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
hoos89

Gold
Posts: 2116
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 11:09 pm

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

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

zweitbester wrote:
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.


Also this.

User avatar
Druid

Silver
Posts: 1498
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 6:46 pm

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

Postby Druid » Tue Jul 29, 2014 8:12 pm

zweitbester wrote:
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.


Yeah I lost it when I read that. Gotta thank him for letting me know his opinions are weren't reading.

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 » Tue Jul 29, 2014 8:16 pm

Don't lie to your wife when she asks you if something makes her look fat because, you know, C&F.

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 9:23 pm

hoos89 wrote: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.


Look, I'm not saying bring it up anymore than people who say it's OK to talk about pro bono are saying you should ask in depth whether pro bono work counts towards billables or something. But sometimes it naturally comes up in conversation, e.g. a partner asks you where you want to be in ten years, or the interviewer asks where else you're looking (I got both questions several times). And you'd sound like a tool for saying "I will be managing partner, will have set the firm's billing record will be turning down weekly offers to be deputy CLO from Google and Goldman" instead of "I hope to still be with the firm as counsel or partner if possible, but if not, I might consider working in house at a bank where I can do more financing work."

And if you came to a smaller market, or even a bigger market like DC, and I asked what other cities you were looking at, and you said "Only Indianapolis," and I see you interned for a judge in NYC and grew up in LA, I'm calling BS.

Maybe at some firms they expect you to tell white lies. I guess all I can say is that when asked about exits and where else I had offers, I wasn't dinged for being honest and mentioning not doing billables sounds kind of nice and there were one or two other offers I was maybe considering.

User avatar
hoos89

Gold
Posts: 2116
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 11:09 pm

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

Postby hoos89 » Tue Jul 29, 2014 9:27 pm

If you get asked where you're looking in St Louis, you say St Louis. Also, just because things worked out doesn't mean that it helped you to say that. Some firms may well have dinged you for saying those things.

suzige

Bronze
Posts: 307
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 11:10 pm

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

Postby suzige » Tue Jul 29, 2014 9:46 pm

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:Don't lie to your wife when she asks you if something makes her look fat because, you know, C&F.


lol.

User avatar
sinfiery

Gold
Posts: 3308
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:55 am

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

Postby sinfiery » Wed Jul 30, 2014 10:51 am

I was going to play up the fact that I have a finance undergrad degree (no experience) and so I am interested M&A/Finance/Bankruptcy/etc. vs lit because I don't want to say I will do whatever if you pay me.

Will this make me look like a fool? Or is it still acceptable to say for this reasons, it interests me but one cannot be sure.


I had a practice interview with a v36-46 associate who does OCI interviews and he seemed to respond positively so there's that.



btw, as trollish as this thread was, it has some helpful points throughout it. thanks

smallfirmassociate

Bronze
Posts: 400
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 5:47 pm

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

Postby smallfirmassociate » Wed Jul 30, 2014 11:02 am

Anonymous User wrote:3) Agree. Don't be mentioning other firms during your interview at all, unless asked. And be prepared to explain why you like my firm better than those other firms you're interviewing with (even if it's just a cursory explanation -- no need to pretend like you have intimate knowledge of my firm versus others). If you come across like my firm is just another random set of dead white guys' last names followed by an LLP, you won't get far.


But to a law student, it is. The whole "know something about my firm" is just ego-massaging BS. The student doesn't give two shits that your firm represents Chevron but not Apple while the other firm he interviews with later represents Apple but not Chevron. It simply doesn't matter, it shouldn't matter, and nobody should act like it matters.

If the firm has particularly large practice areas that align with the kid's interests, fine. But even that is trending toward bullshittery.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse

Diamond
Posts: 29317
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

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

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Wed Jul 30, 2014 11:07 am

smallfirmassociate wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:3) Agree. Don't be mentioning other firms during your interview at all, unless asked. And be prepared to explain why you like my firm better than those other firms you're interviewing with (even if it's just a cursory explanation -- no need to pretend like you have intimate knowledge of my firm versus others). If you come across like my firm is just another random set of dead white guys' last names followed by an LLP, you won't get far.


