(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
-
NJPitcher
- Posts: 146
- Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:29 pm
Post
by NJPitcher » Fri Sep 20, 2013 11:56 am
IAFG wrote:Desert Fox wrote:The shitty part is over offering. Telling people when they already have offers is the right thing to do.
Exactly. They're doing good by people and shouldn't be penalized for it. In fact, if this is against NALP guidelines, maybe they should be changed to not cause firms to accept more summers and then no offer them to stay within the guidelines.
Anonymous User wrote:Students at my school have been called and told they have until the end of the day to accept. One person was told to pursue other offers because accepting was no longer an option.
Reneging offers is "doing good by people" in your book?
Last edited by
NJPitcher on Fri Sep 20, 2013 12:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
manofjustice
- Posts: 1321
- Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 10:01 pm
Post
by manofjustice » Fri Sep 20, 2013 11:58 am
NJPitcher wrote:IAFG wrote:Desert Fox wrote:The shitty part is over offering. Telling people when they already have offers is the right thing to do.
Exactly. They're doing good by people and shouldn't be penalized for it. In fact, if this is against NALP guidelines, maybe they should be changed to not cause firms to accept more summers and then no offer them to stay within the guidelines.
Anonymous User wrote:Students at my school have been called and told they have until the end of the day to accept. One person was told to pursue other offers because accepting was no longer an option.
Renegging offers is "doing good by people" in your book?
Only a lawyer...
-
Old Gregg
- Posts: 5409
- Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm
Post
by Old Gregg » Fri Sep 20, 2013 11:59 am
The firm fucked up. That they're taking up a solution that's the "least worst" of the alternatives isn't really redeeming. No real point or value in spinning the situation any other way.
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 427948
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Post
by Anonymous User » Fri Sep 20, 2013 12:09 pm
Also, to clear things up as someone who was called, even if you "accept" on the spot, even if it was your only offer but you were waiting for other callbacks, they put your name in a pile for the hiring partner--they don't even guarantee a spot. They already have the maximum they want. They also said that if you didn't accept right after your offer (apparently most 2Ls accept the day after they get the offer) then Kasowitz isn't for you. because apparently Kasowitz people just jump on it. Completely rude and unprofessional--and I'm glad I didn't accept, even though I was really close to doing so.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
Old Gregg
- Posts: 5409
- Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm
Post
by Old Gregg » Fri Sep 20, 2013 12:21 pm
Again, tell your OCS. They actually have the leverage to stop this. S&C did this in 2009, HLS threatened to ban them from EIP, and S&C quickly reversed course. Reporting these violations is absolutely essential. And if you just lost your offer because of this, you might actually have a chance at getting it back.
-
dixiecupdrinking
- Posts: 3436
- Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:39 pm
Post
by dixiecupdrinking » Fri Sep 20, 2013 12:24 pm
IAFG wrote:dixiecupdrinking wrote:IAFG wrote:Desert Fox wrote:The shitty part is over offering. Telling people when they already have offers is the right thing to do.
Exactly. They're doing good by people and shouldn't be penalized for it. In fact, if this is against NALP guidelines, maybe they should be changed to not cause firms to accept more summers and then no offer them to stay within the guidelines.
Well... given that they fucked up to such an extent that they apparently can't carry the extra people who accepted, then they're doing the best thing for students. I agree. But that "given" is a pretty big problem already. I think most firms that are doing okay would just say, let's take on the extra 3, 4, 5 people, AND offer them, if only to avoid the PR hit. So this strikes me as a pretty big red flag. I wouldn't want to go there for the summer because how can you know if this desperate move actually got them beneath the personnel level where they can offer everyone?
Just take on 3, 4, 5 extra associates at a firm with a summer class of 18? You're nuts. That's nuts.
I mean... yeah. It's not ideal but there are no ideal solutions here. They could take on a couple more people than they anticipated and bite the financial bullet when those people start TWO YEARS from now, figure out how to make it work in the interim, and maintain their image as a place that has its shit together... or they could start making panicky, unprofessional demands of people that flagrantly violate all the recruiting rules that they and every peer firm agreed to. Which one of those options seems like a place that is handling their affairs smoothly?
