When will a stretch of unemployment stop being held against me?

[ThrowThatFakeAccount]

Basically I graduated in 2015 and was not able to find articles for quite some time. It wasn't until 2018 that I found a small general practice who allowed me to article for free where I was called in 2019. From there my principal connected me with a colleague of his who is general counsel of a small tech firm where I've since been working under her for the past few years. The work has been fairly interesting, mainly dealing with privacy issues and the company's contract matters. However, business has slowed at the company significantly and the writing seems to be on the wall that they don't need two lawyers. As such, for the past few months I've been applying for other in-house roles and government roles, basically anything which fits my most recent experience. My boss has been very supportive, she knows I'm looking for other opportunities given the slow-down and has been very generous with reference letters and being a reference in general.

My problem is, I've gotten to the interview stage on 5 or 6 roles now and every single one of them has zeroed in on those years of unemployment from 2015-2018. I admit I should have been more productive in that time and done more volunteering or something. In that time though I was hitting the pavement every week to try and get articles and after a year started trying to get non-law jobs but I was always screened out as being over qualified. Its in the past now so I can't change what happened but the hard truth is, I was unemployed after graduating until I found articles, nearly 3 years of unemployment. Some friends I've talked to say I should lie, say I had health issues, or family health issues or something like that, but that's never sat right with me. Every single time I've been asked about the gap, I've been honest, I tell them that I was focused on getting articles and I was "working" in that time to find the right articling fit. However, every single time, the interviewer never seems quite satisfied with that, things always get a little quiet, a little awkward and the interviews always kind of change tone.

I've gotten enough interviews now that it feels like I'm doing something wrong in the interview and to me, it seems like this "gap" question is always when things go wrong. Is this unemployment period ever going to stop being held against me? It's been almost 5 years! Should I just start lying? Would that be more palatable to employers? I'm just kind of at a loss and am starting to get scared that I'll be unemployed again soon because work at my current job is really really slowing down.

Edited August 9, 2022 by ThrowThatFakeAccount

[Cool_name]

Did you not work at all during that period? Serving, labourer, anything? 
 

How did you pay your bills? 
 

You have no reason to lie on here, so I don’t think you are, but if I was an interviewer I would be confused about what happened during that stretch. I would find the explanation that you were just looking for a job the whole time a bit unsatisfactory as my immediate question would be how were you paying bills.

 

None of the above answers your question, but might give you some insight into what the interviewers are thinking. You can always reach out to the interviewer yourself and ask for feedback, maybe the resume gap wasn’t a factor in their decision.

[ThrowThatFakeAccount]

I'm embarrassed to say that I was 100% unemployed. I lived with my parents who provided for food and housing, and my other bills were minimal (didn't really go out) so I was able to pay things like phone bill via savings.

I did try to get other jobs, cashier, mcdonald's, serving, office jobs, HR, policy work, etc. I probably applied for over a thousands jobs in that time and couldn't get anywhere because non-law jobs always focused on my law degree and the idea that I would run back to the law at first chance. I obviously have regrets, but I can't change it now.

Edited August 9, 2022 by ThrowThatFakeAccount

[CleanHands]

18 minutes ago, ThrowThatFakeAccount said:

Every single time I've been asked about the gap, I've been honest, I tell them that I was focused on getting articles and I was "working" in that time to find the right articling fit.

Although I'm sympathetic to your situation, as an interviewer the reference to "finding the right articling fit" would strike me as a bizarre and disingenuous answer given that after 3 years you eventually accepted unpaid articles. My perception would be that you were in position where you should have been willing to accept virtually any articling opportunity and that you in fact did so. I would think that there was some story behind the story that you weren't telling me, because that answer, implying that you had options when it strongly appears that you did not, doesn't really square with your experience. Not to mention that if you were implying you had opportunities and were holding out, that suggests poor judgment and unrealistic expectations (and interviewers have very little info to go on so any such indications, no matter how small or subtle, are a big deal).

I think that honestly saying that it was a really rough period in your life and it took a long time and a lot of effort to even find unpaid articles, without any qualifications or excuses, would be the way to go. Coupled with saying you've really enjoyed your experiences and learned a lot in the past few years after finding your footing.

FWIW I have interviewed and hired before, although not in the legal profession.

[FellowTraveler]

So, I'm obviously psychoanalyzing you over the internet, but I'm hearing a whole lot of shame: from what you're writing, from the 'FakeAccount'. If I'm feeling it, your interviewer is getting a full blast of it as well.

That gap in your resume feels like an albatross around your neck, but it's your reaction to that feeling that is sinking you. That's the number one thing you need to deal with.

Things to keep in mind:

1. You're getting interviews. So it's obviously not a complete deal-breaker.

2. Nobody wants to waste time interviewing someone they do not believe can do the job. From your perspective, it's about if I get the job or not; from theirs, it's which one of these qualified candidates is best. You are one of those qualified candidates, in their eyes. Show them why.

3. Your interviewer is not clueless. If you had a fantastic explanation for that period, you would have put that explanation in your resume or cover letter. Before you open your mouth, they pretty much know what you're going to say. They don't care.

4. What they're hoping to hear is your attitude. As with any interview question, they couldn't care less about the details of "a situation in which you showed leadership/solved a problem/helped Jim in accounting". They want to know what kind of person you are: are you adaptable? Are you resilient? When life (work) punches you in the face, how do you react?

Build a new narrative. One that acknowledges what happened, and what you did (successfully or not!) about it. And then repeat it until your brain accepts it. Until you believe it, nobody else is going to.

[123]

39 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

I think that honestly saying that it was a really rough period in your life and it took a long time and a lot of effort to even find unpaid articles, without any qualifications or excuses, would be the way to go. Coupled with saying you've really enjoyed your experiences and learned a lot in the past few years after finding your footing.

I agree. Three years is a long time. Long enough that “oh yes, I was diligently working to find an articling placement the whole time and just couldn’t find anything satisfactory” doesn’t really square. 

The whole “well, the fit just wasn’t right” sounds like a bit of a face-saving measure. It’s nice, because it’s less embarrassing than saying that no one would hire you or that you stopped trying. But for the reasons mentioned by others, the length of time makes the explanation a little implausible, because after a couple of years, fit is not a reasonable concern. If you want to get called, you take what you can get. 

We know what happens. You weren’t the most competitive candidate during law school. So you don’t land articling in the normal time frame. The longer you go, the less competitive you seem. You start to lose confidence. You get discouraged. It’s a spiral, a vicious circle, or whatever. Your efforts probably sputter at times, because it’s only natural to want to give up when you keep failing at something. 

Assuming that’s true, I’d acknowledge that you got into a bit of a rut. Then talk about  the positive. You’re grateful someone took a chance on you. You’re happy for the opportunities you’ve had since then. You’re glad you stuck with it, because you like practice, you’ve learned a lot about X, Y, and Z, and you feel you’ve got all this stuff to contribute to whoever you’re interviewing with. 

I think your instinct is right, insofar as you don’t want to mislead or dwell on the negative. But your pivot to the positive isn’t quite plausible, and I would find it a little odd. Own the problem, then sell yourself. Don’t sweep it under the rug. 

[tiktok]

out of curiosity, did you go to law school overseas?

[TheAEGIS]

19 minutes ago, realpseudonym said:

We know what happens. You weren’t the most competitive candidate during law school. So you don’t land articling in the normal time frame. The longer you go, the less competitive you seem. You start to lose confidence. You get discouraged. It’s a spiral, a vicious circle, or whatever. Your efforts probably sputter at times, because it’s only natural to want to give up when you keep failing at something. 

