ITT: Interviewers tell you common instant ding OCI mistakes

(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.
User avatar
84651846190

Gold
Posts: 2198
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 7:06 pm

Re: ITT: Interviewers tell you common instant ding OCI mistakes

Postby 84651846190 » Sat Jul 26, 2014 8:09 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:OCI Interviewer here, every year I have at least 25% of interviews (closer to 50% or over normally) instantly make my job easier by doing one of the following things, making the rest of the interview a formality.

6. You want to do real estate because of property law class, you want to corporate because of contracts class, you want to do litigation because you enjoyed civpro, this one always makes me cringe quite a bit.


This is not a reason to ding someone, you idiot. Law students make decisions about practice areas based on what they know, and that largely includes what they learn in their classes. You shouldn't expect people who have not practiced law to know anything about practicing law. You also shouldn't view their preferences of practice areas as a sign they think they know more than they really do. They know they've got to express interest in a practice area, because many firms expect it, and they're just doing the best job they can of articulating why.


Lol, I am shocked a V20 associate is capable of writing something so stupid, but I guess it makes sense since most of these firms don't let associates do any actual work until the 4th or 5th year. Who do you think I'm going to recommend for the offer, the guy who goes "I want to real estate law because I was a real estate broker/did landlord/tenant law over summer/ worked at relevant municipal authority" or the guy in the screener who went "hurrr property law class and the fascinating eminent domain case I learned about"


So you expect everyone you interview to either 1) have work experience that is directly relevant to practicing law or 2) not express any preference for practice area (because they don't know what they're talking about). Is that right?

User avatar
Tanicius

Gold
Posts: 2984
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:54 am

Re: ITT: Interviewers tell you common instant ding OCI mistakes

Postby Tanicius » Sat Jul 26, 2014 8:15 pm

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:OCI Interviewer here, every year I have at least 25% of interviews (closer to 50% or over normally) instantly make my job easier by doing one of the following things, making the rest of the interview a formality.

6. You want to do real estate because of property law class, you want to corporate because of contracts class, you want to do litigation because you enjoyed civpro, this one always makes me cringe quite a bit.


This is not a reason to ding someone, you idiot. Law students make decisions about practice areas based on what they know, and that largely includes what they learn in their classes. You shouldn't expect people who have not practiced law to know anything about practicing law. You also shouldn't view their preferences of practice areas as a sign they think they know more than they really do. They know they've got to express interest in a practice area, because many firms expect it, and they're just doing the best job they can of articulating why.


Your posts have gotten progressively and logarithmically awesomer this past week. Did you lateral or something?

Anonymous User
Posts: 341681
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: ITT: Interviewers tell you common instant ding OCI mistakes

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jul 26, 2014 8:18 pm

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:So you expect everyone you interview to either 1) have work experience that is directly relevant to practicing law or 2) not express any preference for practice area (because they don't know what they're talking about). Is that right?

V50 interviewer anon here.

Fallacy of the false dichotomy. What every reasonable person ITT has said is that candidates are welcome to express a practice interest based on classes or even their guesses about what they'd enjoy. The problem is with saying "I definitely know that I want to do complex commercial litigation because I was really good at doing offer/acceptance/consideration analysis in Contracts I." Candidates need to show some humility and express their interests without pretending that they know what biglawyers do on a daily basis.

User avatar
Bildungsroman

Platinum
Posts: 5529
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 2:42 pm

Re: ITT: Interviewers tell you common instant ding OCI mistakes

Postby Bildungsroman » Sat Jul 26, 2014 8:19 pm

The problem with threads like these is that they don't identify the firm. It's totally possible that OP is accurately describing his firm's expectations. But since different firms operate different ways, what's good advice at OP's firm may be worthless or even counterproductive advice for interviewing at another firm. So without identifying the firm, you're leaving the reader with a mix of advice that's too specific to the firm to be generally applicable and advice that's too generic to be useful.

Anonymous User
Posts: 341681
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: ITT: Interviewers tell you common instant ding OCI mistakes

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jul 26, 2014 8:24 pm

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:OCI Interviewer here, every year I have at least 25% of interviews (closer to 50% or over normally) instantly make my job easier by doing one of the following things, making the rest of the interview a formality.

