(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 432497
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Post
by Anonymous User » Mon Sep 10, 2018 12:31 pm
nixy wrote:I’m arguing with you (or whoever keeps linking to this blog) because I don’t think the blog is at all revelatory and so linking it to answer questions like these is pointless.
It's relevant because its posts shows a pattern of HR (at O'Melveny, Weinstein, Lions Gate . . .) not responding sincerely to complaints much worse than the one OP is making. If the person you're complaining to won't sincerely address your complaint, then don't complain to them. It's also credible. O'Melveny would have sued him if it weren't. Read the letters they sent.
It's like you're trying to block off information. If you work at O'Melveny, then you guys really f__ked up. The blog has 25,775 views per the counter at the bottom and was in the American Lawyer.
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 432497
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Post
by Anonymous User » Mon Sep 10, 2018 12:34 pm
QContinuum wrote:Anonymous User wrote:QContinuum wrote:nixy wrote:It doesn't tell the OP what they should do about their interview question, which is different from what to do if you're working at the firm already. The OP can decide not to take the job if they have other options, and they can at least tell their CSO. And it's a dumb blog. Not saying it's wrong, but it's dumb because the author should have known they'd get exactly the reaction they got.
You did not read it. They complained to their partner about an anti-Muslim statement by a senior (what people are telling OP to do). Their partner fired them. They researched the partner and found out he gave radio interviews promoting torture, so they went to HR (what people are telling OP to do). HR gaslit him for a while (standard operating procedure at corporate HR when an employee complains. It's done to make the person's life difficult while allowing time to pass) and then fired him.
http://brian-boyle-omelveny-torture-att ... ation.html
I did read it. The blog is not remotely relevant, because the blogger hadn't experienced (or even witnessed) any harassment or discrimination when s/he decided to start crusading out of the blue. See
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DN1fLvC_Yqc/ ... Babuse.jpg - the senior hadn't even joined OMM at the time the blogger started making a stink about not wanting to work with him.
In contrast, OP has actually experienced potential discrimination.
Huh?
"On April 30th, 2015, after three years with this firm during which I received nothing but praise from others -- I told Brian Boyle that I did not want to work with someone who had made an anti-Muslim comment. Brian's first response a few days later was to tell me he would terminate me. He started winding down my work, and I accepted it and prepared to move on (anti-Muslim comments were not that unusual and I guess this wasn't the place for me)."
http://brian-boyle-omelveny-torture-att ... ation.html
-
nixy

- Posts: 4478
- Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:58 am
Post
by nixy » Mon Sep 10, 2018 12:49 pm
Anonymous User wrote:nixy wrote:I’m arguing with you (or whoever keeps linking to this blog) because I don’t think the blog is at all revelatory and so linking it to answer questions like these is pointless.
It's relevant because its posts shows a pattern of HR (at O'Melveny, Weinstein, Lions Gate . . .) not responding sincerely to complaints much worse than the one OP is making. If the person you're complaining to won't sincerely address your complaint, then don't complain to them. It's also credible. O'Melveny would have sued him if it weren't. Read the letters they sent.
It's like you're trying to block off information. If you work at O'Melveny, then you guys really f__ked up. The blog has 25,775 views per the counter at the bottom and was in the American Lawyer.
And my point is duh. HR protects employers, water is wet, the sky is blue. Also the blog dude is just not in the same position as someone going through OCI, so it looks like you’re just looking for an excuse to bring this up.
(No, I don’t work at O’Melveny. I’m not trying to block anything, I’m sure they suck, I just still contend that the blogger was dumb.)
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 432497
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Post
by Anonymous User » Mon Sep 10, 2018 12:55 pm
nixy wrote:Anonymous User wrote:nixy wrote:I’m arguing with you (or whoever keeps linking to this blog) because I don’t think the blog is at all revelatory and so linking it to answer questions like these is pointless.
