Resume Advice Forum

[Leenie87]

I know that you are supposed to keep your resume to one page - so would you suggest that I take out my previous employment before law school (worked for a no-name company in the HR dept.)? Right now I have my schools, activities, publications and legal experience.

[CG614]

I know that you are supposed to keep your resume to one page - so would you suggest that I take out my previous employment before law school (worked for a no-name company in the HR dept.)? Right now I have my schools, activities, publications and legal experience.

The one page rule is for those with not much experience. I would not take out significant work experience just to fit the "rule."

[rando]

I know that you are supposed to keep your resume to one page - so would you suggest that I take out my previous employment before law school (worked for a no-name company in the HR dept.)? Right now I have my schools, activities, publications and legal experience.

The one page rule is for those with not much experience. I would not take out significant work experience just to fit the "rule."

Actually the one page rule is for those without relevant work experience. Unless you are going into IP and have a long line of relevant science experience your resume should be one page.

A general rule of thumb I have heard from recruiters is that your resume should be one page unless you have 10 years+ of WE in the field. Obviously some exceptions will apply. Without more info it doesnt sound like your situation does.

[CG614]

I know that you are supposed to keep your resume to one page - so would you suggest that I take out my previous employment before law school (worked for a no-name company in the HR dept.)? Right now I have my schools, activities, publications and legal experience.

The one page rule is for those with not much experience. I would not take out significant work experience just to fit the "rule."

Actually the one page rule is for those without relevant work experience. Unless you are going into IP and have a long line of relevant science experience your resume should be one page.

A general rule of thumb I have heard from recruiters is that your resume should be one page unless you have 10 years+ of WE in the field. Obviously some exceptions will apply. Without more info it doesnt sound like your situation does.

True. Still, I would not remove real work experience in a HR department. Maybe remove something else or decrease your margins and text size down to 10, if not already there.

[rando]

I know that you are supposed to keep your resume to one page - so would you suggest that I take out my previous employment before law school (worked for a no-name company in the HR dept.)? Right now I have my schools, activities, publications and legal experience.

The one page rule is for those with not much experience. I would not take out significant work experience just to fit the "rule."

Actually the one page rule is for those without relevant work experience. Unless you are going into IP and have a long line of relevant science experience your resume should be one page.

A general rule of thumb I have heard from recruiters is that your resume should be one page unless you have 10 years+ of WE in the field. Obviously some exceptions will apply. Without more info it doesnt sound like your situation does.

True. Still, I would not remove real work experience in a HR department. Maybe remove something else or decrease your margins and text size down to 10, if not already there.

Definitely credited. Take out "interests" "computer proficiency" etc. 10 pt font might be a touch small but I certainly use 11 and have widened margins.

Another trick is to decrease spacing between paragraphs to 6 or 8 pt font.

[Anonymous User]

I used to work fairly closely with somebody who read resumes at a lobbying group, so I wanted to toss out two specific pieces of advice (anon since it might give away my resume, lol):

1) The less on your resume, the better. People have it in their heads that they get points for items on their resume, and look impressive as they fill it up. Inevitably the questions come: how narrow can margins be, does it really have to fit on one page, is font size 10 too small, can we make the blank lines font size 6 to save space, etc. This totally misses the point: Most of the information on your resume isn't really fleshing out your profile as a candidate, and by FAR the most impressive resumes are sparse. Even if you have a lot of experience, being succinct and picking the highlights makes a MUCH stronger impression than shoe-horning every activity you've ever done onto your resume.

The biggest reason, again from experience reading resumes, is that most people go for the kitchen sink approach. Everyone knows it's good for your resume to stand out - well, if you manage to submit a resume with pleasant spacing, short sentences, and a normal font/margin you will absolutely sparkle in the stack. Trust me on this.

And yeah, 1 page. Hard and fast rule. Obviously there might be an employer out there thrilled to read 3 pages on every candidate, but I guarantee it's a substantial minority. Even if you're an academic or something, for an OCI / firm job you don't need to list every publication. Save it for the meat market.

2) For OCI never, ever cut out the interests section. If you're mass mailing it might be more relevant to list your actual skills / experience / credentials. But for OCI, those interests are going to spur conversation, and that conversation is how you will impress. Not by dragging every point of the conversation back to the time you got an award for second best pasta at your section's pot luck mixer, but for being able to converse about your interests and backgrounds like a normal human being. These interviews are all about charisma, and cramming an extra line about your internship on your resume is never worth giving up your best means of driving the conversation the way you want it driven.

[rando]

I used to work fairly closely with somebody who read resumes at a lobbying group, so I wanted to toss out two specific pieces of advice (anon since it might give away my resume, lol):

1) The less on your resume, the better. People have it in their heads that they get points for items on their resume, and look impressive as they fill it up. Inevitably the questions come: how narrow can margins be, does it really have to fit on one page, is font size 10 too small, can we make the blank lines font size 6 to save space, etc. This totally misses the point: Most of the information on your resume isn't really fleshing out your profile as a candidate, and by FAR the most impressive resumes are sparse. Even if you have a lot of experience, being succinct and picking the highlights makes a MUCH stronger impression than shoe-horning every activity you've ever done onto your resume.

The biggest reason, again from experience reading resumes, is that most people go for the kitchen sink approach. Everyone knows it's good for your resume to stand out - well, if you manage to submit a resume with pleasant spacing, short sentences, and a normal font/margin you will absolutely sparkle in the stack. Trust me on this.

