these days (think IM transcripts, social media, cloud computing), those attorneys with blue-water experience in handling such information may (upon at least a partial resurrection of the economy) be poised to take advantage of a specific niche in law. It may not provide the traditional approach to furthering one’s career, but there’s more than one way to skin the proverbial cat. My advice to unemployed attorneys: it may be hard to, but stay patient, persistent, and open-minded about your future.

Although generally it probably is the case that the weakest lawyers have been laid off in this econominy, the problem is that it's not always the case. There are always political and other situations, etc. at play that could account for good lawyers leaving and bad lawyers staying. The issue for the laid off is whether the firm or company hiring will give them the benefit of the doubt.

Also, I'm surprised that, although there's a lot of career and "hang in there" advice out there, there's very little discussion about whether it makes sense for some of these people to continue to keep on hoping and planning to make it as a lawyer. All the reports I see are saying that many of these jobs just won't come back. Unless they're wrong, a lot of displaced lawyers will not be practicing attorneys again. It's hard news but I fear it may be true.

Yikes. This post is resume advice malpractice. Leaving off legal jobs is 1) misrepresentation, and 2) laying a conflicts trap for employers.

You need to issue a retraction, pronto.

Honest.

We are talking about resumes here. You do not need to include every job that you've ever had. That is absurd.

Conflicts are another matter. If and when the time comes that you are asked to check conflicts, you should disclose all work.

If an applicant omits any legal position from his or her resume, the omission impairs the hiring firm's ability to do thorough conflicts checks. Ultimately, this could lead to potential liability for the hiring firm. Exposure to client confidences on even a short contract assignment implicates this concern.