It's relevant because its posts shows a pattern of HR (at O'Melveny, Weinstein, Lions Gate . . .) not responding sincerely to complaints much worse than the one OP is making. If the person you're complaining to won't sincerely address your complaint, then don't complain to them. It's also credible. O'Melveny would have sued him if it weren't. Read the letters they sent.
It's like you're trying to block off information. If you work at O'Melveny, then you guys really f__ked up. The blog has 25,775 views per the counter at the bottom and was in the American Lawyer.
And my point is duh. HR protects employers, water is wet, the sky is blue. Also
the blog dude is just not in the same position as someone going through OCI, so it looks like you’re just looking for an excuse to bring this up.
(No, I don’t work at O’Melveny. I’m not trying to block anything, I’m sure they suck, I just still contend that the blogger was dumb.)
Why would someone going through OCI have better luck with HR than an employee?
-
nixy

- Posts: 4478
- Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:58 am
Post
by nixy » Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:02 pm
Where did I say that they would?
I agree with the suggestion to tell the CSO. Maybe nothing will happen. But maybe the CSO can pass the input along anonymously, and the firm can make appropriate questions clearer to interviewers. This is an option/scenario that’s different from what the blog is describing. Also I don’t think the person asking the OP the question was a rainmaker partner, so again, different from the blog.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 432497
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Post
by Anonymous User » Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:17 pm
nixy wrote:Where did I say that they would?
I agree with the suggestion to tell the CSO. Maybe nothing will happen. But maybe the CSO can pass the input along anonymously, and the firm can make appropriate questions clearer to interviewers. This is an option/scenario that’s different from what the blog is describing. Also I don’t think the person asking the OP the question was a rainmaker partner, so again, different from the blog.
I wouldn't complain to CSO either. An associate said she got pushed out because
her assistant saw a guy harassing her. Her assistant went to HR, and HR punished the associate. The associate had to sign and NDA and leave the firm.
Biglaw is so f__ked that you can ruin a person's career by filing a complaint on their behalf!
Found it.
Anonymous User wrote:
I was harassed by a low level staff, not any biglaw partners, at the last biglaw firm I was at. It was a delivery guy who kept stalking me everywhere, constantly getting too close to my personal space, and dropping by my office late at night for no reason. I didn't report him actually. It was my secretary who reported this behavior, but it ended up getting me in trouble - the firm immediately created a record of alleged performance mistakes (ie. suddenly resigning me to another partner who was notorious for giving bad performance reviews and pulling me off my existing teams). When I left, they also asked me to sign a non-disclosure clause regarding the specific incident.
http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... #p10340796
-
QContinuum

- Posts: 3594
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:52 am
Post
by QContinuum » Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:29 pm
Anonymous User wrote:QContinuum wrote:I did read it. The blog is not remotely relevant, because the blogger hadn't experienced (or even witnessed) any harassment or discrimination when s/he decided to start crusading out of the blue. See
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DN1fLvC_Yqc/ ... Babuse.jpg - the senior hadn't even joined OMM at the time the blogger started making a stink about not wanting to work with him.
In contrast, OP has actually experienced potential discrimination.
Huh?
"On April 30th, 2015, after three years with this firm during which I received nothing but praise from others -- I told Brian Boyle that I did not want to work with someone who had made an anti-Muslim comment. Brian's first response a few days later was to tell me he would terminate me. He started winding down my work, and I accepted it and prepared to move on (anti-Muslim comments were not that unusual and I guess this wasn't the place for me)."
http://brian-boyle-omelveny-torture-att ... ation.html
OMM Blogger wrote:Brian Boyle[] asked me why I didn't want to work with someone who would be rejoining the firm. I listed various reasons ... said the person had made an anti-Muslim comment. At that point his entire tone changed.
as the person was set to arrive, I reiterated my concerns and Brian's first response was to tell me I'm fired. He ... started winding everything down.
Again, the blogger never alleges s/he was subjected to any harassment or mistreatment
by any OMM employee prior to the initial stink about not wanting to work with this future senior.