Assuming that’s true, I’d acknowledge that you got into a bit of a rut. Then talk about  the positive. You’re grateful someone took a chance on you. You’re happy for the opportunities you’ve had since then. You’re glad you stuck with it, because you like practice, you’ve learned a lot about X, Y, and Z, and you feel you’ve got all this stuff to contribute to whoever you’re interviewing with. 

Strangely moving. Just the right amount of contrition and aspiration. I'd hire this person.

I suppose that demonstrates to me that OP's approach does in fact need some tweaking.

[ThrowThatFakeAccount]

35 minutes ago, tiktok said:

out of curiosity, did you go to law school overseas?

I went to UBC actually but am originally from Alberta and was in Alberta in the time in question.

Appreciate everyones thoughts, it makes a lot of sense as I can see how my original reply was disingenuous. I definitely admit to being embarrassed about things and because of that probably haven't confronted the situation head on like I should. Owning things and then selling the situation certainly sounds a lot more genuine I'll just have to work myself up to wrapping my head around that.

Maybe this is the wrong mindset, but on the original question, can anyone comment on when it'll no longer be brought up? Just typing this out I can already see it's not the right way to think about it, but I can't help but want to move past those years rather than focus on them. Will I ever reach the point where it won't get brought up again? After all it was almost 5 years ago... I'd just rather focus on my recent experience instead of harping on something that was so long ago.

[123]

20 minutes ago, ThrowThatFakeAccount said:

Maybe this is the wrong mindset, but on the original question, can anyone comment on when it'll no longer be brought up? Just typing this out I can already see it's not the right way to think about it, but I can't help but want to move past those years rather than focus on them. Will I ever reach the point where it won't get brought up again? After all it was almost 5 years ago... I'd just rather focus on my recent experience instead of harping on something that was so long ago.

I guess the answer is whenever you’re valuable enough for it not to matter, and people know that about you.

I don’t know when that will happen. I assume the relevance of that gap will diminish as you accrue experience and skills in the areas of law where you’re applying. Generally, my understanding is that associates tend become a lot more valuable sometime between their second and fifth year of call.

It depends, though. Do people know who you are? Do you have achievements you can point to? Do you have enough experience that you’ll slide into a new role relatively seamlessly, or will you need a lot of training and oversight? Are you in a practice area that’s growing?

It did change for me. When I first got called, I would have to beg for someone to hire me. Increasingly, I get unsolicited job offers. Not because I’m special. But I’m doing something for which there’s some demand, I have a bit of a track record, and I have some good relationships with the rest of the bar in my practice area.

As per my original response though, I don’t think that being asked about the gap is in anyway a sign you’re unhirable now. I’d probably ask about it, more out of curiosity than anything else. When asked, I think you probably have a perfectly fine story to tell about yourself, and if you tell it, you can continue to be a competitive, compelling candidate. 

Edited August 9, 2022 by realpseudonym

[SlytherinLLP]

@FellowTraveler nailed it.

I know of a law student that had a nearly 3 year gap between undergrad and law school. It wasn't a medical or family issue. They owned it, created a positive but truthful narrative when asked about it, and they are happily employed (and succeeding) at a national firm. 

Life is messy. I think the important thing is to overcome any internal insecurity about it. Shit happens. You are a lawyer and a good one by the sounds of it.

 

[KOMODO]

45 minutes ago, ThrowThatFakeAccount said:

...

Maybe this is the wrong mindset, but on the original question, can anyone comment on when it'll no longer be brought up? Just typing this out I can already see it's not the right way to think about it, but I can't help but want to move past those years rather than focus on them. Will I ever reach the point where it won't get brought up again? After all it was almost 5 years ago... I'd just rather focus on my recent experience instead of harping on something that was so long ago.

