Kasowitz is calling people with offers right now and... Forum

[Anonymous User]

Run, run run.

[Anonymous User]

I'm honestly pretty surprised at the TLS response to this.

In the Winston & Strawn thread earlier this year, the main complaint was that they waited until right before the summer to tell the summers that only 3/4 of them were going to get an offer. Lots of people complained that "these people turned down other firms with 100% offer rates just to end up jobless." Kasowitz seemed to be calling around and telling people this while people still have time to get another job. In fact, even those with no other offers have all of 2L to work harder on grades and trying to secure other employment--rather than getting no offered and having to go through 3LOLCI.

I would assume they began telling people to take other firms and accelerating the time-frame so they could see if they needed to cancel offers. I would think a bunch of students that just went through a contracts class would know that there needs to be acceptance before a contract is formed and they shouldn't immediately cancel their other offers when they get one...

So I ask you, TLS. What should Kasowitz have done? Because it seems like they took the credited response from the Winston thread. Let's improve the legal hiring market and come up with a solution, rather than complaining that our idea from last time didn't work out.

(Don't get in this situation isn't the correct answer--assume something unexpected and unpreventable came up, and they didn't want to do rolling offers bc they could have lost candidates that needed to know ASAP for whatever reason--and for what it's worth, I withdrew at Kasowitz before I heard from them)

[descartesb4thehorse]

The point is not that Kasowitz did the absolute worst thing they ever could have done. The point is that they did a pretty terrible thing, and deserve to be called out for it. Everything in your post (Work on your 2L grades! Look for other offers when it's late September!) reeks of "I don't understand why everyone's mad Kasowitz shot them in the foot. It's not like they shot them in the eye."

something unexpected and unpreventable came up

Having a higher yield than usual is not unpreventable and not really even unexpected, given the legal hiring market that you're doing such a great job complaining about.

[hoos89]

.

[Anonymous User]

The point is not that Kasowitz did the absolute worst thing they ever could have done. The point is that they did a pretty terrible thing, and deserve to be called out for it. Everything in your post (Work on your 2L grades! Look for other offers when it's late September!) reeks of "I don't understand why everyone's mad Kasowitz shot them in the foot. It's not like they shot them in the eye."

something unexpected and unpreventable came up

Having a higher yield than usual is not unpreventable and not really even unexpected, given the legal hiring market that you're doing such a great job complaining about.

I'm the previous poster. I guess my issue is that they could have just no-offered people and probably gotten a less-negative response. It seems like they tried to do right by their summer class and that they want 100% offers... I'd prefer this over another Winston

[hoos89]

.

[manofjustice]

So I ask you, TLS. What should Kasowitz have done?

I already answered this question.

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

Last year several NYC big law offices had summer classes bigger than they wanted because more people accepted then expected. What did they do? They offered all of the people, took the hit, and retooled to try and avoid this problem this year. What Kasowitz did here is definitely much better than no offering 2L SAs, but it's also worse than what they should have done: take the hit and suck it up. They are ones who made the mistake, not law students. They should be the ones who suffer.

When a reputable firm (outside of the law) has this type of problem you know what they do? They offer severance packages. I had a consulting job offer out of college, I hadn't yet accepted the offer (around $65k per year), and wasn't likely to accept it honestly, when the recruiter contacted me to say they over hired and were offering me $5,000 and paying a job recruiter to help me find another job. All of this before I had even accepted an offer. I happily accepted the money, paid off my credit card bills, and told everyone I knew about what this company had done. If Kasowitz approached law students in this way they would end up actually bolstering their reputation at relatively minimal cost. How many people with offers would happily have accepted even $2,000 to relinquish the spot?

[manofjustice]

Last year several NYC big law offices had summer classes bigger than they wanted because more people accepted then expected. What did they do? They offered all of the people, took the hit, and retooled to try and avoid this problem this year. What Kasowitz did here is definitely much better than no offering 2L SAs, but it's also worse than what they should have done: take the hit and suck it up. They are ones who made the mistake, not law students. They should be the ones who suffer.

When a reputable firm (outside of the law) has this type of problem you know what they do? They offer severance packages. I had a consulting job offer out of college, I hadn't yet accepted the offer (around $65k per year), and wasn't likely to accept it honestly, when the recruiter contacted me to say they over hired and were offering me $5,000 and paying a job recruiter to help me find another job. All of this before I had even accepted an offer. I happily accepted the money, paid off my credit card bills, and told everyone I knew about what this company had done. If Kasowitz approached law students in this way they would end up actually bolstering their reputation at relatively minimal cost. How many people with offers would happily have accepted even $2,000 to relinquish the spot?