But to a law student, it is. The whole "know something about my firm" is just ego-massaging BS. The student doesn't give two shits that your firm represents Chevron but not Apple while the other firm he interviews with later represents Apple but not Chevron. It simply doesn't matter, it shouldn't matter, and nobody should act like it matters.

If the firm has particularly large practice areas that align with the kid's interests, fine. But even that is trending toward bullshittery.

Except that again, "knowing something about the firm" shows that you can figure out how to act in an interview. I get that a lot of firms look a like and that there are many interviewers who won't care whether the applicant can distinguish one big firm from another, but it seems a pretty universal rule of interviewing to be able to explain (even cursorily, as the post above acknowledges) why you want to work for *that* employer as opposed to others.

smallfirmassociate

Bronze
Posts: 400
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 5:47 pm

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

Postby smallfirmassociate » Wed Jul 30, 2014 11:15 am

Also, to chime in a different perspective as the senior associate at a small firm who has interviewed candidates at OCI:

I don't care if you know little about my firm. If you know where we are located and have any inkling about the scope of our practice, that's fine. Also, ask anything you want to know the answer to. If you get "dinged" for asking about our IP practice (hint: we don't have one), then you wouldn't want to work here anyway.

You're welcome to talk about how your classes from law school interest you. I apply law school topics on a regular basis. If you wrote a paper on how the parol evidence rule applies to contract formation as applied to commercial construction bid contexts, if you read an interesting article on how the takings clause affects Postal Service operations, if you learned in Property II about spot zoning, if you like to jerk off to per stirpes charts or took advanced classes in trusts, etc., talk about it if it comes up. We do that stuff on a regular basis here in practice. Besides, what kind of unreasonable asshat expects a lawstudent, whose full-time job is to learn law school stuff, to not be able to talk about it? "Hey, I know 100% of your professional life right now is LAW SCHOOL, but can you tell me more about those six months you spent as a paralegal and then maybe talk about your undergrad internship with a Congressperson?" Herpderp...

The rest of the stuff in OP and follow-on discussion is generally good advice: don't tell me you want to move on with your career if you expect me to suggest to the partners that we make an offer. Don't tell me you are interviewing with a ranked firm; we don't care and if you care that much about the prestige, you won't like it here anyway, so you won't get an offer.
Last edited by smallfirmassociate on Wed Jul 30, 2014 11:43 am, edited 2 times in total.

smallfirmassociate

Bronze
Posts: 400
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 5:47 pm

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

Postby smallfirmassociate » Wed Jul 30, 2014 11:17 am

A. Nony Mouse wrote:Except that again, "knowing something about the firm" shows that you can figure out how to act in an interview. I get that a lot of firms look a like and that there are many interviewers who won't care whether the applicant can distinguish one big firm from another, but it seems a pretty universal rule of interviewing to be able to explain (even cursorily, as the post above acknowledges) why you want to work for *that* employer as opposed to others.


That reasoning is circular, however, and the whole process is sophistic. Why do interviewers need a "reason" they know is a blatant pretext for the real answer: because you pay money and I need money.

smallfirmassociate

Bronze
Posts: 400
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 5:47 pm

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

Postby smallfirmassociate » Wed Jul 30, 2014 11:22 am

sinfiery wrote:I was going to play up the fact that I have a finance undergrad degree (no experience) and so I am interested M&A/Finance/Bankruptcy/etc. vs lit because I don't want to say I will do whatever if you pay me.


That's fine, but when/if pressed on lack of experience, you may want to acknowledge (or lie) that you are interested in trying out other practice areas as well.

Swimp

Bronze
Posts: 493
Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 9:32 am

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

Postby Swimp » Wed Jul 30, 2014 11:40 am

smallfirmassociate wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:Except that again, "knowing something about the firm" shows that you can figure out how to act in an interview. I get that a lot of firms look a like and that there are many interviewers who won't care whether the applicant can distinguish one big firm from another, but it seems a pretty universal rule of interviewing to be able to explain (even cursorily, as the post above acknowledges) why you want to work for *that* employer as opposed to others.


