Law Firm's Cancelling Forum

[sparty99]

You are stupid for asking. This is a small firm with a single Partner. I drove 3 hours to interview with my current firm and even stayed at a hotel on the second and final rounds of interview. I did not ask for reimbursement because I know a mid-size firm is most likely not going to pay for travel reimbursement. You interviewed with "Small Firm X," not Skadden.

[Anonymous User]

.

[Anonymous User]

You are stupid for asking. This is a small firm with a single Partner. I drove 3 hours to interview with my current firm and even stayed at a hotel on the second and final rounds of interview. I did not ask for reimbursement because I know a mid-size firm is most likely not going to pay for travel reimbursement. You interviewed with "Small Firm X," not Skadden.

OP here. Beside stating your belief in reimbursement and my mental faculty, your post adds zero substance to what has already been said by the other posters. Just because you like to spend potentially $500-700 on plane, hotel, and meals on a less than 50% chance at getting an offer does not mean other people can afford it. Apparently, I had the luxury of ditching the firms who are stingy, you don't.

[RaceJudicata]

You are stupid for asking. This is a small firm with a single Partner. I drove 3 hours to interview with my current firm and even stayed at a hotel on the second and final rounds of interview. I did not ask for reimbursement because I know a mid-size firm is most likely not going to pay for travel reimbursement. You interviewed with "Small Firm X," not Skadden.

OP here. Beside stating your belief in reimbursement and my mental faculty, your post adds zero substance to what has already been said by the other posters. Just because you like to spend potentially $500-700 on plane, hotel, and meals on a less than 50% chance at getting an offer does not mean other people can afford it. Apparently, I had the luxury of ditching the firms who are stingy, you don't.

I disagree with the "you are stupid" rhetoric. But, to be fair, you asked for gas money -- not a $500-700 expense. I think plenty of folks up thread agreed that if airfare was involved, the question would be more warranted

[Npret]

You are stupid for asking. This is a small firm with a single Partner. I drove 3 hours to interview with my current firm and even stayed at a hotel on the second and final rounds of interview. I did not ask for reimbursement because I know a mid-size firm is most likely not going to pay for travel reimbursement. You interviewed with "Small Firm X," not Skadden.

OP here. Beside stating your belief in reimbursement and my mental faculty, your post adds zero substance to what has already been said by the other posters. Just because you like to spend potentially $500-700 on plane, hotel, and meals on a less than 50% chance at getting an offer does not mean other people can afford it. Apparently, I had the luxury of ditching the firms who are stingy, you don't.

See I'm sure the firm knew you weren't serious about this job. Your reluctance is obvious.

Good luck with finding the job you want if you haven't yet.

[elendinel]

You are stupid for asking. This is a small firm with a single Partner. I drove 3 hours to interview with my current firm and even stayed at a hotel on the second and final rounds of interview. I did not ask for reimbursement because I know a mid-size firm is most likely not going to pay for travel reimbursement. You interviewed with "Small Firm X," not Skadden.

OP here. Beside stating your belief in reimbursement and my mental faculty, your post adds zero substance to what has already been said by the other posters. Just because you like to spend potentially $500-700 on plane, hotel, and meals on a less than 50% chance at getting an offer does not mean other people can afford it. Apparently, I had the luxury of ditching the firms who are stingy, you don't.

See I'm sure the firm knew you weren't serious about this job. Your reluctance is obvious.

Good luck with finding the job you want if you haven't yet.

Yeah call it "stingy," OP, but your conduct with the firm may have revealed more about your ability to fit in there than you thought. Sounds like they made a good choice on their end, ultimately.

[zhenders]

Just to echo what many have said: OP, in the future, it's really not common for potential employees to receive interview reimbursement packages. If a company offers this, they will almost certainly let you know up front. For biglaw, it's a way to ensure that they stand out--or don't fall behind--compared to their competitors; no one wants to be the "cheap" biglaw firm, so they do this.

For all manner of employment moving forward, you should expect to have to cover all costs related to your interviews. At the bare minimum, you should not be asking about reimbursement until after you've received an offer--but again, if they wanted to give it to you, they would have proudly announced it; asking at all, when they know so little about your character as yet, is a bad look. Without a doubt--and clearly it was unintentional on your part--you accidentally signaled to the firm that you expected to be the one controlling the interview, and that you believed your value to them was greater than their value to you. Clearly you didn't intend this, but it is the way it would likely come across to a small firm or branch.

For the future, be a bit more careful. Getting a job is indeed often an expensive process; it stinks, but that's how it is.

[Anonymous User]

You are stupid for asking. This is a small firm with a single Partner. I drove 3 hours to interview with my current firm and even stayed at a hotel on the second and final rounds of interview. I did not ask for reimbursement because I know a mid-size firm is most likely not going to pay for travel reimbursement. You interviewed with "Small Firm X," not Skadden.

OP here. Beside stating your belief in reimbursement and my mental faculty, your post adds zero substance to what has already been said by the other posters. Just because you like to spend potentially $500-700 on plane, hotel, and meals on a less than 50% chance at getting an offer does not mean other people can afford it. Apparently, I had the luxury of ditching the firms who are stingy, you don't.

