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.
Anonymous User
Posts: 334417
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 2:32 am

Anonymous User wrote:
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?


OP here, not going to respond with personal insults and certainly agree with everyone that every firm has different standards. The smartest thing you can do as a candidate is ask the firm: what makes a successful associate? Then just drop hints the entire interview conforming to that persona as best you can while being authentic.

Regarding cities, why do you have to tell other firms you are looking in other cities? If you really feel uncomfortable bending the truth say, "I'm looking at firms in NYC in case I get no offers in regional market due to smaller SA classes".

My firm has lost a ton of candidates to people leaving for NYC and their hometowns and has become EXTREMELY sensitive due to the loss of junior associates this way. NYC firms hire 100 summers so losing one means nothing. For regional firms of 2-4 SA classes, losing people really hurts and disrupts workflow quite badly. There are so many risks to losing an associate: in house, lateral move, burnout, no need to take on risk of relocation. Relocations especially suck when the firm really likes the person and the person really likes the firm but we have no X city office. A lot of the other reasons usually mean it wasn't working out while this one especially hurts because people are usually thriving when they pull the trigger.

Regarding more elite firms, student predictably always go with what is most prestigious and we have the experience to know that. Unless you have a reason for us to think otherwise, we are going to protect ourselves by offering the next candidate down the line rather than keeping the offer open for 30 days and then having to go back to someone everyone else passed on. It's a two way street and we are realistic, we know you will pick the v10 over us unless you have your reasons.

Somehow my view of this makes me bitter according to some v10 associates. All I can say to that is I have received a few v20 offers in my tenure because they are impressed that I have better work experience than their associates. Lower ranked firms don't have clients that will tolerate the same level of menial doc review. I also have v20 lateral candidates come in all the time, disheveled, broken down, wishing they had picked a place which allows for some sort of a lifestyle. Luckily, I have seen you guys come back to life once you stop taking a hit of the prestige pipe. I'm not angry at v20 firms for rejecting me, I'm mad at them for the generally poor experinces my friends have experienced at these places.

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 » Mon Jul 28, 2014 8:54 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Regarding more elite firms, student predictably always go with what is most prestigious and we have the experience to know that. Unless you have a reason for us to think otherwise, we are going to protect ourselves by offering the next candidate down the line rather than keeping the offer open for 30 days and then having to go back to someone everyone else passed on. It's a two way street and we are realistic, we know you will pick the v10 over us unless you have your reasons.

Somehow my view of this makes me bitter according to some v10 associates. All I can say to that is I have received a few v20 offers in my tenure because they are impressed that I have better work experience than their associates. Lower ranked firms don't have clients that will tolerate the same level of menial doc review. I also have v20 lateral candidates come in all the time, disheveled, broken down, wishing they had picked a place which allows for some sort of a lifestyle. Luckily, I have seen you guys come back to life once you stop taking a hit of the prestige pipe. I'm not angry at v20 firms for rejecting me, I'm mad at them for the generally poor experinces my friends have experienced at these places.

The word "bitter" was used once in this thread, and it was by me. It had absolutely nothing to do with your firm wanting to offer candidates that you think will realistically consider accepting your firm's offer. That's entirely reasonable. It had everything to do with you talking out of your ass about the following:

FlightoftheEarls wrote:
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.

User avatar
Monochromatic Oeuvre

Gold
Posts: 2041
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 9:40 pm

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

Postby Monochromatic Oeuvre » Mon Jul 28, 2014 11:33 pm

Anonymous User wrote: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.


You know, in between helping KKR get away with securities fraud or HSBC get away with laundering money for drug cartels or whatever, some lawyers actually give a shit about doing something nice. Crazy, I know. And what's even weirder is that it doesn't necessarily mean they want to do that all the time for a quarter of Biglaw pay.

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!).


Okay. Yeah. Researching what areas the lawyers are actually in is pretty basic due diligence. But you might be equally surprised at how many interviewers don't know things about an applicant that on a resume/cover letter (which is a lot less to read than websites, Chambers, etc.). Yeah, I get that you don't have all the time in the world because you have 100 people to interview, but I have 100 firms to apply to, so there's that.

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.


