No one likes a liar. So why do people put their careers and professional reputations in jeopardy just to enhance their resumes? According to Forbes, about 60 percent of hiring managers catch lies on resumes, and the number of applicants who lie on their applications increased since the recession. But why do applicants still lie if they get caught? Aside from looking bad, his or her reputation is tarnished and any future work opportunities with the company are shot.

Moral of the story is don’t do it, but we can take a look at some of the most ridiculous resume lies.

1. Do your research. According to Forbes, one guy wrote on his resume that he was the assistant to the prime minister. The catch? The country he claimed to work for doesn’t even have one. Oops.
   What we learned: When you are truthfully associating yourself with any organization or group, you should do your background research on it. Know who you want to work for. This way you know who and what you represent and ensure you hold the same ideals.
2. Don’t act a fool. One 32-year-old applicant claimed to have 25 years of work experience. She must have matured rapidly as a  seven year old.
   What we learned: Putting ridiculous claims on your resume doesn’t fool anyone, it actually makes you look like a fool. Be as truthful as possible and learn the difference between embellishing your resume to make it shine and lying to get ahead.
3. Be truthful about your history. When applying to the same position at a company on two separate occasions, one applicant provided different work history for each application. That did wonders for the applicant’s reputation.
   What we learned: Employers can and will find out about your history, so be honest. It’s better to be up front than have to confess to a lie you previously told in an interview.
4. List references who will benefit your reputation. An applicant who listed three jobs in several years was definitely disappointed when he didn’t receive a call back. When the interviewer contacted the employers, she found out the applicant held one job for two days, another job for one day, and never worked at the third job. Yikes.
   What we learned: Use references to your advantage. They should make you look and sound great and vouch for your professional skills. Also, listing references who will uncover lies you told on a resume or application will definitely make you look bad.
5. Don’t burn bridges. After an applicant was fired from a company, he promptly applied to a different position at the same company. The company was listed under previous employment on his resume, but according to the applicant, he quit his previous job. The company’s records revealed the truth.
   What we learned: In every industry, people have connections all over the country, even the world. With our highly interconnected society, word of mouth spreads like wildfire. It would be wise to make graceful exits and maintain positive relationships in your professional career.

Though these are just a few examples of ridiculous lies applicants have told, many more have been caught. Embellishing resumes is a common problem – applicants who exaggerate their capabilities with coding and design skills, for example, are often embarrassed when tasked with those duties but they’re unable to perform.

Resume fluff just isn’t worth it. Be truthful, be honest and use colorful verbs to enhance your actual experience.

—

Natasha Paulmeno (@NatashaPaulmeno) is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends.

Natasha Paulmeno

Natasha Paulmeno is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends. Contact Natasha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Resume Lies Really Are the Worst Decision Ever appeared first on Law Street.

Law Street is gearing up for several promotions over the next few months, and one of them is to spotlight blogger talent. To kick us off I decided to interview one of of our favorites. We’ll also be highlighting legal blogging industry front-runners and guest bloggers. Law Street is always looking to feature fresh talent! If you’d like to guest blog for us, visit the connect page and check it out! Ok. That’s my plug. On to the interview.

I had the privilege of speaking with Eric Mayer this week. Mayer pens the legal blog, “The Unwashed Advocate.”  If you haven’t read it yet, check it out. It’s honest, tongue-in-cheek, snarky, hilarious, and, well, unwashed. If you don’t believe me, just read this excerpt from the home page.

Do you have legal problems? Reading this blog will not help. In fact, it will probably make them worse, and it will definitely make you feel worse. You don’t want that. If you think you may need legal representation, find yourself a good lawyer–preferably one who is recommended by other lawyers.

Mayer isn’t a full-time blogger — he has his own practice, The Mayer Group, which provides civilian counsel for military legal issues. The Unwashed Advocate didn’t start in the conventional way. In fact, Mayer was sort of anti-blog prior to starting his own, finding that blogs have a tendency to facilitate “crappy information and writing” and were using the platform merely to increase SEO and their appearance on Google. He did, however, have things to say, and after spending six years in the Army, Mayer realized he craved a voice.

“In the army, you aren’t as free to speak your mind and my family has had a history of big mouths. I started the blog slowly then finally loosened the ropes on it,” Mayer said. His blog doesn’t preach for his practice. “I don’t over advertise, I don’t interweave the blog with my practice.”

Why is The Unwashed Advocate a blog we should watch? Not only is the writing fantastic, but Mayer has a keen opinion on blogging in the current legal market that shines through. As the legal industry changes, he has managed to create a space for himself outside of his nine-to-five career. His advice on this? Not everyone should do it in the same way. “If you don’t like writing, don’t blog.”

His mantra speaks to a common struggle for young professionals: we have a lot of available technology at our fingertips, and endless opportunities to increase our visibility in search engines, to clients, and to future employers. While self promotion is extremely important, and might help propel your career, take a page from the Unwashed Advocate’s book and make sure you’re in touch with where your talents lie and not just jumping on a bandwagon. The goal, first and foremost, should be to ensure we’re presenting ourselves in the best way possible.

xo The Capitalista

—

Alexandra Saville (@CapitalistaBlog) is the Media and Writing Specialist at Law Street Media. She has experience in the publishing and marketing worlds and started her own publishing company right out of college. Her blogs, The Capitalista and Capitalista Careers, focus on the young and the entrepreneurial.

