"Lawyers Wanted: Abroad, That Is."

The title of John Bringardner's article in The New York Times certainly caught my eye. It's a meandering piece, and is does report on some news: US-based law firms are increasing the number and size of their overseas offices, and are hiring for these offices.

Having moved to France in 1992 to practice law, the article resonated with me. I'm committed to living and working abroad, and wouldn't want to discourage others from doing so. I appreciate that Bringardner probably was under deadline pressure and the "wow!" factor behind the headline. But the article, as I read it, is packed with wishful thinking. I'd regret if anyone was led astray by it.

Here are a few observations, for lawyers and for law firms, intended as a corrective:
  1. There's a widely shared expectation that working abroad will somehow be easier (or, more subtly, better in a way that alleviates problems or that flattens barriers encountered at home). It's a fantasy shared by people regardless of origin: Americans, French, Chinese. It's a fallacy. Work is work, wherever it's done.
  2. Americans are quick to put themselves on a pedestal and to misread what's special about their skill set. Americans somehow view the world as lacking legal talent or experience or even laws. There's an anecdote in the Times article — "helping to draft an anti-corruption law"– that illustrates this view. I'm sure that the lawyer quoted did contribute meaningfully to that effort, but many countries already have a pool of smart lawyers able to draft and enforce legislation. (This is not a uniquely American problem; Canadians or French people suffer from it too.)
  3. The best new hire in some overseas office might not be a promising, top-performing lawyer from the United States. The skills actually in demand instead might be: preparedness to put in long hours; willingness to do tedious work without complaint; ability to answer the phone and to converse in English; and other social skills. These skills –that are necessary but mundane– may be what the overseas office most needs and what it finds comparatively hardest to recruit for locally.
  4. As an empirical point, some firms open overseas offices simply to be closer to clients or otherwise to meet client needs. Along these lines, the legal work involved could be done equally well in New York or in Hong Kong (or in Houston or in Dubai). Where the work is done will depend on where the client and market are, and where teams can do the work most cost-effectively. Taken to the extreme, for the American lawyer the work will be exactly the same –not more glamorous, certainly not easier– wherever it's done. And for the American lawyer working conditions abroad may actually be harder: having to adjust to a lower level of secretarial support, coping with immigration and other bureaucratic formalities, not being able to have an after-work drink with friends, working for a smaller pool of clients or on only one kind of matter, being far from loved ones or influential colleagues.
  5. The article suggests to me that US-based law firms open and close overseas offices all the time. This may be true, but doing so generates costs –financial, human, organizational– that go unmentioned. I'd be keenly interested in reading a follow-up article (or business school case study) that examines a law firm as it plans and implements the opening or development of an overseas office. These are tough decisions, never made lightly, but always worthy of study.