You've Been Warned Forum

[Anonymous User]

I have absolutely no sympathy for this dude. Hopefully he learns his lesson, but my guess is that he'll just claim the firm couldn't handle his initiative and try the same thing for his next job application.

I agree that the email was a bad choice and that the firm probably did the right thing. However, I take issue with the comments to the effect that the student will probably blame the firm for this and not take any responsibility. The problem is that we all know what is wrong with the email, but obviously the student didn't. When the firm summarily revoked his offer, they did not explain exactly why. What is he supposed to learn from that? Don't send the email at all? The email was ok, but don't send it to the partner? Don't talk about commuting? Don't talk about business opportunities? Don't ask about splitting summers? All of the above?

It is like if someone comes to your door and your dog 1) barks, 2) jumps up on the person, and 3) licks their face. If you wait for all three to happen and then just yell and scream at him indiscriminately, how is he supposed to know which action(s) were unacceptable? Of course you know what you want, but you have not clearly communicated that to him objectively. So don't be surprised next time if he barks and jumps on the next visitor because he assumed that it was only item 3 that you were mad about (because it was the last thing he did before you got mad).

The analysis might change if he was accepted through email. Conversations basically save people from themselves. Whether it's gchat, phone, in person. In person I feel like this never happens because nobody talks 5 minutes straight. The whole story is really just evidence of never contacting a hiring partner unless there's a strategic advantage to doing so. Smiling and laughing tends to cause people to forget the fact these people barely have the time to watch their child's play. Why would they give a f about your commute?

[Mal Reynolds]

I have absolutely no sympathy for this dude. Hopefully he learns his lesson, but my guess is that he'll just claim the firm couldn't handle his initiative and try the same thing for his next job application.

I agree that the email was a bad choice and that the firm probably did the right thing. However, I take issue with the comments to the effect that the student will probably blame the firm for this and not take any responsibility. The problem is that we all know what is wrong with the email, but obviously the student didn't. When the firm summarily revoked his offer, they did not explain exactly why. What is he supposed to learn from that? Don't send the email at all? The email was ok, but don't send it to the partner? Don't talk about commuting? Don't talk about business opportunities? Don't ask about splitting summers? All of the above?

It is like if someone comes to your door and your dog 1) barks, 2) jumps up on the person, and 3) licks their face. If you wait for all three to happen and then just yell and scream at him indiscriminately, how is he supposed to know which action(s) were unacceptable? Of course you know what you want, but you have not clearly communicated that to him objectively. So don't be surprised next time if he barks and jumps on the next visitor because he assumed that it was only item 3 that you were mad about (because it was the last thing he did before you got mad).

This is a great analogy.

[Anonymous User]

I have absolutely no sympathy for this dude. Hopefully he learns his lesson, but my guess is that he'll just claim the firm couldn't handle his initiative and try the same thing for his next job application.

I agree that the email was a bad choice and that the firm probably did the right thing. However, I take issue with the comments to the effect that the student will probably blame the firm for this and not take any responsibility. The problem is that we all know what is wrong with the email, but obviously the student didn't. When the firm summarily revoked his offer, they did not explain exactly why. What is he supposed to learn from that? Don't send the email at all? The email was ok, but don't send it to the partner? Don't talk about commuting? Don't talk about business opportunities? Don't ask about splitting summers? All of the above?

It is like if someone comes to your door and your dog 1) barks, 2) jumps up on the person, and 3) licks their face. If you wait for all three to happen and then just yell and scream at him indiscriminately, how is he supposed to know which action(s) were unacceptable? Of course you know what you want, but you have not clearly communicated that to him objectively. So don't be surprised next time if he barks and jumps on the next visitor because he assumed that it was only item 3 that you were mad about (because it was the last thing he did before you got mad).

This is a great analogy.

This assumes they care about teaching him a lesson.

Sorry this shouldn't have been anonymous - Pepperjack.

[ChardPennington]

I kind of blame e-mail. Even if one is an idiot, in person you can read body language and facial cues. If we pretend this whole e-mail was stated instead, there would probably be eyebrow furrows, slumping shoulders, maybe even a head scratch. The non-verbal communication would have been enough for the guy to have probably punted his novel 2 sentences in. Any long e-mail is risky because you basically are going Energizer battery with something that may be dumb with no feedback on when to kill it. Granted, the long e-mail in general, even if he were at the firm and working on something seems to be representative of the type of person who just doesn't get it. No one will say it to him directly, but he's not there to be an equal lawyer - he's there to help the profit sharers be more time efficient and not have to worry about the BS stuff. Thinking like a partner, you want someone smart, socially apt and most importantly someone who will shutup and keep his head down. This kid is neither, and the whole thing about his commute itself screams of he needs a hand holder. All that said, I doubt they'd terminate him before the summer at any NALP 250 firm.

Honestly the kid is just a tool.his true colors would have shown soon enough.