And yeah, 1 page. Hard and fast rule. Obviously there might be an employer out there thrilled to read 3 pages on every candidate, but I guarantee it's a substantial minority. Even if you're an academic or something, for an OCI / firm job you don't need to list every publication. Save it for the meat market.

2) For OCI never, ever cut out the interests section. If you're mass mailing it might be more relevant to list your actual skills / experience / credentials. But for OCI, those interests are going to spur conversation, and that conversation is how you will impress. Not by dragging every point of the conversation back to the time you got an award for second best pasta at your section's pot luck mixer, but for being able to converse about your interests and backgrounds like a normal human being. These interviews are all about charisma, and cramming an extra line about your internship on your resume is never worth giving up your best means of driving the conversation the way you want it driven.

From someone with similar resume reading experience i must say that i disagree. Especially with theninterests issue. My boss would actually quip about how ridiculous it was to see "reading" "running" "traveling" on every damn resume. If those are your true interests then they will come up in an interview or callback.

As for pasta award and meaningless interests, that surely misses the point. This thread has already assumed those things will be cut out.

And again, I have to disagree that the shortest, biggest font resumes are the best. While clutter is not a good thing, many employers assume, and rightly so, that if you dont have it on the resume then it doesnt exist. But if you dont have your "interests" on your resume there is no assumption that those dont exist.

[CG614]

I used to work fairly closely with somebody who read resumes at a lobbying group, so I wanted to toss out two specific pieces of advice (anon since it might give away my resume, lol):

1) The less on your resume, the better. People have it in their heads that they get points for items on their resume, and look impressive as they fill it up. Inevitably the questions come: how narrow can margins be, does it really have to fit on one page, is font size 10 too small, can we make the blank lines font size 6 to save space, etc. This totally misses the point: Most of the information on your resume isn't really fleshing out your profile as a candidate, and by FAR the most impressive resumes are sparse. Even if you have a lot of experience, being succinct and picking the highlights makes a MUCH stronger impression than shoe-horning every activity you've ever done onto your resume.

The biggest reason, again from experience reading resumes, is that most people go for the kitchen sink approach. Everyone knows it's good for your resume to stand out - well, if you manage to submit a resume with pleasant spacing, short sentences, and a normal font/margin you will absolutely sparkle in the stack. Trust me on this.

And yeah, 1 page. Hard and fast rule. Obviously there might be an employer out there thrilled to read 3 pages on every candidate, but I guarantee it's a substantial minority. Even if you're an academic or something, for an OCI / firm job you don't need to list every publication. Save it for the meat market.

2) For OCI never, ever cut out the interests section. If you're mass mailing it might be more relevant to list your actual skills / experience / credentials. But for OCI, those interests are going to spur conversation, and that conversation is how you will impress. Not by dragging every point of the conversation back to the time you got an award for second best pasta at your section's pot luck mixer, but for being able to converse about your interests and backgrounds like a normal human being. These interviews are all about charisma, and cramming an extra line about your internship on your resume is never worth giving up your best means of driving the conversation the way you want it driven.

From someone with similar resume reading experience i must say that i disagree. Especially with theninterests issue. My boss would actually quip about how ridiculous it was to see "reading" "running" "traveling" on every damn resume. If those are your true interests then they will come up in an interview or callback.

As for pasta award and meaningless interests, that surely misses the point. This thread has already assumed those things will be cut out.

And again, I have to disagree that the shortest, biggest font resumes are the best. While clutter is not a good thing, many employers assume, and rightly so, that if you dont have it on the resume then it doesnt exist. But if you dont have your "interests" on your resume there is no assumption that those dont exist.

Agreed. I read resumes for candidates for where I work. I think the interest section is unnecessary. We actual laugh at half of them. I think someone had knitting once. Don't need it.

[Anonymous User]

I used to work fairly closely with somebody who read resumes at a lobbying group, so I wanted to toss out two specific pieces of advice (anon since it might give away my resume, lol):

1) The less on your resume, the better. People have it in their heads that they get points for items on their resume, and look impressive as they fill it up. Inevitably the questions come: how narrow can margins be, does it really have to fit on one page, is font size 10 too small, can we make the blank lines font size 6 to save space, etc. This totally misses the point: Most of the information on your resume isn't really fleshing out your profile as a candidate, and by FAR the most impressive resumes are sparse. Even if you have a lot of experience, being succinct and picking the highlights makes a MUCH stronger impression than shoe-horning every activity you've ever done onto your resume.

The biggest reason, again from experience reading resumes, is that most people go for the kitchen sink approach. Everyone knows it's good for your resume to stand out - well, if you manage to submit a resume with pleasant spacing, short sentences, and a normal font/margin you will absolutely sparkle in the stack. Trust me on this.

And yeah, 1 page. Hard and fast rule. Obviously there might be an employer out there thrilled to read 3 pages on every candidate, but I guarantee it's a substantial minority. Even if you're an academic or something, for an OCI / firm job you don't need to list every publication. Save it for the meat market.

