Why do law schools require you to accept from judge? Forum

[A. Nony Mouse]

Schools enforce the "don't say no to a judge" rule far more than any judge I've ever encountered. And there are lots of random conventions about employment - I'm not sure why people are so bent out of shape about this one.

Well, I think there are a couple of reasons about getting bent out of shape. For one, the student's priority should not be in protecting the school's reputation, and given the typically low levels of actual assistance that Career Services offices typically provide, it seems that there's not much quo in this quid pro quo. For two, it can be very expensive for students to attend interviews with judges, and it's not fun to have shelled out a lot on airfare only to hear that your judge filled the position the day before you're scheduled to fly out to meet her.

What on earth does the latter issue have to do with not saying no to a judge? It sucks, but it's a completely different issue.

[dead head]

What on earth does the latter issue have to do with not saying no to a judge? It sucks, but it's a completely different issue.

Exploding offers are what cause these sorts of situations, and it shows how little regard judges have for applicants. I mean, they obviously feel it's appropriate to string applicants along with the offer of an interview only to revoke those interviews whenever they please, but take a less lenient approach to those applicants to whom they offer mandate employment.

[A. Nony Mouse]

What on earth does the latter issue have to do with not saying no to a judge? It sucks, but it's a completely different issue.

Exploding offers are what cause these sorts of situations, and it shows how little regard judges have for applicants. I mean, they obviously feel it's appropriate to string applicants along with the offer of an interview only to revoke those interviews whenever they please, but take a less lenient approach to those applicants to whom they offer mandate employment.

Yet again, in my experience it's law schools, not judges, that enforce the "don't say no to a judge" rule. You actually can say no to a judge, they're not going to flip out on you. As for the canceling interview issue - which is better, to get the interview canceled on you or go on an interview when the judge has already decided to hire someone else? Judges aren't "stringing applicants along" - it's that they hire clerks every year, it takes a lot of time, and it's a pain in the ass. They generally interview until they find someone they like, hire that person, and stop. Sometimes that means they cancel interviews with later candidates. It sucks to be the later candidate, but I don't think it says anything about how judges hold those candidates in regard. No one's entitled to an interview.

[exitoptions]

What on earth does the latter issue have to do with not saying no to a judge? It sucks, but it's a completely different issue.

Exploding offers are what cause these sorts of situations, and it shows how little regard judges have for applicants. I mean, they obviously feel it's appropriate to string applicants along with the offer of an interview only to revoke those interviews whenever they please, but take a less lenient approach to those applicants to whom they offer mandate employment.

Look. We don't have a recruiting staff. We have to review resumes and recruit interns. It takes a lot of time out that would otherwise be used to make decisions in cases. If the person we want turns us down after an interview, we have to find another person to interview. We don't interview a ton of people and choose one. We interview people when we're very likely to offer them a spot.

Recruiting is completely wasted time to us, because we also don't usually get any usable work-product from interns. It really is a favor to give students some experience/training and a resume credential. So, depending on how annoying recruitment is, a judge can choose to have 5 interns or he can have 1... so it's in schools' and students' interest to keep judges taking 5 interns.

Judges don't mandate employment; just don't accept the offer to interview if you would rather do something else. We don't have time to be your backup option.

That said, if you want to turn down the offer, please do so. We don't really want someone in chambers who is resentful because they could have had the bigger better deal (whatever that may be).

[exitoptions]

What on earth does the latter issue have to do with not saying no to a judge? It sucks, but it's a completely different issue.

Exploding offers are what cause these sorts of situations, and it shows how little regard judges have for applicants. I mean, they obviously feel it's appropriate to string applicants along with the offer of an interview only to revoke those interviews whenever they please, but take a less lenient approach to those applicants to whom they offer mandate employment.

Yet again, in my experience it's law schools, not judges, that enforce the "don't say no to a judge" rule. You actually can say no to a judge, they're not going to flip out on you. As for the canceling interview issue - which is better, to get the interview canceled on you or go on an interview when the judge has already decided to hire someone else? Judges aren't "stringing applicants along" - it's that they hire clerks every year, it takes a lot of time, and it's a pain in the ass. They generally interview until they find someone they like, hire that person, and stop. Sometimes that means they cancel interviews with later candidates. It sucks to be the later candidate, but I don't think it says anything about how judges hold those candidates in regard. No one's entitled to an interview.

