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. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT