OLD SCHOOL (must be 30 and over ITT) Forum

[JazzOne]

A little off-topic, but a question for Jazz and others who have been through OCI - I was talking with the hiring partners from a couple of local firms, and they indicated that older students with other work experience were preferred. These were smaller firms, but they still pay market or close to it. By smaller, I mean 25-45 lawyers. When you say older students are at a disadvantage, is that strictly for Biglaw firms?

It seemed as if they preferred older people because they didn't need as much hand-holding and had worked a real job before, so they felt they could get going more easily. I'm assuming in a smaller firm like that, you do less shit work and are expected to do more sooner.

Thoughts?

Both of my job offers were from small boutiques, so my experience is consistent with your suggestion. One of my offers is from a very selective litigation boutique that expects associates to take on a lot of responsibility early in their careers. I felt the most discrimination at large, prestigious firms, where doc review is the norm for a new associate. Those kind of firms seemed very fratty to me, and many of the interviewers were younger than I am. Despite having good grades and LR, I only received one callback from a V100, and during an interview with two attorneys at that firm, the pretty associate kept fawning over the middle-age partner. They talked to each other more than they talked to me. It really felt like a frat party, and I couldn't wait to get the hell out of there.

So, in my experience, smaller firms were much friendlier to me, even the very selective ones (my firm pays above market, so it is quite selective despite the fact that it's not a V100).

[haus]

A little off-topic, but a question for Jazz and others who have been through OCI - I was talking with the hiring partners from a couple of local firms, and they indicated that older students with other work experience were preferred. These were smaller firms, but they still pay market or close to it. By smaller, I mean 25-45 lawyers. When you say older students are at a disadvantage, is that strictly for Biglaw firms?

It seemed as if they preferred older people because they didn't need as much hand-holding and had worked a real job before, so they felt they could get going more easily. I'm assuming in a smaller firm like that, you do less shit work and are expected to do more sooner.

Thoughts?

Both of my job offers were from small boutiques, so my experience is consistent with your suggestion. One of my offers is from a very selective litigation boutique that expects associates to take on a lot of responsibility early in their careers. I felt the most discrimination at large, prestigious firms, where doc review is the norm for a new associate. Those kind of firms seemed very fratty to me, and many of the interviewers were younger than I am. Despite having good grades and LR, I only received one callback from a V100, and during an interview with two attorneys at that firm, the pretty associate kept fawning over the middle-age partner. They talked to each other more than they talked to me. It really felt like a frat party, and I couldn't wait to get the hell out of there.

So, in my experience, smaller firms were much friendlier to me, even the very selective ones (my firm pays above market, so it is quite selective despite the fact that it's not a V100).

On the bright side, this sounds like the work that you will likely be doing will be more interesting/challenging then what you may have faced had your offers come from one of the large BigLaw firms. Although I am sure that swimming in offers of all types would have been a fun experience, if you only receive a few it is nice that they are for quality work.

[jrmartin]

I'll be 30 in December and a 1L....ugh.

[tartugas]

A little off-topic, but a question for Jazz and others who have been through OCI - I was talking with the hiring partners from a couple of local firms, and they indicated that older students with other work experience were preferred. These were smaller firms, but they still pay market or close to it. By smaller, I mean 25-45 lawyers. When you say older students are at a disadvantage, is that strictly for Biglaw firms?

It seemed as if they preferred older people because they didn't need as much hand-holding and had worked a real job before, so they felt they could get going more easily. I'm assuming in a smaller firm like that, you do less shit work and are expected to do more sooner.

Thoughts?