And I'll second this. No judge is going to actively try to harm a student's career because they turned down the offer. But again, keeping the judge's wanting to have more interns benefits both students and schools, so that's where the rule comes from.

[dead head]

Yet again, in my experience it's law schools, not judges, that enforce the "don't say no to a judge" rule. You actually can say no to a judge, they're not going to flip out on you. As for the canceling interview issue - which is better, to get the interview canceled on you or go on an interview when the judge has already decided to hire someone else? Judges aren't "stringing applicants along" - it's that they hire clerks every year, it takes a lot of time, and it's a pain in the ass. They generally interview until they find someone they like, hire that person, and stop. Sometimes that means they cancel interviews with later candidates. It sucks to be the later candidate, but I don't think it says anything about how judges hold those candidates in regard. No one's entitled to an interview.

Law schools may do he enforcing, to the extent the convention is enforced, but judges are fully aware of the convention and are largely accustomed to it being abided by (and in the case of exploding judges are basically enforcing the convention). And by the same token while students may not be entitled to interviews they've been offered, judges are not entitled to having all their offers accepted.

Recruiting is completely wasted time to us, because we also don't usually get any usable work-product from interns. It really is a favor to give students some experience/training and a resume credential. So, depending on how annoying recruitment is, a judge can choose to have 5 interns or he can have 1... so it's in schools' and students' interest to keep judges taking 5 interns.

Really talking about clerks right now, not interns. I don't know that a lot of students fly around the country for internship interviews. And when it comes to clerkships, I suppose I would have more sympathy for the judges and their limited hiring resources if they would, as a whole, agree to abide by the plan. Instead there are a lot of judges who hire off plan, and there is a lot of competition for the very best law students with aggressive scheduling even for those who do stay on the plan.

[A. Nony Mouse]

You can turn down an offer with a judge. And the hiring plan is officially dead.

[exitoptions]

Yet again, in my experience it's law schools, not judges, that enforce the "don't say no to a judge" rule. You actually can say no to a judge, they're not going to flip out on you. As for the canceling interview issue - which is better, to get the interview canceled on you or go on an interview when the judge has already decided to hire someone else? Judges aren't "stringing applicants along" - it's that they hire clerks every year, it takes a lot of time, and it's a pain in the ass. They generally interview until they find someone they like, hire that person, and stop. Sometimes that means they cancel interviews with later candidates. It sucks to be the later candidate, but I don't think it says anything about how judges hold those candidates in regard. No one's entitled to an interview.

Law schools may do he enforcing, to the extent the convention is enforced, but judges are fully aware of the convention and are largely accustomed to it being abided by (and in the case of exploding judges are basically enforcing the convention). And by the same token while students may not be entitled to interviews they've been offered, judges are not entitled to having all their offers accepted.

Recruiting is completely wasted time to us, because we also don't usually get any usable work-product from interns. It really is a favor to give students some experience/training and a resume credential. So, depending on how annoying recruitment is, a judge can choose to have 5 interns or he can have 1... so it's in schools' and students' interest to keep judges taking 5 interns.

Really talking about clerks right now, not interns. I don't know that a lot of students fly around the country for internship interviews. And when it comes to clerkships, I suppose I would have more sympathy for the judges and their limited hiring resources if they would, as a whole, agree to abide by the plan. Instead there are a lot of judges who hire off plan, and there is a lot of competition for the very best law students with aggressive scheduling even for those who do stay on the plan.

Clerkship candidates do turn down offers and it's very much accepted as normal... What are you talking about? The point of this thread is why internship interviewees are asked not to turn down offers.

[dead head]

Clerkship candidates do turn down offers... What are you talking about? The point of this thread is why internship interviewers are asked not to turn down offers.

Clerkship candidates at my school are also told they shouldn't turn down offers, and I believe students at most schools are told the same thing. And heck, here's what you wrote earlier in this thread:

Do you understand the competition for clerkships? It's nothing like firm recruitment. We get hundreds, maybe thousands, of stellar applications from around the country for each opening. We generally make a single offer for a position and it is accepted on the spot.

[exitoptions]

Clerkship candidates do turn down offers... What are you talking about? The point of this thread is why internship interviewers are asked not to turn down offers.

