Trick question to test for ties Forum

[Anonymous User]

For many of my screeners where I had no ties, the interviewer would tell me early on "by the way, we are also hiring for X office. Would you be interested?" ("X" being my school's market)

It's funny because I've only gotten this question for interviews that I've had no ties with. In fact, one time after the interview I checked their "X" office on NALP and saw that they had no summer program in that office... which made me wonder why they always asked this
Wondering if this is a test used to see if the applicant is committed to practicing in a particular state rather than just trying to get what they can...

[Genthree]

For many of my screeners where I had no ties, the interviewer would tell me early on "by the way, we are also hiring for X office. Would you be interested?" ("X" being my school's market)

It's funny because I've only gotten this question for interviews that I've had no ties with. In fact, one time after the interview I checked their "X" office on NALP and saw that they had no summer program in that office... which made me wonder why they always asked this
Wondering if this is a test used to see if the applicant is committed to practicing in a particular state rather than just trying to get what they can...

I think it definitely is. Along the same lines, I've had several litigation boutiques ask me if I had decided whether I wanted to do litigation vs transactional work.

[thesealocust]

I've seen partners do this to unsuspecting law students when I go on interview trips. It's sad/beautiful to witness live.

Saw one student wind up in a lengthy conversation with a partner about his passion for [practice area we don't have] in [city we basically have no presence in].

Ding!

[Anonymous User]

The other trick question I've seen a lot of is partners or associates trying to get into conversations with me about how great another firm is. Every single interview/reception/lunch in which I took the bait eventually resulted in a ding. It seems to be a particularly popular tactic among NYC firms, and for some reason they all use Cravath as the bait.

[delusional]

This topic is a pathetic example of 1L ignorance and lawyer stupidity.

"Ties" are ridiculously overrated. I have heard from multiple partners that if you are interviewing with them, they assume you want to work for them. What exactly is the consequence of hiring someone who isn't really interested in working there? That they might work somewhere else? That they are only interested in your firm as a safety? How is that different from a thousand other reasons you might choose another place to work? There is no 3L OCI to worry about these days, so if firms can get their hands on a desirable candidate because they're his/her second choice, they should be happy to do it.

The biggest problem might be that someone with no ties might leave as a second or third year to go back home. Granted, this difference might be meaningful, though minor - if the firm is healthy and the associate is happy, they would be less likely to go back home anyway. But even the minor difference does not justify devious questions that can lead to "wrong answers" for a hundred reasons that do not reflect on commitment. An interviewer who thinks he is reading between the lines is too clever by half and is probably overstating the "meaningful work" young associates at his firm are assigned. He should try to find opportunities to do more depositions so he can get his rocks off that way.

[thesealocust]

This topic is a pathetic example of 1L ignorance and lawyer stupidity.

"Ties" are ridiculously overrated. I have heard from multiple partners that if you are interviewing with them, they assume you want to work for them. What exactly is the consequence of hiring someone who isn't really interested in working there? That they might work somewhere else? That they are only interested in your firm as a safety? How is that different from a thousand other reasons you might choose another place to work? There is no 3L OCI to worry about these days, so if firms can get their hands on a desirable candidate because they're his/her second choice, they should be happy to do it.

The biggest problem might be that someone with no ties might leave as a second or third year to go back home. Granted, this difference might be meaningful, though minor - if the firm is healthy and the associate is happy, they would be less likely to go back home anyway. But even the minor difference does not justify devious questions that can lead to "wrong answers" for a hundred reasons that do not reflect on commitment. An interviewer who thinks he is reading between the lines is too clever by half and is probably overstating the "meaningful work" young associates at his firm are assigned. He should try to find opportunities to do more depositions so he can get his rocks off that way.

I'll tell this to the partners I work for who think ties are important and have expressed a reluctance to extend offers to people who don't seem totally committed to the market my firm is in, particularly given that our yield is often impacted by people accepting offers in other major markets.

[delusional]

This topic is a pathetic example of 1L ignorance and lawyer stupidity.

"Ties" are ridiculously overrated. I have heard from multiple partners that if you are interviewing with them, they assume you want to work for them. What exactly is the consequence of hiring someone who isn't really interested in working there? That they might work somewhere else? That they are only interested in your firm as a safety? How is that different from a thousand other reasons you might choose another place to work? There is no 3L OCI to worry about these days, so if firms can get their hands on a desirable candidate because they're his/her second choice, they should be happy to do it.

