Multitasking at home or in the office has pretty much become an accepted part of life. Many job descriptions even include “ability to multitask” among the requirements for the position, and it’s generally thought of as good and helpful skill.

But a local management consultant says multitasking is not a good thing.

Jodi Daniels says that despite the fact that it has become professionally acceptable to multitask at work, multitasking does not lead to a more effective workforce or product. Even though employers and employees may think that they are getting more work done, work quality suffers because an employee who multitasks essentially is a distracted employee. In fact, Daniels says, the better a person thinks they are at multitasking, the worse they actually are at it.

I have mixed feelings about multitasking but I mostly agree with Daniels. As far as taking on certain tasks at the same time, I have found that regardless of how good I actually am at it (and I’m pretty sure I’m not), I just don’t like it. One of the big ones for me is the phone: that is, talking on the phone while I’m on the computer or checking my phone during face-to-face conversations. I just don’t feel like I can give my attention to both tasks and I don’t like doing it. Plus, we’ve all been in the situation where someone is doing this to us. It’s usually fairly obvious they’re doing it and, depending on the situation, it can get annoying.

But it can be difficult to force yourself to concentrate on one thing at a time, especially if you have a lot to do or if certain things on your to-do list are more routine tasks that don’t necessarily require your full attention.

In some ways I like multitasking. It’s always been easier for me to get things done when I have a lot on my plate. I can move on to another project for a bit if I hit a tough spot in the project I’m working on so I never feel “stuck”, so to speak.

How do you feel about multitasking? Do you have any tips for doing it successfully?

Powered by Bookmarkify™

Email and social media have their place in today’s world but what about their place at law firms? Many of us take the ease and convenience of email for granted but some law firms have started to lock attorneys’ access to their personal email from their work computers.

The reason behind blocking personal email was not that attorneys were distracted but rather security concerns. Certain law firms thought that employees might accidentally click on an email containing a virus, which in turn could wreak havoc on the office’s entire system. There are other theories/reasons why a firm or other place of business might block its employees email, including privacy and liability reasons.

I have also heard of offices blocking websites, such as Facebook, and I am not sure of the rationale behind this practice. I understand blocking certain sites for security reasons, but it seems that the reasons for blocking other sites (Facebook) would be more related to productivity.

I generally think it is OK for employees to have access to their personal email unless there are some serious security issues. I wonder how effective the law firms that have blocked personal email have found this practice and what the employees think about it.

Does blocking personal email lead to attorneys and other employees using their work email for personal matters more frequently? If attorneys are given cell phones through the firm, I would imagine they would still be able to check their personal email through the phones. (This also goes for Facebook and other websites.) Attorneys will still be able to access these sites via cell phones, so is it worth it to block these sites if the only concern is productivity?

What do you think? Is it a good idea for employers to block personal email and certain websites on work computers?

Powered by Bookmarkify™

I have always thought that it would be great to work for a college or university. College was such a great time in my life and I felt like I had so many opportunities at my fingertips. So I’d jump on the opportunity to go back to college, especially if I could get paid for it.

My law school experience was a little different but still wonderful. I remember feeling that the professors I had and employees at the law school were very passionate about their work.

I saw this Above the Law article the other day about law schools that hire their own graduates as a way to give jobs to some of who would otherwise be unemployed. The author points out that the law schools that have the highest employment rates after graduation are often the ones that are hiring there own graduates in the greatest numbers but argues this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Employment at a law school (mainly through a fellowship) can lead to employment in other areas of law down the road, the article states.

I am all for law school graduates going to work at their law schools and think it would be great to work for a law school, particularly the one I graduated from. After graduation, I was aware of the practice of law schools hiring their own graduates to boost employment statistics, so to speak, but I never really saw it as that. I saw it more as a way to get further experience in a certain area of law (which helps with the whole ”you need experience in order to get experience” employment hurdle), a way to work with law students, or just generally an interesting job to have. In order to fulfill certain legal goals or to have a certain type of role in the legal field (such as working with students), a position at a law school is ideal.

But I understand the other side. A job at the school you just graduated from (particularly immediately after graduation) might feel a little anti-climactic to some people. I also understand that some people will feel it’s important to get some experience in the “real world” before taking a position at a university or law school.

What do you think? Could you ever see yourself working for your law school in the future?

Powered by Bookmarkify™

Until I saw coverage of the Jodi Arias trial, I never heard of the Arizona law that allows jurors to ask witnesses questions. I was really surprised to learn of this Arizona practice because it often seems that we as attorneys go to great lengths to control what the jury can and can’t consider (and hear) during the trial.

