OCI and Political/Judicial Ambitions Forum

[Anonymous User]

Question for those in the know: is this something that would be looked upon as positive or negative by firms. Say, for instance, that a person's answer to "why did you go to law school" would not be quite as thorough/frank if said person left out the fact that he or she had political or judicial ambitions motivating his/her choice to go to law school. As far as I am aware, firms are more likely to take a candidate they believe has the potential/motivation to make partner rather than one who will lateral out after 3/5 years in search of other opportunities. Using this logic, I feel that someone with political or judicial ambitions might be at a disadvantage, since it may detract from that person's credibility when they say, honestly, that they are very interested in pursuing a partner track.

I am not sure whether or not this question has a definite answer, as most firms have their own peculiar quirks, but if anyone who has experience with this could respond, I would really appreciate it.

Anonymous for what I feel are obvious reasons.

[270910]

You went to law school to acquire the skills necessary to work at a law firm and because you want to work at a law firm and because you have law firm wallpaper and stuffed law firms on your bed.

/thread

[MrKappus]

If it weren't a stupid thing to do, you wouldn't have felt the need to hide your identity on an already anonymous internet message board. You answered your own question.

[let/them/eat/cake]

You went to law school to acquire the skills necessary to work at a law firm and because you want to work at a law firm and because you have law firm wallpaper and stuffed law firms on your bed.

/thread

maybe it's the rum, but this post and disco's previous NY TO 190 post in the Northwestern thread are making my night.

[Anonymous User]

These were the types of answers I was anticipating. If anyone has a different perspective I'd be interested to hear the counter arguments.

[d34d9823]

These were the types of answers I was anticipating. If anyone has a different perspective I'd be interested to hear the counter arguments.

Interviews are about telling the interviewers true things, but only those true things that help you. You wouldn't tell a normal prospective employer that you have lateral ambitions, why does change for a firm? I would say something optimistic about your openness to finding a career niche in a firm (which you would be stupid not to think anyway as judgeships and senator's seats don't exactly grow on trees).