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 432497
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Post
by Anonymous User » Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:33 pm
QContinuum wrote:Anonymous User wrote:QContinuum wrote:I did read it. The blog is not remotely relevant, because the blogger hadn't experienced (or even witnessed) any harassment or discrimination when s/he decided to start crusading out of the blue. See
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DN1fLvC_Yqc/ ... Babuse.jpg - the senior hadn't even joined OMM at the time the blogger started making a stink about not wanting to work with him.
In contrast, OP has actually experienced potential discrimination.
Huh?
"On April 30th, 2015, after three years with this firm during which I received nothing but praise from others -- I told Brian Boyle that I did not want to work with someone who had made an anti-Muslim comment. Brian's first response a few days later was to tell me he would terminate me. He started winding down my work, and I accepted it and prepared to move on (anti-Muslim comments were not that unusual and I guess this wasn't the place for me)."
http://brian-boyle-omelveny-torture-att ... ation.html
OMM Blogger wrote:Brian Boyle[] asked me why I didn't want to work with someone who would be rejoining the firm. I listed various reasons ... said the person had made an anti-Muslim comment. At that point his entire tone changed.
as the person was set to arrive, I reiterated my concerns and Brian's first response was to tell me I'm fired. He ... started winding everything down.
Again, the blogger never alleges s/he was subjected to any harassment or mistreatment
by any OMM employee prior to the initial stink about not wanting to work with this future senior.
You're aware that getting fired because you don't want to work with someone who made a racist comment is "mistreatment" right?
-
QContinuum

- Posts: 3594
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:52 am
Post
by QContinuum » Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:38 pm
Anonymous User wrote:QContinuum wrote:Anonymous User wrote:QContinuum wrote:I did read it. The blog is not remotely relevant, because the blogger hadn't experienced (or even witnessed) any harassment or discrimination when s/he decided to start crusading out of the blue. See
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DN1fLvC_Yqc/ ... Babuse.jpg - the senior hadn't even joined OMM at the time the blogger started making a stink about not wanting to work with him.
In contrast, OP has actually experienced potential discrimination.
Huh?
"On April 30th, 2015, after three years with this firm during which I received nothing but praise from others -- I told Brian Boyle that I did not want to work with someone who had made an anti-Muslim comment. Brian's first response a few days later was to tell me he would terminate me. He started winding down my work, and I accepted it and prepared to move on (anti-Muslim comments were not that unusual and I guess this wasn't the place for me)."
http://brian-boyle-omelveny-torture-att ... ation.html
OMM Blogger wrote:Brian Boyle[] asked me why I didn't want to work with someone who would be rejoining the firm. I listed various reasons ... said the person had made an anti-Muslim comment. At that point his entire tone changed.
as the person was set to arrive, I reiterated my concerns and Brian's first response was to tell me I'm fired. He ... started winding everything down.
Again, the blogger never alleges s/he was subjected to any harassment or mistreatment
by any OMM employee prior to the initial stink about not wanting to work with this future senior.
You're aware that getting fired because you don't want to work with someone who made a racist comment is "mistreatment" right?
You're mischaracterizing what I said. What I said was that the blogger never alleges s/he was subjected to any harassment or mistreatment
PRIOR TO THE INITIAL STINK about not wanting to work with this future senior. There was no reason why the blogger needed to raise this whole stink with Brian Boyle to begin with, and certainly no reason why s/he needed to raise this with Brian Boyle
twice. It's generally easy to avoid working with particular seniors at any BigLaw firm - associates do it all the time, and they do it all the time without trying to lay down the law to managing partners.
Want to continue reading?
Register for access!
Did I mention it was FREE ?
Already a member? Login
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 432497
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Post
by Anonymous User » Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:43 pm
Anonymous User wrote:nixy wrote:I’m arguing with you (or whoever keeps linking to this blog) because I don’t think the blog is at all revelatory and so linking it to answer questions like these is pointless.