I am not sure how I feel about allowing jurors to ask questions. In theory, questions are always a good idea, right? A more informed juror should be better equipped to make the best decision. And, as we’ve seen with the Arias trial, it certainly puts the witness’s credibility on display.

We allow the jurors to deliberate together in the jury room after the trial and they are undoubtedly asking these questions of each other in the jury room. So should it really matter that they get the chance to ask them a bit earlier in open court? Trials can be long and they can be tedious, so allowing jurors to ask questions and get answers could help them feel as though they have more of an active role in the trial.

Of course, there is a procedure the question asking. The jurors must first submit their written questions to the judge. If the judge deems the question fair (and the lawyers are allowed to object) the judge will ask the witness the juror’s question.

I think allowing jurors to ask questions would make attorneys’ jobs more complicated. Having to anticipate not only the questions of the opposing side but those of every member of the jury would be difficult. I also wonder if the possibility of juror’s asking questions would make defendants less likely to testify in some cases or if this practice tends to benefit one side or the other.

What do you perceive to be the role of a juror? Should jurors be allowed to ask questions, and if so how does that change the role of the attorneys?

Powered by Bookmarkify™

Marissa Mayer recently said that Yahoo! employees will no longer be able to work from home. Many people have decried Mayer’s decision as a blow to working moms. I can’t speak to that issue directly since it’s something I haven’t had to balance yet, but I can understand the logic behind that argument. It seems to me that the bigger issue for working parents is one of flexibility of hours rather than strictly a working from home issue. Although I can see how the two are intertwined.

Mayer has a specific sort of situation on her hand with Yahoo!  The once-powerful company has been struggling recently. Secondly, Yahoo employees are required to log a specific number of hours into the system and the employees working from home weren’t meeting this requirement. Given these two circumstances (particularly the first one) asking employees to be in the office – at the very least, more often – makes sense to me. In theory if your company is in trouble, employees should want to pull together and come to the office to help save the company (and their jobs). But with 11,500 employees , it might be a stretch to think that everyone at Yahoo! would feel such a responsibility.

As far as working from home in the legal industry, I generally think that it is a good thing. While there will always be certain aspects and areas of law that require collaboration, a great deal of legal work is solitary. Allowing employees to work from home can improve morale by giving them flexibility and autonomy. It’s also better for the environment and cuts down on pollution and congestion caused by commuting. Face-time is, of course, important, but if employees commute to work to sit at computers by themselves all day long, it just makes sense to consider a work-from-home component.

There’s also personal preference to consider. On the few occasions I’ve done it, I enjoyed the luxury of working from home. But many people prefer to keep work at work, or can’t concentrate at home. For them, the change of scenery of the office helps their productivity.

What is your personal preference? Do you work from home at all now? Do you have strong feelings on Mayer’s decision?

Powered by Bookmarkify™

I still have Ravens fever and I don’t want a cure. So I thought it was great when I stumbled across an article about “Why John Harbaugh would ace a job interview.”

The article praises Harbaugh for his smarts, as well as a humble and cool demeanor that, the author claims, would help him navigate the interview, which I find to be the terrifying portion of the job-search process.

The author claims Harbaugh could land any interview and I can take this claim seriously. Not all interview(ing) articles are written with a field as competitive as the legal field in mind, but I think it’s safe to say that NFL head coaching positions are hard to come by.

I have always gotten fairly nervous on interviews; now, after changing jobs a few times and mostly because of the economy being what it is, I have felt even more pressure and nerves. With so few attorney positions available I think it’s easy to feel real pressure to stand out, be perfect and out-shine the other candidates interviewing.

Because there are so many candidates applying for each job, I feel that it’s an accomplishment just to get invited to an interview by an employer. I think it can be really tough to be yourself at the interviews because if it doesn’t go well for whatever reason, there’s not necessarily going to be another opportunity you can scoop up right away. There’s a lot riding on that conversation.

I think interviews can be especially tough for young attorneys because your ability to stand out is limited to an extent. Most young attorneys aren’t going to have work experience that sets them apart from the crowd. We’ve taken our classes, passed the bar and maybe have some work experience during law school or after college, but for the most part a lot of us look fairly similar. We know what we think we are interested in to the best of our ability but many of us aren’t going to be the right fit in our first job and there’s not much of a way to prevent that.

I do think pro bono work (if a possibility) is one way to stand out, as is showing your interest in certain types of law. I know there isn’t a magic answer here but I would love to hear thoughts from you readers. Does anyone have any tips for me and others out there about how to navigate the interview process? Any thoughts that you might have about how to make interviewing less nerve wracking or your experiences in general are very welcome

Powered by Bookmarkify™