That reasoning is circular, however, and the whole process is sophistic. Why do interviewers need a "reason" they know is a blatant pretext for the real answer: because you pay money and I need money.


I think there's a rational basis for some sophistic "game playing" in an interview for a job in an industry that services clients. Also, it's *really* not a big deal. This is how every job interview I've ever done has worked.

User avatar
Holly Golightly

Gold
Posts: 4603
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 10:30 am

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

Postby Holly Golightly » Wed Jul 30, 2014 11:44 am

I actually didn't realize there were big firms that don't even pretend to care about the world/do a tiny amount of pro bono work. The more you know...

Anonymous User
Posts: 321497
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

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

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 30, 2014 11:45 am

smallfirmassociate wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:Except that again, "knowing something about the firm" shows that you can figure out how to act in an interview. I get that a lot of firms look a like and that there are many interviewers who won't care whether the applicant can distinguish one big firm from another, but it seems a pretty universal rule of interviewing to be able to explain (even cursorily, as the post above acknowledges) why you want to work for *that* employer as opposed to others.


That reasoning is circular, however, and the whole process is sophistic. Why do interviewers need a "reason" they know is a blatant pretext for the real answer: because you pay money and I need money.

Original anon here who posted about knowing something about the firm. Two points.

(1) I am not necessarily saying this is a good hiring criterion. I am only saying it IS a hiring criterion, like it or not. I just received this year's OCI evaluation sheet and there is literally a spot to write in "specific interest in [Firm]? _____."

(2) Yeah, firms are mostly identical. But every firm has at least one defining characteristic that you can learn from a three-minute review of Chambers, Vault, or the firm's website. Examples: WSGR works with a lot of tech startups; Akin Gump has a strong lobbying practice; DLA Piper is humongous; Gibson Dunn has a top appellate practice. If you can learn one fact and one famous partner's name for each firm, it will set you apart in your interview as being particularly detail-oriented, attentive, proactive, and determined. It will also help you to ask intelligent questions about that firm in particular.

Sure, at the end of the day the equation is "we have money, you want money." And I remember going through OCI and not knowing barely anything about each firm. I personally don't really care because I identify with your situation. But when I went through OCI, I also made one-page cheat sheets that I could review before each interview to remind me of a few key facts, practices, and names for that firm. It helped enormously and I was very successful in converting screeners to callbacks, and callbacks to offers.

I also know from the benefit of experience actually practicing law that firms do have some critical differences, and if you haven't learned anything about my particular firm, you might not be a good fit here (for anon purposes, can't say more than this). We also want smart people who are capable of doing research and interested enough in finding a long-term position that they actually care about the place they're going to work. If you can't spend five minutes researching my firm before you try to get a job with us, I'm betting you're not planning on staying here very long.

smallfirmassociate

Bronze
Posts: 400
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 5:47 pm

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

Postby smallfirmassociate » Wed Jul 30, 2014 11:52 am

Anonymous User wrote:Original anon here who posted about knowing something about the firm. Two points.

(1) I am not necessarily saying this is a good hiring criterion. I am only saying it IS a hiring criterion, like it or not. I just received this year's OCI evaluation sheet and there is literally a spot to write in "specific interest in [Firm]? _____."

(2) Yeah, firms are mostly identical. But every firm has at least one defining characteristic that you can learn from a three-minute review of Chambers, Vault, or the firm's website. Examples: WSGR works with a lot of tech startups; Akin Gump has a strong lobbying practice; DLA Piper is humongous; Gibson Dunn has a top appellate practice. If you can learn one fact and one famous partner's name for each firm, it will set you apart in your interview as being particularly detail-oriented, attentive, proactive, and determined. It will also help you to ask intelligent questions about that firm in particular.

Sure, at the end of the day the equation is "we have money, you want money." And I remember going through OCI and not knowing barely anything about each firm. I personally don't really care because I identify with your situation. But when I went through OCI, I also made one-page cheat sheets that I could review before each interview to remind me of a few key facts, practices, and names for that firm. It helped enormously and I was very successful in converting screeners to callbacks, and callbacks to offers.