2) For OCI never, ever cut out the interests section. If you're mass mailing it might be more relevant to list your actual skills / experience / credentials. But for OCI, those interests are going to spur conversation, and that conversation is how you will impress. Not by dragging every point of the conversation back to the time you got an award for second best pasta at your section's pot luck mixer, but for being able to converse about your interests and backgrounds like a normal human being. These interviews are all about charisma, and cramming an extra line about your internship on your resume is never worth giving up your best means of driving the conversation the way you want it driven.

From someone with similar resume reading experience i must say that i disagree. Especially with theninterests issue. My boss would actually quip about how ridiculous it was to see "reading" "running" "traveling" on every damn resume. If those are your true interests then they will come up in an interview or callback.

As for pasta award and meaningless interests, that surely misses the point. This thread has already assumed those things will be cut out.

And again, I have to disagree that the shortest, biggest font resumes are the best. While clutter is not a good thing, many employers assume, and rightly so, that if you dont have it on the resume then it doesnt exist. But if you dont have your "interests" on your resume there is no assumption that those dont exist.

Fair enough. This is definitely a topic where people's ideologies diverge.

I will throw out that having an interests section which lists "Reading, spending time with family, and travel" will do more harm than good - but I think an interesting (har har) interests section can be one of the best things you do for yourself on a resume. Obviously others disagree

And I also want to emphasize the focus on (interesting) interests for OCI, where you know you will be in front of a person making small talk for 20 minutes. For mass mailing it would be understandably less critical.

[CG614]

I used to work fairly closely with somebody who read resumes at a lobbying group, so I wanted to toss out two specific pieces of advice (anon since it might give away my resume, lol):

1) The less on your resume, the better. People have it in their heads that they get points for items on their resume, and look impressive as they fill it up. Inevitably the questions come: how narrow can margins be, does it really have to fit on one page, is font size 10 too small, can we make the blank lines font size 6 to save space, etc. This totally misses the point: Most of the information on your resume isn't really fleshing out your profile as a candidate, and by FAR the most impressive resumes are sparse. Even if you have a lot of experience, being succinct and picking the highlights makes a MUCH stronger impression than shoe-horning every activity you've ever done onto your resume.

The biggest reason, again from experience reading resumes, is that most people go for the kitchen sink approach. Everyone knows it's good for your resume to stand out - well, if you manage to submit a resume with pleasant spacing, short sentences, and a normal font/margin you will absolutely sparkle in the stack. Trust me on this.

And yeah, 1 page. Hard and fast rule. Obviously there might be an employer out there thrilled to read 3 pages on every candidate, but I guarantee it's a substantial minority. Even if you're an academic or something, for an OCI / firm job you don't need to list every publication. Save it for the meat market.

2) For OCI never, ever cut out the interests section. If you're mass mailing it might be more relevant to list your actual skills / experience / credentials. But for OCI, those interests are going to spur conversation, and that conversation is how you will impress. Not by dragging every point of the conversation back to the time you got an award for second best pasta at your section's pot luck mixer, but for being able to converse about your interests and backgrounds like a normal human being. These interviews are all about charisma, and cramming an extra line about your internship on your resume is never worth giving up your best means of driving the conversation the way you want it driven.

From someone with similar resume reading experience i must say that i disagree. Especially with theninterests issue. My boss would actually quip about how ridiculous it was to see "reading" "running" "traveling" on every damn resume. If those are your true interests then they will come up in an interview or callback.

As for pasta award and meaningless interests, that surely misses the point. This thread has already assumed those things will be cut out.

And again, I have to disagree that the shortest, biggest font resumes are the best. While clutter is not a good thing, many employers assume, and rightly so, that if you dont have it on the resume then it doesnt exist. But if you dont have your "interests" on your resume there is no assumption that those dont exist.

Fair enough. This is definitely a topic where people's ideologies diverge.

I will throw out that having an interests section which lists "Reading, spending time with family, and travel" will do more harm than good - but I think an interesting (har har) interests section can be one of the best things you do for yourself on a resume. Obviously others disagree

And I also want to emphasize the focus on (interesting) interests for OCI, where you know you will be in front of a person making small talk for 20 minutes. For mass mailing it would be understandably less critical.

So, if you have no real experience at all, then maybe include it. But make sure it has interesting things on it. If you have done interesting things, whether it be school groups or work experience, it is not needed. Talk about your real experience, not the fact that you like to collect stamps. Odds that one person likes stamp collecting too, small. Odds that they think you are a weirdo because you collect stamps, large.

[rando]

It is also important to point out how much this thread highlights divergent viewpoints. Many employers will like what others hate.

Always ask yourself what harm can come from what you are including and what the possible payoff is. There better be a purpose for everything included on that page.

[ggocat]

Another tactic for fitting your resume on one page is to cut some of the "fluff" from job descriptions. Before law school, I listed two to three bullet points for each job. Now I have none--each employment experience has only two lines to describe who, where, when, title of position, and a very short summary description. As you progress in your career, adding more description is probably advisable. But I don't think entry-level hiring employers need to know the particulars of all the memos you drafted or that you attended depositions, trials, and hearings. If they want to know more about what you did, this is also a topic for the interview.

I agree with the other poster that less is often more, and interests are generally a good idea. W/r/t interests, it's important to go for quality rather than quantity. Having one really descriptive interest is better than having a bunch of generic interests (running, cooking, knitting, traveling, etc.).

