Article

I am studying law. It is my second year. As you know it is very hard to find a good job in thies field. It is commonly believed that the only way to become a summer associate or lateral is having contacts. When your father or uncle is a lawyer, everything is simple. If you want to get a job, your father or uncle has to call one person and everything is done. I am full of hope. I strongly believe that this „small world” looks quite different. In my opinion, the only way to find a good job is being the best in what you are doing. You have to be cery ambitious, possess all the necessary skills and knowledge. I know it sounds very simple. There are a lot of people at one position. It is common view that not only do you have to possess knowledge but also you have to make a brilliant impression at your interview. Hardly do you hear how the interviewer should behave at the interview. On the Internet there are hundreds of tips for the interviewees. It is often assumed that the potential employee should be prepared for even the most strangest questions. The employers can ask you even about how many people are using facebook at 2.30. When I had been looking for my article, I found it quite interesting how the interviewers should recruit the potential employees. That is why I would like to tell you about recruiting in a small firm. I have found my article at abovethelaw.com. It is a website for lawyers. The article was written by Gaston Kroub. Gaston Kroub lives in Brooklyn and it is a founding partner of Kroub, Silbersher and Kolmykov PLLC, an intellectual property litigation boutique. The firm’s practice focuses on intellectual property litigation and related counselling, with strong focus on patent matters. He was contributing to recruit the associates for many years. His prior experience was attached to recruiting process in Biglaw firms. He is of the opinion that interviewing the potential summer associates and laterals gave him a sense of satisfaction. He became to believe that his contribution to the firm is not limited only to biling hours. In his point of view, attempting to graft a Biglaw recruiting approach onto a small firm can be a recipe for disaster. It does not matter if you thing that it is the best equivalent and it will be working. It is necessary to forget all about interviewing in Biglaw firm. In big world there is still a sense that money is no object when a large firm looks to hire someone. The money does not any matter. These firms may pay milions of dolars for recruiter’s fees, making investment in maintaing a recruiting department. It is said that there is a big gulf between resources in large and small firms. For instance, they do not have a recruiting department. This causes that small firms could not compete with Biglaw. The lack of recruiting department does not mean that they cannot recruit successfully, or atract top talent. The bucks lies with the leadership. It could be very risky if the firm’s leaders feel like recruiting is beneath them or they rely too heavlily on outside recruiters. Most small firms, unfortunately, find themselves interviewing lateral candidates.
First of all, Gaston Kroub said that the interviewers should not ask candidates what about working for a small firm excites them and why they feel like a small firm is a strong alternative to Biglaw gig. So the basic question is what they should have in mind to maximize the chances. The most necessary is that the recruiter is obligated to determine why the firm is looking to bring an additional help. It requires and understanding of the firm’s needs and its market position. It is a lot of possibilities to get to know that.
What is more, it is helful to consider whether the candidate will help the firm become more attractive to potential or current clients. In which the interviewee may help to achieve these basic goals. It causes that the recruiter should internalize this experience in interviewing. The interview cannot be only got through. So, as I said before, the recruiter should know the firm’s needs and that is why they musy be prepared and discuss all the necessary cases with other partners.
Moreover, the financial matters are very important. Biglaw candidates have a strong sense of the financial package (salary, benefits, performance incentives). Unfortunately, at small firms the compensation is variable. At the same time, it is a waste of everyone’s time if the expectations about compensation are unreasonable on the candidate’s end. This point is so essential that it should be one of initial topics. Accordingly, the interviewer must be prepared to tell the candidate where they would slot in even if the interviewer is not the ultimate decision-maker.
In addition, the potential employees should be able to answer how they will be able to help the firm save money. For instance, their experience will allow them to do the work of two more junior lawyers. When they are less experienced, they should answer how theit skills will help the form better Staff or suport larger. Or at least detail how their contribution will free up the firm’s partners to Focus on bringing in those larger, more profitable matters in the first place.
When a small firm wants to stick around, everyone must contribute to the bottom line. That is why the question about the financial matter is so essential. The interviewer cannot be shy and subtle. There will be plenty of time for polite conversation later.