Clerkship candidates at my school are also told they shouldn't turn down offers, and I believe students at most schools are told the same thing. And heck, here's what you wrote earlier in this thread:

Do you understand the competition for clerkships? It's nothing like firm recruitment. We get hundreds, maybe thousands, of stellar applications from around the country for each opening. We generally make a single offer for a position and it is accepted on the spot.

That was in response to the argument that judges use intern hiring as a recruitment tool the way a large firm uses summer associates... But way to take a comment completely out of its context.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Clerkship candidates do turn down offers... What are you talking about? The point of this thread is why internship interviewers are asked not to turn down offers.

Clerkship candidates at my school are also told they shouldn't turn down offers, and I believe students at most schools are told the same thing. And heck, here's what you wrote earlier in this thread:

Do you understand the competition for clerkships? It's nothing like firm recruitment. We get hundreds, maybe thousands, of stellar applications from around the country for each opening. We generally make a single offer for a position and it is accepted on the spot.

People accepting offers on the spot doesn't mean they feel they can't turn down the offer. They may actually want the job.

[exitoptions]

Clerkship candidates do turn down offers... What are you talking about? The point of this thread is why internship interviewers are asked not to turn down offers.

Clerkship candidates at my school are also told they shouldn't turn down offers, and I believe students at most schools are told the same thing. And heck, here's what you wrote earlier in this thread:

Do you understand the competition for clerkships? It's nothing like firm recruitment. We get hundreds, maybe thousands, of stellar applications from around the country for each opening. We generally make a single offer for a position and it is accepted on the spot.

People accepting offers on the spot doesn't mean they feel they can't turn down the offer. They may actually want the job.

That was the point I was trying to make, however ineloquently I said it. This job was my top choice and I accepted it on the spot. I assume that is true for most applicants. That is why judges don't need to curry favor with schools, by giving them internship positions, to make sure they have a stream of applicants. (Again, this is with my caveat that I'm in a competitive district.)

We did actually have an interviewee for a clerk position turn down the offer for another judge. Our judge was a little annoyed, but only because the applicant spelled the judge's name wrong in the e-mail declining the offer. Like I said, clerk hiring is very different, and declining an offer is acceptable.

[dead head]

People accepting offers on the spot doesn't mean they feel they can't turn down the offer. They may actually want the job.

This job was my top choice and I accepted it on the spot. I assume that is true for most applicants.

Sure. But your average clerkship applicant sends out dozens, if not hundreds, of applications. Not every interview is going to be their top choice, even though it may be an acceptable choice.

That was in response to the argument that judges use intern hiring as a recruitment tool the way a large firm uses summer associates... But way to take a comment completely out of its context.

Is the statement false because it's no longer in the context you originally positioned it in? Or, regardless of context, is it true there are hundreds of applicants and the expectation/reality that an offered candidate will accept?

I get that accepting any offer is a convention of clerkship & judicial intern hiring. But I don't think that accepting that it is a convention means that there's no reason to think it unfair or annoying, nor do I think that "lump it or leave it" is a particularly principled defence of the practice. I understand that the personal nature of clerkship hiring may have something to do with it, but the existence of the plan certainly suggests that there are ways to make the system better without destroying the fundamental nature of the plan.

[A. Nony Mouse]

As for sending out slews of applications: the nature of the beast is just that you are going to have to pass on opportunities to take an opportunity. There's no realistic way to line up all your judges and get offers from everyone and weigh those offers the way that you can with OCI (and in this respect clerkship hiring is much more like the rest of the hiring universe, where things aren't remotely coordinated). And, frankly, most candidates are not going to be looking at multiple clerkship offers, even if they were able to wait and hear back from all the dozens/hundreds of applications, because that's also how clerkship hiring works.

(As for the plan: are you talking about the past plan? Because again, it's been dispensed with, in part because it didn't work.)

[dead head]

As for sending out slews of applications: the nature of the beast is just that you are going to have to pass on opportunities to take an opportunity. There's no realistic way to line up all your judges and get offers from everyone and weigh those offers the way that you can with OCI (and in this respect clerkship hiring is much more like the rest of the hiring universe, where things aren't remotely coordinated). And, frankly, most candidates are not going to be looking at multiple clerkship offers, even if they were able to wait and hear back from all the dozens/hundreds of applications, because that's also how clerkship hiring works.

(As for the plan: are you talking about the past plan? Because again, it's been dispensed with, in part because it didn't work.)