[AJRESQ]

I worked HR before law school and I cannot state this strongly enough:

THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT A RESUME BE ONE PAGE. Not in any field. Your career office has no idea what they're talking about. If you think they do, ask them two questions: 1) "Have you every hired anyone in a law firm?" 2) "Have you ever worked in human resources?"

You will be AMAZED what you get hired for. I was hired into my first job because I was a member of Brehon Law Society. Not my great grades, not my work experience, but because the guy wanted to hire an Irish Catholic. I was hired into my first associate position because I had a theology minor and both partners are religious -- one with a DM.

A bad hire costs any business, including a law firm, a lot of money. They would much rather take the time to read more about you, and then call you in for an interview, than hire the wrong person. We read voluminous briefs and legal treatises, reading two pages of a resume is hardly an arduous task. Plus, if you're working at a small firm, people want to hire for things that aren't necessarily "relevant" except to the extent they will like you. If your resume is just one page, it's going to look the same as everyone else's -- you went to law school, you have decent grades, you did some work in a clinic or something else. What is different about your resume than all the other ones?

The "one page" myth came about because people tend to pad their resume with crap. As long as it's very easy to figure out your legal work experience and your education at a glance, it's fine. If you have two pages of stuff, it's better to have more to talk about than less. My resume has always been two pages... in college, in law school, and out of law school. I have worked in a BIGLAW firm and for small firms.

Personally, I would be more inclined to hire someone with a retail or food service background. Because I know you're a hard worker and you've been able to deal with crappy "eat what you kill" wages. Interests can be good provided, like all things, they are not generic. I would like someone who says "Philadelphia sports, including the Philadelphia Eagles, Flyers, and Phillies." Because that is what I like to talk about, and that is what I like to talk to clients about. Hiking, jogging, and camping is a little generic even though I like to do all those things.

In my experience, a small firm will consider: ties to the area (why would someone from NYC want to work in Central Pennsylvania?), work experience, practice areas you are interested in, background and appearance, grades, school you went to... mostly in that order. A good candidate wants to practice the areas of law you practice in, in the location where you practice.

[rando]

I worked HR before law school and I cannot state this strongly enough:

THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT A RESUME BE ONE PAGE. Not in any field. Your career office has no idea what they're talking about. If you think they do, ask them two questions: 1) "Have you every hired anyone in a law firm?" 2) "Have you ever worked in human resources?"

You will be AMAZED what you get hired for. I was hired into my first job because I was a member of Brehon Law Society. Not my great grades, not my work experience, but because the guy wanted to hire an Irish Catholic. I was hired into my first associate position because I had a theology minor and both partners are religious -- one with a DM.

A bad hire costs any business, including a law firm, a lot of money. They would much rather take the time to read more about you, and then call you in for an interview, than hire the wrong person. We read voluminous briefs and legal treatises, reading two pages of a resume is hardly an arduous task. Plus, if you're working at a small firm, people want to hire for things that aren't necessarily "relevant" except to the extent they will like you. If your resume is just one page, it's going to look the same as everyone else's -- you went to law school, you have decent grades, you did some work in a clinic or something else. What is different about your resume than all the other ones?

The "one page" myth came about because people tend to pad their resume with crap. As long as it's very easy to figure out your legal work experience and your education at a glance, it's fine. If you have two pages of stuff, it's better to have more to talk about than less. My resume has always been two pages... in college, in law school, and out of law school. I have worked in a BIGLAW firm and for small firms.

Personally, I would be more inclined to hire someone with a retail or food service background. Because I know you're a hard worker and you've been able to deal with crappy "eat what you kill" wages. Interests can be good provided, like all things, they are not generic. I would like someone who says "Philadelphia sports, including the Philadelphia Eagles, Flyers, and Phillies." Because that is what I like to talk about, and that is what I like to talk to clients about. Hiking, jogging, and camping is a little generic even though I like to do all those things.

In my experience, a small firm will consider: ties to the area (why would someone from NYC want to work in Central Pennsylvania?), work experience, practice areas you are interested in, background and appearance, grades, school you went to... mostly in that order. A good candidate wants to practice the areas of law you practice in, in the location where you practice.

A lot of the things you mention are credited. However, most are flushed out in an interview or among several. Second, your post totally neglects the fact that one page is widely accepted as THE RULE. You may have liked two pages. So may many lawyers. But from personal experience, I know employers who will absolutely disregard a resume that is more than one page.

The above mentioned advice is treading very dangerous territory.

[Anonymous User]

I am one of those IP students who had a whole different life before coming to law school. I was advised by both career services and other similar students to keep a second page, but to make that page only be publications and presentations. I did a mock interview with a V25 firm and the interviewer admitted that he preferred one page resumes, but how I divided it up was acceptable and made it so he could ignore page 2 since he didn't have a science background.

And re: interests, every interview I can think of these came up. But yeah, I agree, the interests should be interesting. i.e. I speak a relatively uncommon language given my demographic and was a former professional ballet dancer as well as a scientist. This isn't the same as putting knitting or traveling, at least imo.

[AJRESQ]

I worked HR before law school and I cannot state this strongly enough:

THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT A RESUME BE ONE PAGE. Not in any field. Your career office has no idea what they're talking about. If you think they do, ask them two questions: 1) "Have you every hired anyone in a law firm?" 2) "Have you ever worked in human resources?"