6. You want to do real estate because of property law class, you want to corporate because of contracts class, you want to do litigation because you enjoyed civpro, this one always makes me cringe quite a bit.


This is not a reason to ding someone, you idiot. Law students make decisions about practice areas based on what they know, and that largely includes what they learn in their classes. You shouldn't expect people who have not practiced law to know anything about practicing law. You also shouldn't view their preferences of practice areas as a sign they think they know more than they really do. They know they've got to express interest in a practice area, because many firms expect it, and they're just doing the best job they can of articulating why.


Lol, I am shocked a V20 associate is capable of writing something so stupid, but I guess it makes sense since most of these firms don't let associates do any actual work until the 4th or 5th year. Who do you think I'm going to recommend for the offer, the guy who goes "I want to real estate law because I was a real estate broker/did landlord/tenant law over summer/ worked at relevant municipal authority" or the guy in the screener who went "hurrr property law class and the fascinating eminent domain case I learned about"


So you expect everyone you interview to either 1) have work experience that is directly relevant to practicing law or 2) not express any preference for practice area (because they don't know what they're talking about). Is that right?


Did not say directly relevant to practicing law (not sure my example of someone being a real estate broker gave you that hint). We can fill our summer classes solely with people who have relevant experience to their area, thats why K-JDs are at a giant disadvantage. Once again this may not matter at a V20 firm because your associates do no actual work (on my dealings with V20s typically deal with 7th years and they usually let the 1st-3rd years be Cc'ed on the emails but wont even let them type out messages to the other side).

If we have a real estate position and I can fill it with candidates who all worked somehow worked in the real estate industry in the past, why the hell am I going to go with some K-JD instead who talks to me about adverse possession? At your firm its probably because he has slightly better grades, but some places actually like to go beyond that metric. Crazy, I know.

Want to continue reading?

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Absolutely FREE!


User avatar
84651846190

Gold
Posts: 2198
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 7:06 pm

Re: ITT: Interviewers tell you common instant ding OCI mistakes

Postby 84651846190 » Sat Jul 26, 2014 8:27 pm

Anonymous User wrote:The problem is with saying "I definitely know that I want to do complex commercial litigation because I was really good at doing offer/acceptance/consideration analysis in Contracts I."


Literally no one has ever said this or anything close to it.

Anonymous User
Posts: 341681
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: ITT: Interviewers tell you common instant ding OCI mistakes

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jul 26, 2014 8:31 pm

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:The problem is with saying "I definitely know that I want to do complex commercial litigation because I was really good at doing offer/acceptance/consideration analysis in Contracts I."


Literally no one has ever said this or anything close to it.


Does your firm let you interview people? I hear "I want to do corporate because I loved contracts class" all the time.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse

Diamond
Posts: 29296
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: ITT: Interviewers tell you common instant ding OCI mistakes

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Sat Jul 26, 2014 8:32 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:The problem is with saying "I definitely know that I want to do complex commercial litigation because I was really good at doing offer/acceptance/consideration analysis in Contracts I."


Literally no one has ever said this or anything close to it.


Does your firm let you interview people? I hear "I want to do corporate because I loved contracts class" all the time.

I have actually seen people say that here, too (though I get that TLS =/= interview).

User avatar
Tanicius

Gold
Posts: 2984
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:54 am

Re: ITT: Interviewers tell you common instant ding OCI mistakes

Postby Tanicius » Sat Jul 26, 2014 8:37 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:The problem is with saying "I definitely know that I want to do complex commercial litigation because I was really good at doing offer/acceptance/consideration analysis in Contracts I."


Literally no one has ever said this or anything close to it.


Does your firm let you interview people? I hear "I want to do corporate because I loved contracts class" all the time.


If someone loved contracts and has the grades, I'd say that makes them more or less perfect for corporate transactions. Shit, none of the rest of us are gonna like it, so why not them?

Want to continue reading?

Register for access!

Did I mention it was FREE ?


User avatar
84651846190

Gold
Posts: 2198
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 7:06 pm

Re: ITT: Interviewers tell you common instant ding OCI mistakes

Postby 84651846190 » Sat Jul 26, 2014 8:37 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:The problem is with saying "I definitely know that I want to do complex commercial litigation because I was really good at doing offer/acceptance/consideration analysis in Contracts I."


Literally no one has ever said this or anything close to it.


Does your firm let you interview people? I hear "I want to do corporate because I loved contracts class" all the time.

I interview aspiring litigators at a highly selective firm, so no. I have never heard this. But this explains a lot and kind of opens my eyes as to the type of candidates your firm/practice area attracts. Thanks.

User avatar
Tanicius

Gold
Posts: 2984
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:54 am

Re: ITT: Interviewers tell you common instant ding OCI mistakes

Postby Tanicius » Sat Jul 26, 2014 8:45 pm

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:The problem is with saying "I definitely know that I want to do complex commercial litigation because I was really good at doing offer/acceptance/consideration analysis in Contracts I."


Literally no one has ever said this or anything close to it.


Does your firm let you interview people? I hear "I want to do corporate because I loved contracts class" all the time.

I interview aspiring litigators at a highly selective firm, so no. I have never heard this. But this explains a lot and kind of opens my eyes as to the type of candidates your firm/practice area attracts. Thanks.


FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT

Mal Reynolds

Diamond
Posts: 12612
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:16 am

Re: ITT: Interviewers tell you common instant ding OCI mistakes

Postby Mal Reynolds » Sat Jul 26, 2014 8:53 pm

Wow this thread is really useful. Thanks OP and subsequent contributors.

User avatar
JCougar

Gold
Posts: 3208
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:47 pm

Re: ITT: Interviewers tell you common instant ding OCI mistakes

Postby JCougar » Sat Jul 26, 2014 9:16 pm

A. Nony Mouse wrote:And the thing about insta-dinging for one of these things - I'm willing to bet the very purpose of a screener is to weed people out. There are too many applicants for too few jobs. They're looking for reasons to ding, even if the reasons themselves don't have much to do with your lawyering ability. Your job is not to give them that reason.


But they should be focusing on things that have to do with your lawyering ability and willingness to stay and be happy at the firm.

#6 doesn't really have anything to do with that. Dinging people in interviews based on your own random, petty personal preferences that are unrelated to actually practicing law kind of defeats the entire purpose of doing an interview. You might as well just throw darts at a board. This is one of the reasons unstructured job interviews tend to have either zero or negative correlation to work performance and tenure. Most people simply are not good at hashing out useful information in interviews.

I don't blame firms for screening people out for #5 though. Candidates who are willing to work all 8/9 associate years and get dinged from partner at the last minute are the most valuable to the Biglaw business model, so I actually think #5 is a justifiable reason to ding someone. Yes, chances are most people just want to pay off their loans and bounce, but there's no reason not to ding someone when they make the answer to that question a sure thing.

Register now!

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.

It's still FREE!


User avatar
A. Nony Mouse

Diamond
Posts: 29296
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: ITT: Interviewers tell you common instant ding OCI mistakes

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Sat Jul 26, 2014 9:34 pm

I mean, I agree that most lawyers aren't trained in how to interview effectively, but I think it's fine to screen for naivete. Also, in terms of lawyering ability, most students with top grades at top schools are going to look pretty much the same, so inevitably you're going to end up screening on a relatively arbitrary basis.

User avatar
JCougar

Gold
Posts: 3208
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:47 pm

Re: ITT: Interviewers tell you common instant ding OCI mistakes

Postby JCougar » Sat Jul 26, 2014 9:45 pm

A. Nony Mouse wrote:I mean, I agree that most lawyers aren't trained in how to interview effectively, but I think it's fine to screen for naivete. Also, in terms of lawyering ability, most students with top grades at top schools are going to look pretty much the same, so inevitably you're going to end up screening on a relatively arbitrary basis.


Grades aren't a particularly good predictor of job success, in law or in most other professions.

