Bad Interview Moments Forum

[Anonymous User]

I’m pretty easy to talk to and tend to hit it off with most people, but I think this person didn’t like me from the moment I came in their room.

Interviewer: long, convoluted question
Me: answer part of it - pause for a moment
Interviewer: Well, I actually asked you ____ and ____.

[Anonymous User]

Bumping with two recent ones. Both are from lunches with two associates:

Associate mentions they were recently accepted to practice in West Virginia and that they get some weird cases in their practice area (employment) from the state. I respond by telling them that one of my best friends worked for a firm in WV this summer, and that we'd joke they'd come back missing all their teeth. Associate gives me one of those "not amused, but feel like I have to laugh anyway" chuckles. Haven't heard back from firm.

Different lunch at different firm. Most entrees on the menu are between $25-40; I've settled on something about $30. Both associates order first, and both order something only around $15. Changing my order at the last minute, I order a burger around the same price point. It comes and it is covered in some thick, creamy sauce that falls out all over my plate as soon as I pick it up. The burger itself is delicious but is an absolute mess. Every bite I take I have to wipe off my mouth and fingers because of how much sauce this damn burger has on it. My black napkin is looking like an abstract painting with how much of this white sauce I've had to smear on it, and I keep making minor adjustments to my plate's position to hide the couple of times it's dripped on the table cloth. I couldn't even finish the burger because by the end, my plate was so covered that the bottom bun had pretty much dissolved. Thankfully my suit stayed clean. Offer two days later.

[Anonymous User]

screener gone wrong. Was killing the game until this

Interviewer: Silicon Valley is full of dumb money and has been for years.

Me: Totally agree. my friend [he was my fraternity "big bro"] started a company with [insert business model] and it seemed strange to me why customers would use that service, but someone bought it from him anyway.

Interviewer: They're a client of ours.

Me: ...I now regret sharing that.

Interviewer then defends their business passionately. No CB.

[Anonymous User]

Reading through this thread makes me feel that "OCI interviewer" is a free pass to being an asshole.

[Anonymous User]

the more I read these stories, the more I feel this interview thing is very random

you had a good day and everything went well, then it's good. you had a bad day and everything went wrong then it's just that

after all, most law students' social skills and personalities are normal - not the best also not the worst

of course you still need to prepare and practice a lot to pass the minimum threshold, if you don't prepare and practice, it's your problem and you can't blame that on bad luck or a "bad day"

but some of the best lawyers could be pretty obnoxious even a total jerk in real life, people still need to work with them

[nixy]

Yeah, I think you always have some degree of control over your own performance (though of course not over everything - like I know someone who struck out in part because they were sick, as in literally running a fever, through all of OCI). But you can’t control your interviewer, which can suck. Sometimes they’re exhausted, sometimes they’re assholes, sometimes you just can’t click with them on any level, and it’s really hard to carry an interview without any connection with the interviewer. The plus side to this is that the exhausted and asshole interviewers are probably going to be like that with everyone, so even if it feels like the interview went terribly, it’s probably the same for everyone else as well, so you may well still succeed because you’re being compared with people dealing with the same thing.

[Iowahawk]

Screeners are incredibly random unless you’re a well-connected social butterfly with stellar grades or something, but as long as you’re competent the numbers are in your favor. It’s a good reason not to focus on a “dream firm” too much though, for better or for worse most biglaw firms are basically not that different.

[Anonymous User]

--

[Anonymous User]

Interviewer: Are you trying to F*** us over?

Me: *Not sure how to respond* Umm... err... I'm not sure what you're asking?

Interviewer: Why didn't you just say no?

Still my favorite one, hahaha. This is also the only one I still remember after several years.

[cavalier1138]

V50 Loyola screener, last one of the day. Among all my experience (enough to impress a V10's head of IP), the interviewer started a 3-part question about my 1L moot, which I didn't remember much. I tried my best to recall what happened. Interviewer: u haven't told me abt part 3 (if there were conflicts w/ my partner). I said there wasn't any. She wouldn't let it go. Me: must there be conflicts btw 2 litigators on the same team? Can't they just work collaboratively? I don't need an offer from your firm. Thanks, bye. And I logged off.