FWIW, I asked one of the Corporate Law profs at Fordham whether or not my age upon graduation (40) would have an impact on my job prospects should I choose to pursue Corporate. He was quite emphatic that it would not have a negative affect in his experience, and might have a positive effect in some circumstances. As he put it, just as schools find that older students with some WE tend to perform better, so too do many firms feel that older students perform better on the job than a 25 y.o. who has yet to learn all the necessary skills and discipline that are required to perform well in a professional environment. Secondly, the average lifespan of an associate in most big firms is 5 years (give or take), and most firms don't place a huge value on finding talented young kids who they can groom into top leadership positions. Those first 5 years are chew 'em up and spit 'em out years, so to speak. Now since many older graduates don't necessarily want to put themselves into that kind of work environment for lots of reasons (kids and family obligations for example), there is a kind of self-selection sometimes that goes on where some people will tell themselves at the outset that Corporate isn't the right choice for them. But for some people it could be the right decision.
If so, age-ism (at least according to this professor) is not negative factor most of the time. Never mind the fact that age discrimination in hiring is illegal.

[tartugas]

I'll be 30 in December and a 1L....ugh.

heh.... you just a baby

[JazzOne]

A little off-topic, but a question for Jazz and others who have been through OCI - I was talking with the hiring partners from a couple of local firms, and they indicated that older students with other work experience were preferred. These were smaller firms, but they still pay market or close to it. By smaller, I mean 25-45 lawyers. When you say older students are at a disadvantage, is that strictly for Biglaw firms?

It seemed as if they preferred older people because they didn't need as much hand-holding and had worked a real job before, so they felt they could get going more easily. I'm assuming in a smaller firm like that, you do less shit work and are expected to do more sooner.

Thoughts?

Both of my job offers were from small boutiques, so my experience is consistent with your suggestion. One of my offers is from a very selective litigation boutique that expects associates to take on a lot of responsibility early in their careers. I felt the most discrimination at large, prestigious firms, where doc review is the norm for a new associate. Those kind of firms seemed very fratty to me, and many of the interviewers were younger than I am. Despite having good grades and LR, I only received one callback from a V100, and during an interview with two attorneys at that firm, the pretty associate kept fawning over the middle-age partner. They talked to each other more than they talked to me. It really felt like a frat party, and I couldn't wait to get the hell out of there.

So, in my experience, smaller firms were much friendlier to me, even the very selective ones (my firm pays above market, so it is quite selective despite the fact that it's not a V100).

On the bright side, this sounds like the work that you will likely be doing will be more interesting/challenging then what you may have faced had your offers come from one of the large BigLaw firms. Although I am sure that swimming in offers of all types would have been a fun experience, if you only receive a few it is nice that they are for quality work.

You are absolutely correct. I could not be happier about my job, and I would have chosen this firm over 99% of the more prestigious firms. It was just an extremely stressful time waiting for that offer to come (it was my last callback and my last shot at market salary).

[JazzOne]

A little off-topic, but a question for Jazz and others who have been through OCI - I was talking with the hiring partners from a couple of local firms, and they indicated that older students with other work experience were preferred. These were smaller firms, but they still pay market or close to it. By smaller, I mean 25-45 lawyers. When you say older students are at a disadvantage, is that strictly for Biglaw firms?

It seemed as if they preferred older people because they didn't need as much hand-holding and had worked a real job before, so they felt they could get going more easily. I'm assuming in a smaller firm like that, you do less shit work and are expected to do more sooner.

Thoughts?

FWIW, I asked one of the Corporate Law profs at Fordham whether or not my age upon graduation (40) would have an impact on my job prospects should I choose to pursue Corporate. He was quite emphatic that it would not have a negative affect in his experience, and might have a positive effect in some circumstances. As he put it, just as schools find that older students with some WE tend to perform better, so too do many firms feel that older students perform better on the job than a 25 y.o. who has yet to learn all the necessary skills and discipline that are required to perform well in a professional environment. Secondly, the average lifespan of an associate in most big firms is 5 years (give or take), and most firms don't place a huge value on finding talented young kids who they can groom into top leadership positions. Those first 5 years are chew 'em up and spit 'em out years, so to speak. Now since many older graduates don't necessarily want to put themselves into that kind of work environment for lots of reasons (kids and family obligations for example), there is a kind of self-selection sometimes that goes on where some people will tell themselves at the outside that Corporate isn't the right choice for them. But for some people it could be the right decision.
If so, age-ism (at least according to this professor) is not negative factor most of the time. Never mind the fact that age discrimination in hiring is illegal.