Again, I see your point that this is better than keeping silent and no-offering a bunch of people in August, but it's also much worse than how most firms handle their recruiting, and it sends a bunch of signals that people should avoid working there.
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 427948
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Post
by Anonymous User » Fri Sep 20, 2013 12:25 pm
Fresh Prince wrote:Again, tell your OCS. They actually have the leverage to stop this. S&C did this in 2009, HLS threatened to ban them from EIP, and S&C quickly reversed course. Reporting these violations is absolutely essential. And if you just lost your offer because of this, you might actually have a chance at getting it back.
The problem with this is that Harvard kids are in a position that they could pretty (?) easily get jobs elsewhere or still apply to those firms and get an interview. My school, on the other hand, needs to work harder. My OCS spends almost months making sure that dozens of kids who struck out can get offers. I don't think they would have the courage or interest in, like Harvard, to feel confident in threatening a firm to not come to OCI. I wonder if ATL would post about it.
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 427948
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Post
by Anonymous User » Fri Sep 20, 2013 12:28 pm
Anonymous User wrote:Fresh Prince wrote:Again, tell your OCS. They actually have the leverage to stop this. S&C did this in 2009, HLS threatened to ban them from EIP, and S&C quickly reversed course. Reporting these violations is absolutely essential. And if you just lost your offer because of this, you might actually have a chance at getting it back.
The problem with this is that Harvard kids are in a position that they could pretty (?) easily get jobs elsewhere or still apply to those firms and get an interview. My school, on the other hand, needs to work harder. My OCS spends almost months making sure that dozens of kids who struck out can get offers. I don't think they would have the courage or interest in, like Harvard, to feel confident in threatening a firm to not come to OCI. I wonder if ATL would post about it.
Has anyone tried sending a tip to ATL yet?
Want to continue reading?
Register for access!
Did I mention it was FREE ?
Already a member? Login
-
Old Gregg
- Posts: 5409
- Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm
Post
by Old Gregg » Fri Sep 20, 2013 12:32 pm
Anonymous User wrote:Fresh Prince wrote:Again, tell your OCS. They actually have the leverage to stop this. S&C did this in 2009, HLS threatened to ban them from EIP, and S&C quickly reversed course. Reporting these violations is absolutely essential. And if you just lost your offer because of this, you might actually have a chance at getting it back.
The problem with this is that Harvard kids are in a position that they could pretty (?) easily get jobs elsewhere or still apply to those firms and get an interview. My school, on the other hand, needs to work harder. My OCS spends almost months making sure that dozens of kids who struck out can get offers. I don't think they would have the courage or interest in, like Harvard, to feel confident in threatening a firm to not come to OCI. I wonder if ATL would post about it.
That certainly wasn't the case in 2009, and either way still no harm in telling OCS.
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 427948
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Post
by Anonymous User » Fri Sep 20, 2013 12:34 pm
Anonymous User wrote:Anonymous User wrote:Fresh Prince wrote:Again, tell your OCS. They actually have the leverage to stop this. S&C did this in 2009, HLS threatened to ban them from EIP, and S&C quickly reversed course. Reporting these violations is absolutely essential. And if you just lost your offer because of this, you might actually have a chance at getting it back.
The problem with this is that Harvard kids are in a position that they could pretty (?) easily get jobs elsewhere or still apply to those firms and get an interview. My school, on the other hand, needs to work harder. My OCS spends almost months making sure that dozens of kids who struck out can get offers. I don't think they would have the courage or interest in, like Harvard, to feel confident in threatening a firm to not come to OCI. I wonder if ATL would post about it.
Has anyone tried sending a tip to ATL yet?
TIC. Hearing more about the call, it's pretty redic.
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 427948
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Post
by Anonymous User » Fri Sep 20, 2013 12:35 pm
Fresh Prince wrote:Anonymous User wrote:Fresh Prince wrote:Again, tell your OCS. They actually have the leverage to stop this. S&C did this in 2009, HLS threatened to ban them from EIP, and S&C quickly reversed course. Reporting these violations is absolutely essential. And if you just lost your offer because of this, you might actually have a chance at getting it back.
