The Vale of Tears (3L Job Hunting) (No advice for 0/1/2Ls) Forum

[MNbound]

I talked with my firm about the compliance offer (job 2) and they said that they wanted to keep me at the firm. Although they couldn't guarantee it or give me an offer today, they said I would become an associate at the firm assuming I pass the bar. I decided to turn down the compliance job as a result. Thanks for the advice!

[BlueLotus]

Hey rinkrat--just saw an entry level public interest posting in the state you expect to be barred in. I'd be happy to PM you more details if you want!

[Anonymous User]

6 months, 3 rounds of interviews, and 12 attorneys later...was told today that I would not be hired for my dream job at a large law firm because the firm decided to put "hiring for the position on hold indefinitely". Man, what a tough loss. I am surprised they waited so long (nearly 2.5 months) after the final round to tell me this. Good luck to all of you still out there. Have to keep up the faith, somehow.

[Anonymous User]

To the Anon above - that's rough, but at least it sounds like it's them, not you. Pretty rigorous interview process.

Here's my situation, newly entering the Vale here, but this problem, which I tried in its own thread, but is probably more appropriate here:

Offered a job at a small-town ADA, work to begin next month BEFORE the bar and therefore during bar prep. Low pay, less than $50,000.

I don't really want to do criminal law, although I know the litigation experience is great. I do NOT want to have to go into criminal defense to escape into the private sector later.

SO - do I take the job and try to segue into firm work (civil law stuff, contracts, transactions, admin law, etc.) a couple years from now after heavy court room experience OR do I keep PTing at a firm that has said they can't afford to hire me on a permanent basis until I can find a private sector civil law firm job, hopefully/probably after bar results are published?

[aunt_pearl]

Hi,
When mass mailing, should you only mass mail firms that are hiring associates with out experience? I feel like I see a lot of job postings on firm websites that say "the ideal candidate will have 2-6 years experience" or something. Should I still mass mail?

[BVest]

Hi,
When mass mailing, should you only mass mail firms that are hiring associates with out experience? I feel like I see a lot of job postings on firm websites that say "the ideal candidate will have 2-6 years experience" or something. Should I still mass mail?

Mass mail everybody.

[Anonymous User]

What about when a firm has openings in several different offices (more than one of which you have ties to)?

[Lwoods]

Hi,
When mass mailing, should you only mass mail firms that are hiring associates with out experience? I feel like I see a lot of job postings on firm websites that say "the ideal candidate will have 2-6 years experience" or something. Should I still mass mail?

Mass mail everybody.

This. And that's everybody, not just firms with listed openings. Apply to every place you'd like to work.

[BVest]

Hi,
When mass mailing, should you only mass mail firms that are hiring associates with out experience? I feel like I see a lot of job postings on firm websites that say "the ideal candidate will have 2-6 years experience" or something. Should I still mass mail?

Mass mail everybody.

This. And that's everybody, not just firms with listed openings. Apply to every place you'd like to work.

And places you don't even know enough about to have ruled out.

What about when a firm has openings in several different offices (more than one of which you have ties to)?

Depends on if all apps are going to one person or if they have a different recruiting/hiring contact for each office. If the contacts are different for each city, hit them all. If it's one person, I feel like you need to pick the city that (a) you want most or (b) you feel you have the best shot at, and go for that. Reasonable people may disagree though.

[aunt_pearl]

Hi,
When mass mailing, should you only mass mail firms that are hiring associates with out experience? I feel like I see a lot of job postings on firm websites that say "the ideal candidate will have 2-6 years experience" or something. Should I still mass mail?

Mass mail everybody.

This. And that's everybody, not just firms with listed openings. Apply to every place you'd like to work.

Hi, thanks for the advice.
I'm a little concerned for this upcoming summer. I will be working at a Big 4 this summer which does not have a high offer rate, so while I will be mass mailing err'ybody, I'm concerned about taking time off to meet with firms when there is little chance of getting a job.

