Check out top-law-schools.com Forum

[jrthor10]

Heard from a friend that Skadden no-offered three summers in New York. He's my only source. If someone else at Skadden could verify this, that'd be great.

Pretty sure it was 2, and both were for legitimate reasons. If you're a normal, semi-responsible person, you have nothing to worry about.

[Desert Fox]

[North]

Heard from a friend that Skadden no-offered three summers in New York. He's my only source. If someone else at Skadden could verify this, that'd be great.

Pretty sure it was 2, and both were for legitimate reasons. If you're a normal, semi-responsible person, you have nothing to worry about.

What constitutes legitimate reasons

[El Pollito]

no weil is a disaster

Weil was 100% this year and made it clear from beginning that everyone was going to get offers.

they still did mass layoffs very recently and have had mass defections

[Anonymous User]

How much will a no-offer screw you over? Does it make a difference if it's from a v5 firm? What is stopping people from lying and saying they did get an offer?

[El Pollito]

How much will a no-offer screw you over? Does it make a difference if it's from a v5 firm? What is stopping people from lying and saying they did get an offer?

bc you are totally screwed if they verify w your firm

[Anonymous User]

Heard from a friend that Skadden no-offered three summers in New York. He's my only source. If someone else at Skadden could verify this, that'd be great.

Pretty sure it was 2, and both were for legitimate reasons. If you're a normal, semi-responsible person, you have nothing to worry about.

It was 3 no-offers in NY. 2 2Ls and a 1L. From what I heard, the 2L behavior was extraordinarily terrible and worth the exception from the usual 100% offer rate.

[Anonymous User]

I'm at one of the California Latham offices. I heard the cocaine and hookers story with the New York 1L is true. Also heard that a DC 2L summer was no offered for work product. And I heard from a recruiting committee member that firmwide the offer rate this summer was 98%. I assume that includes the rumored DC 2L but not sure if that includes the New York 1L.

For whatever any of that is worth.

[John_Luther1989]

I'm at one of the California Latham offices. I heard the cocaine and hookers story with the New York 1L is true. Also heard that a DC 2L summer was no offered for work product. And I heard from a recruiting committee member that firmwide the offer rate this summer was 98%. I assume that includes the rumored DC 2L but not sure if that includes the New York 1L.

For whatever any of that is worth.

I can confirm the DC 2L. If the offer rate they told you was 98% and Chambers' numbers are accurate, they no offered 4 people globally.

Chambers source: http://www.chambers-associate.com/where ... ss-of-2015

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Heard from a friend that Skadden no-offered three summers in New York. He's my only source. If someone else at Skadden could verify this, that'd be great.

Pretty sure it was 2, and both were for legitimate reasons. If you're a normal, semi-responsible person, you have nothing to worry about.

It was 3 no-offers in NY. 2 2Ls and a 1L. From what I heard, the 2L behavior was extraordinarily terrible and worth the exception from the usual 100% offer rate.

Guessing you only heard one side. Having heard from no-offered people and now from my firm about no-offered people, the stories wind up being vastly different. I tend to believe the rules are a lot different for that firm VIPs like and those they don't.

IMO, a no-offer is legitimate only if (1) a person repeatedly refuses to do the work assigned to them, even after notice that that refusal puts their offer in jeopardy, or (2) the person willfully does something so egregious as to constitute a serious professional liability, and the person is likely to do something similar again. Anything else, I defer to the axioms that (a) it's a firm's job to train its associates to its standard, and (b) everyone makes mistakes.

[Johann]

if i was no offered i would absolutely lie about it if the firm was not K&L Gatesing.

[Tiago Splitter]

Repeatedly refuses to do work? You gotta be kidding me

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Repeatedly refuses to do work? You gotta be kidding me

People are no-offered all the time for fucking up assignments in...basically exactly the way you would expect of someone who hasn't practiced law before. Not going to endorse ruining people's careers over that.

[Tiago Splitter]

Repeatedly refuses to do work? You gotta be kidding me

People are no-offered all the time for fucking up assignments in...basically exactly the way you would expect of someone who hasn't practiced law before. Not going to endorse ruining people's careers over that.

