Fordham Makes Reed Smith Pay a Price!

(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
tome
Posts: 275
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 6:17 pm

Re: Fordham Makes Reed Smith Pay a Price!

Postby tome » Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:34 am

PKSebben wrote:The anonymous feature was implemented not for jokes, but to allow people to mask their identity while posting sensitive information. Making an exception for you -- and your HI-LARI-OUS comedy -- only creates an incentive for others to follow suit. Surely you understand that, right?


Not at all. Again, this site isn't nearly serious enough to warrant such action, imo.

The only possible abuse I could see with this feature would be to use it to do something actually ban-able, like harass another poster, without the general population seeing who it was. But then you could just ban that person, right? This hardly undermines the original intention of the function.

By the way, it doesn't work if you edit your comment--discovered by accident. Either way, this is probably a better conversation for elsewhere.

User avatar
rondemarino
Posts: 529
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:29 am

Re: Fordham Makes Reed Smith Pay a Price!

Postby rondemarino » Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:36 am

Da Stain wrote:But that's the thing, WHAT JOBS?!?!

So, maybe Fordham garnered some free PR with the incoming admissions class. What the hell is that worth. I guarantee you they didn't "steal" any students from higher-ranked competitors because of this. No one in the legal community thinks Fordham students don't take no shit because their career services dean told off Reed Smith. They should have just negotiated a resume drop, basically a prescreen, and on-campus interviews from that, and let this thing go.


The anecdote of Red Auerbach getting Bill Russell to throw an elbow on national TV is a powerful one.

User avatar
thesealocust
Posts: 8447
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:50 pm

Re: Fordham Makes Reed Smith Pay a Price!

Postby thesealocust » Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:36 am

edit: nm
Last edited by thesealocust on Sat Jun 19, 2010 3:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

06072010
Posts: 1468
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 2:30 pm

Re: Fordham Makes Reed Smith Pay a Price!

Postby 06072010 » Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:39 am

OperaSoprano wrote:
But they should've known, right? It's not as if the recession started three weeks ago. I just find it hard to believe that they could have been in this position and not seen it coming.


I find this statement incredibly short-sighted. Firms review billing cycles, work flow, and collection rates all the time. What if Reed Smith just lost a huge client? That shit happens every all the time. Firms are evaluating their needs every second and I'd bet they intended to go to Fordham until this decision is made.

The alternative would be to pull out of Fordhan prematurely (giggity?). My firm made decisions to cancel OCI at Michigan very late in the game -- not to stick it to those fucks at Michigan, but because it's expensive and they can fill their needs at fewer places. Don't you realize that everything is being done last minute? People won't know on OFFERS for several months at some firms. Everybody is playing wait and see.

User avatar
OperaSoprano
Posts: 4410
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 1:54 am

Re: Fordham Makes Reed Smith Pay a Price!

Postby OperaSoprano » Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:41 am

thesealocust wrote:
OperaSoprano wrote:But they should've known, right? It's not as if the recession started three weeks ago. I just find it hard to believe that they could have been in this position and not seen it coming.


Well, they made the choice to go in the first place, but 'ITE' one thing that seems abundantly clear is that nobody knows exactly what's going on. Nobody knows when things will pick up, how deep the whole will get, where students will have options, etc. At some point after deciding to go to Fordham, Reed Smith made the decision to not go to Fordham's OCI - be it to not hire anybody, because they couldn't spare the expense, because they Fordham hiring partner was booked that weekend - who fucking knows. But it's a big leap to assume it was strictly negligence on the firm's part.


It still seems they did in the rudest way possible. Our dean was an editor of the Yale Law Journal. Chances are, he's reasonably smart, and would not have spoken out against this firm if extenuating circumstances existed. I don't know that they didn't, but this is something to keep in mind.

06072010
Posts: 1468
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 2:30 pm

Re: Fordham Makes Reed Smith Pay a Price!