[kapital98]

Offered a job at a small-town ADA, work to begin next month BEFORE the bar and therefore during bar prep. Low pay, less than $50,000.

I don't know what other people are going to say but here's my take: If you work in a small town it's easy to get to know everybody. There might only be ~50 people working in your entire county bar association. It's not impossible to lateral out of criminal work into private civil work. It's sure not ideal but it's possible.

I work with one person who was an ADA for 4 years in my town. Then she lateraled to Legal Aid and has been here for 4 years. It probably helped that she has roots in the community and seems to know everyone. It's a really small bar association.

With that said: It's obviously not ideal. You just have to consider how difficult it's going to be to secure a full time position with a private sector job. Two years of doing what you hate is no fun either. Tough choices...

[BVest]

I'm a little concerned for this upcoming summer. I will be working at a Big 4 this summer which does not have a high offer rate, so while I will be mass mailing err'ybody, I'm concerned about taking time off to meet with firms when there is little chance of getting a job.

If they meet with you, there's more than little chance of getting a job. Firms don't meet with people they wouldn't consider offering.

[sparty99]

To the Anon above - that's rough, but at least it sounds like it's them, not you. Pretty rigorous interview process.

Here's my situation, newly entering the Vale here, but this problem, which I tried in its own thread, but is probably more appropriate here:

Offered a job at a small-town ADA, work to begin next month BEFORE the bar and therefore during bar prep. Low pay, less than $50,000.

I don't really want to do criminal law, although I know the litigation experience is great. I do NOT want to have to go into criminal defense to escape into the private sector later.

SO - do I take the job and try to segue into firm work (civil law stuff, contracts, transactions, admin law, etc.) a couple years from now after heavy court room experience OR do I keep PTing at a firm that has said they can't afford to hire me on a permanent basis until I can find a private sector civil law firm job, hopefully/probably after bar results are published?

You take the ADA position. Experience is experience. You will get immediate trial experience which you would never get at a large law firm. With ADA on your resume, after 2 years, you will be eligible for your State Assistant Attorney positions. You will also be competitive for federal gigs with the government experience. Even if you don't want to do criminal, this isn't a life sentence. Criminal attorneys lateral to civil firms all the time. This is a guaranteed offer. You will get benefits, vacation time, and will make more than your part time gig. You can always take this position and continue to look or at the very least, work for a year, then apply to civil firm jobs. This is not a job market where you can be picky. Take the offer.

[shredderrrrrr]

Depends on if all apps are going to one person or if they have a different recruiting/hiring contact for each office. If the contacts are different for each city, hit them all. If it's one person, I feel like you need to pick the city that (a) you want most or (b) you feel you have the best shot at, and go for that. Reasonable people may disagree though.

If there is only one contact for applications at a firm in different cities, I definitely agree to pick one and go for it. It doesn't send the best message when you say "hell, I'll work anywhere" with your application right off the bat (even though that is the boat most of us are in).

[Anonymous User]

Ok, so this is anon poster who asked about the small-town ADA. To update, I am taking the job, so I guess I'm out of the Vale. Ambivalent about it, but just gotta hustle and not stay there too long. I will try to use the experience and networking to either transition to a local firm or a firm in the large city which is my state's capital OR try the federal job thing one poster recommended. Heck, maybe even try for JAG - I think that'd be an awesome way to serve my country AND do a really cool job (I've dealt with military law a bit before and realize it's not as glamorous as TV, but still cool)

I think my plan will be to apply for a Taxation LLM program in October and also try to sit for a neighboring state's bar next cycle to expand my reach. Also, in said state there is a legal aid position that all but said they'd hire me but it was too late to switch states. A year of prosecuting would be great prep for representing poor folks if they'd forgive me for working for the "dark side" as they no doubt see it. It's tempting to start looking for firm jobs after getting my bar results back, but I guess that'd be bad form.

So basically, thanks for the advice and good luck to all those still looking - good things pop up all the time.

[shredderrrrrr]

Is there any way to answer the "what ties do you have to the area" question and not get yourself immediately denied when you have absolutely no connections to the area? If you're just applying because you like the area and want a job anywhere you can get?