It's relevant because its posts shows a pattern of HR (at O'Melveny, Weinstein, Lions Gate . . .) not responding sincerely to complaints much worse than the one OP is making. If the person you're complaining to won't sincerely address your complaint, then don't complain to them. It's also credible. O'Melveny would have sued him if it weren't. Read the letters they sent.
It's like you're trying to block off information. If you work at O'Melveny, then you guys really f__ked up. The blog has 25,775 views per the counter at the bottom and was in the American Lawyer.
We get it. This anon hates O’Melveny and will post (and discuss) this article as often as possible. You need to move on.
As for the underlying issue, definetly contact CSO and go from there. They can guide you. A friend of mine was asked an illegal question and went to CSO, ended up still getting an offer. CSO let the firm know that an anonymous student was asked an illegal question. Firm disciplined the associate who was interviewing (I think formal letter of reprimand) and banned him from recruiting activities.
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 432497
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Post
by Anonymous User » Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:46 pm
QContinuum wrote:Anonymous User wrote:
You're aware that getting fired because you don't want to work with someone who made a racist comment is "mistreatment" right?
You're mischaracterizing what I said. What I said was that the blogger never alleges s/he was subjected to any harassment or mistreatment
PRIOR TO THE INITIAL STINK about not wanting to work with this future senior. There was no reason why the blogger needed to raise this whole stink with Brian Boyle to begin with, and certainly no reason why s/he needed to raise this with Brian Boyle
twice. It's generally easy to avoid working with particular seniors at any BigLaw firm - associates do it all the time, and they do it all the time without trying to law down the law to managing partners.
I don't want to "mischaracterize" you so please confirm that you're saying it was a mistake to complain. If that's what you're saying, then I agree. That's why I linked the blog. That's why I linked the post by the woman whose assistant complained. To give real-world examples of what happens when you complain. I don't understand what we're arguing about.
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 432497
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Post
by Anonymous User » Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:50 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
We get it. This anon hates O’Melveny and will post (and discuss) this article as often as possible. You need to move on.
As for the underlying issue, definetly contact CSO and go from there. They can guide you. A friend of mine was asked an illegal question and went to CSO, ended up still getting an offer. CSO let the firm know that an anonymous student was asked an illegal question. Firm disciplined the associate who was interviewing (I think formal letter of reprimand) and banned him from recruiting activities.
The problem with stories like this [the CSO story not the OP's story] is they are unverfiable and could be made up. I personally do not believe it. The blog OTOH is by [edit: a real person], has links and lawsuit threats from O'Melveny.
Last edited by
Anonymous User on Mon Sep 10, 2018 8:19 pm, edited 3 times in total.
-
QContinuum

- Posts: 3594
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:52 am
Post
by QContinuum » Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:52 pm
Anonymous User wrote:QContinuum wrote:Anonymous User wrote:
You're aware that getting fired because you don't want to work with someone who made a racist comment is "mistreatment" right?
You're mischaracterizing what I said. What I said was that the blogger never alleges s/he was subjected to any harassment or mistreatment
PRIOR TO THE INITIAL STINK about not wanting to work with this future senior. There was no reason why the blogger needed to raise this whole stink with Brian Boyle to begin with, and certainly no reason why s/he needed to raise this with Brian Boyle
twice. It's generally easy to avoid working with particular seniors at any BigLaw firm - associates do it all the time, and they do it all the time without trying to law down the law to managing partners.
I don't want to "mischaracterize" you so please confirm that you're saying it was a mistake to complain. If that's what you're saying, then I agree. That's why I linked the blog. That's why I linked the post by the woman whose assistant complained. To give real-world examples of what happens when you complain. I don't understand what we're arguing about.
I am saying that it was a mistake for the blogger to attempt - twice! - to lay down the law to a managing partner. I am also saying that the blogger arguably did not have standing to complain to anyone, because there is no allegation that the blogger had been mistreated by this future senior. For all we know, the alleged anti-Muslim comment made by the future senior was a mere unverified (and possibly unverifiable) rumor.