Postby 06072010 » Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:41 am

tome wrote:
PKSebben wrote:The anonymous feature was implemented not for jokes, but to allow people to mask their identity while posting sensitive information. Making an exception for you -- and your HI-LARI-OUS comedy -- only creates an incentive for others to follow suit. Surely you understand that, right?


Not at all. Again, this site isn't nearly serious enough to warrant such action, imo.

The only possible abuse I could see with this feature would be to use it to do something actually ban-able, like harass another poster, without the general population seeing who it was. But then you could just ban that person, right? This hardly undermines the original intention of the function.

By the way, it doesn't work if you edit your comment--discovered by accident. Either way, this is probably a better conversation for elsewhere.


The rules for the employment forum were clearly stated and the idea is to not turn this into XOXO. That's why were going to be up in your business about using the anonymous feature for anything other than sensitive information. If I had to monitor every retarded anonymous post for lame ass jokes like yours, it would take a lot more of my time. This way, I can put an end to that shit quick. If you want to post like an anonymous jackass, feel free to head over to XOXO.

Da Stain
Posts: 520
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:50 am

Re: Fordham Makes Reed Smith Pay a Price!

Postby Da Stain » Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:41 am

thesealocust wrote:
Da Stain wrote:But that's the thing, WHAT JOBS?!?!

So, maybe Fordham garnered some free PR with the incoming admissions class. What the hell is that worth. I guarantee you they didn't "steal" any students from higher-ranked competitors because of this. No one in the legal community thinks Fordham students don't take no shit because their career services dean told off Reed Smith. They should have just negotiated a resume drop, basically a prescreen, and on-campus interviews from that, and let this thing go.


I think this highlights the biggest point - professionally, this contest should have been dealt with via back channels, NOT by a public attempt at shaming / lecturing. A law firm going to interview on a campus is going to expect some level of discretion, much as any other pairing of organizations doing business with one another.


Totally in agreement.

This is what bothered me about the UVA/Hunton & Williams flap. They love UVA students, they give a ton of money. If they were hiring, they'd be there. Bitching to Above The Law about it got us a sweet 2 rooms of probably no hiring. Their recruiting director was on a panel before OCI's with 2 other firms and couldn't even give a straight number about their hiring for the year while the other 2 could. Clearly, they were only there because they got shamed by ATL. I would have preferred my classmates to STFU, although I appreciate the schmucks who wasted their bids interviewing there. I'm sure they would have appreciated a little more discretion, just like here.

(Following on PK, OCI is expensive. Most schools charge 500-750 per room, plus the expenses of sending attys and lost billable. You're looking at a couple grand just to put on a show if you know you're not hiring. I'm sure their associates who still have actual jobs appreciate being given some respect over some 1Ls.)

bigben
Posts: 703
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Fordham Makes Reed Smith Pay a Price!

Postby bigben » Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:43 am

OperaSoprano wrote:To bigben: I'm a 1L now. My first class started yesterday. :D



I suppose I meant people who have spent one second looking for a law job, summer or otherwise. The "yay, fordham!" mentality betrays such a broad misunderstanding of legal hiring that it seems futile for me to comment any more specifically. Frankly, it's puzzling to see this dean react this way to something that has happened at probably every school in the country over the last several weeks. I guess it's just another example of the wide berth between legal education and practice.

Da Stain
Posts: 520
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:50 am

Re: Fordham Makes Reed Smith Pay a Price!

Postby Da Stain » Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:44 am

OperaSoprano wrote:
It still seems they did in the rudest way possible. Our dean was an editor of the Yale Law Journal. Chances are, he's reasonably smart, and would not have spoken out against this firm if extenuating circumstances existed. I don't know that they didn't, but this is something to keep in mind.


No, simply no, although I respect your point as something to keep in mind. Being editor of some journal at Yale doesn't mean you're right in everything you do. I might actually argue anyone from Yale doesn't know shit about how real law works.

User avatar
tome
Posts: 275
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 6:17 pm

Re: Fordham Makes Reed Smith Pay a Price!