[NorCalLaw]

Is there any way to answer the "what ties do you have to the area" question and not get yourself immediately denied when you have absolutely no connections to the area? If you're just applying because you like the area and want a job anywhere you can get?

A lot of people make up significant others "in/from the area."

[Throwaway165688]

If you apply for a job that has a specific closing day ("applications accepted until June 1, 2015"), how long do you wait before you accept that you're not being called for an interview? Do you send an email of continued interest in the position after a certain amount of time?

[Anonymous User]

Can somebody give me some advice on this.

I recently graduated law school (and am unemployed) and my school allows one retroactive pass-fail option which I haven't used. I could use it on my lowest grade during my last semester (which was a B) and that would inflate my overall cumulative GPA a tiny bit (3.279ish to 3.294).

Is it worth it to do this? I'm guessing no. Because employers will probably be able to tell the grade was retroactively changed and will maybe assume the grade was worse than it was. And the bump in GPA is negligible. But then again, 3.29 is a lot closer to 3.3 than 3.279.

But I have to decide soon so please somebody give me some advice since the school itself is worthless when it comes to giving advice about this.

[BVest]

What's the downside? I would definitely do this.

[Anonymous User]

What's the downside? I would definitely do this.

I guess the downside is that employers look at my transcript and are able to tell the grade was retroactively changed to pass/fail, then assume that I got a C- or something when I actually only got a B.

But thinking about it more, you are probably right. The first thing they'll look at is probably my GPA, and I don't think they are going to overanalyze my transcript.

Edit -- that is, if you are replying to me and not the person above me

[BVest]

What's the downside? I would definitely do this.

I guess the downside is that employers look at my transcript and are able to tell the grade was retroactively changed to pass/fail, then assume that I got a C- or something when I actually only got a B.

But thinking about it more, you are probably right. The first thing they'll look at is probably my GPA, and I don't think they are going to overanalyze my transcript.

Edit -- that is, if you are replying to me and not the person above me

If it shows that it was retrospective, I might be a little more reluctant. Does it actually do that? That wasn't entirely clear from your previous post.

[Anonymous User]

If it shows that it was retrospective, I might be a little more reluctant. Does it actually do that? That wasn't entirely clear from your previous post.

No, it just will show that I passed the class.

I guess the only downside is employers seeing that the class is one that is not generally taken pass/fail or something, and then inferring that it was changed retroactively. But I really doubt they will spend that much time thinking about it.

[BVest]

If it shows that it was retrospective, I might be a little more reluctant. Does it actually do that? That wasn't entirely clear from your previous post.

No, it just will show that I passed the class.

I guess the only downside is employers seeing that the class is one that is not generally taken pass/fail or something, and then inferring that it was changed retroactively. But I really doubt they will spend that much time thinking about it.

How many schools even allow retroactive pass-fails? I doubt to many people will infer that, if they even get so far as looking at your transcript.

[Anonymous User]

Can somebody give me some advice on this.

I recently graduated law school (and am unemployed) and my school allows one retroactive pass-fail option which I haven't used. I could use it on my lowest grade during my last semester (which was a B) and that would inflate my overall cumulative GPA a tiny bit (3.279ish to 3.294).

Is it worth it to do this? I'm guessing no. Because employers will probably be able to tell the grade was retroactively changed and will maybe assume the grade was worse than it was. And the bump in GPA is negligible. But then again, 3.29 is a lot closer to 3.3 than 3.279.

But I have to decide soon so please somebody give me some advice since the school itself is worthless when it comes to giving advice about this.

Do it. A 3.29 can be legitimately rounded up to a 3.3 in casual conversation or for an informational interview whereas a 3.279 cannot.

FWIW, I went ahead and did it for a 0.002 bump that makes my gpa seem closer to the next tenth and it isn't even a 3.x9.

EDIT: also know of plenty of people who pass-failed B+s in doctrinal courses and wasn't asked any questions at interviews, so no worries on that front.