Firm made a good call.

[BuckinghamB]

I have absolutely no sympathy for this dude. Hopefully he learns his lesson, but my guess is that he'll just claim the firm couldn't handle his initiative and try the same thing for his next job application.

I agree that the email was a bad choice and that the firm probably did the right thing. However, I take issue with the comments to the effect that the student will probably blame the firm for this and not take any responsibility. The problem is that we all know what is wrong with the email, but obviously the student didn't. When the firm summarily revoked his offer, they did not explain exactly why. What is he supposed to learn from that? Don't send the email at all? The email was ok, but don't send it to the partner? Don't talk about commuting? Don't talk about business opportunities? Don't ask about splitting summers? All of the above?

It is like if someone comes to your door and your dog 1) barks, 2) jumps up on the person, and 3) licks their face. If you wait for all three to happen and then just yell and scream at him indiscriminately, how is he supposed to know which action(s) were unacceptable? Of course you know what you want, but you have not clearly communicated that to him objectively. So don't be surprised next time if he barks and jumps on the next visitor because he assumed that it was only item 3 that you were mad about (because it was the last thing he did before you got mad).

This is a great analogy.

Yeah, I guess if I were the partner the guy emailed those questions to, I would probably call him and just tell him he can't pull that shit if he wants to be employed in the future. His reaction to that criticism would probably play a role in whether I would rescind the offer.

[Mal Reynolds]

It was a terrible analogy for the record.

[Mroberts3]

This assumes they care about teaching him a lesson.

I'm not saying they do. In fact they probably don't. I was disagreeing with people who said "the kid will blame the firm and will choose not to learn from this experience." My point was that this sentiment puts unrealistic expectations on the gunner because he wasn't given enough information to learn anything concrete.

[BuckinghamB]

Welp. *whoosh*

Still would try to make an effort to make the guy realize he can't do that stuff in the future, though.

[PepperJack]

This assumes they care about teaching him a lesson.

I'm not saying they do. In fact they probably don't. I was disagreeing with people who said "the kid will blame the firm and will choose not to learn from this experience." My point was that this sentiment puts unrealistic expectations on the gunner because he wasn't given enough information to learn anything concrete.

He absolutely has enough information to learn concrete lessons. It seems the lesson is you're a replaceable piece of shit as 10,000 kids would haul ass for the same mediocre position so don't be an idiot. In the example with the dog, the lesson would be to put your dog away when someone comes over. It's also a little western-centric to teach people by spelling everything out. Psychologically people learn by just basics rewards and punishments. Dude was annoying - he lost a job. He'll learn. If he can't learn how not to be annoying the specific instructions would not help him.

Everyone is saying he got what he deserved, etc. I think there's too little info to jump to such questions. Was there a recruiter? How much was the pay? When he asked a token "what is expected of first year..." was he responded with, "Take initiative and bring in bling bling". Too many q's to jump to conclusions. As lawyers, you shouldn't just jump to prison rape some dude.

[ChardPennington]

This assumes they care about teaching him a lesson.

I'm not saying they do. In fact they probably don't. I was disagreeing with people who said "the kid will blame the firm and will choose not to learn from this experience." My point was that this sentiment puts unrealistic expectations on the gunner because he wasn't given enough information to learn anything concrete.

He absolutely has enough information to learn concrete lessons. It seems the lesson is you're a replaceable piece of shit as 10,000 kids would haul ass for the same mediocre position so don't be an idiot. In the example with the dog, the lesson would be to put your dog away when someone comes over. It's also a little western-centric to teach people by spelling everything out. Psychologically people learn by just basics rewards and punishments. Dude was annoying - he lost a job. He'll learn. If he can't learn how not to be annoying the specific instructions would not help him.

Everyone is saying he got what he deserved, etc. I think there's too little info to jump to such questions. Was there a recruiter? How much was the pay? When he asked a token "what is expected of first year..." was he responded with, "Take initiative and bring in bling bling". Too many q's to jump to conclusions. As lawyers, you shouldn't just jump to prison rape some dude.

Prison rape?

Have you worked at a smaller law firm (or any small business before)? You know everyone and one jack off makes things worse for everyone. We aren't saying the kid is just like Hitler, only tat he sounds like a bit of a tool and was headed to a small firm where hiring even one tool would be a disaster. Firms conduct here is totally defensible.

[kalvano]

It's not the firm's job to teach some kid how not to be a douche. The first couple of questions weren't that bad but the third is a giant red flag. Why put the firm in a potentially bad position?

[09042014]

It's not the firm's job to teach some kid how not to be a douche. The first couple of questions weren't that bad but the third is a giant red flag. Why put the firm in a potentially bad position?

I said this on the first page, but you gotta ding these weirdos and aspie freaks early and often. Weirdo's become unreasonable asshole seniors.

[chem!]

