ABA offers help to lawyers

April 8, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Lawyers, are you down on your luck, looking for somewhere to turn in this tough economy? Look no further than the American Bar Association, which has launched a new online resource for attorneys struggling to cope with the recession.

Its new Economic Recovery Resources Web Portal  has job search information, personal development and career transition info, law practice management tips, and even ideas on how to handle stress.

The overall concept of the resources is great for several reasons. First, it shows the ABA isn’t turning a blind eye to what’s happening out there in the legal community and knows it needs to help its members. Second, whether you haven’t found your first legal job or you’ve been practicing for 30 years, the site offers information for everyone. Third, it’s not just for those who’ve been laid off but also offers help to those worried about losing their current job or wanting to know how to keep their practice growing.

But there was something a little alarming in the press release touting this new resource. The release said each section offers an array of resources including, “Practical advice from ABA publications, such as ABA Journal articles on what to do if you’ve been laid off and how to make over your résumé if your years of experience make you appear old, on paper…”

If I was an older attorney reading that, it would make me nervous that because I’ve got years of work experience, I’m worse off than my younger counterparts fresh out of law school or with just a couple years of experience. I’ve read how some older workers can have a more difficult time finding a job than younger people because they are older and may command higher salaries, but doesn’t it seem a little ageist to say that you need to “young up” your résumé to get a job?
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT