Top Law Schools

Hi TLS,

The small law firm that I worked at recently was acquired by an Amlaw 100 firm. Any advice on how I should list my old firm on my resume? Is it more appropriate to say something along the lines of (1) "Old Firm, acquired by New Firm in 20XX", or (2) "New Firm, through merger with Old Firm"?

Not sure if this even matters, but I guess I would like interviewers to see my name associated with the still existing Amlaw firm rather than the small law firm which is gone away with and didnt have much name recognition anyway outside my market (as opposed to Dewey or something).

Thanks!

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 01, 2022 2:55 pm

Hi TLS,

The small law firm that I worked at recently was acquired by an Amlaw 100 firm. Any advice on how I should list my old firm on my resume? Is it more appropriate to say something along the lines of (1) "Old Firm, acquired by New Firm in 20XX", or (2) "New Firm, through merger with Old Firm"?

Not sure if this even matters, but I guess I would like interviewers to see my name associated with the still existing Amlaw firm rather than the small law firm which is gone away with and didnt have much name recognition anyway outside my market (as opposed to Dewey or something).

Thanks!

I'm no expert, but I would list the existing firm and then in parenthesis say something like (formerly Wewenta, Outah, & Bizness), especially if you want the new firm clout. You could do it the other way around and just put the new firm in parenthesis preceded by "now," but it sounds like it's less in line with your goals. I wouldn't sweat it too much.

If it wasn't New Firm when you were there I don't think there's any way to do this without being awkward. You can't claim to have worked at New Firm if you didn't.

OP here--thanks for the responses. To clarify, I worked at the Old Firm several years ago and never worked at New Firm. I do want the recognition of the New Firm (thats where all my old colleagues are at now anyway, including all the partners and associates I worked for which would vouch for me) but I dont want it to come off as offensive to other lawyers if i did "New Firm, (merged with Old Firm on [date])" or something.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 01, 2022 9:08 pm

OP here--thanks for the responses. To clarify, I worked at the Old Firm several years ago and never worked at New Firm. I do want the recognition of the New Firm (thats where all my old colleagues are at now anyway, including all the partners and associates I worked for which would vouch for me) but I dont want it to come off as offensive to other lawyers if i did "New Firm, (merged with Old Firm on [date])" or something.

I wouldn’t put anything there. You never worked at new firm.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 01, 2022 9:08 pm

OP here--thanks for the responses. To clarify, I worked at the Old Firm several years ago and never worked at New Firm. I do want the recognition of the New Firm (thats where all my old colleagues are at now anyway, including all the partners and associates I worked for which would vouch for me) but I dont want it to come off as offensive to other lawyers if i did "New Firm, (merged with Old Firm on [date])" or something.

I think this is more misleading than "New Firm (formerly Old Firm)." By saying formerly you're implying that was the case when you worked there. It's less clear when you say the NF you didn't work at merged with OF.

2013 wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 02, 2022 8:03 am

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 01, 2022 9:08 pm

OP here--thanks for the responses. To clarify, I worked at the Old Firm several years ago and never worked at New Firm. I do want the recognition of the New Firm (thats where all my old colleagues are at now anyway, including all the partners and associates I worked for which would vouch for me) but I dont want it to come off as offensive to other lawyers if i did "New Firm, (merged with Old Firm on [date])" or something.

I wouldn’t put anything there. You never worked at new firm.

Yeah, I mostly agree. If you list prior firm, it's probably not hard for anyone who needs to know to find out that it merged with new firm. At most, I'd put "Prior Firm (merged with New Firm, 2022) - 2018-2021," but I'd think that if anyone needs to talk to people who can vouch for you, you'd just be providing the reference information directly. Plenty of people use references from previous jobs who aren't at the job where they worked with you.

Putting NF is dishonest. Putting OF 19-21 (merged with NF in 22) is technically OK and accurate but if I saw that I'd probably think it's weird. Like posting your Ls for leaving before the merge. Or maybe like putting that you went to Harvard Business School when it was like one online weekend course anyone can take.

I don't understand why putting NF on while making it clear that it was OF is so controversial. That's standard practice in the business world. I've seen it plenty of times. Just put the date and it will be clear.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 02, 2022 8:29 am

I don't understand why putting NF on while making it clear that it was OF is so controversial. That's standard practice in the business world. I've seen it plenty of times. Just put the date and it will be clear.