I also know from the benefit of experience actually practicing law that firms do have some critical differences, and if you haven't learned anything about my particular firm, you might not be a good fit here (for anon purposes, can't say more than this). We also want smart people who are capable of doing research and interested enough in finding a long-term position that they actually care about the place they're going to work. If you can't spend five minutes researching my firm before you try to get a job with us, I'm betting you're not planning on staying here very long.


Fair enough. I have a feeling this question will be on the way out the door in coming years, however.

I do take issue with the assumption behind the bold. I think if you don't want to (this is different from "can't," fwiw, as I think about any law student is capable of doing this) spend five minutes reading basic information about a firm that is more or less pointless and won't affect your interest in the firm, then I just would consider you efficient. I don't see how that reflects on how long you intend to practice law.

I apologize for meandering off topic, to the extent that the topic is supposed to be interview advice for students and not analysis of interview techniques used by law firms. Perhaps the discussion is still useful if it suggests that not all law firms see things the same way.

User avatar
Pikappraider

Gold
Posts: 2430
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 12:32 pm

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

Postby Pikappraider » Wed Jul 30, 2014 11:54 am

sinfiery wrote:I was going to play up the fact that I have a finance undergrad degree (no experience) and so I am interested M&A/Finance/Bankruptcy/etc. vs lit because I don't want to say I will do whatever if you pay me.

Will this make me look like a fool? Or is it still acceptable to say for this reasons, it interests me but one cannot be sure.


I had a practice interview with a v36-46 associate who does OCI interviews and he seemed to respond positively so there's that.



btw, as trollish as this thread was, it has some helpful points throughout it. thanks


lol

Anonymous User
Posts: 321497
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

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

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 30, 2014 12:02 pm

smallfirmassociate wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:If you can't spend five minutes researching my firm before you try to get a job with us, I'm betting you're not planning on staying here very long.

I do take issue with the assumption behind the bold. I think if you don't want to (this is different from "can't," fwiw, as I think about any law student is capable of doing this) spend five minutes reading basic information about a firm that is more or less pointless and won't affect your interest in the firm, then I just would consider you efficient. I don't see how that reflects on how long you intend to practice law.

I apologize for meandering off topic, to the extent that the topic is supposed to be interview advice for students and not analysis of interview techniques used by law firms.

Quoted anon here. I think this is on-topic, it's good for rising 2Ls to consider how, or if, they will research screener firms.

I think your criticism is fair. I applied broadly to the V100 and if I had only gotten one offer, I would've taken it no matter which firm it was. To a degree, you're right that it "is more or less pointless" to research firms until/unless you have more than one offer and need to distinguish between multiple firms. At the same time, the details about a firm's practice really should affect your interest in the firm. In law school preftige $$$ world, biglaw is biglaw. Once you're a lawyer, the firm becomes your whole existence. You should care about the firm you're trying to work for, beyond just what Vault tier it's in.

More importantly for this thread, though, a rising 2L is not "efficient" for neglecting to research the firm s/he is interviewing for. Instead, I would call this "dumb," or perhaps "very extremely, bordering on criminally, dumb." If you walk into an interview with DLA and you don't know it's the largest law firm in the world, or you walk into an interview with WSGR and you don't know it's a Silicon Valley-based company that services mostly tech companies, you're in trouble.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse

Diamond
Posts: 29317
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

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

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Wed Jul 30, 2014 2:52 pm

smallfirmassociate wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:Except that again, "knowing something about the firm" shows that you can figure out how to act in an interview. I get that a lot of firms look a like and that there are many interviewers who won't care whether the applicant can distinguish one big firm from another, but it seems a pretty universal rule of interviewing to be able to explain (even cursorily, as the post above acknowledges) why you want to work for *that* employer as opposed to others.


That reasoning is circular, however, and the whole process is sophistic. Why do interviewers need a "reason" they know is a blatant pretext for the real answer: because you pay money and I need money.

