I see a lot of resumes. I re-write (or heavily edit) most of them.
Stop for a second. The rationale for a resume is getting a job. In my experience, I have seen that the quality of a resume often determines, with some corresponding accuracy, the quality of the job offers it ultimately generates. Since I like making placements – it is in my interest to ensure that the resumes I submit to my clients are the ones most likely to get a favorable reaction.
With this in mind - here are a few thoughts about the things I have seen that distinguish the resumes that get positive reactions from those that don’t.
The resume, by its very nature, is a work in progress. Like its writer, the resume should evolve and morph into forms that most effectively achieve the reasons for its existence.
The Best Job Offer, therefore, will arise from the “best” resume the writer can prepare. Ideally, this means that the writer will write his resume so as to ensure, in the limited space available, that only the most critical and compelling and relevant information is set out and described.
The nes plus ultra standard of resume writing is the resume that has been specifically and carefully customized to respond to the requirements of a unique and specific job opening. Failing this standard – the critical standard for all resumes is their responsiveness to the basic questions asked of all lawyers, by potential employers, as they gain in seniority and experience. These questions are as follows:
Mid-Level Associates: ADD to the above: What have you done? What can you do – and how well, and with what amount of oversight? How can you be an effective and profitable part of our team? (At this point, the writer can safely and quite properly delete any reference to personal interests, hobbies, club memberships or anything else that is not directly relevant to the position being sought.)
