Legal job hunters – the best file formats for CVs

I’m a big fan of How to Geek with their varied, quirky and nicely-presented tech articles;  it never fails to keep me entertained.

One of their quirkier articles - which will no doubt resonate well with legal job hunters – was dedicated (in part) to the best file formats for sending CVs.

Lawyers are rather well known for being conservative creatures and the PR / recruitment side of law firms are no exception. I think the best advice is simple: just play it safe. That goes for fonts, styles and file types for CVs.

Anyhow, here’s the low down on some of the options.

The Good

.pdf

Fonts are … embedded into PDF, so any formatting you’ve done to make your resume look nice should carry through to your prospective employer.

Always a good choice and it’s dead easy these days to save files as a .pdf – either with a free downloadable virtual printer driver, a plugin for MS office or via Google Docs.

How to Geek added that:

…non-text based PDFs can’t be read by automated systems, [so] you may be safer off using DOC, RTF, or TXT files if you’re planning on applying to staffing firms or corporations with large HR departments to manage.

Or you could just save it as a text .pdf which should be the default?

.doc

[Y]ou can safely assume nearly any business would need to open a DOC file at some point. As long as your resume is largely text-based and formatted in common fonts, you can expect what you see on your screen to be seen when your resume is reviewed.

I remember from my job-hunting days that .doc always seemed a no-brainer and it was often stipulated by the employer themselves that CVs should be submitted in that format.  It’s not an open standard, strictly speaking, but it’s certainly a de facto one.

.rtf

Rich text is a basic file format that includes some basic formatting information, as well as text only info a TXT file has. Windows, Mac, and Linux [users] should have no trouble opening an RTF file, although as noted before, take care to use common fonts in order to avoid font defaulting.

I don’t use .rtf much myself, but I guess you can’t go that far wrong with it. 

The Not So Good

.docx

DOCX is an XML based version of the Microsoft Word document format we’ve all used for years and years. Only more current versions of Microsoft word (or OpenOffice, etc.) can open DOCX.

That’s a fair point, even though the 3 most recent versions of Office can open these files (albeit one needs a free and readily available plug-in) it’s probably still safer to save your CV as a .doc instead.

.odt

The general rule of thumb is that if it takes extra effort to open your resume, you’re already in the garbage. So unless you’re applying for a job at Sun Microsystems or Oracle, you’re probably better off not using ODT. So much for open standards!

I’m all for open standards but I don’t care for Open Office (and the colleague who recently wanted me to download Open Office and use it to edit a file because Office 2007 mildly affects the formatting of .odt files is going to have a very long wait).

And the Downright Stupid

.jpg

While JPG and image based resumes might seem like good solutions to defaulting fonts or hard-to open file formats like ODT or DOCX, it can be slightly jarring to get a resume as an image file.

Slightly jarring is putting it mildly. A .jpg? For a CV? Really? Are you freaking kidding me?

If you’re sending your CV as a jpg (or any graphic format) I don’t think you deserve to be employed!

.txt

While there is nothing wrong with sending a text file, it is a somewhat odd and spartan choice. Many employers will be expecting a certain level care, attention and formatting to be taken to their own documents.

Odd and spartan is a polite way of saying it.  Just don’t.

Plain text email

Plain text email is one of the only ways to ensure that what you type ends up in the hands of the prospective employer without any sort of issues with formatting. Keep in mind, what you say is far more important than being able to use boldfaces or graphics, so a well-written cover letter and text-only resume in an email can prove more useful than all the bells.

True, but some email clients can do very funny things to formatting – particularly when it comes to printing the email/CV. Best avoided.

URL / HTML mail

Many big companies block a lot of websites, so while sending a nicely formatted webpage with your online business card might seem like a good idea, there is always the chance that it might be more trouble than it is worth to view your information. This includes HTML formatted mail, with images, stationary, etc, all of which may not work with anyone else’s email clients.

Definitely best avoided, if only to save yourself from your own smugness.  Recruiters tend not to like cleverdicks.

So, thanks, How to Geek, for that partial saunter into the bleeding obvious. Put simply, PDF, and .doc would be the best choices and the rest should be frankly avoided. Then again, a lot of recruitment processes involve candidates filling in lengthy and bespoke online application forms where traditional CVs are firmly shunned – regardless of what format they’re in.  

What’s the wackiest format you’ve ever used to send a CV for a legal job? 

Please don’t tell me you’ve tried that jpg trick? You’d be better off mailing it in scribbled on the back of an envelope!