My friend also had her for screener. She started his interview w/: Why u didn't list any interest on your resume? Followed by "what is one class in UG that reshaped ur view of the world and lead you to LS?"

This firm impressed me by how it staffed its interviews.

1. Your story isn't the clearest, but I don't think you've correctly identified who had the "bad interview moment" in that narrative.

2. I really hope you already have enough offers in hand to blow off an interview from any firm willing to pay you $190k starting salary.

[Iowahawk]

V50 Loyola screener, last one of the day. Among all my experience (enough to impress a V10's head of IP), the interviewer started a 3-part question about my 1L moot, which I didn't remember much. I tried my best to recall what happened. Interviewer: u haven't told me abt part 3 (if there were conflicts w/ my partner). I said there wasn't any. She wouldn't let it go. Me: must there be conflicts btw 2 litigators on the same team? Can't they just work collaboratively? I don't need an offer from your firm. Thanks, bye. And I logged off.

My friend also had her for screener. She started his interview w/: Why u didn't list any interest on your resume? Followed by "what is one class in UG that reshaped ur view of the world and lead you to LS?"

This firm impressed me by how it staffed its interviews.

1. Your story isn't the clearest, but I don't think you've correctly identified who had the "bad interview moment" in that narrative.

2. I really hope you already have enough offers in hand to blow off an interview from any firm willing to pay you $190k starting salary.

Yeah sounds like an utterly bizarre reaction to a pretty normal question. Maybe we should have a bad interviews thread from the interviewer’s perspective.

[Anonymous User]

I moved to the interviewer side of things this OCI and I feel like I finally get it now. So many screeners totally blur together: generally personable people with generally good grades saying the same basic surface-level things in response to our questions (also the same, or close to it, for everyone). If I could go back and do it again, I’d double or even triple how much time I spent preparing on a per-firm/per-office basis instead of trying to get “my story” straight and then plugging in one thing about each firm that I could find on Google after a couple of minutes (like commitment to pro bono! Open assignment system!). The people we called back did this.

I guess that is a backhanded way of saying my own OCI (years ago) was one big bad interview moment and it helps explain why my callback performance was worse than my grades would’ve suggested.

[Anonymous User]

I moved to the interviewer side of things this OCI and I feel like I finally get it now. So many screeners totally blur together: generally personable people with generally good grades saying the same basic surface-level things in response to our questions (also the same, or close to it, for everyone). If I could go back and do it again, I’d double or even triple how much time I spent preparing on a per-firm/per-office basis instead of trying to get “my story” straight and then plugging in one thing about each firm that I could find on Google after a couple of minutes (like commitment to pro bono! Open assignment system!). The people we called back did this.

I guess that is a backhanded way of saying my own OCI (years ago) was one big bad interview moment and it helps explain why my callback performance was worse than my grades would’ve suggested.

Would you be able to elaborate on this a bit more? Do you mean that the people you called back expressed knowledge of your firm beyond a basic mention of your firm's easily-searchable traits, rather than spending more time trying to stand out because of their own "story"?

[Po$eidon]

Question: So what are you interested in?

Me: Well, after my Summer experience doing Xinsert personal infoX I realized that I'm a nerd who likes a lot of things, which is why I think I would excel in a hybrid role like Xinsert hybrid practice areaX.

Response: Well that's great cuz I like nothing!

Me: ???????

[Anonymous User]

I moved to the interviewer side of things this OCI and I feel like I finally get it now. So many screeners totally blur together: generally personable people with generally good grades saying the same basic surface-level things in response to our questions (also the same, or close to it, for everyone). If I could go back and do it again, I’d double or even triple how much time I spent preparing on a per-firm/per-office basis instead of trying to get “my story” straight and then plugging in one thing about each firm that I could find on Google after a couple of minutes (like commitment to pro bono! Open assignment system!). The people we called back did this.

I guess that is a backhanded way of saying my own OCI (years ago) was one big bad interview moment and it helps explain why my callback performance was worse than my grades would’ve suggested.