I tend to think it's none of your goddamn business who else I'm interviewing with. It's got nothing to do with whether I'm qualified for your firm. I don't ask what other students you're interviewing, even if you so proudly display your "grade cutoffs" (nearly always bullshit). But if you don't like what the answer is probably going to be, don't ask the question. Unless you're Wachtell, the applicant is probably interviewing with a higher-ranked firm. Yes, the best candidates probably have other offers; that comes with being the best. Instead of taking a chance to impress them, you just don't bother because it would "waste your time" to...take two minutes to call them with an offer, I guess?

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.


I've never understood the reticence here. Just because I also like City B (maybe even more than City A) doesn't mean I'm not absolutely committed to working in the firm. If I really do like City A more, then I wouldn't accept an offer in City B unless I really liked that firm. Because most of us aren't relying on the lateral market, we're "demonstrating commitment" by the mere act of accepting your offer. In a post-Lathaming world no one is going to believe the bullshit about how committed firms are to their associates.

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.


Most firms have a lot more people who want to make partner than slots available. It's not as though firms are desperately looking for people interested in making partner. It doesn't really do you any good to have six midlevels gunning for each partner position rather than five (and have to kick five of them into those dreaded in-house jobs as opposed to four). The only disadvantage is you might be costing yourself talent, but then again, you do that anyway when you ding people for reasons unrelated to their competence as lawyers.

Of course, what's really the optimal situation for a firm is having a bunch of associates who think they can make partner, without actually making too many partner. As was mentioned, what you're really trying to gauge with that question is whether the kid will bill 1800/yr or whatever it takes not to get fired and jump to a 9-6 ASAP, or bill 2400/yr (with no extra compensation, in most firms) gunning for partner. The former is a kid who's caught on to the sham that is the partner track at most firms; the latter buys into the bullshit, makes the firm a fuckload of money, and then nine times out of ten is thrown out into that in-house job you never wanted him to want. So yeah, I could see you getting afraid of someone who looks like they might be tough to exploit.

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.


Feel free to stop asking this question all together. Most of us know that 1L is not like actual practice. Most of us have also never worked in a law firm. We don't know. The best I can give you is a very, very uninformed guess. I agree that these answers are dumb, but they're probably not being given unsolicited. A question whose best answer is "I have no notion that's based in reality" is not a very good question.

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 » Mon Jul 28, 2014 11:44 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Somehow my view of this makes me bitter according to some v10 associates. All I can say to that is I have received a few v20 offers in my tenure because they are impressed that I have better work experience than their associates. Lower ranked firms don't have clients that will tolerate the same level of menial doc review. I also have v20 lateral candidates come in all the time, disheveled, broken down, wishing they had picked a place which allows for some sort of a lifestyle. Luckily, I have seen you guys come back to life once you stop taking a hit of the prestige pipe. I'm not angry at v20 firms for rejecting me, I'm mad at them for the generally poor experinces my friends have experienced at these places.


Image

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse

Diamond
Posts: 29304
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

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

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Tue Jul 29, 2014 12:33 am

I don't get the vitriol directed at the OP, honestly. His perspectives are entirely consistent with other hiring contexts I'm familiar with where there are national searches/a lot more applicants than jobs. Of course you don't hire the person who says their ultimate goal (in-house) is something other than what you're hiring for (law firm). Of course you don't want to make an offer to the person you won't think take your job because they're going to go somewhere fancier. Of course you want to avoid hiring someone who doesn't really want to live where your job is located. These aren't weird criteria, but they're also not very hard to fulfill. If you're interviewing at a law firm, you want to make partner. If they ask where else you're applying, don't talk about higher-ranked firms. If that firm is in Peoria, research Peoria and talk about the specific things that draw you to Peoria.

Interviewing isn't the time to be open and honest about everything in your life; it's the time to sell yourself, polish up the bits that employer wants to see and hide the bits they don't. It's showing you know how to give the right answer for that setting, whether or not that answer is the complete truth. (This isn't to say you should flat out lie; you just need to be strategic.)