You don't really think fucking up is the same as just flat out not even trying do you?

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Repeatedly refuses to do work? You gotta be kidding me

People are no-offered all the time for fucking up assignments in...basically exactly the way you would expect of someone who hasn't practiced law before. Not going to endorse ruining people's careers over that.

You don't really think fucking up is the same as just flat out not even trying do you?

...I thought that was exactly the distinction I was drawing? I'm confused now.

[skers]

Heard from a friend that Skadden no-offered three summers in New York. He's my only source. If someone else at Skadden could verify this, that'd be great.

Pretty sure it was 2, and both were for legitimate reasons. If you're a normal, semi-responsible person, you have nothing to worry about.

It was 3 no-offers in NY. 2 2Ls and a 1L. From what I heard, the 2L behavior was extraordinarily terrible and worth the exception from the usual 100% offer rate.

Guessing you only heard one side. Having heard from no-offered people and now from my firm about no-offered people, the stories wind up being vastly different. I tend to believe the rules are a lot different for that firm VIPs like and those they don't.

IMO, a no-offer is legitimate only if (1) a person repeatedly refuses to do the work assigned to them, even after notice that that refusal puts their offer in jeopardy, or (2) the person willfully does something so egregious as to constitute a serious professional liability, and the person is likely to do something similar again. Anything else, I defer to the axioms that (a) it's a firm's job to train its associates to its standard, and (b) everyone makes mistakes.

It's good to see you're back to your expert in things w/ minimal knowledge shtick.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

I'll have my opinion. You can have yours.

[5ky]

I mean, I get the point that no offers can reall ruin a person's career, but firms aren't really doing these things for charity. If you have a small class and have a couple of complete screwups, that's really bad for the firm once they start for real.

Some no offers are pretextual for economic reasons, which is bad, but people who get no offered for poor work product or being weird are usually so bad it's hard to argue for them and if they got no offered at one firm, there's a good chance they would've been no offered elsewhere.

[smaug]

Breaking out of my cage because this thread is off its rocker.

First, to address Mono's post—absurd. Absolutely absurd. Law firms are businesses. They didn't agree to hire you full time yet. You're interviewing for positions way out in the future. If a firm is on the verge of going Dewey, they probably should no offer people. They shouldn't risk financial stability for press or because it's nice for second year law students to have jobs out in advance. Even at a 100% offer firm, you're not entitled to a job. Ever.

Second, with respect to "outing the firm" there's little marginal benefit to rising 2Ls/current students. It's one thing if a firm is showing signs of financial instability overall (like K&L Gates) but otherwise, it's hard to say whether the data gathered is useful. If you're including cold-offers (and really, I think you should, because you're probably in WAY more of a similar situation than you think you are), nearly every firm no-offers some people, at least every once in a while. People do stupid things. Firms face unforeseen financial pressures.

I think it's one thing if you're talking about a firm like Skadden no-offering some summers, on occasion, and another when it's been continuous/part of the summer program. (I think Greenberg Traurig, Curtiss, K&L Gates and others have pretty much institutionalized no offering a chunk of their class at this point.)

Students should be aware that yes, there are firms that don't even try to get a 100% offer rate/never had an intention of giving offers to all of their summers. Those firms are alarming and should maybe be considered a step down, or a less safe option, than others.

But, it's absurd to start throwing near 100%/potential 100% firms like Latham or Weil into that mix. There might be good reason to be alarmed by their practices otherwise (e.g., Latham's boom/bust model would give me hives) but worrying that you might not get an offer if you piss in the punchbowl probably shouldn't be your top concern there. Especially because I would wager it's easier to do 3L OCI after summering at one of the large, prestigious firms than it would be from another shop, if only because lawyers are dorks and will use where you summered as a 2L as a proxy for how desirable of a candidate you were.