I disagree with the "you are stupid" rhetoric. But, to be fair, you asked for gas money -- not a $500-700 expense. I think plenty of folks up thread agreed that if airfare was involved, the question would be more warranted

Again, I originally asked for travel accommodation. That could mean anything between gas money, bus ticket, or plane ticket. I would have accepted gas money, as I did anticipate that air fare might be too expensive, or perhaps none at all, but the firm cancelled immediately upon hearing the request. My musing over the gas money stems from my incredulity of what the firm could have gotten out of me if they had just said "no" to the request.

[Anonymous User]

You are stupid for asking. This is a small firm with a single Partner. I drove 3 hours to interview with my current firm and even stayed at a hotel on the second and final rounds of interview. I did not ask for reimbursement because I know a mid-size firm is most likely not going to pay for travel reimbursement. You interviewed with "Small Firm X," not Skadden.

OP here. Beside stating your belief in reimbursement and my mental faculty, your post adds zero substance to what has already been said by the other posters. Just because you like to spend potentially $500-700 on plane, hotel, and meals on a less than 50% chance at getting an offer does not mean other people can afford it. Apparently, I had the luxury of ditching the firms who are stingy, you don't.

See I'm sure the firm knew you weren't serious about this job. Your reluctance is obvious.

Good luck with finding the job you want if you haven't yet.

Reluctance about what? Going to their office? I never hinted that my taking the interview is dependent on the traveling reimbursement. In fact, the interview has been scheduled already. And I would probably have come regardless. But the firm decided that it was going to assume a host of characteristics to me because of my request. Oh well.

[Npret]

You are stupid for asking. This is a small firm with a single Partner. I drove 3 hours to interview with my current firm and even stayed at a hotel on the second and final rounds of interview. I did not ask for reimbursement because I know a mid-size firm is most likely not going to pay for travel reimbursement. You interviewed with "Small Firm X," not Skadden.

OP here. Beside stating your belief in reimbursement and my mental faculty, your post adds zero substance to what has already been said by the other posters. Just because you like to spend potentially $500-700 on plane, hotel, and meals on a less than 50% chance at getting an offer does not mean other people can afford it. Apparently, I had the luxury of ditching the firms who are stingy, you don't.

See I'm sure the firm knew you weren't serious about this job. Your reluctance is obvious.

Good luck with finding the job you want if you haven't yet.

Reluctance about what? Going to their office? I never hinted that my taking the interview is dependent on the traveling reimbursement. In fact, the interview has been scheduled already. And I would probably have come regardless. But the firm decided that it was going to assume a host of characteristics to me because of my request. Oh well.

Ok OP. I'm sure you are right and it's great you avoided those stingy people who expect you to buy your own gas.
They will find a better fit for them and you will find a better fit for you. Everyone wins and you didn't have to drive 8 hours or buy gas.

[Anonymous User]

Just to echo what many have said: OP, in the future, it's really not common for potential employees to receive interview reimbursement packages. If a company offers this, they will almost certainly let you know up front. For biglaw, it's a way to ensure that they stand out--or don't fall behind--compared to their competitors; no one wants to be the "cheap" biglaw firm, so they do this.

For all manner of employment moving forward, you should expect to have to cover all costs related to your interviews. At the bare minimum, you should not be asking about reimbursement until after you've received an offer--but again, if they wanted to give it to you, they would have proudly announced it; asking at all, when they know so little about your character as yet, is a bad look. Without a doubt--and clearly it was unintentional on your part--you accidentally signaled to the firm that you expected to be the one controlling the interview, and that you believed your value to them was greater than their value to you. Clearly you didn't intend this, but it is the way it would likely come across to a small firm or branch.

For the future, be a bit more careful. Getting a job is indeed often an expensive process; it stinks, but that's how it is.

Your post echoes what others have said, and I won't disagree. But if you're an owner of a small law firm, also understand that this is a mutually beneficial relationship. No law firm hires out of charity. The hiring process is a negotiation. If you are unwilling to help out with traveling, just say so.

[Npret]

You are stupid for asking. This is a small firm with a single Partner. I drove 3 hours to interview with my current firm and even stayed at a hotel on the second and final rounds of interview. I did not ask for reimbursement because I know a mid-size firm is most likely not going to pay for travel reimbursement. You interviewed with "Small Firm X," not Skadden.

OP here. Beside stating your belief in reimbursement and my mental faculty, your post adds zero substance to what has already been said by the other posters. Just because you like to spend potentially $500-700 on plane, hotel, and meals on a less than 50% chance at getting an offer does not mean other people can afford it. Apparently, I had the luxury of ditching the firms who are stingy, you don't.

See I'm sure the firm knew you weren't serious about this job. Your reluctance is obvious.

Good luck with finding the job you want if you haven't yet.

Reluctance about what? Going to their office? I never hinted that my taking the interview is dependent on the traveling reimbursement. In fact, the interview has been scheduled already. And I would probably have come regardless. But the firm decided that it was going to assume a host of characteristics to me because of my request. Oh well.