[Nelson]

Basically the firm wanted to have its cake and eat it too: make early offers to lots of people to get as many top candidates on the 28 day clock as possible and keep the class they could actually afford to employ even if that meant breaking the rules later. Firms shouldn't over offer early in pursuit of top candidates (who may have other offers) then try to weasel out of it later.

[Anonymous User]

The point is not that Kasowitz did the absolute worst thing they ever could have done. The point is that they did a pretty terrible thing, and deserve to be called out for it. Everything in your post (Work on your 2L grades! Look for other offers when it's late September!) reeks of "I don't understand why everyone's mad Kasowitz shot them in the foot. It's not like they shot them in the eye."

something unexpected and unpreventable came up

Having a higher yield than usual is not unpreventable and not really even unexpected, given the legal hiring market that you're doing such a great job complaining about.

I'm the previous poster. I guess my issue is that they could have just no-offered people and probably gotten a less-negative response. It seems like they tried to do right by their summer class and that they want 100% offers... I'd prefer this over another Winston

This is a valid point though. I bet Kasowitz isn't the only firm that this has happened to, and a lot of those firms are just going to correct what they did by no-offering or cold-offering a bunch of people, which will generate far less press. Especially if they never actually notify people like Winston did.

I disagree with the bolded. I was given a Winston offer this year, and despite liking the people there marginally better than my other offer, I am turning down Winston because of their no offer mishap. I not only heard about it from TLS, but because I reached out to a starting associate there who summered during 2011 who openly told me about what happened to her class as a reason to be hesitant about accepting a Winston position. The Winston thing has been talked about a lot, is still talked about, and is cited by everyone I know with offers there as something holding them back from accepting and was given as a reason why others rejected them immediately. At worst, this Kasowitz thing will influence when next year's offerees decide to accept the offer, but they likely won't be worried that they'll get no offered at the end of it.

What Kasowitz is doing is not great. But it's not the same as no offering, and it shouldn't get anywhere near the press of doing so. Firms who consistently no offer need to be outed and shamed publicly in a much more visible way than one that does what Kaso is doing now.

[hoos89]

.

[NYstate]

If most people accept right away, shouldn't that make predicting yields easier?

But expecting them to hire more people then they want or need is not a solution. They aren't going to pay summer associate salaries for people they know they aren't going to hire.

I asked before, but do other people think the firm had a change of heart due to budget or other reasons and decided to lock down their class? Or maybe it is the cherry- picking idea?

Im not sure I'm buying the surprising increase in offers accepted as a reason. But they do have a relatively small class so a sudden surge in acceptances ( 7 in one day from NYU, which is from another thread, and may be hyperbole) might have set off alarm bells that they would be over- subscribed.

No offering people would have been much worse than the outcome from this. Winston is going to have to fight their reputation for years. Many people are saying to only take Winston if it is your only offer.

[hoos89]

.

[Anonymous User]

If most people accept right away, shouldn't that make predicting yields easier?

But expecting them to hire more people then they want or need is not a solution. They aren't going to pay summer associate salaries for people they know they aren't going to hire.

I asked before, but do other people think the firm had a change of heart due to budget or other reasons and decided to lock down their class? Or maybe it is the cherry- picking idea?

Im not sure I'm buying the surprising increase in offers accepted as a reason. But they do have a relatively small class so a sudden surge in acceptances ( 7 in one day from NYU, which is from another thread, and may be hyperbole) might have set off alarm bells that they would be over- subscribed.

No offering people would have been much worse than the outcome from this. Winston is going to have to fight their reputation for years. Many people are saying to only take Winston if it is your only offer.

I posted the 7 in one day thing. I didn't mean 7 acceptances just from NYU; I meant 7 total students (from all schools, but at least 1-2 of which were from NYU) accepted this Monday alone. Sorry if I made that unclear.

[NYstate]

I think you misinterpret what I said. I'm referring to all of the stealth cold/no offers that happen every year. Winston advertised that it was going to do that at a time when it was too late to really matter. If they had just gone on like everything was okay, people wouldn't have talked about it as much. They may have fallen in on a list of firms with high no-offer rates, but they probably wouldn't have generated their own thread.