The biggest problem might be that someone with no ties might leave as a second or third year to go back home. Granted, this difference might be meaningful, though minor - if the firm is healthy and the associate is happy, they would be less likely to go back home anyway. But even the minor difference does not justify devious questions that can lead to "wrong answers" for a hundred reasons that do not reflect on commitment. An interviewer who thinks he is reading between the lines is too clever by half and is probably overstating the "meaningful work" young associates at his firm are assigned. He should try to find opportunities to do more depositions so he can get his rocks off that way.

I'll tell this to the partners I work for who think ties are important and have expressed a reluctance to extend offers to people who don't seem totally committed to the market my firm is in, particularly given that our yield is often impacted by people accepting offers in other major markets.

My one hesitation for being so critical was that you are probably the most reasonable and helpful poster on TLS on employment topics especially. I don't deny that some partners think it's a big deal. I think I explained why they are being foolish. If you disagree, I'm curious to know why.

[Anonymous User]

This topic is a pathetic example of 1L ignorance and lawyer stupidity.

"Ties" are ridiculously overrated. I have heard from multiple partners that if you are interviewing with them, they assume you want to work for them. What exactly is the consequence of hiring someone who isn't really interested in working there? That they might work somewhere else? That they are only interested in your firm as a safety? How is that different from a thousand other reasons you might choose another place to work? There is no 3L OCI to worry about these days, so if firms can get their hands on a desirable candidate because they're his/her second choice, they should be happy to do it.

The biggest problem might be that someone with no ties might leave as a second or third year to go back home. Granted, this difference might be meaningful, though minor - if the firm is healthy and the associate is happy, they would be less likely to go back home anyway. But even the minor difference does not justify devious questions that can lead to "wrong answers" for a hundred reasons that do not reflect on commitment. An interviewer who thinks he is reading between the lines is too clever by half and is probably overstating the "meaningful work" young associates at his firm are assigned. He should try to find opportunities to do more depositions so he can get his rocks off that way.

Your ties comment is limited to major markets and is completely off with regard to secondary markets. I have been targeting almost exclusively secondary markets and have been grilled extensively on my interests and ties to the area. I was also told flat out by the recruiter for my 1L position that they will not callback anyone who has not lived in the state.

Edit: I reread your comment and saw that it was not stating that ties don't matter, just that ties shouldn't matter. I agree 100%.

[Anonymous User]

As someone who didn't have ties, overcame it, and now spend 5-10 hours a week trying to leave this market, I think it makes sense for firms to try to only hire people who really want to be there. Also, everyone I know who left their firm in the first 2 years (something like 10 people?) did so to move cities.

[thesealocust]

My one hesitation for being so critical was that you are probably the most reasonable and helpful poster on TLS on employment topics especially. I don't deny that some partners think it's a big deal. I think I explained why they are being foolish. If you disagree, I'm curious to know why.

I mean, I guess it's mostly a question about how the world is vs. how the world should be. I'm inclined to agree that ties shouldn't be critical, because people are mobile and long-term flight risks will happen even if people never leave the market.

On how the world works, I've seen people without a hint of ties scoring jobs across major markets - but much less frequently than I've seen people struggle places where they don't have a strong connection. Being on the other side of the table, I've also seen how important ties are to people making decisions.

On some levels it's overt - like I said, I've heard partners monologue about how we need to find people who are focusing on [city I'm in] and try to see if they're also looking at [other city]. Yield matters a lot to them, and they hate making offers then losing people.

On other levels it's more subtle, but I think people are more likely to root for the "home town hero" and develop a rapport in an interview if the candidate's case for the firm (and the geography) work together in a coherent and compelling way.

[A. Nony Mouse]

My one hesitation for being so critical was that you are probably the most reasonable and helpful poster on TLS on employment topics especially. I don't deny that some partners think it's a big deal. I think I explained why they are being foolish. If you disagree, I'm curious to know why.

But no one has said ties should matter or firms are justified in feeling this way - just that they do.

[delusional]

My one hesitation for being so critical was that you are probably the most reasonable and helpful poster on TLS on employment topics especially. I don't deny that some partners think it's a big deal. I think I explained why they are being foolish. If you disagree, I'm curious to know why.