It's not the firm's job to teach some kid how not to be a douche. The first couple of questions weren't that bad but the third is a giant red flag. Why put the firm in a potentially bad position?

I said this on the first page, but you gotta ding these weirdos and aspie freaks early and often. Weirdo's become unreasonable asshole seniors.

I honestly wonder how some of my classmates are ever going to get through an interview and actually land a job because of shit like this. I didn't believe you all about law school being full of aspie strivers until I went to law school. Whoo boy, you guys were telling the truth.

[09042014]

It's not the firm's job to teach some kid how not to be a douche. The first couple of questions weren't that bad but the third is a giant red flag. Why put the firm in a potentially bad position?

I said this on the first page, but you gotta ding these weirdos and aspie freaks early and often. Weirdo's become unreasonable asshole seniors.

I honestly wonder how some of my classmates are ever going to get through an interview and actually land a job because of shit like this. I didn't believe you all about law school being full of aspie strivers until I went to law school. Whoo boy, you guys were telling the truth.

Some of them won't handle it and will be jobless. Others will get offers at firms that don't care. And then be asshold seniors or partners.

[thirtyandseven]

Everyone is saying he got what he deserved, etc. I think there's too little info to jump to such questions. Was there a recruiter? How much was the pay? When he asked a token "what is expected of first year..." was he responded with, "Take initiative and bring in bling bling". Too many q's to jump to conclusions. As lawyers, you shouldn't just jump to prison rape some dude.

^So much this.

[Mal Reynolds]

Everyone is saying he got what he deserved, etc. I think there's too little info to jump to such questions. Was there a recruiter? How much was the pay? When he asked a token "what is expected of first year..." was he responded with, "Take initiative and bring in bling bling". Too many q's to jump to conclusions. As lawyers, you shouldn't just jump to prison rape some dude.

^So much this.

This guy was a total idiot. You people are insane.

[kaiser]

The firm realized the guy was a seriously weird loser, and they realized he wouldn't fit. No problem with saying, "sorry but I don't think this is going to work out". And its not like he is completely left clueless as to what he did wrong. He can review his email and come to the conclusion himself. Sure, he has a few choices. Do I not ask the question about flipping the possible client? Should I not ask about salary/commuting this early? But in no way is he left thinking to himself "how the hell can I possibly avoid the same mistake next time". Of course, he may be the type of loser who can't take rejection, and assumes it was the firm who is entirely at fault here, but thats another issue entirely.

[IAFG]

I don't think any of these questions were weird considering the firm was a tiny shitlaw shop with probably no HR person.

[ChardPennington]

I don't think any of these questions were weird considering the firm was a tiny shitlaw shop with probably no HR person.

Looked like about 15 attorneys, which I imagine is respectable in the SLC market if a few of them are good. Considering there are probably another 15 support staff members, I'm sure there's someone whose job it is to handle HR issues.

[transferror]

I don't think it matters whether the firm was "in the right" in revoking. Bottom line: the minute this e-mail was received, the partner made a decision that this kid wasn't going to be an employee. Revoking saved the kid a wasted summer there with a sure no-offer at the end. At least now he learned a lesson and can look for summer employment that might lead to a job.

[IAFG]

I don't think any of these questions were weird considering the firm was a tiny shitlaw shop with probably no HR person.

Looked like about 15 attorneys, which I imagine is respectable in the SLC market if a few of them are good. Considering there are probably another 15 support staff members, I'm sure there's someone whose job it is to handle HR issues.

Assuming that person had the authority to approve a split summer and knew what first year associates would be offered. They do insurance defense and, uh, "defamation"? Comfortable calling it shitlaw.

[A. Nony Mouse]

The questions about the commute and pay weren't unreasonable (although wordy). But you want to split a summer, just ask to split the summer - don't dress it up as an opportunity for the "salesman" in you to try to score the firm another client.

[ChardPennington]

I don't think any of these questions were weird considering the firm was a tiny shitlaw shop with probably no HR person.

Looked like about 15 attorneys, which I imagine is respectable in the SLC market if a few of them are good. Considering there are probably another 15 support staff members, I'm sure there's someone whose job it is to handle HR issues.

Assuming that person had the authority to approve a split summer and knew what first year associates would be offered. They do insurance defense and, uh, "defamation"? Comfortable calling it shitlaw.

I just looked at the number of attys, didn't realize they were primarily an ID shop. I think you're probably on the money with the shitlawl designation, but I still bet that they have a non-attorney HR person or some kind of "firm manager."

[ChardPennington]

The questions about the commute and pay weren't unreasonable (although wordy). But you want to split a summer, just ask to split the summer - don't dress it up as an opportunity for the "salesman" in you to try to score the firm another client.

This is spot-on IMO.

Question 3 reeked of cell phone holsters, contrast collars and tie clips.

[Blessedassurance]

did the dude receive an offer letter, or do shitlaw firms not mention salary info in their offer letters?

also:

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014 ... n-strategy