Going, Going, Wrong - Gavels & the English Legal System

^{Image found here.}

From Legal Blog Watch:

No Gavels Allowed! Picking Better Stock Images for Your Law Firm Website

On Lawyerist, Karin Conroy has an interesting post pointing out that, while certain types of stock images seem like likely fits for your law firm website, it is time to let some of the most clichéd images rest in peace. The wrong stock images, Conroy writes, "can ruin an otherwise great website by making it look generic, while creative and customized stock images can evoke emotion and support your messaging and branding."

That’s an interesting marketing point, I guess, but as far as English law and gavels are concerned, there’s a much more crucial issue at play. As hard as it is for some people to grasp, the judiciary in the English legal system (at any level) simply do not use gavels, despite what you might have seen in Coronation Street etc.  

Heck, even the spam-linking ‘Manchester Solicitors’ commented on legalblogwatch that ‘judges aren’t auctioneers’.  (See, I give you some credit guys, but I’ll continue to remove your pesky spam-link-comments on Law Actually just as fast my little fingers will allow!!!)

Still, pictures of gavels are a very common sight on websites for firms offering legal services based in England and Wales – particularly personal injury ones.  I guess it’s one of those little fallacies that those who know better have become desensitised to.

But does this even matter? Is my pointing this out just an exercise in pedantry? If the average Joe Shmoe, rightly or wrongly, associates members of the judiciary and legal professionals with gavels, why wouldn’t designers and publishers make use of stock images depicting them? Of course, they could try and come up with something original. But lawyers aren’t really known for their originality. Plus, gavels are far less prone to embarrassing misinterpretation than other paraphernalia associated with the legal system - say a pair of handcuffs, for instance.

Is it time for legal education to join the 21st Century?

I still find it astounding that here we are, well into the 21^st century, and Legal Practice Course (LPC) providers are still treating technology as an afterthought. For instance, why on earth are the core skills of writing and drafting on the LPC taught and examined through handwritten exercises instead of using computers?

The same goes with research. The paper versions of Halsbury’s are cute and all that, but lawyers of the future shouldn’t groomed in becoming experts in carting those unwieldy tombs around. They should be embracing technology and the advantages it offers them.

Netbooks are as cheap as chips and there’s no reason why exams which use computers rather than the traditional answer books offer any more potential for cheating than the current system which obsesses with pens and paper. If providers are worried about cheating they can block access to the internet, disable wireless functionality and superglue up USB ports if they’re so inclined.

Skills on the Legal Practice Course and the Bar Professional Training Course, should be taught and examined in the context in which students will find themselves once they’ve left the cosy nest of academia. LPC providers love to proclaim how their course ‘mimics reality’ of legal practice and some even go as far as calling tutors ‘supervising principals’. I don’t think anyone’s taken-in by the label for a moment.

But with all this supposed focus on practicality, why is there an obsession with handwritten scripts still holding sway? How often these days does a lawyer mark up a draft contract by hand and send it back via snail-mail as a travelling draft? The world has had a funny thing called email for quite some time now.

It can’t be right that fundamental skills and functionality that students will need out there in the big bad world is given such short shrift. Here’s a classic example. I remember on the LPC that after we’d finished our initial drafting exercises (by hand, of course), the lecturer introduced the ‘track changes’ feature in Word during a rushed 5 minutes at the end of the session. Looking around the room, it was clear some people were seeing this ‘track changes’ for the first time which is scary in itself, but the real crime is committed by LPC providers by not focussing on the skill of drafting within context of a word processing program. Here was functionality that students would be using day-to-day out there in practice, yet it was treated as an afterthought. And having spoken to others on other LPC courses, their experiences were exactly the same.

And this isn’t just hyperbolic venting; there is a real impact on the future of the profession at play here. If would-be lawyers aren’t being trained in the use of fundamental tools of their work, something is clearly wrong. I remember several students were amazed that they could change the case of text in Microsoft Word once it had been typed. One student (who was actually in practice as a paralegal at the time) admitted that in that situation, she used to delete the relevant text and then retype it in CAPITALS. That is just scary. Lawyers still routinely bill per hour; would her potential clients be getting good value for money whilst she went through her deletion and retyping sequence?

Granted, the practice of law is regarded much like driving and driving tests; you are taught the basics so you’re proficient enough to get out there and develop your skills where you really learn the art of the skill over time. That takes a lot of practise and LPC providers teaching candidates how to be ‘good lawyer’ is an aspiration rather than an realistically achievable goal. But practising word processing skills likely to be needed in practice can most certainly be taught in a classroom.