The problem with this is that Harvard kids are in a position that they could pretty (?) easily get jobs elsewhere or still apply to those firms and get an interview. My school, on the other hand, needs to work harder. My OCS spends almost months making sure that dozens of kids who struck out can get offers. I don't think they would have the courage or interest in, like Harvard, to feel confident in threatening a firm to not come to OCI. I wonder if ATL would post about it.
That certainly wasn't the case in 2009, and either way still no harm in telling OCS.
Right, but I still do think there's a palpable difference between HLS and, say, my school. The bargaining powers of the respective OCS's don't even compare. Even if 2009 was crappy, I imagine S&C would have been interested in hiring a good number of Harvard kids that year and in future years.
That said, there is absolutely no harm in telling OCS.
-
p1arnold
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 5:17 pm
Post
by p1arnold » Fri Sep 20, 2013 1:05 pm
IAFG wrote:Honestly this is not a big deal. Better than what other firms have done, like taking all those summers but no offering some and then lying about what happened to NALP.
And what firm was that?
Anonymous User wrote:Also, to clear things up as someone who was called, even if you "accept" on the spot, even if it was your only offer but you were waiting for other callbacks, they put your name in a pile for the hiring partner--they don't even guarantee a spot. They already have the maximum they want. They also said that if you didn't accept right after your offer (apparently most 2Ls accept the day after they get the offer) then Kasowitz isn't for you. because apparently Kasowitz people just jump on it. Completely rude and unprofessional--and I'm glad I didn't accept, even though I was really close to doing so.
Wow... although that sounds like Kasowitz. You should send this to ATL.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
IAFG
- Posts: 6641
- Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm
Post
by IAFG » Fri Sep 20, 2013 1:23 pm
ATL, without question, already knows.
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 427948
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Post
by Anonymous User » Fri Sep 20, 2013 1:25 pm
Got a reply from ATL, they want anyone who was personally called to get in touch with them.
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 427948
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Post
by Anonymous User » Fri Sep 20, 2013 1:26 pm
Anonymous User wrote:Got a reply from ATL, they want anyone who was personally called to get in touch with them.
I was personally involved and I will email them.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 427948
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Post
by Anonymous User » Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:02 pm
IAFG wrote:Honestly this is not a big deal. Better than what other firms have done, like taking all those summers but no offering some and then lying about what happened to NALP.
I don't know if I agree. This is kind of like saying "this is not that big a deal. Its better than the worst thing they could do to a law student" (which, I might add, we don't know if they will do because its not next summer yet).
Also, its my understanding is that they are doing this to a lot of people at many different schools. For a firm that takes 25 summers, if they make 20+ of these types of phone calls, I think that is something different than 'guys we can't afford to take these extra 3,4, 5 people.'
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 427948
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Post
by Anonymous User » Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:16 pm
whether or not it's a problem (big deal)... at a minimum, Kasowitz has two lists for those summering next year: 1) those that accepted shortly after their offer (presumably very enthusiastic about their top choice, Kasowitz), and 2) those that did not accept shortly after their offer (presumably not their top choice).
from this point of view, it would seem that those in the latter category will likely have more of a reason to be stressed about working there despite the following statistic: Summer Associate Offers--> 22 out of 22 (2012)
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 427948
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Post
by Anonymous User » Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:29 pm
How many people could they have offered? It seems they must have been really lenient if they have to call 20+ people to re-think their offers. I can't imagine they screwed up their yield that bad. Also, they had callbacks as recent as last week and probably still want to consider these people but the whole situation seems like a mess.
Also, how do you know there are 2 separate lists they are choosing from?
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 427948
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Post
by Anonymous User » Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:34 pm
Anonymous User wrote:How many people could they have offered? It seems they must have been really lenient if they have to call 20+ people to re-think their offers. I can't imagine they screwed up their yield that bad. Also, they had callbacks as recent as last week and probably still want to consider these people but the whole situation seems like a mess.
Also, how do you know there are 2 separate lists they are choosing from?