Would you be able to elaborate on this a bit more? Do you mean that the people you called back expressed knowledge of your firm beyond a basic mention of your firm's easily-searchable traits, rather than spending more time trying to stand out because of their own "story"?

Kind of. The people we called back had very thoughtful responses for Why our firm, why our city, why (preferred practice area). The people we didn’t basically all had identical answers to one another to those questions that were more surface level.

We called back the people who said “I want to be in city X for reasons 1, 2, 3, and your firm does tangible things A, B, C that are squarely in line with my professional goals.” The people we didn’t call back said things closer to “I’ve always loved city X - it has such a strong energy. I think that I’d like to try a few practice groups over summer but I’m mostly interested in litigation because I enjoyed my 1L classes. Your firm interests me because it has a strong practice and I appreciate its commitment to pro bono.”

[Anonymous User]

I just concluded some lateral interviews, so not quite as artificial a process as OCI, since everyone has some substance to talk about, but there it still has potential for things to go awry.

I zoom-ed in for an interview with a partner and when the screen loaded it was me, the partner, and some other dude (associate? other applicant?) who was in a dark place, but literally. In keeping with all stereotypes, the partner had a big, broad wooden desk, sunlit windows behind, crisp white polo, and the associate/applicant was a bushy-haired guy with a big scraggily beard, wearing a headset, with a dark black background like he was in a lightless room, and his face was front lit by his monitor like he was in a basement for gaming. He looked rough.

My highly professional, mature response was to stare for a few moments and then immediately terminate the call without a word, wait a few minutes, and then dial back in. Then it was just me and the partner. We laughed about it. Naturally.

Bad interview moment. I'm still wondering how that guy is doing.

[spglasses]

We called back the people who said “I want to be in city X for reasons 1, 2, 3, and your firm does tangible things A, B, C that are squarely in line with my professional goals.” The people we didn’t call back said things closer to “I’ve always loved city X - it has such a strong energy. I think that I’d like to try a few practice groups over summer but I’m mostly interested in litigation because I enjoyed my 1L classes. Your firm interests me because it has a strong practice and I appreciate its commitment to pro bono.”

Could you provide some examples of "tangible things A, B, C"? Would really appreciate it for some cbs I'm prepping for.

[JusticeJackson]

We called back the people who said “I want to be in city X for reasons 1, 2, 3, and your firm does tangible things A, B, C that are squarely in line with my professional goals.” The people we didn’t call back said things closer to “I’ve always loved city X - it has such a strong energy. I think that I’d like to try a few practice groups over summer but I’m mostly interested in litigation because I enjoyed my 1L classes. Your firm interests me because it has a strong practice and I appreciate its commitment to pro bono.”

Could you provide some examples of "tangible things A, B, C"? Would really appreciate it for some cbs I'm prepping for.

I’m a different guy, but I can. I’m in litigation. You can put my name into Westlaw and find cases I worked on. You can also google my name and get some law360 blurbs of cases I worked on. Smart applicants have run those searches and have come up with like 3 questions about the cases I worked on, in which they remind me of the facts of the case, and then ask some question about the case (without putting me on the spot because usually the cases aren’t recent). I find it super impressive because it signals that the person knows what I do and wants to do it too. Way more impressive than “your faceless and interchangeable vault whatever firm has a really impressive litigation group!!!” I really like (whatever bs our marketing folks put on vault/nalp).”

[wldecisions]

Question: So what are you interested in?

Me: Well, after my Summer experience doing Xinsert personal infoX I realized that I'm a nerd who likes a lot of things, which is why I think I would excel in a hybrid role like Xinsert hybrid practice areaX.

Response: Well that's great cuz I like nothing!

Me: ???????

This is hilarious.

[ksm6969]

Sr. associate comes in. Clearly has no idea who I am and hasn't read my resume. Glances at my resume, then asks "so you went to X law school. How was that?" (it's the first line on the resume, so I assume thats why he asked). I give a decent answer. He says "I dont have any more questions, do you want to ask me anything?" I ask him some question about the firm, to which he says: "I have no idea, it's my first day here. I just lateralled." I think he went straight from orientation to the interview....

[Po$eidon]

Question: So what are you interested in?