Well, duh. That's why anyone ever applies to jobs. Of course interviewing is going through the motions, you just need to show that you know what motions to go through. Again, this criticism is confusing "what interviewers should do/care about" with "with what interviewers actually do/care about."

(I mean, I get that some interviewers won't care, but the ones who don't care won't be put off if you can talk semi-reasonably about the specific firm, while the ones who care will be put off if you can't. So you err on the side of caution.)

smallfirmassociate

Bronze
Posts: 400
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 5:47 pm

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

Postby smallfirmassociate » Wed Jul 30, 2014 3:09 pm

A. Nony Mouse wrote:Well, duh. That's why anyone ever applies to jobs.


This is a deceptively dismissive answer that misses the mark. Pay is one of the reasons in about every field, but not the only reason in many fields. I mean, if you apply for a full-time, paid journalism fellowship at your alma mater, it's probably not just for the money. Thus, when your alma mater asks why you want the job, you can give a rich answer that's still honest, like "I really liked it here, still feel connected, know people, support the college's mission, and want to use this opportunity to springboard my career as a journalist..."

Big law, on the other hand, well, they're more or less fungible. That's the key here: as far as the information the law student could possibly know about the firms with a reasonable amount of diligence, the jobs are fungible. That's not the case with other employment contexts.

Of course interviewing is going through the motions, you just need to show that you know what motions to go through. Again, this criticism is confusing "what interviewers should do/care about" with "with what interviewers actually do/care about."

(I mean, I get that some interviewers won't care, but the ones who don't care won't be put off if you can talk semi-reasonably about the specific firm, while the ones who care will be put off if you can't. So you err on the side of caution.)


The bolded is the problem, though. I am an interviewer and I would absolutely be put off if an interviewee seemed particularly eager and knowledgeable about the firm. That's because, in all likelihood, I would sense that the interest is disingenuous. I mean, if this person had talked to people in the area and stuff, that's fine, but it's just trying to hard if they're on Westlaw looking up cases and shit.

I think of the statement I gave my firm at OCI. I told them I knew their office locations and had heard good things from the director of career services (both true), but I didn't know a lot about their practice. We then had a nice discussion about the firm and their practice areas, which gave me a chance to ask questions and for us to have a back-and-forth. Now I work here, so you can see that worked just fine.

I wouldn't advise doing that with most firms, but I suspect that even some biglaw interviewers would find the interviewee who scoured the website and googled the partners to be insufferably disingenuous. Perhaps some discretion is the key. Then again, if there are big egos involved, maybe the interviewer would soak up your eager recitation of the firm's business model and big cases.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse

Diamond
Posts: 29317
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

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

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Wed Jul 30, 2014 4:03 pm

See, I would totally not be weirded out by an interviewee who knew about the firm and (major) cases and partners. I would totally google all the partners at a firm if I were applying. You have to have appropriate delivery - there are creepy and non-creepy ways to show knowledge about a place/people - but if the research is out of genuine interest I don't think it has to come across as disingenuous. I'll agree that you don't want to come across as if that research makes you some kind of insider who knows everything about the firm, but again, that's a matter of delivery, not knowledge.

And I don't think the jobs are quite as fungible as you make them seem. Some firms, sure, or at a certain level. But there are different emphases and different cultures. I'm not saying you should get uber-granular about this, but an awareness of the differences, to the extent you can figure them out, is useful. But I'm not talking rocket science - just things like knowing whether the firm does lit/corp/both, what kinds of clients it tends to emphasize, where they have offices, how the location affects what they do (e.g. Federal regulatory work in DC v. oil and gas in Texas), what kinds of backgrounds the major partners have (e.g. have they all worked for the firm their entire careers or have they moved around in the private sector or from private to public or back etc.).

(I don't think the journalism fellowship is especially different. You're applying because they have a job and you want it. You just have different reasons for wanting it for the fellowship.)

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 » Wed Jul 30, 2014 4:10 pm

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:Don't lie to your wife when she asks you if something makes her look fat because, you know, C&F.