ogólnie dobrze, niewiele błędów
when I had been looking for my article - szukales swojego artykułu? : )

Tak z ciekawosci zerknelam na ten tekst.
'As you know' (nic takiego nie wiem...napisz to inaczej. np.. It is well-known that) it is very hard to find a 'good' (nie, to jest za bardzo pototcznie, co masz na mysli to 'well-paid') job in 'thies' (ortog) field. It is commonly believed that the only way to become a summer associate or 'lateral' (tego slowa to nawet nie rozumiem) is 'having' (zle, tutaj 'to have') contacts.
In my opinion, the only way to find a good job is 'being' (ja bym wolala 'to be') the best in what you are doing. You have to be 'cery' (ortog) ambitious, possess all the necessary skills and knowledge.
There are a lot of people 'at' (nie wiem co masz na mysli, ale i tak zle slowo) one position. It is commonLY HELD view that not only do you have to possess knowledge but also you have to make a brilliant impression at your interview. Hardly do you EVER hear how the interviewer should behave at the interview.
The employers can ask you even about how many people are using facebook at 2.30 (ale kiedy a.m. czy p.m. niekiedy bardyo wazne) . When I had been looking for my article, I found it quite interesting how the 'nterviewers' (ortog) should recruit 'the' (wg mnie niepotr) potential employees.
The article was written by Gaston Kroub. Gaston Kroub lives in Brooklyn and 'it' (o czlowieku mowisz 'it' popraw) is a founding partner of Kroub, Silbersher and Kolmykov PLLC, an intellectual property litigation boutique.
He 'was contributing' (zle, zly czas, 'contributed') to recruit the associates for many years. His prior experience was attached to (brak przedimka) recruiting process in Biglaw firms.
He 'became to believe' (to nawet nie jest po ang. napisz to poprawnie) that his contribution to the firm is not limited only to biling hours.
It does not matter if you 'thing' (zle slowo) that it is the best equivalent and it will 'be working' (zly czas, tutaj 'work').
In (brak przedimka) big world there is still a sense that money is no object when a large firm looks to hire someone. These firms may pay milions of dolars for recruiter’s fees, making investment in 'maintaing' (blad ortog) a recruiting department.
For instance, 'they' (nie jest jasno do czego to sie odnosi) do not have a recruiting department. This 'causes' (zle slowo, tutaj 'means') that small firms could not compete with Biglaw. The lack of recruiting department does not mean that they cannot recruit successfully, or 'atract' (ortog) top talent. The bucks 'lies' (nie, tutaj lie') with the leadership.
First of all, Gaston Kroub said that the interviewers should not ask candidates what about working for a small firm excites them and why they feel like a small firm is a strong alternative to (brak przedimka) Biglaw gig. The most necessary (tu cos brak) is that the recruiter is obligated to determine why the firm is looking to bring an additional help. It requires 'and' (zle slowo) understanding of the firm’s needs and its market position. 'It' (zle slowo) is a lot of possibilities to get to know that.
What is more, it is 'helful' (ortog) to consider whether the candidate will help the firm become more attractive to potential or current clients. In which (tu brak slowa) the interviewee may help to achieve these basic goals. It 'causes' (nie wiem co to jest z tym slowem, ale tutaj ono niema miejsca, 'results') that the recruiter should internalize this experience in interviewing.
So, as I said before, the recruiter should know the firm’s needs and that is why they 'musy' (ortog) be prepared and discuss all the necessary cases with other partners.
At the same time, it is a waste of everyone’s time if the expectations about compensation are unreasonable 'on' (zle slowo, tutaj AT) the candidate’s end. This point is so essential that it should be one of (brak przedimka) initial topics.
When they are less experienced, they should answer how 'theit' (ortog) skills will help 'the' (zle slowo) form better Staff or 'suport' (ortog) 'larger' (zle slowo).