Postby tome » Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:47 am

PKSebben wrote:
tome wrote:
PKSebben wrote:The anonymous feature was implemented not for jokes, but to allow people to mask their identity while posting sensitive information. Making an exception for you -- and your HI-LARI-OUS comedy -- only creates an incentive for others to follow suit. Surely you understand that, right?


Not at all. Again, this site isn't nearly serious enough to warrant such action, imo.

The only possible abuse I could see with this feature would be to use it to do something actually ban-able, like harass another poster, without the general population seeing who it was. But then you could just ban that person, right? This hardly undermines the original intention of the function.

By the way, it doesn't work if you edit your comment--discovered by accident. Either way, this is probably a better conversation for elsewhere.


The rules for the employment forum were clearly stated and the idea is to not turn this into XOXO. That's why were going to be up in your business about using the anonymous feature for anything other than sensitive information. If I had to monitor every retarded anonymous post for lame ass jokes like yours, it would take a lot more of my time. This way, I can put an end to that shit quick. If you want to post like an anonymous jackass, feel free to head over to XOXO.


Your abusive language and attitude really are not that which I associate with a good mod, especially given my relatively tempered response. I really think you need to take a deep breath dude.

I never got the memo about the annon function, and I am sure many others missed it too.

User avatar
OperaSoprano
Posts: 4410
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 1:54 am

Re: Fordham Makes Reed Smith Pay a Price!

Postby OperaSoprano » Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:47 am

PKSebben wrote:
OperaSoprano wrote:
But they should've known, right? It's not as if the recession started three weeks ago. I just find it hard to believe that they could have been in this position and not seen it coming.


I find this statement incredibly short-sighted. Firms review billing cycles, work flow, and collection rates all the time. What if Reed Smith just lost a huge client? That shit happens every all the time. Firms are evaluating their needs every second and I'd bet they intended to go to Fordham until this decision is made.

The alternative would be to pull out of Fordhan prematurely (giggity?). My firm made decisions to cancel OCI at Michigan very late in the game -- not to stick it to those fucks at Michigan, but because it's expensive and they can fill their needs at fewer places. Don't you realize that everything is being done last minute? People won't know on OFFERS for several months at some firms. Everybody is playing wait and see.


All I know is that everything is going to shit. A friend just got no-offered. These things cease being abstract when they happen to people we care about. Anyway, do we know the manner in which the firm pulled out? If they'd done it politely, and apologized to the school for inconveniencing students, Dean Treanor would probably have accepted their apology and moved on. A lot depends on how the news is delivered. Even if we give RS the benefit of the doubt, did they handle the pull-out in a manner suggesting that they wanted to preserve their relationship with Fordham?

User avatar
D. H2Oman
Posts: 7469
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:47 am

Re: Fordham Makes Reed Smith Pay a Price!

Postby D. H2Oman » Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:48 am

bigben wrote:
OperaSoprano wrote:To bigben: I'm a 1L now. My first class started yesterday. :D



I suppose I meant people who have spent one second looking for a law job, summer or otherwise. The "yay, fordham!" mentality betrays such a broad misunderstanding of legal hiring that it seems futile for me to comment any more specifically. Frankly, it's puzzling to see this dean react this way to something that has happened at probably every school in the country over the last several weeks. I guess it's just another example of the wide berth between legal education and practice.



Exactly, I mean right right in the Fordham dean's statement:

While the firm intends to have a 2010 Summer Associate Program and to keep its commitment to interview at other schools, Reed Smith decided to no longer interview at some schools, including Fordham. Despite our attempts to engage the firm in discussion, its decision remains.

Obviously Reed is not trying to diss a bunch of schools. Do we really think they intentionally did anything here. Incompetence...maybe. But, to "ban" them is honestly laughable. I'm sure Reed will be more than happy to go to one of the other schools in a couple years when the economy picks up.

Da Stain
Posts: 520
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:50 am

Re: Fordham Makes Reed Smith Pay a Price!