Is this correct? My understanding is that Winston no offers happened after repeated assurances there was room for everyone to get an offer. The yield mismanagement is an attempt to rewrite history after they no offered people because of their financial situation.

If my understanding is wrong, please correct me. I've had them in blast for a while and u want to be sure I'm correct.

[NYstate]

People are saying the same thing about Kasowitz...

True. I guess we will see how it plays out at Kasowitz.

But reality is that it is a complete buyers market for firms. Both Winston and Kasowitz will still find decent people to work for them.

[hoos89]

.

[bk1]

If my understanding is wrong, please correct me. I've had them in blast for a while and u want to be sure I'm correct.

I read (in this thread) that they announced it at the beginning of the summer. Perhaps I misread or that was misinformation.

This sounds right.

[Anonymous User]

If my understanding is wrong, please correct me. I've had them in blast for a while and u want to be sure I'm correct.

I read (in this thread) that they announced it at the beginning of the summer. Perhaps I misread or that was misinformation.

This sounds right.

This is incorrect. It was at the end of the summer that they gave any indication of reason to worry.

[NYstate]

If my understanding is wrong, please correct me. I've had them in blast for a while and u want to be sure I'm correct.

I read (in this thread) that they announced it at the beginning of the summer. Perhaps I misread or that was misinformation.

This sounds right.

This is incorrect. It was at the end of the summer that they gave any indication of reason to worry.

That is what I thought. The Winston yield story ( oh we had a greater yield than we anticipated so we had to no offer people) is their way to spin giving no offers. My recollection is that they repeatedly told people that they could expect offers throughout the summer.

[NYstate]

Leaker, I am not speculating about you as a person or what course of conduct you might engage in in the future. I am just saying, I think people have negative opinions about the class of people who leak to ATL.

Do you think the firm honestly thought there was ANY chance that this wouldn't end up all over the internet?

Oh, duh, of course not. I just wouldn't want to be identifiable as a leaker.

The identifiable part is the problem. Protecting your identity is key, because you don't know how this could impact you in the future. The legal community of biglaw firms is surprisingly small. The partners at Kasowitz are going to remember you for doing this. You never know when you might run into them again sometime in your career. Or the recruiters can easily move to other firms. You aren't just cutting ties with a firm; your are cutting ties to people.

So reporting is fine if it is true, but outing yourself isn't smart. All that they needed is confirmation of the story. Just be careful.

Also, I don't trust ATL. They created an article based on a TLS thread where someone had just asked for advice after an issue with their summer firm. Even this email is pretty obviously intended to not have been published as written.

[Anonymous User]

I read (in this thread) that they announced it at the beginning of the summer. Perhaps I misread or that was misinformation.

This sounds right.

This is incorrect. It was at the end of the summer that they gave any indication of reason to worry.

That is what I thought. The Winston yield story ( oh we had a greater yield than we anticipated so we had to no offer people) is their way to spin giving no offers. My recollection is that they repeatedly told people that they could expect offers throughout the summer.

Yup, this is what happened. Anything about them coming clean at the beginning of the summer is pure misinformation.

"Stealth" no offers, by the way, are talked about a lot by offerees deciding where to go a lot as well. A firm being as up front as Kasowitz will not give next year's offerees the same level of pause as a firm that consistently offers only 85-90% of its SA class.

[KidStuddi]

Except in Contracts we also learned about firm offers, which are irrevocable before a certain date, and law firm offers are supposed to be just that: firm. Kasowitz should have planned better and not given out so many offers. This probably happened because other firms chose to give out fewer offers, or to pace the rate of offers. Kasowitz probably should have had some warning of this, but they were totally blindsided.

Out of curiosity, what'd you get in contracts? Because an offer for at-will employment is most certainly not an irrevocable offer in the contract law sense. Like at all.
The 28 day period is the result of benevolent NALP guidance and nothing more.

[Old Gregg]

Except in Contracts we also learned about firm offers, which are irrevocable before a certain date, and law firm offers are supposed to be just that: firm. Kasowitz should have planned better and not given out so many offers. This probably happened because other firms chose to give out fewer offers, or to pace the rate of offers. Kasowitz probably should have had some warning of this, but they were totally blindsided.

Out of curiosity, what'd you get in contracts? Because an offer for at-will employment is most certainly not an irrevocable offer in the contract law sense. Like at all.
The 28 day period is the result of benevolent NALP guidance and nothing more.

The last thing this thread needs is legal arguments.