Top Law Schools

What's the typical approach to finding a new position while you're holding down a job?

I imagine most people keep their job while looking, but I found that rather difficult because you have to do phone interviews and in-person interviews during work hours. Making up excuses to leave the office can get suspicious or bothersome.

This is especially troublesome if you want to look out of town, far away enough to have to take a flight. That's at least a full day per interview.

On the other hand, building up savings and moving to the location you want, then interviewing to your heart's content sounds much less stressful. It would also give you more time to prepare adequately instead of squeezing in a couple of hours after work.

What's your take?

You always look much more employable to employers if you apply when you are employed, rather than jobless.

You should quit. Then you won't be able to get interviews and won't have to take off time from your work to interview. Win win.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:You always look much more employable to employers if you apply when you are employed, rather than jobless.

This is the correct response.

Rowinguy2009 wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:You always look much more employable to employers if you apply when you are employed, rather than jobless.

This is the correct response.

Yes, this. Was interviewing some attorneys recently for an in-house position and one of the people interviewing literally said something to the tune of "attorney A lost his job (restructuring) and then applied, attorney B still has his job and applied - attorney B seems more of a go-getter." Obviously nonsense - we didn't post the position until after attorney A lost his job, but that is actually a perception people have.

You only quit with a bird in hand

unless you're rich AF and don't really need a job (in which case you make your own rules - what a world).

I view with favor applicants who are currently employed and, even better, if they're actually pretty happy where they are but are applying to our firm because of targeted reasons like wanting to do our specific practice. Not quite as good if I get the vibe that the applicant is just trying to escape from their current firm and would be happy to lateral anywhere they could get an offer as long as they don't have to spend another day where they are. Worst is if they're unemployed, because then I think something is really wrong--did the applicant get fired, or why'd they quit before they had something lined up?

lolwat wrote:I view with favor applicants who are currently employed and, even better, if they're actually pretty happy where they are but are applying to our firm because of targeted reasons like wanting to do our specific practice. Not quite as good if I get the vibe that the applicant is just trying to escape from their current firm and would be happy to lateral anywhere they could get an offer as long as they don't have to spend another day where they are. Worst is if they're unemployed, because then I think something is really wrong--did the applicant get fired, or why'd they quit before they had something lined up?

Thanks all for the replies, particularly this one. I hadn't even considered the possibility that they'd wonder whether a candidate got fired.

Anonymous User wrote: This is especially troublesome if you want to look out of town, far away enough to have to take a flight. That's at least a full day per interview.

Not that everyone else here is wrong, but I do think they're overlooking this detail. Being unemployed while you search in the same city definitely raises red flags, but I can see scenarios where someone would need to move out of state and couldn't conduct a thorough job search while employed full time far away. As an interviewer I'd be more understanding of those situations, esp. if they moved to follow a spouse/other time sensitive reason.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote: This is especially troublesome if you want to look out of town, far away enough to have to take a flight. That's at least a full day per interview.

Not that everyone else here is wrong, but I do think they're overlooking this detail. Being unemployed while you search in the same city definitely raises red flags, but I can see scenarios where someone would need to move out of state and couldn't conduct a thorough job search while employed full time far away. As an interviewer I'd be more understanding of those situations, esp. if they moved to follow a spouse/other time sensitive reason.

Sort of. A callback anywhere is practically a full-day event, so I'm not sure whether there's a significant difference between taking 9am-3pm off versus taking a full day off at your current firm. (If people paid enough attention, it might even raise more suspicion.) If you moved to follow a spouse for a very time-sensitive reason, that kind of stuff should probably be in a cover letter or somewhere that can be seen up front... but that assumes the move is already complete.

A related issue is your answer to the question of why you want to leave your current job. Your answer should always be about the reason why you want to join the target firm, rather than why your current firm is a dumpster fire. Even if your boss is legitimately a nutcase, when people hear that you want to leave because of displeasure with your current firm, they will always wonder whether your difficulty there is in fact caused by your boss or whether you are the problem.