I can only speak from my own experience, so others may have different perceptions. However, I think you are mistaken about a couple points. First, there is some self-selection going on with big firms, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the firms themselves aren't finishing the job by selecting against the few older applicants. Second, a law firm is not going to tell you that you weren't hired because of your age. In fact, that probably wouldn't even be true. I don't think they sat around and said, "JazzOne is too old." Rather, I didn't connect with many of the associates because we are at different stages of our lives. The conversation probably went something like this: "JazzOne is pretty smart, but I'm not sure if he fits with our firm's culture." The culture of big firm associates is young.

[Younger Abstention]

^ I found though, that most of the associates/partners I interviewed were closer to your age than mine (I'm a traditional student with one gap year). I think if I had another ten years on me, I would have been more successful during interviews. 35 I'd say was the median age of OCI interviewers in my experience. I guess it varies. I'm just offering another perspective. The culture of big firm associates seemed old to me, apart from 1st and 2nd years (which it was rare to interview with them in the first place. If I did happen to interview with them, they were usually accompanied by an older partner who did most of the talking/vetting and their opinion generally meant jack shit).

P.S. I take it you're like 35. If you're significantly older than that, obviously you will have difficulties.

[KMaine]

I again have to +1 to almost everything Jazz has said here. Big NYC firms tended to avoid me like the plague. I did have a couple of V100 callbacks, but those firms seemed to have made a conscious effort to consider older applicants. I will be working at a market-paying firm, not huge, but certainly not a botique either. I think being older (mid thrities) will help you with almost no Biglaw firms, though there are some where it will not hurt you as much.

I agree, in the abstract, older law students may be more successful in the corporate environment. However, most large law firms do not seem to see it that way.

FWIW, small city firms (think $80K starting salary) seemed to love me.

[Justathought]

I again have to +1 to almost everything Jazz has said here. Big NYC firms tended to avoid me like the plague. I did have a couple of V100 callbacks, but those firms seemed to have made a conscious effort to consider older applicants. I will be working at a market-paying firm, not huge, but certainly not a botique either. I think being older (mid thrities) will help you with almost no Biglaw firms, though there are some where it will not hurt you as much.

I agree, in the abstract, older law students may be more successful in the corporate environment. However, most large law firms do not seem to see it that way.

FWIW, small city firms (think $80K starting salary) seemed to love me.

Semi-Generic question for KMaine and Jazz. I'll be at OCI just after I turn 32. Keep in mind, as mentioned in earlier in this thread, I look young these days (in a lucky good genes kind of way.)

What are your thoughts on that age - already past the point of no return for "not fitting in with our firm's culture," or still reasonable enough to not be judged in a negative light?





I can't believe I'm even posting this stupidity, but I guess its something we older applicants have to consider.

[KMaine]

Yeah, I don't think it's foolish to ask, as it could make a big difference. To me, 26 or so would be optimal, 37 (like me) a little too old. I think 32 is a little on the older end, though you may get more leeway than I did. At the place I got hired, I had a partner tell me I didn't look as old as I was, and another say that he didn't even think about how old I was (this is after I started taking the age issue head on). For me, it really helped when I owned and sold my age. That would still probably be the way to go at 32, but I am not sure.

[Justathought]

Yeah, I don't think it's foolish to ask, as it could make a big difference. To me, 26 or so would be optimal, 37 (like me) a little too old. I think 32 is a little on the older end, though you may get more leeway than I did. At the place I got hired, I had a partner tell me I didn't look as old as I was, and another say that he didn't even think about how old I was (this is after I started taking the age issue head on). For me, it really helped when I owned and sold my age. That would still probably be the way to go at 32, but I am not sure.

Thanks for the response, it was in line with what my thoughts were on the issue.

[kalvano]

A little off-topic, but a question for Jazz and others who have been through OCI - I was talking with the hiring partners from a couple of local firms, and they indicated that older students with other work experience were preferred. These were smaller firms, but they still pay market or close to it. By smaller, I mean 25-45 lawyers. When you say older students are at a disadvantage, is that strictly for Biglaw firms?

It seemed as if they preferred older people because they didn't need as much hand-holding and had worked a real job before, so they felt they could get going more easily. I'm assuming in a smaller firm like that, you do less shit work and are expected to do more sooner.

Thoughts?

Both of my job offers were from small boutiques, so my experience is consistent with your suggestion. One of my offers is from a very selective litigation boutique that expects associates to take on a lot of responsibility early in their careers. I felt the most discrimination at large, prestigious firms, where doc review is the norm for a new associate. Those kind of firms seemed very fratty to me, and many of the interviewers were younger than I am. Despite having good grades and LR, I only received one callback from a V100, and during an interview with two attorneys at that firm, the pretty associate kept fawning over the middle-age partner. They talked to each other more than they talked to me. It really felt like a frat party, and I couldn't wait to get the hell out of there.

So, in my experience, smaller firms were much friendlier to me, even the very selective ones (my firm pays above market, so it is quite selective despite the fact that it's not a V100).

That's good to hear. Even if I had Biglaw grades (sigh), it just doesn't sound like something I am interested in. I'd rather go with a smaller firm for less (or, fingers crossed, equal) money. The hiring partners I was speaking with also indicated they had more flexibility to hire someone they thought was a good fit rather than based purely off grades. I was told by one that, even though they prefer top 10%, they might dip down to top 25% for the right person.

Glad to hear that, for one direction I am interested in, age would be helpful, not hindering.

[kalvano]

I again have to +1 to almost everything Jazz has said here. Big NYC firms tended to avoid me like the plague. I did have a couple of V100 callbacks, but those firms seemed to have made a conscious effort to consider older applicants. I will be working at a market-paying firm, not huge, but certainly not a botique either. I think being older (mid thrities) will help you with almost no Biglaw firms, though there are some where it will not hurt you as much.

I agree, in the abstract, older law students may be more successful in the corporate environment. However, most large law firms do not seem to see it that way.

FWIW, small city firms (think $80K starting salary) seemed to love me.

Semi-Generic question for KMaine and Jazz. I'll be at OCI just after I turn 32. Keep in mind, as mentioned in earlier in this thread, I look young these days (in a lucky good genes kind of way.)

What are your thoughts on that age - already past the point of no return for "not fitting in with our firm's culture," or still reasonable enough to not be judged in a negative light?

I can't believe I'm even posting this stupidity, but I guess its something we older applicants have to consider.

I will be 31 for OCI. I was told specifically by a couple of partners that it was fine and not a big deal at all unless you make it a big deal. They both emphasized fit over everything else. As one said, they have 35 lawyers in the firm and they don't want to work with some asshole. He said how well you fit into the firm's culture is the most important they look for.

[Justathought]

I will be 31 for OCI. I was told specifically by a couple of partners that it was fine and not a big deal at all unless you make it a big deal. They both emphasized fit over everything else. As one said, they have 35 lawyers in the firm and they don't want to work with some asshole. He said how well you fit into the firm's culture is the most important they look for.

Thanks, good to hear.

[Justathought]

Yeah, I don't think it's foolish to ask, as it could make a big difference. To me, 26 or so would be optimal, 37 (like me) a little too old. I think 32 is a little on the older end, though you may get more leeway than I did. At the place I got hired, I had a partner tell me I didn't look as old as I was, and another say that he didn't even think about how old I was (this is after I started taking the age issue head on). For me, it really helped when I owned and sold my age. That would still probably be the way to go at 32, but I am not sure.

To the bold section - Its funny how sometimes its quite hard to place age without the proper context. I recently went on a tour at Brooklyn and I didn't mention my age. My 3L tour guide, who was straight out of UG, told me I looked like a smart kid.

[JazzOne]

Yeah, I don't think it's foolish to ask, as it could make a big difference. To me, 26 or so would be optimal, 37 (like me) a little too old. I think 32 is a little on the older end, though you may get more leeway than I did. At the place I got hired, I had a partner tell me I didn't look as old as I was, and another say that he didn't even think about how old I was (this is after I started taking the age issue head on). For me, it really helped when I owned and sold my age. That would still probably be the way to go at 32, but I am not sure.

Perhaps my disagreement with others on this issue stems from the fact that age alone is not a determining factor. It's not like they shut me out because of a number. It has more to do with your attitude, and your attitude is largely affected by your age. If you are charismatic and comfortable schmoozing, you'll be fine. Sell your strengths, and frame your weaknesses so as to minimize them (or even better, frame them as strengths). The problem for me is that I achieved enough status in my previous work so that I did not have to kiss ass. I did my job well, and no one had to tell me what to do or when to do it. It took a while for me to accept that I was going to have to kiss some ass in this new profession, and some of the people whose asses I needed to kiss were not people I truly respected. I suggest that you guys start hitting the happy hours as early as possible. The more comfortable you are socializing with attorneys, the easier it will be for you to find a job. My biggest mistake was thinking that biglaw attorneys would be impressed by my grades. It takes more than grades to get a baller job. You need to be naturally charismatic or else learn how to fake it.

If you're an introvert like me, get over it real quick.

[Justathought]

Yeah, I don't think it's foolish to ask, as it could make a big difference. To me, 26 or so would be optimal, 37 (like me) a little too old. I think 32 is a little on the older end, though you may get more leeway than I did. At the place I got hired, I had a partner tell me I didn't look as old as I was, and another say that he didn't even think about how old I was (this is after I started taking the age issue head on). For me, it really helped when I owned and sold my age. That would still probably be the way to go at 32, but I am not sure.

Perhaps my disagreement with others on this issue stems from the fact that age alone is not a determining factor. It's not like they shut me out because of a number. It has more to do with your attitude, and your attitude is largely affected by your age. If you are charismatic and comfortable schmoozing, you'll be fine. Sell your strengths, and frame your weaknesses so as to minimize them (or even better, frame them as strengths). The problem for me is that I achieved enough status in my previous work so that I did not have to kiss ass. I did my job well, and no one had to tell me what to do or when to do it. It took a while for me to accept that I was going to have to kiss some ass in this new profession, and some of the people whose asses I needed to kiss were not people I truly respected. I suggest that you guys start hitting the happy hours as early as possible. The more comfortable you are socializing with attorneys, the easier it will be for you to find a job. My biggest mistake was thinking that biglaw attorneys would be impressed by my grades. It takes more than grades to get a baller job. You need to be naturally charismatic or else learn how to fake it.

If you're an introvert like me, get over it real quick.

Thanks for the response Jazz. I agree with you as well; this suggests that at the end of the day there probably is no one complete answer. I'm banking on the fact that I do have some of the desirable characteristics you mention. I asked the question because as an older applicant, you just don't want to hear that you're out of the game before you even start playing. For example, I'm too old to be a fireman now in NYC, and its depressing!

[KMaine]

I do think that the analysis is somewhat holistic. For me, it had nothing to do with being introverted (I don't think), it had more to do with the fact that my previous career (high school English teacher) did not have an obvious connection to law. I do think I was kissing ass from the word go. And though, 31 may well be different from 37, I did not start to get quality callbacks until I MADE my age a big deal. The people at my school's CSO did not seem to think my age would be a factor: "your interviewing is flawless" "with your grades and with how you interview, you will get tons of offers." Though this held true for small market firms, it was not true for bigger firms.

[JazzOne]

I do think that the analysis is somewhat holistic. For me, it had nothing to do with being introverted (I don't think), it had more to do with the fact that my previous career (high school English teacher) did not have an obvious connection to law. I do think I was kissing ass from the word go. And though, 31 may well be different from 37, I did not start to get quality callbacks until I MADE my age a big deal. The people at my school's CSO did not seem to think my age would be a factor: "your interviewing is flawless" "with your grades and with how you interview, you will get tons of offers." Though this held true for small market firms, it was not true for bigger firms.

I should also note that I came from a teaching job, and it was difficult (i.e., impossible) to tie that into a law career. However, I also had some previous experience managing a mortgage company, so I thought that would help me with the corporate firms. It didn't. They were really suspicious of my career changes, and one partner asked me flat out why I wouldn't be a flight risk for his firm. By that point, I was so tired of the bullshit and rejections, that I just blurted out the truth. I said, "Look, I've made a lot of mistakes in my life, and now I'm fixing them." His jaw hit the ground, and he told me not to say that again in another interview. Then he hired me. Go figure.