There's all sorts of skills or abilities firms could be trying to tease out in interviews, but they don't do it. I don't even think they know what they're looking for, other than people with basic social skills and reasons to ding people. But there's plenty of traits they should be actively looking for to weed people in, not ding them. The OCI interviews I did were mostly a joke, fairly unprofessional, and disorganized. Overall, big firms do a pretty poor job of assessing talent and selecting people who will stay for more than a few years.

Anonymous User
Posts: 341681
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: ITT: Interviewers tell you common instant ding OCI mistakes

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Jul 27, 2014 3:43 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Once again this may not matter at a V20 firm because your associates do no actual work (on my dealings with V20s typically deal with 7th years and they usually let the 1st-3rd years be Cc'ed on the emails but wont even let them type out messages to the other side).


This experience has to be specific to practice area/firm because it's certainly not present throughout the v20 (at least not at my firm)

ResIpsa21

Bronze
Posts: 186
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 3:46 am

Re: ITT: Interviewers tell you common instant ding OCI mistakes

Postby ResIpsa21 » Sun Jul 27, 2014 4:18 pm

JCougar wrote:Grades aren't a particularly good predictor of job success, in law or in most other professions.

There's all sorts of skills or abilities firms could be trying to tease out in interviews, but they don't do it. I don't even think they know what they're looking for, other than people with basic social skills and reasons to ding people. But there's plenty of traits they should be actively looking for to weed people in, not ding them. The OCI interviews I did were mostly a joke, fairly unprofessional, and disorganized. Overall, big firms do a pretty poor job of assessing talent and selecting people who will stay for more than a few years.

This is absolutely accurate, but also doesn't change how rising 2Ls should approach their interviews if they want a biglaw job.

Get unlimited access to all forums and topics

Register now!

I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...


User avatar
baal hadad

Gold
Posts: 3167
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 2:57 pm

Re: ITT: Interviewers tell you common instant ding OCI mistakes

Postby baal hadad » Sun Jul 27, 2014 4:44 pm

Why are we listening to someone at a v50 he probably gives crappy advice

What we need is some v25 folks

Or better yet v15

wons

Bronze
Posts: 217
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 7:25 pm

Re: ITT: Interviewers tell you common instant ding OCI mistakes

Postby wons » Sun Jul 27, 2014 4:56 pm

Anonymous User wrote:OCI Interviewer here, every year I have at least 25% of interviews (closer to 50% or over normally) instantly make my job easier by doing one of the following things, making the rest of the interview a formality.

1. Asking about pro bono- my firm does not even have it and many other firms have very limited opportunities. This is a great indication that you are here for a couple years until you can bounce for a PI position.

2. IMPORTANT: Stating you are interested in a practice area my firm does not have or has in a very limited capacity. Please look at NALP directory and only state interest in the practice groups which are in the top 3 or so in number of attorneys. Cannot tell you how many people express and interest in a practice area where (i) we have 4 or fewer attorneys in the office, or (ii) we have no attorneys in the office doing that work (sometimes even in the entire firm!).

3. Stating that you are looking at firms ranked much higher than us. This is a two way street, and we want to offer people who are going to accept. We know law students are in general prestige whores who are going to take the best ranked bid, and this is a great way for us to not waste our time by extending you an offer.

4. Stating that you are looking at firms in a different city than mine. This one boggles my mind when you can just simply say this is the only city you are looking at, how am I ever going to find out you are bs'ing me. I work in a regional city where people without strong ties or other interests tend to leave, and not showing total dedication tends to be a fatal error. I'd say you can ignore this advice for LA/SF/NY, do not ignore for Chicago, Miami, or any other regional cities.

5. Stating that you are looking to go into business/in-house as your ultimate goal. Great, we will go with the candidate who actually has an interest in staying after we train him or her.

6. You want to do real estate because of property law class, you want to corporate because of contracts class, you want to do litigation because you enjoyed civpro, this one always makes me cringe quite a bit.