Well if your wife is fat I def wouldn't antagonize her by talking about fitness at all to be safe

smallfirmassociate

Bronze
Posts: 400
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 5:47 pm

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

Postby smallfirmassociate » Wed Jul 30, 2014 4:12 pm

A. Nony Mouse wrote:But I'm not talking rocket science - just things like knowing whether the firm does lit/corp/both,


Good advice; it would be good to know this.

what kinds of clients it tends to emphasize,


Eh, well, ok, not sure, but I'll let it slide.

where they have offices


Yep, definitely.

how the location affects what they do (e.g. Federal regulatory work in DC v. oil and gas in Texas),


ummm-hmmm

what kinds of backgrounds the major partners have (e.g. have they all worked for the firm their entire careers or have they moved around in the private sector or from private to public or back etc.).


NOPE FUCKING CREEPY DO NOT PASS GO

:)

Kidding aside, I think we agree the devil is in the details. I'd just want students to know that there may be some variation between interviewers on how they expect you to respond to this question, and the question is not an invitation for you to spew forth sixty uninterrupted seconds of weirdo stalker firm information. My intuition is that an interviewee should err just a little bit on the side of being honest at the risk of seeming aloof versus being gushing at the risk of seeming disingenuous. But I can't guarantee my intuition is good advice with other interviewers. Good chat.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse

Diamond
Posts: 29317
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

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

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Wed Jul 30, 2014 4:14 pm

Fair enough.

(Not sure why it's creepy to look up partners' backgrounds when firms put all that stuff in the website bios, though...)

Edit: I should make clear that I'm not suggesting you should try to demonstrate your knowledge of partners' backgrounds in an interview. That could indeed look creepy. But I find it useful for context, to see how people ended up where they did and what that might mean for the day to day culture of a place.

Anonymous User
Posts: 321497
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

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

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jul 31, 2014 12:48 am

OP here, do not understand the vitriol, even with my comment towards v20s, all I am doing is sharing factual data with you on how things work. I understand things in law suck and a lot of shit is arbitrary and stupid. The sooner you can realize this and work within the system rather than idealizing how things should be, the better your life will be.

When we do OCI, my firm may interview say 40 people, we have just 2 spots. As such, we want to give offers to people who will come so we are not at the back of the line with candidates. Most candidates are fungible, most law students (except for a few extreme aspies) are nice sociable people. Everyone is smart enough to do the job, frankly any undergrad could probably go into biglaw day one and be fine. So from our perspective, we have a bunch of nice people who are all smart enough to do the job. Therefore, unlike most businesses hiring candidates, we know every candidate is well qualified and most are pleasant enough to be around.

There therefore is only one real question that drives hiring, is this person likely to stay long term? I cannot stress how important that is. Retraining a lateral is a pain in the ass, every firm has different nits so it takes them at least a year to get up to speed.

With that in mind let's look at an example to see how this would work:

40 candidates at 2 OCIs:

20% of candidates- disqualified due to basically having aspergers/ no personality
40% of candidates- grades don't meet cutoff (most firms have these, in retrospect it really makes me sad the awesome people you meet that you cannot give offers, a lot of the best candidates I meet cannot be called back period).
Leaving 16 people left
We will perhaps call back all 16. 6 of those will probably say thanks but no thanks as they have 15 callbacks already.

10 candidates left. Perhaps 4 offers were made and one was accepted. Now we have six candidates left. Let's say we are for this example a firm in Miami primarily involved in real estate:

1. Candidate A- Has job offer at far more prestigious firm than us, which he stupidly disclosed when we asked what offers he had.
2. Candidate B- Kept asking about pro bono and talking about his time at the public defender.
3. Candidate C- Told us she is mainly looking at New York firms but also quite a few Miami firms.
4. Candidate D- Told us that real estate would be fascinating because of the great easement cases he read in property law.
5. Candidate E- Told us after a few years of real estate law he sees himself either on the business side with a developer or in house.
6. Candidate F- Worked at a real estate management company prior to law school and has told us she is only looking in Miami, states that she wants to end up at a firm that she can see herself at for a while.

Who do you think the firm is going to pick?



Return to “Legal Employment�

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.