[KMaine]

I do think that the analysis is somewhat holistic. For me, it had nothing to do with being introverted (I don't think), it had more to do with the fact that my previous career (high school English teacher) did not have an obvious connection to law. I do think I was kissing ass from the word go. And though, 31 may well be different from 37, I did not start to get quality callbacks until I MADE my age a big deal. The people at my school's CSO did not seem to think my age would be a factor: "your interviewing is flawless" "with your grades and with how you interview, you will get tons of offers." Though this held true for small market firms, it was not true for bigger firms.

I should also note that I came from a teaching job, and it was difficult (i.e., impossible) to tie that into a law career. However, I also had some previous experience managing a mortgage company, so I thought that would help me with the corporate firms. It didn't. They were really suspicious of my career changes, and one partner asked me flat out why I wouldn't be a flight risk for his firm. By that point, I was so tired of the bullshit and rejections, that I just blurted out the truth. I said, "Look, I've made a lot of mistakes in my life, and now I'm fixing them." His jaw hit the ground, and he told me not to say that again in another interview. Then he hired me. Go figure.

Nice! As I think I said on this tread before, my breakthrough came when I decided to say: I know I am not your typical applicant, but these are the reasons you should hire me . . .

[kalvano]

My previous job was sales, and I was told that was a plus by people "in the know". Especially for being in a courtroom.

[KMaine]

My previous job was sales, and I was told that was a plus by people "in the know". Especially for being in a courtroom.

Then you should sell sales, it seems logical to me.

[delusional]

I should also note that I came from a teaching job, and it was difficult (i.e., impossible) to tie that into a law career. However, I also had some previous experience managing a mortgage company, so I thought that would help me with the corporate firms. It didn't. They were really suspicious of my career changes, and one partner asked me flat out why I wouldn't be a flight risk for his firm. By that point, I was so tired of the bullshit and rejections, that I just blurted out the truth. I said, "Look, I've made a lot of mistakes in my life, and now I'm fixing them." His jaw hit the ground, and he told me not to say that again in another interview. Then he hired me. Go figure.

I wonder how risky that is in general. Would it work on personal statements and background essays? I kind of struggled with it - I mean, let's be honest, people don't leave undergrad planning to work for seven years, and then uproot their family to go into law. If you're over 30-ish, it's because you either made mistakes and want to correct them, or at least learned some lessons in the school of hard knocks. But you don't want to say that in your applications, do you? because that undermines your whole background, if you're turning your back on it.

[JazzOne]

I should also note that I came from a teaching job, and it was difficult (i.e., impossible) to tie that into a law career. However, I also had some previous experience managing a mortgage company, so I thought that would help me with the corporate firms. It didn't. They were really suspicious of my career changes, and one partner asked me flat out why I wouldn't be a flight risk for his firm. By that point, I was so tired of the bullshit and rejections, that I just blurted out the truth. I said, "Look, I've made a lot of mistakes in my life, and now I'm fixing them." His jaw hit the ground, and he told me not to say that again in another interview. Then he hired me. Go figure.

I wonder how risky that is in general. Would it work on personal statements and background essays? I kind of struggled with it - I mean, let's be honest, people don't leave undergrad planning to work for seven years, and then uproot their family to go into law. If you're over 30-ish, it's because you either made mistakes and want to correct them, or at least learned some lessons in the school of hard knocks. But you don't want to say that in your applications, do you? because that undermines your whole background, if you're turning your back on it.

This particular partner had a prior career before law. He gave me some advice for the rest of my interviews. He said to respond like this: "I am not a flight risk because I have experienced several different fields of work, and now that I have those experiences under my belt, I am able to make a mature and informed choice about my career going forward." I'm paraphrasing here. Basically, you need to start acting like a lawyer now. Never admit that you have any professional weaknesses. Always turn them around into a positives.