V10 interviewer here. These represent my personal views, not those of my firm, so make of them what you will:

1: Sort of agree. I don't have any problem with someone being interested in pro bono work, and our firm has amazing pro bono opportunities if you want them, but if you're deciding between firms based on pro bono opps, what does that say about your commitment to doing paying work? If this comes up at all, it should be a very quick question, maybe folded into a question as to whether hours spent on pro bono or client development count towards targets.

2: Sort of agree, but sort of disagree. I think its totally fine to express interest in one of our smaller practice group - lord knows, the world needs another securities lawyer like it needs another polio epidemic - but you should at least be aware its a smaller group within our firm. Asking something like "I know your IP group is small but does some great work, can you tell me a bit about the IP practice here?" is completely reasonable, especially if its a segue from talking about IP generally (like the great IP class you took in the spring).

3: Couldn't care less if you talk about better firms or our peer firms - though you should be a little demure about it, sort of like if you're going out on dates you dont talk about all the other folks you're currently kicking the tires on.

4: Again, don't care - and here I think OP is mistaken, at least with respect to NYC. We know that a lot of applicants might be looking at NYC + a regional market in their hometown, and our job is to pitch them on the merits of working in NYC.

5: Agree, not because it suggests you'll leave after we train you, but because there's an undercurrent of "I want to work 9-6" in saying your ultimate goal is in house.

6: Meh. Y'all sound silly when you talk about wanting to do real estate because you liked Property, but so did I when I was in your shoes. I purposely avoid asking someone if they're more interested in corporate v. lit exactly because there's no way for a 1L to answer it without sounding stupid unless they're some sort of ex-banker or JD/MBA type.

What are my no-nos? I actually think more of "DOs", the things you do want to do, rather than the things you dont, because there are very few true "ding" topics or questions.

DO make clear that you are comfortable with long hours. Do it artfully if possible - I asked an interviewee what her best LS experience was, and she talked about an all-nighter group project. That was artful.

DO make clear that you have genuine enthusiasm for biglaw legal work. I'd rather work with someone whose 5% less competent but actually enjoys the work, than work with the majority of people, who treat work and time in the office like some sort of medieval torture.

DO demonstrate the ability to make small talk. You'll have to do it with clients one day, so we test for that at interviews.

DO show some familiarity with current business events, particularly if indicating any interest in transactional work. This goes to the point above; if you find business so boring that you can't spend 5 minutes glancing at the WSJ as a law student, you're going to hate it when it occupies 10 hours of your day every day.

DO focus on professional development questions rather than quality of life questions, if you need to have a couple of questions in the "hopper" for the "so, do you have any questions?". QoL questions are fine and reasonable, but should wait till you have an offer in hand because they carry a connotation of lack of commitment. Professional development questions show ambition, enthusiasm, an interest in working hard, etc.

DO feel comfortable responding to "do you have any questions?" with "no, this was a great conversation, thank you so much for speaking with me!" If we're 15 minutes in to a 30 minute question and I drop "do you have any questions?" it means i'm out of topics and I'm fishing for help and you should give me one of your prepared questions to run with. (Note, this isn't necessarily a bad thing - it may be that I think you're an amazing candidate and just want you to drive the conversation so that I can pitch you on the stuff that you're worried about!) If we're at minute 29, it means I'm just being polite and you only need to ask me a question if you really have one. Too many folks seem to think that "do you have any questions" demands at least one question in response; its all contextual.

scholarlyprance

New
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 6:59 pm

Re: ITT: Interviewers tell you common instant ding OCI mistakes

Postby scholarlyprance » Sun Jul 27, 2014 5:23 pm

^ thank you for a helpful, thoughtful reply in a what I'm still pretty sure is a flame thread. I'm bookmarking it just for your reply

Mredav44

New
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 11:50 am

Re: ITT: Interviewers tell you common instant ding OCI mistakes

Postby Mredav44 » Sun Jul 27, 2014 6:07 pm

wons wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:OCI Interviewer here, every year I have at least 25% of interviews (closer to 50% or over normally) instantly make my job easier by doing one of the following things, making the rest of the interview a formality.

1. Asking about pro bono- my firm does not even have it and many other firms have very limited opportunities. This is a great indication that you are here for a couple years until you can bounce for a PI position.