Because you never worked at NF. It doesn’t matter what happened to OF. One of the places on my resume no longer exists. I’d never put XYZ (Now Defunct).

If I were reviewing this person’s resume, I’d judge them because I’d see through what they’re trying to do. Also, if NF acquired OF, OF was probably respectable unless it was like Dentons, which acquires anything.

2013 wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 02, 2022 8:39 am

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 02, 2022 8:29 am

I don't understand why putting NF on while making it clear that it was OF is so controversial. That's standard practice in the business world. I've seen it plenty of times. Just put the date and it will be clear.

Because you never worked at NF. It doesn’t matter what happened to OF. One of the places on my resume no longer exists. I’d never put XYZ (Now Defunct).

If I were reviewing this person’s resume, I’d judge them because I’d see through what they’re trying to do. Also, if NF acquired OF, OF was probably respectable unless it was like Dentons, which acquires anything.

Given that OP said amlaw 100 (which is based essentially on headcount) not vault or chambers, it probably is Dentons.

I’d put New Firm (formerly Old Firm). I see it done all the time, especially by equity partners who’ve worked for a long time, and don’t any issue with it.

2013 wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 02, 2022 8:39 am

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 02, 2022 8:29 am

I don't understand why putting NF on while making it clear that it was OF is so controversial. That's standard practice in the business world. I've seen it plenty of times. Just put the date and it will be clear.

Because you never worked at NF. It doesn’t matter what happened to OF. One of the places on my resume no longer exists. I’d never put XYZ (Now Defunct).

If I were reviewing this person’s resume, I’d judge them because I’d see through what they’re trying to do. Also, if NF acquired OF, OF was probably respectable unless it was like Dentons, which acquires anything.

I think the flip side is that OP probably worked for a fine firm that no one has heard of because it no longer exists, and a way to signal that old firm was reputable would be to say Old Firm (acquired by Dentons in 2022). That's what I would do and as an interviewer I'd be happy I didn't have to google around to figure out what Old Firm was and why it no longer has a web presence.

12YrsAnAssociate wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 04, 2022 2:21 pm

2013 wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 02, 2022 8:39 am

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 02, 2022 8:29 am

I don't understand why putting NF on while making it clear that it was OF is so controversial. That's standard practice in the business world. I've seen it plenty of times. Just put the date and it will be clear.

Because you never worked at NF. It doesn’t matter what happened to OF. One of the places on my resume no longer exists. I’d never put XYZ (Now Defunct).

If I were reviewing this person’s resume, I’d judge them because I’d see through what they’re trying to do. Also, if NF acquired OF, OF was probably respectable unless it was like Dentons, which acquires anything.

I think the flip side is that OP probably worked for a fine firm that no one has heard of because it no longer exists, and a way to signal that old firm was reputable would be to say Old Firm (acquired by Dentons in 2022). That's what I would do and as an interviewer I'd be happy I didn't have to google around to figure out what Old Firm was and why it no longer has a web presence.

If it was recently acquired, then the reason it's not known isn't because it was acquired. It's unknown because it's not notable. If anything, a Google search should come up with a press release of the merge.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 04, 2022 5:40 pm

12YrsAnAssociate wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 04, 2022 2:21 pm

2013 wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 02, 2022 8:39 am

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 02, 2022 8:29 am

I don't understand why putting NF on while making it clear that it was OF is so controversial. That's standard practice in the business world. I've seen it plenty of times. Just put the date and it will be clear.

Because you never worked at NF. It doesn’t matter what happened to OF. One of the places on my resume no longer exists. I’d never put XYZ (Now Defunct).

If I were reviewing this person’s resume, I’d judge them because I’d see through what they’re trying to do. Also, if NF acquired OF, OF was probably respectable unless it was like Dentons, which acquires anything.

I think the flip side is that OP probably worked for a fine firm that no one has heard of because it no longer exists, and a way to signal that old firm was reputable would be to say Old Firm (acquired by Dentons in 2022). That's what I would do and as an interviewer I'd be happy I didn't have to google around to figure out what Old Firm was and why it no longer has a web presence.