ResIpsa21

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

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

Postby ResIpsa21 » Tue Jul 29, 2014 12:45 am

A. Nony Mouse wrote:I don't get the vitriol directed at the OP, honestly.

This is due to the thread turning into a forum for rising 2Ls to complain about what they perceive as unfair hiring criteria, as opposed to a forum for accurate discussion of what the hiring criteria will actually be. Just check out Monochromatic Oeuvre's long post, which reads like an angry ex-significant other's break-up letter reciting every little thing that went wrong during the relationship. That said, the criteria will differ between firm, and some firms are not like OP's.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:Interviewing isn't the time to be open and honest about everything in your life; it's the time to sell yourself, polish up the bits that employer wants to see and hide the bits they don't. It's showing you know how to give the right answer for that setting, whether or not that answer is the complete truth. (This isn't to say you should flat out lie; you just need to be strategic.)

TCR. Like it or not, firms have a LOT of options. I don't mean to be rude, but you are not a special snowflake. You may not have time to read up on the practice groups of the interviewer's firm, but guess what, a few hundred other students DID. You may not want to bill 3000 hours per year for 9 years to make partner, but guess what, a few hundred other students (will pretend that they) DO. Complain here all you want about what you perceive as an unfair process, but when it comes time to interview, put your game faces on, folks!

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 » Tue Jul 29, 2014 12:47 am

LOL Monochromatic Oeuvre is a 2L.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse

Diamond
Posts: 29304
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

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

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Tue Jul 29, 2014 12:48 am

Mal Reynolds wrote:LOL Monochromatic Oeuvre is a 2L.

? He said rising 2L. Isn't that what you all are until classes start?

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 » Tue Jul 29, 2014 12:50 am

A. Nony Mouse wrote:
Mal Reynolds wrote:LOL Monochromatic Oeuvre is a 2L.

? He said rising 2L. Isn't that what you all are until classes start?


Yeah whatever we are. I'm laughing at the ridiculous point by point diatribe he went on when he hasn't even worked one day in biglaw.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse

Diamond
Posts: 29304
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

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

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Tue Jul 29, 2014 12:51 am

Mal Reynolds wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:
Mal Reynolds wrote:LOL Monochromatic Oeuvre is a 2L.

? He said rising 2L. Isn't that what you all are until classes start?


Yeah whatever we are. I'm laughing at the ridiculous point by point diatribe he went on when he hasn't even worked one day in biglaw.

Ahhhh got it.

thebarcaneatme

New
Posts: 95
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2014 10:34 pm

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

Postby thebarcaneatme » Tue Jul 29, 2014 12:52 am

A. Nony Mouse wrote:
Mal Reynolds wrote:LOL Monochromatic Oeuvre is a 2L.

? He said rising 2L. Isn't that what you all are until classes start?

Its what lazy people say who skip summer classes

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 » Tue Jul 29, 2014 12:53 am

A. Nony Mouse wrote:
Mal Reynolds wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:
Mal Reynolds wrote:LOL Monochromatic Oeuvre is a 2L.

? He said rising 2L. Isn't that what you all are until classes start?


Yeah whatever we are. I'm laughing at the ridiculous point by point diatribe he went on when he hasn't even worked one day in biglaw.

Ahhhh got it.


It probably would have been helpful to finish the thought.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse

Diamond
Posts: 29304
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

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

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Tue Jul 29, 2014 1:01 am

thebarcaneatme wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:
Mal Reynolds wrote:LOL Monochromatic Oeuvre is a 2L.

? He said rising 2L. Isn't that what you all are until classes start?

Its what lazy people say who skip summer classes

At schools that are not Cooley, people work legal jobs over the summer rather than taking classes.

thebarcaneatme

New
Posts: 95
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2014 10:34 pm

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

Postby thebarcaneatme » Tue Jul 29, 2014 1:06 am

A. Nony Mouse wrote:
thebarcaneatme wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:
Mal Reynolds wrote:LOL Monochromatic Oeuvre is a 2L.

? He said rising 2L. Isn't that what you all are until classes start?

Its what lazy people say who skip summer classes

At schools that are not Cooley, people work legal jobs over the summer rather than taking classes.

nah, really,

TROLL!!!!!!!!!!!!