I was going to say that the gap will disappear as you hold an increasing number of positions (because it would "fall off" at a certain point just due to having had enough jobs to fill a standard size resume), but now I realize (I think?) that the issue is not the gap in employment years, but the gap between the year you received your degree and the year you were called to the bar. In that sense it will always be clear from your resume that there was a gap, unless you stop indicating your graduation year or year of call at some point. Year of call tends to remain important for a very long time, so I would tend towards eventually omitting your graduation years in the education section if you want the gap to be less obvious (people will then just assume that you graduated the year before you were called). This may not make sense yet, and I'm not suggesting that you do it in a dishonest way, but I think that after your next position (at which point you will have had your articling job, current tech company job and the job you're applying for now), it's probably fair to do that, and then it will probably be raised with less frequency. In all fairness at that point it shouldn't really matter when you received your degree, the important thing will have been your year of call and 5+ years of experience as a lawyer. Best of luck with the search!

[FellowTraveler]

1 hour ago, ThrowThatFakeAccount said:

I went to UBC actually but am originally from Alberta and was in Alberta in the time in question.

Appreciate everyones thoughts, it makes a lot of sense as I can see how my original reply was disingenuous. I definitely admit to being embarrassed about things and because of that probably haven't confronted the situation head on like I should. Owning things and then selling the situation certainly sounds a lot more genuine I'll just have to work myself up to wrapping my head around that.

Maybe this is the wrong mindset, but on the original question, can anyone comment on when it'll no longer be brought up? Just typing this out I can already see it's not the right way to think about it, but I can't help but want to move past those years rather than focus on them. Will I ever reach the point where it won't get brought up again? After all it was almost 5 years ago... I'd just rather focus on my recent experience instead of harping on something that was so long ago.

Nobody is calling you disingenuous : ) Trust me, I can sense how genuinely you are affected by this from over here.

But that's what you have to realize: 95% of it is in your head. That doesn't mean it's not real, but it does mean that the answer to your question "when will it no longer matter?" is: when you stop believing it matters so much.

There are very few 'perfect' candidates out there. We all have things we're less proud of. Some of those things are easier to hide on a job application; for now, this one sticks out like a sore thumb. You need to account for it, because yeah your interviewer is going to ask about it. But remember: they're looking for reasons to hire you. Give them those reasons, and stop worrying so much about the mole on your left cheek.

Obviously, my answer might be different if you'd been in prison for those three years or out of the country while the mob stopped looking for you, but see: it could be much worse!

Or, if you weren't getting interviews! But you are, in spite of this terrible dishonour on your family name. If you were not getting a single callback, I would view the situation differently. But this means the other things on your CV are impressive enough that employers are bringing you in to see if you're the right person for the job. Which means if you can address this in a confident, convincing, realistic way, that next job is in the bag. (Terms and conditions apply, may not be applicable to positions where the partner's son is a candidate.)

Edited August 9, 2022 by FellowTraveler

[Cool_name]

25 minutes ago, FellowTraveler said:

they're looking for reasons to hire you. Give them those reasons, and stop worrying so much about the mole on your left cheek.

In line with this, don’t forget you are also interviewing them. A 4 year call is desirable, this isn’t an articling recruit anymore.  
 

You have gotten 6 interviews in a few months, that’s a lot, so you are a desirable candidate. You just need to stop playing defence so much in the interview. 

[CleanHands]

People have said most of what needs to be said. I'll just add this:

Now that you can point to having secured articles, gotten called to the bar, and worked in an area of law that interested you for the past few years, having initially taken a while to find articles can actually be spun as a positive tale illustrating your resilience and sense of perspective and gratitude for the opportunity to have the career that you have. It's all a matter of framing. You are embarrassed about that period of your life and see it as failure. You've been giving a clearly bullshit answer about the situation to interviewers because of how you feel about it, and they could smell that. You view speaking honestly about it as conceding failure. However, it doesn't have to be that way. You are a person who doesn't give up and keeps trying despite setbacks. You are grateful for every moment that you get paid to do work that you enjoy. When you combine those attributes with now having a proven track record as a lawyer, that is an asset rather than a liability if you spin it the right way. Change the way you think about this and you can change the way potential employers think about it.