Alexandra Saville

Alexandra Saville is the Media and Writing Specialist at Law Street Media. She has experience in the publishing and marketing worlds and started her own publishing company right out of college. Her blogs, The Capitalista and Capitalista Careers, focus on the young and the entrepreneurial.

The post The Unwashed Advocate appeared first on Law Street.

About four years ago, one of the professors who gave me recommendations for my applications to law school described the institution to me as “trade school.” I imagine that my professor completed his legal studies quite some time ago (a hunch supported by his shock of white hair), because fewer and fewer legal beagles out there seem to share that assessment these days. Consider, for instance, the American Bar Association’s ongoing Task Force on the Future of Legal Education. The ABA formed the Task Force in the summer of 2012 to ascertain how law schools, and the Association itself, should address recent problems in the economics and the delivery of legal education. In comments submitted for the Task Force’s consideration, legal practitioners have frequently raised the issue of whether law schools presently do a good job of preparing students for legal practice. A consensus seems to be emerging that the answer is no.

As The Economist magazine recently noted, American law schools don’t exactly strive to teach practical legal skills, since firms traditionally train new attorneys themselves. Many in the legal academy believe in principle that the doctrinal approach that law schools generally take is a positive good. Syracuse University law professor Kevin Noble Maillard, for example, has argued that “law school is not a trade school,” that “people go to law school, pay tuition and graduate to become many things: educators, business leaders, politicians and, yes, attorneys,” and that law school “prepares people to become leaders in our society, which makes it imperative that they be rigorously trained as thinkers.”

Yet in these belt-tightening times, law firms are increasingly loath to pick up the academy’s slack (if only because clients are getting tired of footing the bill). I, for one, can’t say I blame them. My application referee may not have been quite on the money when he described law school as “trade school,” but more’s the pity. The constant refrain I hear from practicing attorneys is that they learned little or nothing about legal practice in law school, which defies common sense. Lawyering involves a lot of hands-on work that can’t be taught in the abstract, from drafting contracts to persuading clients of the right pleas to enter or claims to file. Given that an increasingly expensive legal education is almost universally required of anyone who wants to enter the profession, it’s only logical that law school should put greater emphasis on practical skills.

Professor Maillard’s position strikes me as rather misguided. He tellingly prefaced his statement with “at the risk of sounding ‘liberal artsy’”—which is exactly the point. There is no logical reason why law schools should consider it their mission to “emphasize educated citizenship.” That goal seems much better suited to undergraduate programs, which in any case cast a much wider net than law schools do and will thus reach more of the societal leaders of tomorrow. Training those leaders to have certain knowledge and to think in certain ways is desirable—but not all such budding public figures go to law school, and American law students have to go to college first anyway. It would make more sense to let them learn “educated citizenship” while earning their bachelor’s degrees and learn how to practice law in law school.

Some schools have already begun getting with the program, establishing practical skills courses and requirements. The ABA’s own Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar has received a petition to amend law school accreditation standards. In addition to requiring J.D. students to earn 15 academic credits in experiential courses, the proposal would also require each student to take at least one law clinic or externship in order to graduate. This seems like an eminently wise proposition. Every time I’ve heard a lawyer tell me that he or she didn’t learn anything about legal practice in law school, I’ve wondered, “Didn’t you do any clinics?” Lawyers themselves seem to agree that clinic work is one of the main means by which law students can learn how to be attorneys while still in school. In a 2004 ABA study, lawyers who had been practicing for two or three years rated clinical courses their third most useful law school experience—behind legal jobs during summers and the school years, and ahead of legal writing courses and internships and traditional doctrinal courses.

So if clinics have so much potential to prepare law students for legal practice, then why are so many of them graduating from law school so operationally clueless? After a bit of digging, I found that—as I suspected—clinical training isn’t as widely accessible as it could or should be. According to data from the ABA and the Law School Admission Council (LSAC), only 15% of law schools presently require or guarantee legal clinic experience to all students. Yet according to Robert R. Kuehn, a professor at the Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, the same data indicate that 84% of law schools have the resources to offer clinical opportunities to all of their students at little or no additional cost in higher tuition.

So I look favorably on the proposal made by the aforementioned petition submitted to the ABA. Requiring all law students to get at least a taste of what lawyers actually do on the job will help make sure that graduates are ready to do what they are studying to do. It can also help give prospective law school applicants a better idea of what they may be getting themselves into—when they still have a chance to avoid it.

—

Featured image courtesy of [walknboston via Wikipedia]

Akil Alleyne

Akil Alleyne, a native of Montreal, is a graduate of Princeton University and the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. His major areas of study are constitutional and international law, with focus on federalism, foreign policy, separation of powers and property rights. Akil is also a member of Young Voices Advocates, which connects students and young professionals with media outlets worldwide to facilitate youth participation in political and social discourse. Contact Akil at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Should Law School Be More Like Trade School? appeared first on Law Street.