OP's situation is quite distinguishable because OP was personally asked an inappropriate question. Also, the suggestions ITT are for OP to inform his/her CSO,
not for OP to follow the blogger's example by calling up a managing partner and demanding a re-interview.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
OneTwoThreeFour

- Posts: 132
- Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2017 10:15 am
Post
by OneTwoThreeFour » Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:56 pm
nixy wrote:Anonymous User wrote:nixy wrote:
Will you stop spamming the blog every opportunity you get? It's not at all responsive to what the OP was asking about.
Huh? It's a post by an attorney who complained of an anti-Muslim comment, from a partner who advocated for Guantanamo torture no less. They gaslit the person and fired him a few months later. I'm not the only one linking it. It has 25,000 views according to the counter at the bottom. If you work for O'Melveny I'd appreciate any color you have to add, but it seems silly to call it irrelevant.
I have never heard of anyone, at any firm, complain about a sexist or racist comment and have it turn out well.
It doesn't tell the OP what they should do about their interview question, which is different from what to do if you're working at the firm already. The OP can decide not to take the job if they have other options, and they can at least tell their CSO. And it's a dumb blog. Not saying it's wrong, but it's dumb because the author should have known they'd get exactly the reaction they got.
Honestly, can we please ban this douchenozzle who keeps posting this bullshit blog about OMM.
-
QContinuum

- Posts: 3594
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:52 am
Post
by QContinuum » Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:57 pm
Anonymous User wrote:Anonymous User wrote:
We get it. This anon hates O’Melveny and will post (and discuss) this article as often as possible. You need to move on.
As for the underlying issue, definetly contact CSO and go from there. They can guide you. A friend of mine was asked an illegal question and went to CSO, ended up still getting an offer. CSO let the firm know that an anonymous student was asked an illegal question. Firm disciplined the associate who was interviewing (I think formal letter of reprimand) and banned him from recruiting activities.
The problem with stories like this is they are unverfiable and could be made up. I personally do not believe it. The blog OTOH is by a reason, has links and lawsuit threats from O'Melveny.
No one ITT is saying that the alleged conduct
definitely happened. If OP reports to CSO as suggested, CSO will presumably consider the report's indicia of reliability before deciding what (if any) action to take. If CSO reports to the firm, the firm again will presumably consider the likelihood the report is accurate before deciding what (if any) action to take against the interviewer.
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 432497
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Post
by Anonymous User » Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:58 pm
QContinuum wrote:
I am saying that it was a mistake for the blogger to attempt - twice! - to lay down the law to a managing partner. I am also saying that the blogger arguably did not have standing to complain to anyone, because there is no allegation that the blogger had been mistreated by this future senior. For all we know, the alleged anti-Muslim comment made by the future senior was a mere unverified (and possibly unverifiable) rumor.
OP's situation is quite distinguishable because OP was personally asked an inappropriate question. Also, the suggestions ITT are for OP to inform his/her CSO, not for OP to follow the blogger's example by calling up a managing partner and demanding a re-interview.
You really should read the blog, slowly.
"(anti-Muslim comments were not that unusual and I guess this wasn't the place for me)"
http://brian-boyle-omelveny-torture-att ... ation.html
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 432497
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Post
by Anonymous User » Mon Sep 10, 2018 2:00 pm
OneTwoThreeFour wrote:
Honestly, can we please ban this douchenozzle who keeps posting this bullshit blog about OMM.
If it was "bullshit" they would have sued him. Read the letters they sent.
The blog has links for everything. Read them.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 432497
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Post
by Anonymous User » Mon Sep 10, 2018 2:12 pm
Anonymous User wrote:QContinuum wrote:
I am saying that it was a mistake for the blogger to attempt - twice! - to lay down the law to a managing partner. I am also saying that the blogger arguably did not have standing to complain to anyone, because there is no allegation that the blogger had been mistreated by this future senior. For all we know, the alleged anti-Muslim comment made by the future senior was a mere unverified (and possibly unverifiable) rumor.