You will be AMAZED what you get hired for. I was hired into my first job because I was a member of Brehon Law Society. Not my great grades, not my work experience, but because the guy wanted to hire an Irish Catholic. I was hired into my first associate position because I had a theology minor and both partners are religious -- one with a DM.

A bad hire costs any business, including a law firm, a lot of money. They would much rather take the time to read more about you, and then call you in for an interview, than hire the wrong person. We read voluminous briefs and legal treatises, reading two pages of a resume is hardly an arduous task. Plus, if you're working at a small firm, people want to hire for things that aren't necessarily "relevant" except to the extent they will like you. If your resume is just one page, it's going to look the same as everyone else's -- you went to law school, you have decent grades, you did some work in a clinic or something else. What is different about your resume than all the other ones?

The "one page" myth came about because people tend to pad their resume with crap. As long as it's very easy to figure out your legal work experience and your education at a glance, it's fine. If you have two pages of stuff, it's better to have more to talk about than less. My resume has always been two pages... in college, in law school, and out of law school. I have worked in a BIGLAW firm and for small firms.

Personally, I would be more inclined to hire someone with a retail or food service background. Because I know you're a hard worker and you've been able to deal with crappy "eat what you kill" wages. Interests can be good provided, like all things, they are not generic. I would like someone who says "Philadelphia sports, including the Philadelphia Eagles, Flyers, and Phillies." Because that is what I like to talk about, and that is what I like to talk to clients about. Hiking, jogging, and camping is a little generic even though I like to do all those things.

In my experience, a small firm will consider: ties to the area (why would someone from NYC want to work in Central Pennsylvania?), work experience, practice areas you are interested in, background and appearance, grades, school you went to... mostly in that order. A good candidate wants to practice the areas of law you practice in, in the location where you practice.

A lot of the things you mention are credited. However, most are flushed out in an interview or among several. Second, your post totally neglects the fact that one page is widely accepted as THE RULE. You may have liked two pages. So may many lawyers. But from personal experience, I know employers who will absolutely disregard a resume that is more than one page.

The above mentioned advice is treading very dangerous territory.

You have to get an interview first.

I don't know what you mean by "the rule." By whose estimation? There is no giant rule book that gets circulated to employers and law firms saying "this is how things must be done." Not in BIGLAW, not in small law. It's funny you say that, actually. When I worked in BIGLAW, one of the senior partners did me a favor and hired my fiance for some part time work. His advice to her: "I wouldn't have interviewed you except for AJRESQ. However, after talking with you, you're very interesting, far more interesting than your resume shows. I would put more of what we discussed on your resume. I'm very impressed with you." Then, God bless him, he went on to tell her what a good lawyer I was going to be and it made me quite happy.

As for the remainder of your post, you don't want to work for an employer who will disregard your resume for being one page. It shows they're either lazy or refuse to think outside the box. Especially considering that there is no uniform rule of resumes requiring it to be one page -- they're simply following something they learned from somewhere with no real value. If that's how they treat their hiring, sounds like a poor place to work.

[PKSebben]

I swear by the interests section on a resume. Out of the 50 or so interviews for law jobs, I bet I've only had 7 combined minutes of conversation about anything other than my interest section and a "So how's School X treating you?" (This doesn't include my questions to firms). In mass mail type stuff, I can see an interests section possibly being a negative, but for OCI -- especially blind OCI -- it's absolutely freaking critical. Law students on the whole are a bunch of aspie pricks, so anything that can make you look like a human helps.

[AJRESQ]

I swear by the interests section on a resume. Out of the 50 or so interviews for law jobs, I bet I've only had 7 combined minutes of conversation about anything other than my interest section and a "So how's School X treating you?" (This doesn't include my questions to firms). In mass mail type stuff, I can see an interests section possibly being a negative, but for OCI -- especially blind OCI -- it's absolutely freaking critical. Law students on the whole are a bunch of aspie pricks, so anything that can make you look like a human helps.

It's because, after you do law long enough, the last thing you want to talk about is law... especially in the abstract way it's understood by law students. I want to talk about sports, my vacation, dinner spots, the city... anything that isn't law related. I already know you're smart and understand the law by your grades.

[rando]

You have to get an interview first.

I don't know what you mean by "the rule." By whose estimation? There is no giant rule book that gets circulated to employers and law firms saying "this is how things must be done." Not in BIGLAW, not in small law. It's funny you say that, actually. When I worked in BIGLAW, one of the senior partners did me a favor and hired my fiance for some part time work. His advice to her: "I wouldn't have interviewed you except for AJRESQ. However, after talking with you, you're very interesting, far more interesting than your resume shows. I would put more of what we discussed on your resume. I'm very impressed with you." Then, God bless him, he went on to tell her what a good lawyer I was going to be and it made me quite happy.

As for the remainder of your post, you don't want to work for an employer who will disregard your resume for being one page. It shows they're either lazy or refuse to think outside the box. Especially considering that there is no uniform rule of resumes requiring it to be one page -- they're simply following something they learned from somewhere with no real value. If that's how they treat their hiring, sounds like a poor place to work.

As a practicing attorney you must realize how poor this reasoning is.

No. There is no giant rule book. Does that mean there aren't default etiquette standards? Hardly. Failure to show basic understanding of the hiring norms is in itself a negative.