User avatar
Monochromatic Oeuvre

Gold
Posts: 2041
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 9:40 pm

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

Postby Monochromatic Oeuvre » Tue Jul 29, 2014 7:38 am

Mal Reynolds wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:
Mal Reynolds wrote:LOL Monochromatic Oeuvre is a 2L.

? He said rising 2L. Isn't that what you all are until classes start?


Yeah whatever we are. I'm laughing at the ridiculous point by point diatribe he went on when he hasn't even worked one day in biglaw.


I don't see anything in my post that would require practice in Biglaw to know. It's pretty clearly written from the perspective of someone about to interview.

ResIpsa21 wrote:This is due to the thread turning into a forum for rising 2Ls to complain about what they perceive as unfair hiring criteria, as opposed to a forum for accurate discussion of what the hiring criteria will actually be. Just check out Monochromatic Oeuvre's long post, which reads like an angry ex-significant other's break-up letter reciting every little thing that went wrong during the relationship. That said, the criteria will differ between firm, and some firms are not like OP's.


I don't think it has anything to do with "fair." Interviewers are tasked with finding the people who are going to eventually make the firm the most money. Not a secret. So I don't spend time worrying whether it's "fair" to judge students entirely based on 7-10 exams, or whether it's "fair" that aspies are going to get dinged for having bad interpersonal skills even though they might actually do great work. Those are philosophical questions; who cares? What I'm saying is that some of it is disingenuous (though I'm not going to blame you for that, as I assume you're just "doing your job") and some of it is just sort of inefficient. Attempting to gauge someone's commitment to a city is sort of superfluous given that they've already decided to work in that city. If you ding someone for saying they interview with higher-ranked places when you're well aware that essentially all your interviewees are doing the same, then rejecting the ones who make it explicit is just a matter of tact.

TCR. Like it or not, firms have a LOT of options. I don't mean to be rude, but you are not a special snowflake. You may not have time to read up on the practice groups of the interviewer's firm, but guess what, a few hundred other students DID. You may not want to bill 3000 hours per year for 9 years to make partner, but guess what, a few hundred other students (will pretend that they) DO. Complain here all you want about what you perceive as an unfair process, but when it comes time to interview, put your game faces on, folks!


Most students know how the game is played. For the ones who don't, well, I'm not sure telling them to research what practice areas the firm is in is going to help someone who wasn't doing that already. Strategy-wise, of course, what's "ridiculous" doesn't really matter. Doesn't mean it's not worth a dialogue. OP is absolutely right that law students are prestige whores. I can't imagine the frustration of Firm X when they pay Cravath, work fewer hours than Cravath, have a better culture than Cravath, and have better partner odds than Cravath, but lose nine out of ten students with Cravath offers because of dat preftige. It's absolutely bullshit. But, of course, that's not going to be a very effective sales pitch to students with Cravath offers.

It's also worth noting that the special snowflake/fungibility thing is a two-way street--firms are basically as interchangeable as students are. Yes, there are differences in what they do (just like resumes are slightly different), but nearly every Biglaw firm pays the same, claims the same work-hard-play-hard, we're-a-family culture, says you'll have lots of opportunities, blah blah blah. It can be hard to tell them apart. And it is, of course, a mutual selection process. The best students are going to have many good options, just like the best firms will.

Example: At Firm Y's reception, a partner went on and on about how he "doesn't bother" with deals under a billion dollars when I asked him what a given practice area was like, and generally went on to talk about himself when I wanted to learn about the firm as a whole. Not a positive impression. On the basis of that one guy, I mentally downgraded that firm to the point where I'd take an offer from most other firms over Firm Y. Fair to downgrade the whole firm because one partner might be a little arrogant? I'd say no, but it was the only firm where that happened, and I have next to nothing to make a decision on. And just like Firm Y doesn't really give a shit if I don't like them, so as long some of their applicants do, I'm not deeply concerned about not gelling with a firm, so as long as that doesn't happen with all of them.

User avatar
gk101

Gold
Posts: 3853
Joined: Fri May 30, 2008 6:22 pm

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

Postby gk101 » Tue Jul 29, 2014 7:40 am

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:
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!).