Me: Well, after my Summer experience doing Xinsert personal infoX I realized that I'm a nerd who likes a lot of things, which is why I think I would excel in a hybrid role like Xinsert hybrid practice areaX.

Response: Well that's great cuz I like nothing!

Me: ???????

This is hilarious.

It was a very 'what do we do now' moment loll

[spglasses]

I’m a different guy, but I can. I’m in litigation. You can put my name into Westlaw and find cases I worked on. You can also google my name and get some law360 blurbs of cases I worked on. Smart applicants have run those searches and have come up with like 3 questions about the cases I worked on, in which they remind me of the facts of the case, and then ask some question about the case (without putting me on the spot because usually the cases aren’t recent). I find it super impressive because it signals that the person knows what I do and wants to do it too. Way more impressive than “your faceless and interchangeable vault whatever firm has a really impressive litigation group!!!” I really like (whatever bs our marketing folks put on vault/nalp).”

I see, I see. I've heard conflicting advice about whether to ask case-specific questions like that.

One the one hand, it does show an extra level of research. On the other, it can come off as disingenuous (because I really don't care or know the implications of whatever their answers might be at this point in the process) and try-hard.

Thoughts?

[Anonymous User]

I’m a different guy, but I can. I’m in litigation. You can put my name into Westlaw and find cases I worked on. You can also google my name and get some law360 blurbs of cases I worked on. Smart applicants have run those searches and have come up with like 3 questions about the cases I worked on, in which they remind me of the facts of the case, and then ask some question about the case (without putting me on the spot because usually the cases aren’t recent). I find it super impressive because it signals that the person knows what I do and wants to do it too. Way more impressive than “your faceless and interchangeable vault whatever firm has a really impressive litigation group!!!” I really like (whatever bs our marketing folks put on vault/nalp).”

I see, I see. I've heard conflicting advice about whether to ask case-specific questions like that.

One the one hand, it does show an extra level of research. On the other, it can come off as disingenuous (because I really don't care or know the implications of whatever their answers might be at this point in the process) and try-hard.

Thoughts?

Also a different guy but I've been involving in interviewing and hiring committee decisionmaking at two biglaw firms. I have never been asked about cases that would come up if you searched my name on Westlaw, but I have been asked about cases on my firm bio. I don't think looking "try-hard" is bad, generally - the alternative is looking unprepared or even lazy/apathetic.

The other part of this is: I encourage you to care about the answer to these questions (i.e.: tell me about X case you worked on). Those cases will probably be similar to what you'll work on if you come to our firm. Maybe you're just in it to pay off loans, but it makes a difference in QOL/generally happiness if you like what you're working on. Yes, maybe the details of the legal and factual issues don't matter to you, but you'll at least get insight into what work I did on the case and how case teams operate at my firm (i.e.: was I taking depos? was I drafting the motions/etc?). Firms are not all alike on those dimensions, and even within a firm there can be big differences between practice groups.

[JusticeJackson]

I really don't care or know the implications of whatever their answers might be at this point in the process) and try-hard.

(1) I don’t understand the first part. Not to be a dick, but if someone wants me to go to bat for them for a job, he/she should care about the cases we work on and be willing to put in the work to figure out the “implications” of the work.

(2) I think I’m a nice guy. But I work hard as fuck for my paycheck. I get that there are lots of easier legal jobs out there that I’d love to do but I don’t do them because they don’t pay nearly as well. I expect juniors to be willing to work hard for their big paychecks too. I have never thought of it as a bad thing to look “try hard.” We try super hard.

(3) I think this post comes across as super over the top douche, but I want to make sure it’s clear what biglaw is like.

[The Lsat Airbender]

We called back the people who said “I want to be in city X for reasons 1, 2, 3, and your firm does tangible things A, B, C that are squarely in line with my professional goals.” The people we didn’t call back said things closer to “I’ve always loved city X - it has such a strong energy. I think that I’d like to try a few practice groups over summer but I’m mostly interested in litigation because I enjoyed my 1L classes. Your firm interests me because it has a strong practice and I appreciate its commitment to pro bono.”

Worth noting this is also a great example of how and why "ties matter" for markets besides NYC and DC.