Law Firm Start Dates: Do They Matter? Forum

[Anonymous User]

We've been provided with two start dates that are a month apart from the other. Does one really accrue any significant benefits from starting a month earlier?

This firm places all those interested in Corporate work into a Corporate pool versus a practice group, and assignments are primarily dictated from an assignment coordinator or can be obtained in more of a free market type situation.

Please share your thoughts!

[gaddockteeg]

I personally think earlier is better. It better (slightly) insulates you IMO from a disasterly lay-off.

for example, if you end up doing terrible during 1st year of big law, and you get your 1 or 2 months notice after your year-end review: I think starting in Sept. vs. November becomes the difference between lateraling with 1 year and 2 months experience, and 1 year and 4 months experience.

Even worse, lets say you get canned like the 2015 grads at Schiff Hardin (the whole class was laid off in March '16). In that case September vs November means looking to lateral with 4 months vs. 6 months experience on your resume. shrug.

It's not a huge consideration but I think it's somehting.

[LaLiLuLeLo]

No, I don't think so. Take the time and travel or just relax. You'll be wanting that free month soon enough once you start.

[Easterbork]

I think most people would say it doesn't matter.

The counter argument is that you are at a free-market firm and perhaps people will get a jump on forming relationships with partners/associates that are better to work for and maybe you will look like you don't work as hard because lawyers are petty and judgmental like that.

It almost certainly doesn't matter. Just like being on a journal probably didn't matter, but I still did it because I'm a risk averse lawyer.

[Anonymous User]

I personally think earlier is better. It better (slightly) insulates you IMO from a disasterly lay-off.

for example, if you end up doing terrible during 1st year of big law, and you get your 1 or 2 months notice after your year-end review: I think starting in Sept. vs. November becomes the difference between lateraling with 1 year and 2 months experience, and 1 year and 4 months experience.

Even worse, lets say you get canned like the 2015 grads at Schiff Hardin (the whole class was laid off in March '16). In that case September vs November means looking to lateral with 4 months vs. 6 months experience on your resume. shrug.

It's not a huge consideration but I think it's somehting.

I disagree. Most law firms will look at you as a first year until the calender changes (Dec 31) regardless if you started in Sept or Oct.

Starting earlier gives you more time to screw up and therefore get canned before you even become officially a second year. Starting later decreases the chances you will get fired earlier. No one will fire you until you have actually been working there for awhile.

[favabeansoup]

Depends on your personal situation.

I didn't have a choice but I did start earlier than some of my friends did. I liked starting earlier.

I needed the money sooner. My bar stipend was running out fast. Rather annoyingly, your loan payments (if you have any) are likely to start just as or a little before you start working. At least they did for me. Plus I was moving cities and bought some new furniture and things. Having my salary start about a month earlier saved me a ton of stress about how to stretch out my funds.

Luckily my parents helped me with a bar trip, but otherwise, I was on my own.

If I could have afforded to take an extra month (and had the option to) I probably would have.