But no one has said ties should matter or firms are justified in feeling this way - just that they do.

That's true. I guess my point was two-fold. First, not all partners/interviewers/recruiters think it's a big deal. Also, those who do are putting too much emphasis on it.

[Big Dog]

First, not all partners/interviewers/recruiters think it's a big deal.

Of course, not "all partners" agree on anything in the firm.

Also, those who do are putting too much emphasis on it.

Doesn't matter bcos for those partners/associates, who get a vote in the hiring process, its auto-ding. And that is all that matters in OCI and mass mail.

[DELG]

I think firms aren't ties-sensitive enough.

[Anonymous User]

I got grilled on having no ties to NY at my last interview. That was unexpected.

[Anonymous User]

I got grilled on having no ties to NY at my last interview. That was unexpected.

NY not caring about whether they think you will stay is the biggest flame on TLS.

I'm from Silicon Valley and everything on the resume screams Tech/IP/California, and every finance driven NY firm was skeptical both that I was interested in finance work and that I wanted to live in New York.

I fared tremendously better getting CBs in SV and SF than NY, despite them being significantly smaller and generally more selective markets

[Anonymous User]

I got grilled on having no ties to NY at my last interview. That was unexpected.

NY not caring about whether they think you will stay is the biggest flame on TLS.

I'm from Silicon Valley and everything on the resume screams Tech/IP/California, and every finance driven NY firm was skeptical both that I was interested in finance work and that I wanted to live in New York.

I fared tremendously better getting CBs in SV and SF than NY, despite them being significantly smaller and generally more selective markets

Meh, anecdotes. You showed me yours I'll show you mine: The 2nd time I've been to NYC in my life was my first callback, my resume bled politics/DC, and I got offers in NYC then worked there.

"I want to do corporate law" was pretty much all I ever needed to say. People were interested for sure, but once I told them that, and gave familiar sounding names and ampersands when they asked where else I was interviewing, it wasn't an issue.

"You don't need ties for New York" overstates things a little. It's more like "New York is one of very few places where "I want to do the work that primarily exists in your city" is close to the only tie you need, and you can develop said tie about 5 minutes before an interview if necessary."

[Anonymous User]

I thought ties really mattered. Went through OCI. I am from Boston, worked there, lived there whole life until law school. Got as many California callbacks as Boston callbacks and I had 2 or 3 more Boston screeners. Ties to California= I've been and I like it.

Whats the credited answer when a firm asks you if you're looking at other markets. Tell the truth?

[thesealocust]

Whats the credited answer when a firm asks you if you're looking at other markets. Tell the truth?

You don't have to tell the truth, but you can't lie ?

"Are you looking at any other cities?"

"HOLY CRAP LOOK OVER THERE!" (run away)

[Anonymous User]

Whats the credited answer when a firm asks you if you're looking at other markets. Tell the truth?

You don't have to tell the truth, but you can't lie ?

"Are you looking at any other cities?"

"HOLY CRAP LOOK OVER THERE!" (run away)

That's been my strategy. X market is really my priority.... don't answer rest of question.

Is there a difference in emphasis on ties between the screener and callback stages.

[rpupkin]

The other trick question I've seen a lot of is partners or associates trying to get into conversations with me about how great another firm is. Every single interview/reception/lunch in which I took the bait eventually resulted in a ding. It seems to be a particularly popular tactic among NYC firms, and for some reason they all use Cravath as the bait.

Huh. I'm not a NYC guy, but I've never experienced anything like this. In fact, I think it's a little dangerous for an applicant to say negative things about another firm during an interview. I mean, it'll work okay if you've got the right type of interviewer, but I think it's hard for the interviewee to pull this off without seeming unlikable. Also, keep in mind that many of the awful things you've heard about other firms (e.g., "Quinn has terrible hours") might also be true of the firm you're interviewing at.

Back when I did OCI and had callbacks, I always said nice things about the other firms I was interviewing at. I got offers pretty much everywhere. Yeah, don't gush about some other firm ("My dream is to work at Cravath!"), but don't slam it either. I wouldn't go beyond expressing awareness of some differences between other firms and the firm you're interviewing at, along with a sincere explanation of why one of those differences appeals to you. To pick on the Cravath example some more, you could tell another firm that you think you would prefer a free-market system (or whatever that firm uses) to Cravath's rotation system.