2. IMPORTANT: Stating you are interested in a practice area my firm does not have or has in a very limited capacity. Please look at NALP directory and only state interest in the practice groups which are in the top 3 or so in number of attorneys. Cannot tell you how many people express and interest in a practice area where (i) we have 4 or fewer attorneys in the office, or (ii) we have no attorneys in the office doing that work (sometimes even in the entire firm!).

3. Stating that you are looking at firms ranked much higher than us. This is a two way street, and we want to offer people who are going to accept. We know law students are in general prestige whores who are going to take the best ranked bid, and this is a great way for us to not waste our time by extending you an offer.

4. Stating that you are looking at firms in a different city than mine. This one boggles my mind when you can just simply say this is the only city you are looking at, how am I ever going to find out you are bs'ing me. I work in a regional city where people without strong ties or other interests tend to leave, and not showing total dedication tends to be a fatal error. I'd say you can ignore this advice for LA/SF/NY, do not ignore for Chicago, Miami, or any other regional cities.

5. Stating that you are looking to go into business/in-house as your ultimate goal. Great, we will go with the candidate who actually has an interest in staying after we train him or her.

6. You want to do real estate because of property law class, you want to corporate because of contracts class, you want to do litigation because you enjoyed civpro, this one always makes me cringe quite a bit.



V10 interviewer here. These represent my personal views, not those of my firm, so make of them what you will:

1: Sort of agree. I don't have any problem with someone being interested in pro bono work, and our firm has amazing pro bono opportunities if you want them, but if you're deciding between firms based on pro bono opps, what does that say about your commitment to doing paying work? If this comes up at all, it should be a very quick question, maybe folded into a question as to whether hours spent on pro bono or client development count towards targets.

2: Sort of agree, but sort of disagree. I think its totally fine to express interest in one of our smaller practice group - lord knows, the world needs another securities lawyer like it needs another polio epidemic - but you should at least be aware its a smaller group within our firm. Asking something like "I know your IP group is small but does some great work, can you tell me a bit about the IP practice here?" is completely reasonable, especially if its a segue from talking about IP generally (like the great IP class you took in the spring).

3: Couldn't care less if you talk about better firms or our peer firms - though you should be a little demure about it, sort of like if you're going out on dates you dont talk about all the other folks you're currently kicking the tires on.

4: Again, don't care - and here I think OP is mistaken, at least with respect to NYC. We know that a lot of applicants might be looking at NYC + a regional market in their hometown, and our job is to pitch them on the merits of working in NYC.

5: Agree, not because it suggests you'll leave after we train you, but because there's an undercurrent of "I want to work 9-6" in saying your ultimate goal is in house.

6: Meh. Y'all sound silly when you talk about wanting to do real estate because you liked Property, but so did I when I was in your shoes. I purposely avoid asking someone if they're more interested in corporate v. lit exactly because there's no way for a 1L to answer it without sounding stupid unless they're some sort of ex-banker or JD/MBA type.

What are my no-nos? I actually think more of "DOs", the things you do want to do, rather than the things you dont, because there are very few true "ding" topics or questions.

DO make clear that you are comfortable with long hours. Do it artfully if possible - I asked an interviewee what her best LS experience was, and she talked about an all-nighter group project. That was artful.

DO make clear that you have genuine enthusiasm for biglaw legal work. I'd rather work with someone whose 5% less competent but actually enjoys the work, than work with the majority of people, who treat work and time in the office like some sort of medieval torture.

DO demonstrate the ability to make small talk. You'll have to do it with clients one day, so we test for that at interviews.

DO show some familiarity with current business events, particularly if indicating any interest in transactional work. This goes to the point above; if you find business so boring that you can't spend 5 minutes glancing at the WSJ as a law student, you're going to hate it when it occupies 10 hours of your day every day.

DO focus on professional development questions rather than quality of life questions, if you need to have a couple of questions in the "hopper" for the "so, do you have any questions?". QoL questions are fine and reasonable, but should wait till you have an offer in hand because they carry a connotation of lack of commitment. Professional development questions show ambition, enthusiasm, an interest in working hard, etc.