___

On the other hand, I think there's potentially real harm to those who out firms for no offering people. If you were no offered and you talk about the firm, it'll quickly become apparent who you are. Now you're not just damaged goods, you're damaged goods who's unwilling to keep your mouth shut and practice self-preservation. It shows poor judgment and seems to rest on an assumption that there are so many summers out there that you wouldn't know who got no-offered where. That's just not true, though—people like to gossip and that shit will spread.

The big advantage you have by keeping mum about it is that maybe you can fix it and find another job before the fact that you were no-offered has any professional or personal consequences. I say personal consequences because there will be personal consequences. I wouldn't think less of anyone (unless the story was egregious), but again, lawyers are tools and people will talk about it. You'll be marked.

So, don't encourage people to do something that could hurt them and gives you almost no benefit. You don't need to know where everyone got no offered. You have NALP. We have anecdotes that are slightly more stale but don't hurt anyone. Most importantly, the data gathered is pretty garbage from the start.

[smaug]

A more succinct analysis:

Some no-offers should be expected. That you see a no-offer as the ultimate mark of death says more about your affluenza than it does about the firm.

In fact, by making such a big deal out of no-offers, you're exacerbating the harm you're trying to mitigate.

[smaug]

Finally, to say the rude-as-fuck thing that people don't want to say:

We're talking about anonymous posts on the Internet. We'll never know whether the poster earned his/her no-offer or not, but assuredly some of them are earned.

Still sucks to be that person, and some people are fucked over by bad luck, doing something minor that pissed off the wrong person, or by just the financials of the firm.

But, it's another reason to discount the data you're trying to gather by shouting for people to out the firm.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

First, to address Mono's post—absurd. Absolutely absurd. Law firms are businesses. They didn't agree to hire you full time yet. You're interviewing for positions way out in the future. If a firm is on the verge of going Dewey, they probably should no offer people. They shouldn't risk financial stability for press or because it's nice for second year law students to have jobs out in advance. Even at a 100% offer firm, you're not entitled to a job. Ever.

I don't necessarily disagree with anything there, but I wouldn't call a no-offer for economic reasons "legitimate." If the firm fucked up badly enough to put itself in that position, they deserve to be derided for the consequences they cause.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

I mean, I get the point that no offers can reall ruin a person's career, but firms aren't really doing these things for charity. If you have a small class and have a couple of complete screwups, that's really bad for the firm once they start for real.

Some no offers are pretextual for economic reasons, which is bad, but people who get no offered for poor work product or being weird are usually so bad it's hard to argue for them and if they got no offered at one firm, there's a good chance they would've been no offered elsewhere.

I get that, but I think firms should be committed to training people for years. When a firm gives up on that commitment ten weeks in, I tend to believe it's often the firm not even wanting to take the risk, rather than the summer being hopeless. But of course, each case is unique.

[smaug]

Mono, yeah, they can be derided for it, but you're not hurting the firm that much by having people "out the firm."

People know every year that some firms no offer a third of the class. Those firms still don't struggle to find people to fill classes. It's almost like we have too many lawyers or something.

But, it still shows poor judgment if you were the one who was no-offered and you try to do an impotent online hatchet job on the place that was willing to piss away $50k on the shot you might be an OK employee a few years from now.

But, more directly to your point, maybe they shouldn't be derided for the no-offering part, because people are better off knowing that there's no job for them than to think they're going to have something only for the firm to go supernova a year later, hurting more people and leaving those with no experience up shit creek without a paddle.

[smaug]

I mean, I get the point that no offers can reall ruin a person's career, but firms aren't really doing these things for charity. If you have a small class and have a couple of complete screwups, that's really bad for the firm once they start for real.

Some no offers are pretextual for economic reasons, which is bad, but people who get no offered for poor work product or being weird are usually so bad it's hard to argue for them and if they got no offered at one firm, there's a good chance they would've been no offered elsewhere.

I get that, but I think firms should be committed to training people for years. When a firm gives up on that commitment ten weeks in, I tend to believe it's often the firm not even wanting to take the risk, rather than the summer being hopeless. But of course, each case is unique.

This would make sense if there was any way to tell that someone would be even minimally competent through the legal hiring process.

That isn't true, though.