Could You Be a Google Lawyer?

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 12:48:17 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Law.com has a long article today on Google's hiring practices when it comes to in-house lawyers.

Finding the right sort of lawyer to fit Google's playful ethos yet steely business sense is -- judging by the army of recruiters assigned to the job -- a challenge. This is not due to a lack of any interest on the part of candidates, according to Jones, but because it takes a very particular sort of person to fit the Google mould.

....Prospective Google lawyers can expect up to 15 interviews, including one with one of the company's founders, as a final hurdle before getting the job.

Over the past year, Jones, who reports to U.S.-based general counsel Kent Walker, has conducted a lengthy search for new members of the team and is now hunting for the right lawyers for Google's Amsterdam, Madrid, Zurich, Milan and Moscow arms, establishing a legal function in all these major European cities.

A few months ago I wrote about the Google hiring perks and checked their website. I couldn't find a single job, legal or otherwise, I was remotely qualified for. Maybe you'll have better luck.

< What In The World Are Dems Thinking? | Why Hollywood Isn't Backing Fred Thompson >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Could You Be a Google Lawyer? | 10 comments (10 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Does this mean (3.00 / 2) (#2)
by Maryb2004 on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:05:29 PM EST

that Google, Inc. has been vetted by the A-List bloggers and found acceptable for us to represent? We certainly wouldn't want to be labelled a bad person because we've chosen to represent a corporation that doesn't meet the high standards of the lefty blogosphere.

Disclaimer: I don't represent Google but I would if they asked me.

Let's not go there please (none / 0) (#3)
by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:08:00 PM EST

You know better. More comments along this vein will be deleted.


Since you are going to delete this anyway (none / 0) (#7)
by Maryb2004 on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:23:01 PM EST

I might as well say this.

I'm very disappointed in you Jeralyn. I really don't care if Matt Stoller and Armando want to insult each other and I don't see why anyone would bother to get between them. But when Stoller decided to take a swipe at Armando for the clients he represents he took a swipe at every lawyer who posts here at YOUR blog who may also represent corporate clients of which he may not approve.

It was inappropriate and you should know that. Certainly if he had chosen to call you a bad person for your representation of Tim McVeigh it would have been inappropriate. It would not only have been a swipe at you but at every criminal defense attorney who posts here. Based on your past actions I suspect that you would have deleted it.

Stoller's comment deserved to be deleted or, at the very least, you as the owner of this blog should have told him he was out of line. Leaving Armando completely out of the equation here, the other lawyers who post here at your blog deserved that from you.


you must have missed my comment (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:44:24 PM EST

"Welcome, Glenn. And Matt (even though I too think you took an unjustified swipe at BTD. You don't judge lawyers by their clients.) " Here.

Since the last time I read that thread, there were more insults posted which I have just deleted.

Now, no more thread hijacking, back to the topic of Google lawyers please.


: Thank you (none / 0) (#9)
by Maryb2004 on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:46:51 PM EST

I did miss your earlier comment.

I'll be happy to cover Zurich. (none / 0) (#1)
by oculus on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:04:44 PM EST

Facilitators not gatekeepers (none / 0) (#4)
by jerry on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:39:07 PM EST

The members of the legal team at Google are viewed more as facilitators than gatekeepers.

I suspect this is the key issue.

I have worked for a variety of companies that have been overly lawyered so as to remove any innovation.

A good lawyer should be a facilitator and find ways to enable an activity to take place. Too often it seems, the lawyers find it easier to say "no." Often times the lawyers reflexively say no to most employee driven initiatives and only act as facilitators when approached by a CxO.

I suspect that as an IT Business Google wisely considers innovation from ANY of its employees one of its competitive advantages and wants to maximize that.

Of course, I am just speculating and not offering at IT or Business Advice.

well, that depends on how you define (none / 0) (#5)
by scribe on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:57:53 PM EST

"facilitator" and "gatekeeper".

Part of the lawyer's function, in the corporate world, is to tell the high speed-low drag "innovators" that "No, you can't do that because you'll (a) go to jail, (b) bankrupt the company through liability problems, or (c) both." The fundamental function of the lawyer in the corporate domain is the voice of moral reason, backed up by the force (and fear) of the law.

Any definition of "facilitator" which precludes the lawyer from saying "No", makes him a co-participant in breaking the law. E.g., Abu Gonzo was truly a facilitator, but that didn't make him a good WH counsel, AG, or lawyer. Rather, it made him a combination sophist and putative co-defendant.

Now, IMHO, the proper way to involve the lawyer and achieve the innovative growing results everyone seems to prize, is to get the lawyer involved early - to tell the "innovators" that "If your objective is 'A', don't go there by way of 'B', 'C' and 'D' because you're only buying trouble. Rather, try going there by way of 'D', 'E' and 'F', because that's the legal, lawful way."

And, it needs be remembered, that some innovations are best left stillborn.


: I think you're right. And wrong. (none / 0) (#6)
by jerry on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:20:45 PM EST

No, you can't do that because you'll ...
Now, IMHO, the proper way to involve the lawyer and achieve the innovative growing results everyone seems to prize, is to get the lawyer involved early - to tell the "innovators" that "If your objective is 'A', don't go there by way of 'B', 'C' and 'D' because you're only buying trouble. Rather, try going there by way of 'D', 'E' and 'F', because that's the legal, lawful way."
My experience is that a) there's usually no "because clause..." and b) the innovators are many, the lawyers few, and so basically you can't involve them early, and c) it's not JUST the lawyers fault, but the fault of the various VPs they work for that create a system in which corporate bureaucrats succeed and innovation is stifled.
There's a well known case of a FedEx employee in the early days of FedEx renting a helicopter on his own initiative to take to a mountainside to repair a telecomm link. That's the sort of low level initiative that is often drummed out by the "You can't do that because..." mentality. I find it difficult to believe that that employee would be able to do the same thing these days at FedEx.
No one is saying a corporate lawyer should co-operate in a crime.
I work for a very large company that prides itself on its "lean initiatives". But everyone in the company has to take training that was handed down or agreed to by the various lawyers (and HR). Training that many people will never need over the course of their career: "export training", "hazardous waste disposal training", and many other classes that are required by a small number, useful for a moderate size number, but forced on everyone for not much reason at all. If I were a shareholder (I am!) I would be upset.

frankly (none / 0) (#10)
by cpinva on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 04:29:51 AM EST

(and i know i will immediately be hit by a bolt of lightening for saying this), i don't find google to be any better or worse than any other search engine on the net. they just have better PR, in my opinion. i've only used it once or twice, and my reaction was "ho hum".