Yeah, I was referring to OSCAR's now-defunct hiring plan. I'm not sure that the current system is going to work a lot better, especially if more judges start moving to hiring during 1L summer (although at least it does unlock students from believing they could/should only apply according to the plan's timteable). This tendency to hire earlier and earlier seems driven by the same factors that have shifted OCI dates earlier and earlier: competition for the best jobs/candidates. Judges want to get the jump on other judges just like schools want to get the jump on other schools. For the candidates competitive for the sexy clerkships that have long been off-plan, they probably could get multiple clerkship offers.

[A. Nony Mouse]

For the candidates competitive for the sexy clerkships that have long been off-plan, they probably could get multiple clerkship offers.

Yeah, this is probably true. But all their options are going to be good ones.

[Connor Benz]

they're also busy as fuck.

"as fuck" is use this all the time. You are my hero haha

[exitoptions]

People accepting offers on the spot doesn't mean they feel they can't turn down the offer. They may actually want the job.

This job was my top choice and I accepted it on the spot. I assume that is true for most applicants.

Sure. But your average clerkship applicant sends out dozens, if not hundreds, of applications. Not every interview is going to be their top choice, even though it may be an acceptable choice.

That was in response to the argument that judges use intern hiring as a recruitment tool the way a large firm uses summer associates... But way to take a comment completely out of its context.

Is the statement false because it's no longer in the context you originally positioned it in? Or, regardless of context, is it true there are hundreds of applicants and the expectation/reality that an offered candidate will accept?

I get that accepting any offer is a convention of clerkship & judicial intern hiring. But I don't think that accepting that it is a convention means that there's no reason to think it unfair or annoying, nor do I think that "lump it or leave it" is a particularly principled defence of the practice. I understand that the personal nature of clerkship hiring may have something to do with it, but the existence of the plan certainly suggests that there are ways to make the system better without destroying the fundamental nature of the plan.

My statement isn't false in any context. You just used it to prove a point I wasn't even discussing--that clerks are not allowed to turn down offers (which they are, so I can't fathom why we are discussing it). I never said there was a convention that you don't turn down a clerkship offer, you took my comment out of context to attempt to say that there was a convention. I said that most people accept on the spot, simply to illustrate how desirable the jobs are, such that judges don't need to keep schools/students enticed...

The hiring "plan" was never more than aspirational. Some judges followed it, most didn't. That is why it no longer exists. Also, it never even tried to coordinate intern recruitment.

[exitoptions]

As for sending out slews of applications: the nature of the beast is just that you are going to have to pass on opportunities to take an opportunity. There's no realistic way to line up all your judges and get offers from everyone and weigh those offers the way that you can with OCI (and in this respect clerkship hiring is much more like the rest of the hiring universe, where things aren't remotely coordinated). And, frankly, most candidates are not going to be looking at multiple clerkship offers, even if they were able to wait and hear back from all the dozens/hundreds of applications, because that's also how clerkship hiring works.

(As for the plan: are you talking about the past plan? Because again, it's been dispensed with, in part because it didn't work.)

Yeah, I was referring to OSCAR's now-defunct hiring plan. I'm not sure that the current system is going to work a lot better, especially if more judges start moving to hiring during 1L summer (although at least it does unlock students from believing they could/should only apply according to the plan's timteable). This tendency to hire earlier and earlier seems driven by the same factors that have shifted OCI dates earlier and earlier: competition for the best jobs/candidates. Judges want to get the jump on other judges just like schools want to get the jump on other schools. For the candidates competitive for the sexy clerkships that have long been off-plan, they probably could get multiple clerkship offers.

Again... candidates for clerkships often get multiple offers, and judges generally allow them time to consider and select the offer that they think fits them best. So called "exploding offers" are very discouraged at this point, although some judges still make them.

There is a bit of a problem with hiring earlier, but many judges have now moved to hiring mostly or only alums, which were never part of the plan. My judge, for example, always followed the plan, when it existed, but that was easy because he would almost never hire a law students.

I get that people are annoyed with the idiosyncratic nature of judicial intern / clerk hiring, but this is mostly caused by Article III. You give people life tenure and ultimate authority over their work environment, and you're going to get a lot of different ways of doing business with no way to make it uniform. So maybe my argument that you should take it or leave it, isn't a great one, but it's really either that or amend the constitution.

[exitoptions]

.