Temping as an attorney -- tips?

[Anonymous]

Yes. You have to be dc barred or dc pending. The laws changed recently, but its been like this for a couple of years. Ask the agencies though. Some projects may be able to get around the new law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes. You have to be dc barred or dc pending. The laws changed recently, but its been like this for a couple of years. Ask the agencies though. Some projects may be able to get around the new law.

Everyone I met with said that DC bar or pending is preferred, but not one told me that it was required. This really bothers me that not one of the agencies told me this. I first applied for positions in January and haven't gotten anything yet. I have litigation experience from two NY biglaw firms and went to a top 5 law school and I figured that I wasn't getting work yet because there's nothing out there. This law/requirement is news to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To work on a project in DC, you need to be DC barred or DC-pending.

PP are you certain that this is true? Can you please refer me to something that confirms this? I'm only barred in NY and recently applied to a number of agencies -- none have told me that I need to be DC barred or pending. I've been holding off on submitting my application because now is not a great time for me to pay the $775 fee, but I'll obviously submit it if I'm not going to get work otherwise.

NP here. PP is correct. A couple years ago, the DC Bar passed a Rule requiring contract workers to be barred in DC or have an application pending. I'll try to find a link.

[Anonymous]

Here you go

http://www.dcappeals.gov/dccourts/docs/rule49_opinion16-05.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here you go

http://www.dcappeals.gov/dccourts/docs/rule49_opinion16-05.pdf

Thanks. I don't know why they haven't told me this, particularly when it's in their interest to place me so they can make $$ off of me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here you go

http://www.dcappeals.gov/dccourts/docs/rule49_opinion16-05.pdf

Thanks. I don't know why they haven't told me this, particularly when it's in their interest to place me so they can make $$ off of me.

Maybe the doc review facility is outside of DC but within the metro area. Or they don't care if they bill you out as a paralegal or JD w/o license so they can place more people in positions where the the hourly rate is lower.

[Anonymous]

Yes, you really do need to be DC barred or pending. That is the rule and there's no deficit of contract attorneys who fit the bill. There IS work right now. If you're not getting called, there's a reason. And I'm not trying to be rude, but to the PP who pointed out past experience and qualifications--you're naive if you think that makes a difference. They're just looking for warm bodies with the right bar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, you really do need to be DC barred or pending. That is the rule and there's no deficit of contract attorneys who fit the bill. There IS work right now. If you're not getting called, there's a reason. And I'm not trying to be rude, but to the PP who pointed out past experience and qualifications--you're naive if you think that makes a difference. They're just looking for warm bodies with the right bar.

a couple years ago there was some interesting press about big law firms hiring minority temp lawyers so they can pad their diversity stats.

so how many years would you do contract or temp work before you bailed on law for good?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, you really do need to be DC barred or pending. That is the rule and there's no deficit of contract attorneys who fit the bill. There IS work right now. If you're not getting called, there's a reason. And I'm not trying to be rude, but to the PP who pointed out past experience and qualifications--you're naive if you think that makes a difference. They're just looking for warm bodies with the right bar.

And it's all about connections. Agencies have long lists of people they have relied on before. Those people come first and then come the rest. You have to be super proactive to get on projects. You cant just assume they will call you and you need to do everything you can to get your foot in the door with one agency and do a great job for them and then the calls will start coming and if you establish yourself with one agency, then other agencies will try to steal you. It's a huge game but you have to play it.

[Anonymous]

Hopefully? all the document review drudgery will a thing of the past with super powerful doc rev software. I think that will also help to shift the legal profession and law school for everyone under the sun to those who either have connections or are seriously intelligent and will make their fortunes. Just like it used to be--for the rich or very intelligent.

[Anonymous]

for those who have done contract attorney work involving a foreign language, do you really need to be fluent or just proficient? how much more can one earn? does it vary among languages (e.g., such that they pay much more when really desperate for a language not widely spoken here)? What kind of money is that?

one agency rep told me they sometimes need people who can just identify that a document is in a given language. surely it is typically much more than that?

[Anonymous]

bump

[Anonymous]

As far as languages, I've only worked on projects where they wanted fluency. We were reviewing docs for privilege and such and they wanted you to be able to read contracts, presentations, emails, letters, etc. Arguably you do not need to be fluent to do that. I will say that there were a few people who misrepresented their language abilities and they were quickly weeded out. They probably could have done the job but they were "turned in" by others on the project as their skills became clear. We did re-review everything they'd done and there had been a higher than normal number of mistakes. So I'd be very clear about what your real skills are. If you are just proficient but it's a language more difficult to find people in, you may get lucky.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As far as languages, I've only worked on projects where they wanted fluency. We were reviewing docs for privilege and such and they wanted you to be able to read contracts, presentations, emails, letters, etc. Arguably you do not need to be fluent to do that. I will say that there were a few people who misrepresented their language abilities and they were quickly weeded out. They probably could have done the job but they were "turned in" by others on the project as their skills became clear. We did re-review everything they'd done and there had been a higher than normal number of mistakes. So I'd be very clear about what your real skills are. If you are just proficient but it's a language more difficult to find people in, you may get lucky.

Yep, I agree.

DH is fluent in his native language (English is his second language). He sees people try to pass themselves off as fluent, but they just can't do the job.

He should know...he had to get through law school and pass the bar in English. No cakewalk, I assure you (heck, even native speakers can hardly understand legal terms sometimes). You have to really know the second language to do this sort of work.