And not wanting to work somewhere because the whoever read your resume uses arbitrary criteria with no real value? By that reasoning you wouldn't work somewhere where all the attorneys wore suits to work every day. Not to mention the sad fact that this employment market is so one-sided that any job-seeker has little ground to stand on. Especially given your experience in Biglaw you must realize that toeing the line on arbitrary criteria is par for the course.

But all of this is beside the point. Someone looking for a job ITE should be doing everything they can to stand out while not making any faux-pas that could offend the sensibilities of anyone they run across, arbitrary, unfair or otherwise. The fact that there are silly people out there like me who could be the ones making hiring decisions goes to show that it is probably best not to stir the pot.

Again. You have to ask yourself what it is that you are adding to your resume by going over one page and compare that to the possible downside.
As a 2L, I can't imagine how your resume needs to be longer than a page, barring science backgrounds etc. mentioned earlier. My interests might be in scientology and extreme politics making me a very interesting person but I am sure as hell not going to put it on my resume to have some random person in the chain disregard it.

[AJRESQ]

You have to get an interview first.

I don't know what you mean by "the rule." By whose estimation? There is no giant rule book that gets circulated to employers and law firms saying "this is how things must be done." Not in BIGLAW, not in small law. It's funny you say that, actually. When I worked in BIGLAW, one of the senior partners did me a favor and hired my fiance for some part time work. His advice to her: "I wouldn't have interviewed you except for AJRESQ. However, after talking with you, you're very interesting, far more interesting than your resume shows. I would put more of what we discussed on your resume. I'm very impressed with you." Then, God bless him, he went on to tell her what a good lawyer I was going to be and it made me quite happy.

As for the remainder of your post, you don't want to work for an employer who will disregard your resume for being one page. It shows they're either lazy or refuse to think outside the box. Especially considering that there is no uniform rule of resumes requiring it to be one page -- they're simply following something they learned from somewhere with no real value. If that's how they treat their hiring, sounds like a poor place to work.

As a practicing attorney you must realize how poor this reasoning is.

No. There is no giant rule book. Does that mean there aren't default etiquette standards? Hardly. Failure to show basic understanding of the hiring norms is in itself a negative.

And not wanting to work somewhere because the whoever read your resume uses arbitrary criteria with no real value? By that reasoning you wouldn't work somewhere where all the attorneys wore suits to work every day. Not to mention the sad fact that this employment market is so one-sided that any job-seeker has little ground to stand on. Especially given your experience in Biglaw you must realize that toeing the line on arbitrary criteria is par for the course.

But all of this is beside the point. Someone looking for a job ITE should be doing everything they can to stand out while not making any faux-pas that could offend the sensibilities of anyone they run across, arbitrary, unfair or otherwise. The fact that there are silly people out there like me who could be the ones making hiring decisions goes to show that it is probably best not to stir the pot.

Again. You have to ask yourself what it is that you are adding to your resume by going over one page and compare that to the possible downside.
As a 2L, I can't imagine how your resume needs to be longer than a page, barring science backgrounds etc. mentioned earlier. My interests might be in scientology and extreme politics making me a very interesting person but I am sure as hell not going to put it on my resume to have some random person in the chain disregard it.

I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree with your post. There is no rule of etiquette that a resume must be 1 page. One page resumes are not the norm, and that myth is only touted by people who don't know what they're talking about. There is a downside to a one page resume -- you might omit something that catches a managing partner's eye. Your resume is not going to stand out from the hundreds of other resumes that all say basically the same thing. I'm not saying to put every single perfect attendance award on your resume, or the time you beat Aladdin only using 3 continues... but if you have something interesting don't be afraid to put it on there because of "space concerns."

In my opinion, because the job market is so bad, you have to do something to stand out. If everyone else thinks your resume MUST be one page, why not make it two pages? Instead of emailing it, why not mail a hard copy that you know will sit on a partner's desk for a few weeks? Contrary to what you might imagine, good lawyering often involves creativity. The beauty of a recession is people are reevaluating the way they are doing things, and their relationships...

In any case, we can agree to disagree. My position, and the way I practice law, is to do things my own way. Even if it's different or unconventional. It's always worked for me. Besides, if you run your practice worried about "offending sensibilities" that are arbitrary, you're playing scared. Conforming just for the sake of conforming is no way to practice law.

[PKSebben]

Aladdin only using 3 continues.

Genesis or Super Nintendo. Genesis was the superior product imho

[rando]

You have to get an interview first.

I don't know what you mean by "the rule." By whose estimation? There is no giant rule book that gets circulated to employers and law firms saying "this is how things must be done." Not in BIGLAW, not in small law. It's funny you say that, actually. When I worked in BIGLAW, one of the senior partners did me a favor and hired my fiance for some part time work. His advice to her: "I wouldn't have interviewed you except for AJRESQ. However, after talking with you, you're very interesting, far more interesting than your resume shows. I would put more of what we discussed on your resume. I'm very impressed with you." Then, God bless him, he went on to tell her what a good lawyer I was going to be and it made me quite happy.

As for the remainder of your post, you don't want to work for an employer who will disregard your resume for being one page. It shows they're either lazy or refuse to think outside the box. Especially considering that there is no uniform rule of resumes requiring it to be one page -- they're simply following something they learned from somewhere with no real value. If that's how they treat their hiring, sounds like a poor place to work.

As a practicing attorney you must realize how poor this reasoning is.