They are figurative lists. It means that if they have to no-offer people this summer, then they will remember who accepted the earliest and who (if anyone) accepted after this fiasco-because that signals to them that those people weren't excited about Kasowitz. clearly they rank people because they gave some people opportunity to still accept and some they just said go elsewhere.
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 427948
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Post
by Anonymous User » Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:35 pm
Anonymous User wrote:How many people could they have offered? It seems they must have been really lenient if they have to call 20+ people to re-think their offers. I can't imagine they screwed up their yield that bad. Also, they had callbacks as recent as last week and probably still want to consider these people but the whole situation seems like a mess.
Also, how do you know there are 2 separate lists they are choosing from?
i dont. look at it from the hiring partner's shoes. if you want/can afford roughly 22-24 SA's and 29+ people accept, then do you accept all of them or no-offer a few. and if you choose the no-offer route, then how do you decide who stays or leaves if everyone produces high quality work?
eta: scooped.
-
manofjustice
- Posts: 1321
- Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 10:01 pm
Post
by manofjustice » Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:41 pm
Anonymous User wrote:Anonymous User wrote:How many people could they have offered? It seems they must have been really lenient if they have to call 20+ people to re-think their offers. I can't imagine they screwed up their yield that bad. Also, they had callbacks as recent as last week and probably still want to consider these people but the whole situation seems like a mess.
Also, how do you know there are 2 separate lists they are choosing from?
i dont. look at it from the hiring partner's shoes. if you want/can afford roughly 22-24 SA's and 29+ people accept, then do you accept all of them or no-offer a few. and if you choose the no-offer route, then how do you decide who stays or leaves if everyone produces high quality work?
eta: scooped.
I think the problem in this "the firm is constrained" analysis is that it's just flat false. The firm is not constrained. TCR is you take on the extra summers and offer them, even if you don't have the work for them, and have a smaller class the next year. Two years out, the smaller subsequent class will free up work for the extra summers you took on and offered. What happens is that PPP goes down anywhere from a little bit to almost imperceptibly.
Unless you are willing to ascribe to a motivational model in which there is nothing more valuable than a penny drop in PPP, then you have to loosen up on "the firm is constrained" analysis.
-
what to do
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 4:41 pm
Post
by what to do » Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:48 pm
manofjustice wrote:Anonymous User wrote:Anonymous User wrote:How many people could they have offered? It seems they must have been really lenient if they have to call 20+ people to re-think their offers. I can't imagine they screwed up their yield that bad. Also, they had callbacks as recent as last week and probably still want to consider these people but the whole situation seems like a mess.
Also, how do you know there are 2 separate lists they are choosing from?
i dont. look at it from the hiring partner's shoes. if you want/can afford roughly 22-24 SA's and 29+ people accept, then do you accept all of them or no-offer a few. and if you choose the no-offer route, then how do you decide who stays or leaves if everyone produces high quality work?
eta: scooped.
I think the problem in this "the firm is constrained" analysis is that it's just flat false. The firm is not constrained. TCR is you take on the extra summers and offer them, even if you don't have the work for them, and have a smaller class the next year. Two years out, the smaller subsequent class will free up work for the extra summers you took on and offered. What happens is that PPP goes down anywhere from a little bit to almost imperceptibly.
Unless you are willing to ascribe to a motivational model in which there is nothing more valuable than a penny drop in PPP, then you have to loosen up on "the firm is constrained" analysis.
holy credited!
-
manofjustice
- Posts: 1321
- Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 10:01 pm
Post
by manofjustice » Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:50 pm
One way to look at what Kasowitz is doing is that it is trying to shift the burden of its mistake--if they made one, and we're assuming they did for this conversation--onto students and other firms.
The burden is shifted onto students in the first instance because they have less time to make a decision.
The burden is shifted onto other firms because the students who are likely to reject Kasowitz insistence on an on-the-spot decision have other offers. These students will take the other offers, increasing the yield of other firms' offers. That could cause these other firms to have the same problem as Kasowitz.
This ultimately shifts the burden in the second instance onto students yet again. Other firms will have to make fewer offers--or violate NALP guidelines--to accommodate Kasowitz's extra baggage.
This is why we have rules.
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login