Postby Da Stain » Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:50 am

Here's a story OS:

A friend of mine at a v20 firm was an SA this summer. She was talking to one of their recruiting people, who told her that someone from career services at a T-14 school reamed her out when she told them they were pulling out in about June. Basically, it was that school's response to everyone who pulled out. No one's wrong in the situation really, but get over the idea that RS called your dean and said your students are too shitty for us to interview.

(For those who read ATL, I probably didn't do a good job of hiding the school given the ranking and the timing, but whatever. I don't like them anyway.... :lol: )

User avatar
thesealocust
Posts: 8447
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:50 pm

Re: Fordham Makes Reed Smith Pay a Price!

Postby thesealocust » Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:54 am

edit: nm
Last edited by thesealocust on Sat Jun 19, 2010 3:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
OperaSoprano
Posts: 4410
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 1:54 am

Re: Fordham Makes Reed Smith Pay a Price!

Postby OperaSoprano » Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:55 am

bigben wrote:
OperaSoprano wrote:To bigben: I'm a 1L now. My first class started yesterday. :D



I suppose I meant people who have spent one second looking for a law job, summer or otherwise. The "yay, fordham!" mentality betrays such a broad misunderstanding of legal hiring that it seems futile for me to comment any more specifically. Frankly, it's puzzling to see this dean react this way to something that has happened at probably every school in the country over the last several weeks. I guess it's just another example of the wide berth between legal education and practice.


I was aware of the nature of your remark. As it happens, I'm a public interest student, so none of this has direct bearing on me.

If I thought Dean Treanor's remark would actually have a lasting effect on Fordham, I might feel the need to delve into a cost/benefit analysis, but I don't. Stories like these have a short shelf life. This one bought the school some publicity, and that's probably it. If RS and Fordham don't make up, I'll be shocked.

bigben
Posts: 703
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Fordham Makes Reed Smith Pay a Price!

Postby bigben » Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:55 am

thesealocust wrote:
Da Stain wrote:Here's a story OS:

A friend of mine at a v20 firm was an SA this summer. She was talking to one of their recruiting people, who told her that someone from career services at a T-14 school reamed her out when she told them they were pulling out in about June. Basically, it was that school's response to everyone who pulled out. No one's wrong in the situation really, but get over the idea that RS called your dean and said your students are too shitty for us to interview.


Dude, Fordham's dean was an editor of Yale's law journal. There's no way somebody of that caliber could respond with anything short of perfect clarity and poise. Quit fucking trolling.


lulz

Da Stain
Posts: 520
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:50 am

Re: Fordham Makes Reed Smith Pay a Price!

Postby Da Stain » Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:56 am

If RS and Fordham don't make up, I'll be shocked.


I need my girlfriend, her computer with photoshop and some LOLCats ASAP!

User avatar
neskerdoo
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:13 am

Re: Fordham Makes Reed Smith Pay a Price!

Postby neskerdoo » Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:00 am

OperaSoprano wrote:All I know is that everything is going to shit. A friend just got no-offered. These things cease being abstract when they happen to people we care about. Anyway, do we know the manner in which the firm pulled out? If they'd done it politely, and apologized to the school for inconveniencing students, Dean Treanor would probably have accepted their apology and moved on. A lot depends on how the news is delivered. Even if we give RS the benefit of the doubt, did they handle the pull-out in a manner suggesting that they wanted to preserve their relationship with Fordham?



dude, he is the dean of the school you started at yesterday.... what is with you continually making it sound like you guys are old chums?

User avatar
OperaSoprano
Posts: 4410
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 1:54 am

Re: Fordham Makes Reed Smith Pay a Price!

Postby OperaSoprano » Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:00 am

Da Stain wrote:Here's a story OS:

A friend of mine at a v20 firm was an SA this summer. She was talking to one of their recruiting people, who told her that someone from career services at a T-14 school reamed her out when she told them they were pulling out in about June. Basically, it was that school's response to everyone who pulled out. No one's wrong in the situation really, but get over the idea that RS called your dean and said your students are too shitty for us to interview.