No. There is no giant rule book. Does that mean there aren't default etiquette standards? Hardly. Failure to show basic understanding of the hiring norms is in itself a negative.

And not wanting to work somewhere because the whoever read your resume uses arbitrary criteria with no real value? By that reasoning you wouldn't work somewhere where all the attorneys wore suits to work every day. Not to mention the sad fact that this employment market is so one-sided that any job-seeker has little ground to stand on. Especially given your experience in Biglaw you must realize that toeing the line on arbitrary criteria is par for the course.

But all of this is beside the point. Someone looking for a job ITE should be doing everything they can to stand out while not making any faux-pas that could offend the sensibilities of anyone they run across, arbitrary, unfair or otherwise. The fact that there are silly people out there like me who could be the ones making hiring decisions goes to show that it is probably best not to stir the pot.

Again. You have to ask yourself what it is that you are adding to your resume by going over one page and compare that to the possible downside.
As a 2L, I can't imagine how your resume needs to be longer than a page, barring science backgrounds etc. mentioned earlier. My interests might be in scientology and extreme politics making me a very interesting person but I am sure as hell not going to put it on my resume to have some random person in the chain disregard it.

I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree with your post. There is no rule of etiquette that a resume must be 1 page. One page resumes are not the norm, and that myth is only touted by people who don't know what they're talking about. There is a downside to a one page resume -- you might omit something that catches a managing partner's eye. Your resume is not going to stand out from the hundreds of other resumes that all say basically the same thing. I'm not saying to put every single perfect attendance award on your resume, or the time you beat Aladdin only using 3 continues... but if you have something interesting don't be afraid to put it on there because of "space concerns."

In my opinion, because the job market is so bad, you have to do something to stand out. If everyone else thinks your resume MUST be one page, why not make it two pages? Instead of emailing it, why not mail a hard copy that you know will sit on a partner's desk for a few weeks? Contrary to what you might imagine, good lawyering often involves creativity. The beauty of a recession is people are reevaluating the way they are doing things, and their relationships...

In any case, we can agree to disagree. My position, and the way I practice law, is to do things my own way. Even if it's different or unconventional. It's always worked for me. Besides, if you run your practice worried about "offending sensibilities" that are arbitrary, you're playing scared. Conforming just for the sake of conforming is no way to practice law.

First. Not to get whiny but just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about. There is a good possibility I have been involved in as many hiring decisions as you, if not more.

That being said, I like your style. I really do. This line of reasoning is something that I hadn't thought about much before. I'm still not sure it is an approach I would take ITE because it is such a buyer's market right now. You are trying to stand out, that is true. But we all know the way that people stand out right now is stellar grades from a good school. Where standing out matters is on the margins and I'm just not sure that I want to be thought of as the guy who "does things his own way." I would love to practice law that way some day. But right now, I don't think that's a smart approach to take. And the whole "playing scared" bit. Come on now. That is not an apt analogy for a job seeker submitting resumes through OCI or mass-mailing.

Also. "conforming just for the sake of conforming" is a huge part of the law. So much of the practice is procedural and based on formalities. I really do respect your unconventional approach, but you and I both know that has it's boundaries.

That being said. Thanks for your contribution. I think OP has a much better lay of the land so that s/he can take the appropriate approach in the coming months. Good luck to you!

[rando]

Aladdin only using 3 continues.

Genesis or Super Nintendo. Genesis was the superior product imho

Genesis dominates.

[AJRESQ]

You have to get an interview first.

I don't know what you mean by "the rule." By whose estimation? There is no giant rule book that gets circulated to employers and law firms saying "this is how things must be done." Not in BIGLAW, not in small law. It's funny you say that, actually. When I worked in BIGLAW, one of the senior partners did me a favor and hired my fiance for some part time work. His advice to her: "I wouldn't have interviewed you except for AJRESQ. However, after talking with you, you're very interesting, far more interesting than your resume shows. I would put more of what we discussed on your resume. I'm very impressed with you." Then, God bless him, he went on to tell her what a good lawyer I was going to be and it made me quite happy.

As for the remainder of your post, you don't want to work for an employer who will disregard your resume for being one page. It shows they're either lazy or refuse to think outside the box. Especially considering that there is no uniform rule of resumes requiring it to be one page -- they're simply following something they learned from somewhere with no real value. If that's how they treat their hiring, sounds like a poor place to work.

As a practicing attorney you must realize how poor this reasoning is.

No. There is no giant rule book. Does that mean there aren't default etiquette standards? Hardly. Failure to show basic understanding of the hiring norms is in itself a negative.

And not wanting to work somewhere because the whoever read your resume uses arbitrary criteria with no real value? By that reasoning you wouldn't work somewhere where all the attorneys wore suits to work every day. Not to mention the sad fact that this employment market is so one-sided that any job-seeker has little ground to stand on. Especially given your experience in Biglaw you must realize that toeing the line on arbitrary criteria is par for the course.

But all of this is beside the point. Someone looking for a job ITE should be doing everything they can to stand out while not making any faux-pas that could offend the sensibilities of anyone they run across, arbitrary, unfair or otherwise. The fact that there are silly people out there like me who could be the ones making hiring decisions goes to show that it is probably best not to stir the pot.