OP's situation is quite distinguishable because OP was personally asked an inappropriate question. Also, the suggestions ITT are for OP to inform his/her CSO, not for OP to follow the blogger's example by calling up a managing partner and demanding a re-interview.
You really should read the blog, slowly.
"(anti-Muslim comments were not that unusual and I guess this wasn't the place for me)"
http://brian-boyle-omelveny-torture-att ... ation.html
Also read this entry. The blogger can't provide all of the "he said she said" "nasty details," because O'Melveny has a defamation lawsuit ready to go.
http://brian-boyle-omelveny-torture-att ... ny_18.html
I'm sorry if this is triggering the 2Ls who don't know what they're getting into with biglaw, but it's reality.
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 432497
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Post
by Anonymous User » Mon Sep 10, 2018 3:58 pm
Anonymous User wrote:Anonymous User wrote:QContinuum wrote:
I am saying that it was a mistake for the blogger to attempt - twice! - to lay down the law to a managing partner. I am also saying that the blogger arguably did not have standing to complain to anyone, because there is no allegation that the blogger had been mistreated by this future senior. For all we know, the alleged anti-Muslim comment made by the future senior was a mere unverified (and possibly unverifiable) rumor.
OP's situation is quite distinguishable because OP was personally asked an inappropriate question. Also, the suggestions ITT are for OP to inform his/her CSO, not for OP to follow the blogger's example by calling up a managing partner and demanding a re-interview.
You really should read the blog, slowly.
"(anti-Muslim comments were not that unusual and I guess this wasn't the place for me)"
http://brian-boyle-omelveny-torture-att ... ation.html
Also read this entry. The blogger can't provide all of the "he said she said" "nasty details," because O'Melveny has a defamation lawsuit ready to go.
http://brian-boyle-omelveny-torture-att ... ny_18.html
I'm sorry if this is triggering the 2Ls who don't know what they're getting into with biglaw, but it's reality.
This thread needs to get off the darn blog (and feeding the troll) and get back to advice.
Tell CSO.
-
Dcc617

- Posts: 2744
- Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 3:01 pm
Post
by Dcc617 » Mon Sep 10, 2018 7:09 pm
Anonymous User wrote:Anonymous User wrote:
We get it. This anon hates O’Melveny and will post (and discuss) this article as often as possible. You need to move on.
As for the underlying issue, definetly contact CSO and go from there. They can guide you. A friend of mine was asked an illegal question and went to CSO, ended up still getting an offer. CSO let the firm know that an anonymous student was asked an illegal question. Firm disciplined the associate who was interviewing (I think formal letter of reprimand) and banned him from recruiting activities.
The problem with stories like this is they are unverfiable and could be made up. I personally do not believe it. The blog OTOH is by a [edit: real person], has links and lawsuit threats from O'Melveny.
So there’s no basis on here to doubt OP, and you being so ready to do so says more about you than anything else.
I’m sorry for all the BS like this, OP.
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 432497
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Post
by Anonymous User » Mon Sep 10, 2018 7:17 pm
Dcc617 wrote:Anonymous User wrote:Anonymous User wrote:
We get it. This anon hates O’Melveny and will post (and discuss) this article as often as possible. You need to move on.
As for the underlying issue, definetly contact CSO and go from there. They can guide you. A friend of mine was asked an illegal question and went to CSO, ended up still getting an offer. CSO let the firm know that an anonymous student was asked an illegal question. Firm disciplined the associate who was interviewing (I think formal letter of reprimand) and banned him from recruiting activities.
The problem with stories like this is they are unverfiable and could be made up. I personally do not believe it. The blog OTOH is by a [edit: real person], has links and lawsuit threats from O'Melveny.
So there’s no basis on here to doubt OP, and you being so ready to do so says more about you than anything else.
I’m sorry for all the BS like this, OP.
I don't doubt OP. I said I did not believe the story about the unnamed firm that issued a "formal letter of reprimand" to an associate who asked an illegal question, and barred him from recruiting activities.
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!