If it was recently acquired, then the reason it's not known isn't because it was acquired. It's unknown because it's not notable. If anything, a Google search should come up with a press release of the merge.

Maybe. But there are plenty of very good firms out there that I've never heard of, and I think that if a big name brand firm bought one out, as an interviewer, that would be notable to me and I'd like to know that without needing to do research.

I think what's going on here is that there are people who have looked at a lot of resumes and seen this plenty of times who say this is standard practice (which is true) and then there are people who have not, who feel it's weird. FWIW, as a lateral, your resume may be distributed broadly to people who fall into the later camp, so even if this is common practice you may consider not doing it here. With that said, I've seen this done plenty of times, and see no problem with it.

Maybe look to see how other lawyers have handled this. The one that comes to mind is Hogan & Hartson to Hogan Lovells. I'm sure there is more recent examples though

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 01, 2022 9:08 pm

OP here--thanks for the responses. To clarify, I worked at the Old Firm several years ago and never worked at New Firm. I do want the recognition of the New Firm (thats where all my old colleagues are at now anyway, including all the partners and associates I worked for which would vouch for me) but I dont want it to come off as offensive to other lawyers if i did "New Firm, (merged with Old Firm on [date])" or something.

I really don't think you can put new firm in your resume because you have no connection to that firm. If you were to put "Saul, Paul, and Maul (formerly Maul, Paul, Sual)" then it would imply that you worked at the new firm after the merger.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 02, 2022 8:18 am

Putting NF is dishonest. Putting OF 19-21 (merged with NF in 22) is technically OK and accurate but if I saw that I'd probably think it's weird. Like posting your Ls for leaving before the merge. Or maybe like putting that you went to Harvard Business School when it was like one online weekend course anyone can take.

I agree whole heartedly that you TECHNICALLY can do that, but also agree that it would look super strange and not give any "clout" whatsoever

I'll say it again - this is standard practice for most people outside of the law. A quick internet search proves that point. There's good reason for it - if an employer wants to go digging to find out more about you/your work/your employer, they'll have an easier time doing so looking at the company that's still operating, even if it's not a 1:1 with what you did.

I'm guessing most people who say this is weird have not been in a position to review lots of resumes from experienced applicants (as opposed to OCI, where people rarely have much experience and few have any that's more than 5 years old). As long as you include the date of merger you're not trying to fool anybody because, presumably, you also include your dates of employment. But given the uneducated but nonetheless adverse reactions from people ITT, maybe it's best to leave it off if your resume is going to be reviewed by more people than just HR/partners.

12YrsAnAssociate wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 06, 2022 2:45 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 04, 2022 5:40 pm

12YrsAnAssociate wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 04, 2022 2:21 pm

2013 wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 02, 2022 8:39 am

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 02, 2022 8:29 am

I don't understand why putting NF on while making it clear that it was OF is so controversial. That's standard practice in the business world. I've seen it plenty of times. Just put the date and it will be clear.

Because you never worked at NF. It doesn’t matter what happened to OF. One of the places on my resume no longer exists. I’d never put XYZ (Now Defunct).

If I were reviewing this person’s resume, I’d judge them because I’d see through what they’re trying to do. Also, if NF acquired OF, OF was probably respectable unless it was like Dentons, which acquires anything.

I think the flip side is that OP probably worked for a fine firm that no one has heard of because it no longer exists, and a way to signal that old firm was reputable would be to say Old Firm (acquired by Dentons in 2022). That's what I would do and as an interviewer I'd be happy I didn't have to google around to figure out what Old Firm was and why it no longer has a web presence.

If it was recently acquired, then the reason it's not known isn't because it was acquired. It's unknown because it's not notable. If anything, a Google search should come up with a press release of the merge.

Maybe. But there are plenty of very good firms out there that I've never heard of, and I think that if a big name brand firm bought one out, as an interviewer, that would be notable to me and I'd like to know that without needing to do research.

Completely agree with this. Idk why it is so controversial to just put that it was Old Firm (acquired by NF). I would appreciate the info. I agree that doing it the reverse where OP makes it seem like they worked at NF would be dishonest. But putting NF in parentheses is helpful to most interviewers and I thought fairly common practice based on resumes that I have seen