Again. You have to ask yourself what it is that you are adding to your resume by going over one page and compare that to the possible downside.
As a 2L, I can't imagine how your resume needs to be longer than a page, barring science backgrounds etc. mentioned earlier. My interests might be in scientology and extreme politics making me a very interesting person but I am sure as hell not going to put it on my resume to have some random person in the chain disregard it.

I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree with your post. There is no rule of etiquette that a resume must be 1 page. One page resumes are not the norm, and that myth is only touted by people who don't know what they're talking about. There is a downside to a one page resume -- you might omit something that catches a managing partner's eye. Your resume is not going to stand out from the hundreds of other resumes that all say basically the same thing. I'm not saying to put every single perfect attendance award on your resume, or the time you beat Aladdin only using 3 continues... but if you have something interesting don't be afraid to put it on there because of "space concerns."

In my opinion, because the job market is so bad, you have to do something to stand out. If everyone else thinks your resume MUST be one page, why not make it two pages? Instead of emailing it, why not mail a hard copy that you know will sit on a partner's desk for a few weeks? Contrary to what you might imagine, good lawyering often involves creativity. The beauty of a recession is people are reevaluating the way they are doing things, and their relationships...

In any case, we can agree to disagree. My position, and the way I practice law, is to do things my own way. Even if it's different or unconventional. It's always worked for me. Besides, if you run your practice worried about "offending sensibilities" that are arbitrary, you're playing scared. Conforming just for the sake of conforming is no way to practice law.

First. Not to get whiny but just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about. There is a good possibility I have been involved in as many hiring decisions as you, if not more.

That being said, I like your style. I really do. This line of reasoning is something that I hadn't thought about much before. I'm still not sure it is an approach I would take ITE because it is such a buyer's market right now. You are trying to stand out, that is true. But we all know the way that people stand out right now is stellar grades from a good school. Where standing out matters is on the margins and I'm just not sure that I want to be thought of as the guy who "does things his own way." I would love to practice law that way some day. But right now, I don't think that's a smart approach to take. And the whole "playing scared" bit. Come on now. That is not an apt analogy for a job seeker submitting resumes through OCI or mass-mailing.

Also. "conforming just for the sake of conforming" is a huge part of the law. So much of the practice is procedural and based on formalities. I really do respect your unconventional approach, but you and I both know that has it's boundaries.

That being said. Thanks for your contribution. I think OP has a much better lay of the land so that s/he can take the appropriate approach in the coming months. Good luck to you!

To end on sort of a random thought... one of our biggest cases. We had clients come to us regarding a will contest, where all the money was left to the wife and none to the testator's kids. It was clear that the testator intended the money to go to his wife and then to his kids, with a small portion to the wife's kid. The wife represented to the testator that she would leave whatever was left to his kids, but then after he died changed her mind and screwed him... leaving all the money to her own kid and disinheriting the testator's kids. PA law is (was) well settled that "tortuous interference with a will" involves a Defendant prohibiting the testator from "making a new will." The reason for this is the courts had a case in the 1800s where someone prevented a testator from making a new will that expressed his intentions. After that case, the PA courts kept repeating the language about "making of a new will" language as part of the elements. Our clients took the case to a whole bunch of other firms who said "PA law requires you to interfere with the making of a new will, not promising not to change an old will. We can't take this because it's pretty clear you will lose."

So we get the case in and say "It's tough, but we are going to argue that although PA law says it involves the changing of a will, what it really MEANS is interfering tortuously with a testator's intent." Basically, you have to look at it like this: The PA courts kept repeating the "making of a new will" language but what they meant is that if someone tortuously interferes with the intent of a testator, it's recoverable by the third party beneficiaries. If you can show some tortuous behavior, like undue influence or fraud, you can state a claim for tortuous interference with a will. If you look at the hornbooks, they all say "PA law is limited to making of a new will" and that is just one of the elements. However, no one had really questioned WHY the "new will" element was there, and whether it made sense. If you look at the case law, it looks like the courts just kept repeating the "new will" element for no reason except that was a fact in the 1800 case.

There was litigation. We were threatened with sanctions and a frivolous lawsuit action. Motions to dismiss (preliminary objections in PA) were filed. And you know what? Long story short, the court sided with us and agreed. Issued a written opinion and everything.

Some lawyers just read the law and said "oh, well, it means this. This is the rule. It's been this way for two hundred years so don't waste your time." I think the really good lawyers say "Well, sure it's the rule, but why is it the rule? Does the rule make sense? Does it make sense in this particular matter?"

I like to challenge everything. Don't just accept things at face value, and don't conform to conform. Do it your way, and do it with confidence. I think conforming just to conform limits your ability to best serve your clients.

[langerjack]

there is no one or two page rule for resumes. i've gotten hired for internships and real jobs with a 2-page resume. i used to work for a HR person who told me it doesn't matter if it's one or two pages. but it must be relevant. if the skills/experience isn't relevant to the position you're applying for, don't include it. if it's relevant and it still goes over 1 page, that's fine, because there's still value.

however, just because HR/recruiters don't mind 1+ page resume, i've sat in interviews with when the employee interviewing the applicant has the "one-page only" mindset and holds it against the applicant. they heard it from their parents, their friends, their whoever and goes on carrying this bias against 2 page resumes.

to mitigate the damage from these types of people, if you have a 2-pager, just make sure it's REALLY good, relevant stuff in which they can see why you had to go beyond 1 page.