(For those who read ATL, I probably didn't do a good job of hiding the school given the ranking and the timing, but whatever. I don't like them anyway.... :lol: )


Stain, I don't think that. RS hired Fordham students in the past, so evidence suggests that their hiring partners don't take this view. I wish I knew exactly what RS said to Fordham. It's quite possible that this was a legitimate misunderstanding, in which case I'll probably see RS at my own OCI.

Da Stain
Posts: 520
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:50 am

Re: Fordham Makes Reed Smith Pay a Price!

Postby Da Stain » Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:02 am

Even if we give RS the benefit of the doubt, did they handle the pull-out in a manner suggesting that they wanted to preserve their relationship with Fordham?


In my experience, if you're pulling out it wasn't really a relationship that was going to last that long to begin with.



















HI-YO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

06072010
Posts: 1468
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 2:30 pm

Re: Fordham Makes Reed Smith Pay a Price!

Postby 06072010 » Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:02 am

tome wrote:
PKSebben wrote:
tome wrote:
PKSebben wrote:The anonymous feature was implemented not for jokes, but to allow people to mask their identity while posting sensitive information. Making an exception for you -- and your HI-LARI-OUS comedy -- only creates an incentive for others to follow suit. Surely you understand that, right?


Not at all. Again, this site isn't nearly serious enough to warrant such action, imo.

The only possible abuse I could see with this feature would be to use it to do something actually ban-able, like harass another poster, without the general population seeing who it was. But then you could just ban that person, right? This hardly undermines the original intention of the function.

By the way, it doesn't work if you edit your comment--discovered by accident. Either way, this is probably a better conversation for elsewhere.


The rules for the employment forum were clearly stated and the idea is to not turn this into XOXO. That's why were going to be up in your business about using the anonymous feature for anything other than sensitive information. If I had to monitor every retarded anonymous post for lame ass jokes like yours, it would take a lot more of my time. This way, I can put an end to that shit quick. If you want to post like an anonymous jackass, feel free to head over to XOXO.


Your abusive language and attitude really are not that which I associate with a good mod, especially given my relatively tempered response. I really think you need to take a deep breath dude.

I never got the memo about the annon function, and I am sure many others missed it too.


My bad broski -- I was being a bit harsh. We're trying to keep the anonymous feature used only when there is sensitive information. Apologies.

User avatar
neskerdoo
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:13 am

Re: Fordham Makes Reed Smith Pay a Price!

Postby neskerdoo » Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:03 am

OperaSoprano wrote:I was aware of the nature of your remark. As it happens, I'm a public interest student, so none of this has direct bearing on me.





is that true, Clark?

Da Stain
Posts: 520
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:50 am

Re: Fordham Makes Reed Smith Pay a Price!

Postby Da Stain » Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:03 am

So don't post anonymously if we're playing just the tip?

vyelps
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 1:15 pm

Re: Fordham Makes Reed Smith Pay a Price!

Postby vyelps » Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:04 am

I'm an 0L but it seems to me (and feel free to set me straight if im wrong) that Fordham's decision to put out this memo was simply done to 1. placate the student body and 2. to get people talking about Fordham. It was free publicity, right? i mean, we already have 7 pages here on TLS devoted to it, and will many more coming im sure. If anything, it raises the school's profile and I'm sure it convinces people to send apps over there. Now, im not saying that students will pick fordham over columbia or nyu, but it does make people think (rightly or wrongly) that the school will fight for its students (even if its actions are ill advised).

User avatar
tome
Posts: 275
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 6:17 pm

Re: Fordham Makes Reed Smith Pay a Price!

Postby tome » Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:04 am

PKSebben wrote:My bad broski -- I was being a bit harsh. We're trying to keep the anonymous feature used only when there is sensitive information. Apologies.


Cheers. Will do.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.