Okay. Yeah. Researching what areas the lawyers are actually in is pretty basic due diligence. But you might be equally surprised at how many interviewers don't know things about an applicant that on a resume/cover letter (which is a lot less to read than websites, Chambers, etc.). Yeah, I get that you don't have all the time in the world because you have 100 people to interview, but I have 100 firms to apply to, so there's that.


LOL

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 » Tue Jul 29, 2014 8:59 am

Hey MO nobody gives a fuck about your opinion. Let the actual interviewers give more advice and stop shitting up the thread.

User avatar
goldeneye

Silver
Posts: 790
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:25 pm

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

Postby goldeneye » Tue Jul 29, 2014 9:48 am

Mal Reynolds wrote:Hey MO nobody gives a fuck about your opinion. Let the actual interviewers give more advice and stop shitting up the thread.


The best part is that nobody gives a damn what he thinks and he still thinks his opinion will matter. The reason OP wrote this was because they are an interviewer and these are his/her thoughts. Which means they matter.

User avatar
Old Gregg

Platinum
Posts: 5410
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

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

Postby Old Gregg » Tue Jul 29, 2014 12:34 pm

Sadly, the more competitive the hiring market for law students, the stupider the reasons will be that ding you.

Luckily, banks, consultants and (gasp!) even start-ups are dipping their grubby hands into the newly minted law graduate pool. This is what started the salary wars to begin with, so hopefully it'll spur another inflation... unless it doesn't... in which case interviewing for firms will be less competitive.

thebarcaneatme

New
Posts: 95
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2014 10:34 pm

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

Postby thebarcaneatme » Tue Jul 29, 2014 12:54 pm

just be a bounty hunter
and then instead of "jesus" speeches you can go on "I'll help you with getting your kids back man, but first I gotta drag you to prison for them drugs"

Anonymous User
Posts: 334417
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

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

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jul 29, 2014 1:04 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.


As an interviewer for one of those "higher ranked firms" you ding people for mentioning, I'll just thank you for not competing with me on an arbitrary quarter of the recruits. None of these are instant-ding caliber mistakes.

thebarcaneatme

New
Posts: 95
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2014 10:34 pm

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

Postby thebarcaneatme » Tue Jul 29, 2014 6:09 pm

Anonymous User 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.


As an interviewer for one of those "higher ranked firms" you ding people for mentioning, I'll just thank you for not competing with me on an arbitrary quarter of the recruits. None of these are instant-ding caliber mistakes.


with so many applicants, sticking out at all is a good thing right?
If I show up drunk and unshaven with a dog, will that make me look like "the fun guy" ?
(my idea of "fun" is getting drunk with dogs for days at a time without grooming)

WhirledWorld

Bronze
Posts: 331
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:04 am

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

Postby WhirledWorld » Tue Jul 29, 2014 7:08 pm

Anonymous User wrote: 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.


Lying to your interviewer is not good advice. Why risk failing Character and Fitness? Most firms understand that it's imprudent to put all your eggs in one basket.

FWIW from personal experience, I had several callbacks where in house exit options were talked about at length, where I received offers. I didn't get the impression one had to tiptoe around the big secret that half of associates leave by year three; some firms flat out told you that they want to land you your best exit options. So as for much of this advice, it's somewhat firm dependent.

My $0.02 of advice is make sure your resume matches what you're saying. If you say you're interested in employment law, but your work experience or student activities don't say anything about it, it can kind of jump out as a mismatch.

User avatar
hoos89

Gold
Posts: 2140
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 11:09 pm

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

Postby hoos89 » Tue Jul 29, 2014 7:27 pm

I honestly can't think of a good reason to bring up exit options in a screening interview, and you don't need to lie to avoid talking about it. Also, if a firm asks you where else you're looking, you are in no way obligated to divulge every single firm or city you're looking in, and you should be especially wary of doing that in a place that is wary of people jumping ship for bigger markets.
Last edited by hoos89 on Tue Jul 29, 2014 7:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Old Gregg

Platinum
Posts: 5410
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

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

Postby Old Gregg » Tue Jul 29, 2014 7:28 pm

Lying to your interviewer is not good advice. Why risk failing Character and Fitness?


You won't fail character and fitness for lying to your interview about what cities you're looking at.



Return to “Legal Employment�

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.