Law schools often drag experts in from Lexis and Westlaw to impart a few tricks of the trade to students. Why isn’t the same done with word processing programs? Maybe time should be dedicated to teaching the ins and outs of complex multilevel lists and how to edit them without losing your mind. How about the teaching students the art of using cross-referencing functionality which can update references to clauses in an agreement as they are subsequently amended? Wouldn’t that make so much sense?

It’s such a no-brainer. Ensuring LPC students are proficient with word processing programs rather than just assuming it, would allow future lawyers to minimise the amount of the time and effort involved in wrestling with software that they don’t properly know how to use and concentrate on, you know, actually practicing law.

I’m still tickled by the fact my LPC foundations manual told me how to compose an email, how I should deal with snotty responses from fellow professionals, as well as telling me I should get some fresh air at lunch time to manage my stress levels. But using core functionality of computer programs which are mission-critical to a lawyer’s day job didn’t even get a look-in.

Isn’t it time the LPC joined the 21^st century?

What kind of commenter are YOU?

It’s been a while since I’ve done one of these, so thought it was about time again.

As before, I might be sailing quite close to the wind with the ‘most likely to be’ column, but I’m hoping the esteemed members of the ‘sphere take it on the chin with good humour! ;-) You’ll notice that I didn’t escape mention either.

	What it really means	We Say	Try	Most likely to be
The Spasmodic Commenter	You’ve a habit of going to ground every few months and then you spring up like you were there all the time.	Please don’t treat our blogs like cheap whores – only going to them when you fancy a bit of a change.	You know, that C-word... commitment! ;-)	Lost London Law Student; Swiss Tony
The Skim Reading Commenter	You start off actually reading the post but you kind of run out of steam half way through.	Watch out: your skim reading might get you in trouble one day! :p	Sorting out your attention span problems	Andro
The Verbose Commenter	You’ll happily throw up war and peace as a comment, without thinking about the poor souls who have to read it.	Go easy on your keyboard – you’re wearing that sucker out! ;-)	Keeping it brief	Law Minx
The Spam Commenter	You’re not really a commenter at all. In fact, you’re as welcome as haemorrhoids	There’s no point sugar coating the pill; we don’t like you, you smell bad and we especially don’t want you sullying our blawgs.	F**king off!	Sudip from Bangladesh who’s being paid by some SEO company who’s in turn paid by some personal injury firm to spam-link relevant blogs for Google juice!
The Tightwad Commenter	Sure, comments are free, but why give them away when you needn’t	Ever heard of karma? You’ve gotta share the commenting love.	Letting rip with a few comments every now and then.	Ramblings of a Scottish Student
The Profuse Commenter	You’re spewing comments left and right or you’ve ‘commenting diarrhoea’. Either way, it’s bad.	Maybe you’re just lonely? You could always try a help group? ;-)	Giving it a rest	Law Actually
The Anonymous Commenter	You might be a comment-virgin or a seasoned comment-whore in disguise... no one can tell. And that just stinks.	No one respects an anonymous commenter. I know, I know, but the truth hurts	Growing a pair and revealing yourself... um, that came out badly.	Um, well, ‘Anonymous’ funnily enough.
The Touchy-Feely Commenter	It’s all ‘hun’ this and ‘babe’ that, rounded off with a couple of XXs.	You’ve gotta whole lot of love to give, baby and you’re not afraid to show it!	Saying up front whether you expect the recipient to, you know, XX you back! ;-)	Aimless Wanderer; Look Good Legally
The Late to the Party Commenter	You like to keep abreast of stuff in the ‘sphere; you’re just a few weeks behind the curve, that’s all	Better late than never, I guess.	An RSS reader? ;-)	Law Dent

Solicitors from Hell drops deletion charge – deckchairs on the Titanic?

From Solicitors Journal 22/02/11:

Solicitors from Hell, the website which has repeatedly been on the receiving end of libel actions for hosting defamatory attacks on lawyers, has dropped its £299 deletion fee.

Rick Kordowski, owner of Solicitors from Hell, said the £299 fee for removing a critical comment was “no longer available” to law firms. It is not known how many firms paid the fee to avoid hostile comments.

Kordowski said the fee was “initially a publicity stunt” which worked successfully and resulted in coverage in the legal press and some of the national media.

Really? What a curious way of gaining publicity. And what a nice side effect it had!

The owner of Solicitors from Hell was responding to remarks from Jane Hickman, joint senior partner of criminal specialists Hickman & Rose, which settled a defamation action against the website last week.

A statement from the firm said Kordowski had agreed never to publish anything more about the firm or its solicitors.