DO feel comfortable responding to "do you have any questions?" with "no, this was a great conversation, thank you so much for speaking with me!" If we're 15 minutes in to a 30 minute question and I drop "do you have any questions?" it means i'm out of topics and I'm fishing for help and you should give me one of your prepared questions to run with. (Note, this isn't necessarily a bad thing - it may be that I think you're an amazing candidate and just want you to drive the conversation so that I can pitch you on the stuff that you're worried about!) If we're at minute 29, it means I'm just being polite and you only need to ask me a question if you really have one. Too many folks seem to think that "do you have any questions" demands at least one question in response; its all contextual.



great response. thank you

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!


User avatar
A. Nony Mouse

Diamond
Posts: 29296
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: ITT: Interviewers tell you common instant ding OCI mistakes

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Sun Jul 27, 2014 8:25 pm

scholarlyprance wrote:^ thank you for a helpful, thoughtful reply in a what I'm still pretty sure is a flame thread. I'm bookmarking it just for your reply

FWIW, there is nothing about the person posting to suggest that they are trolling about being a biglaw interviewer. Whether you agree with their advice is one thing, but that doesn't make them flame.

User avatar
FlightoftheEarls

Silver
Posts: 859
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:50 pm

Re: ITT: Interviewers tell you common instant ding OCI mistakes

Postby FlightoftheEarls » Sun Jul 27, 2014 10:01 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Once again this may not matter at a V20 firm because your associates do no actual work (on my dealings with V20s typically deal with 7th years and they usually let the 1st-3rd years be Cc'ed on the emails but wont even let them type out messages to the other side).

You don't sound bitter at all, OP.

scholarlyprance

New
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 6:59 pm

Re: ITT: Interviewers tell you common instant ding OCI mistakes

Postby scholarlyprance » Sun Jul 27, 2014 10:59 pm

A. Nony Mouse wrote:
scholarlyprance wrote:^ thank you for a helpful, thoughtful reply in a what I'm still pretty sure is a flame thread. I'm bookmarking it just for your reply

FWIW, there is nothing about the person posting to suggest that they are trolling about being a biglaw interviewer. Whether you agree with their advice is one thing, but that doesn't make them flame.


Oh no I wasn't suggesting that I didn't agree with his advice. I'm saying it's pretty obvious that the whole thing is flame

Anonymous User
Posts: 341681
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: ITT: Interviewers tell you common instant ding OCI mistakes

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jul 28, 2014 1:57 am

Anonymous User wrote:3. Stating that you are looking at firms ranked much higher than us. This is a two way street, and we want to offer people who are going to accept. We know law students are in general prestige whores who are going to take the best ranked bid, and this is a great way for us to not waste our time by extending you an offer.

4. Stating that you are looking at firms in a different city than mine. This one boggles my mind when you can just simply say this is the only city you are looking at, how am I ever going to find out you are bs'ing me. I work in a regional city where people without strong ties or other interests tend to leave, and not showing total dedication tends to be a fatal error. I'd say you can ignore this advice for LA/SF/NY, do not ignore for Chicago, Miami, or any other regional cities.


Curious about this. I thought the issue secondary markets had with NYC was that they were afraid people would bolt from said secondary markets to NYC at the first chance. I guess I don't see why mentioning bidding NYC or some other larger market is an issue, because I would think for most T14 students if they actually accept an SA in the smaller market where they have ties that is an indication that they voluntarily are taking the prestige hit to work in a market that they prefer for other reasons.

I guess I can see the concern of being used as a safety for a student who strikes out at NYC, but if you're looking at somebody with good grades at a T14 it doesn't seem likely that they would strike out anyway. As long as they have expressed their interest in your market, why don't firms extend an offer anyway and feel confident in the fact that if the student accepts the offer they really do want to be in the secondary despite having also looked at NYC during the interviewing process? Is it really troublesome to have an offer turned down or something?

Seriously? What are you waiting for?

Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!




Return to “Legal Employment�

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.