The settlement with the firm followed two separate actions by solicitors at Hickman & Rose, who won damages of £15,000 each plus costs from Kordowski at the High Court.

Hickman said Kordowski offered to settle the case with the firm on the basis that any mention of Hickman & Rose would be removed from the Solicitors from Hell website, and the firm would be mentioned instead on its sister site for good solicitors, Solicitors from Heaven.

Hickman said she rejected the offer and Kordowski declined to comment on the issue.

The Solicitors from Heaven website says it can “assist you in avoiding the scams, pitfalls, rip offs and ruthless solicitors that seem to be everywhere”.

Hmmm. I’m not sure that two wrongs make a right.

Giving judgment earlier this month in an action brought by Juliet Farrall, a solicitor at McCormacks, Mr Justice Lloyd Jones said the defamation was made worse by the fact Kordowski tried to charge £299 to remove the posting.

Farrall was awarded £10,000 in damages.

In October last year, Megan Phillips, a solicitor at Bhatt Murphy, was awarded £17,500 in damages plus £28,000 in costs by Mr Justice Eady for defamation by Solicitors from Hell. This was the first of five libel actions against Kordowski to reach court.

In a written response last week, Kordowski said it was “interesting to note” that all the claims against him (where the poster of a listing decided to remain anonymous) came from either current or former employees of Hickman & Rose.

Which suggests that anything said by them should be taken with an even greater pinch of salt, no?

“Funny that!” he said. “Oh, and no, I don’t intend to pay anyone. (I have no money nor assets.)”

It seems to me that Solicitors from Hell is just a magnet for abuse.  In today’s world of consumer-primacy, you can’t move for rubbing a hypersensitive and petulant individual up the wrong way, who inevitably feels they’ve been unjustifiably wronged and are deserving of recompense.

It’s widely recognised that all clients like to feel that they’re the only one on the solicitor’s books and can’t understand the darn impertinence of the said solicitor when he or she doesn’t return calls instantaneously. What if an otherwise good Solicitor made a wardrobe faux pas, donning on a style of tie that wasn’t to the client’s liking, then delivered news to the client that they didn’t want to hear? What’s to stop that client from getting his or her panties in a bunch and posting a biased entry on Solicitors From Hell?

In other words, it’s become entirely impossible to judge the genuine complaints from the fake ones, and whilst the initial was a good one, I think it’s clear for all to see that it’s deeply flawed in practice.  It’s all too easy for clients to throw something up on Solicitors For Hell with no real means of substantiating allegations, or righting the wrongs to the overwhelming majority of solicitors out there who provide excellent service to their clients.

I’ve said it before but it’s worth repeating, Rick Kordowski should just knock this one on the head; running the site is too much trouble, it doesn’t produce the service to the public that was initially hoped for and he should throw his efforts into something else.  It was an interesting idea but it’s degenerated into something that it shouldn’t have - a group of mothers outside the school gate meeting for a good ol’ bitch and moan who have little interest in the truth.

Judge congratulates police dog after nipping defendant

From: CPD Webinars 28/02/11 -

Judge Julian Lambert exclaimed, "Good! I hope it hurt. Well done Zak!", when told that the 8 year old German Shepherd had sunk his teeth into a thief’s buttock. The judge spoke out, last month, against the current 'soft' sentencing guidelines which prevented him jailing a burglar in Bristol.

However sitting at Gloucester Crown court the judge had no hesitation in locking up persistent thief John Davies for nine months. Davies, 35, of Evesham, admitted trying to steal a £3,000 bronze statue from a park in Cheltenham in August last year. He was spotted by a couple walking, who raised the alarm. Davies fled when he saw police arriving but Zak was unleashed and sent after him. Prosecutor George Threlfall said "The dog followed the scent to a nearby courtyard where the defendant was hiding. Zak detained him by biting his left buttock."

Ouch! That’s one way of doing it I suppose. But why not the right buttock, I wonder? Maybe the defendant had a doggy treat in his left back pocket?

After the hearing Zak's handler Pc Rich Hunt said it had been the dog's last bite in the course of duty as he has since retired.

I’m sure the defendant will be making a point of keeping the hell away from any Alsatians in the future, particularly without his Kevlar boxer shorts on!

Let’s hope for his sake, he wasn’t sentenced to community service – he’d make a conspicuous target for a nippy canine, particularly if someone slipped a sausage roll into his jacket pocket! 

Dad Report – too funny!

I know it was technically World Maths Day yesterday, but this is just too funny not to post.

Brilliant!