Ok OP. I'm sure you are right and it's great you avoided those stingy people who expect you to buy your own gas.
They will find a better fit for them and you will find a better fit for you. Everyone wins and you didn't have to drive 8 hours or buy gas.

[kalvano]

Your post echoes what others have said, and I won't disagree. But if you're an owner of a small law firm, also understand that this is a mutually beneficial relationship. No law firm hires out of charity. The hiring process is a negotiation. If you are unwilling to help out with traveling, just say so.

That's what they did.

[elendinel]

Just to echo what many have said: OP, in the future, it's really not common for potential employees to receive interview reimbursement packages. If a company offers this, they will almost certainly let you know up front. For biglaw, it's a way to ensure that they stand out--or don't fall behind--compared to their competitors; no one wants to be the "cheap" biglaw firm, so they do this.

For all manner of employment moving forward, you should expect to have to cover all costs related to your interviews. At the bare minimum, you should not be asking about reimbursement until after you've received an offer--but again, if they wanted to give it to you, they would have proudly announced it; asking at all, when they know so little about your character as yet, is a bad look. Without a doubt--and clearly it was unintentional on your part--you accidentally signaled to the firm that you expected to be the one controlling the interview, and that you believed your value to them was greater than their value to you. Clearly you didn't intend this, but it is the way it would likely come across to a small firm or branch.

For the future, be a bit more careful. Getting a job is indeed often an expensive process; it stinks, but that's how it is.

Your post echoes what others have said, and I won't disagree. But if you're an owner of a small law firm, also understand that this is a mutually beneficial relationship. No law firm hires out of charity. The hiring process is a negotiation. If you are unwilling to help out with traveling, just say so.

They did tell you, and they also told you what they think of people who have literally no understanding of how small firms work (in terms of hiring, or in general). It's almost a guarantee that dozens of other applicants who already understand small firm life/culture are waiting in the wings for their chance to interview, so there's no reason for them to have to approach this as a negotiation.

Just because a firm isn't biglaw doesn't mean it's not in a position to be selective about who it interviews or hires. You sound like you're more upset about this because of the blow to your ego than because you actually missed out on the opportunity, because you assume small firms shouldn't be so willing to miss out on the chance to interview someone (as if they don't have a lot of options if they don't want to proceed with you or some similarly-minded candidate). You need to learn (fast) that you're going to keep getting reactions like this if you keep thinking you don't need to learn the culture or expectations of the type of law you're interviewing for to be a successful candidate. This is not a "negotiation" where both parties have equal things to offer and where they have to care as much about missing out on your "expertise" as you have to care about not getting a job. Few (if any) law students have the kind of leverage.

Good luck though; hopefully you land a biglaw job and forget all about this.

[zhenders]

Just to echo what many have said: OP, in the future, it's really not common for potential employees to receive interview reimbursement packages. If a company offers this, they will almost certainly let you know up front. For biglaw, it's a way to ensure that they stand out--or don't fall behind--compared to their competitors; no one wants to be the "cheap" biglaw firm, so they do this.

For all manner of employment moving forward, you should expect to have to cover all costs related to your interviews. At the bare minimum, you should not be asking about reimbursement until after you've received an offer--but again, if they wanted to give it to you, they would have proudly announced it; asking at all, when they know so little about your character as yet, is a bad look. Without a doubt--and clearly it was unintentional on your part--you accidentally signaled to the firm that you expected to be the one controlling the interview, and that you believed your value to them was greater than their value to you. Clearly you didn't intend this, but it is the way it would likely come across to a small firm or branch.

For the future, be a bit more careful. Getting a job is indeed often an expensive process; it stinks, but that's how it is.

Your post echoes what others have said, and I won't disagree. But if you're an owner of a small law firm, also understand that this is a mutually beneficial relationship. No law firm hires out of charity. The hiring process is a negotiation. If you are unwilling to help out with traveling, just say so.

They did tell you, and they also told you what they think of people who have literally no understanding of how small firms work (in terms of hiring, or in general). It's almost a guarantee that dozens of other applicants who already understand small firm life/culture are waiting in the wings for their chance to interview, so there's no reason for them to have to approach this as a negotiation.

Just because a firm isn't biglaw doesn't mean it's not in a position to be selective about who it interviews or hires. You sound like you're more upset about this because of the blow to your ego than because you actually missed out on the opportunity, because you assume small firms shouldn't be so willing to miss out on the chance to interview someone (as if they don't have a lot of options if they don't want to proceed with you or some similarly-minded candidate). You need to learn (fast) that you're going to keep getting reactions like this if you keep thinking you don't need to learn the culture or expectations of the type of law you're interviewing for to be a successful candidate. This is not a "negotiation" where both parties have equal things to offer and where they have to care as much about missing out on your "expertise" as you have to care about not getting a job. Few (if any) law students have the kind of leverage.

Good luck though; hopefully you land a biglaw job and forget all about this.

Yeah OP, this really does seem right. It does seem as though your ego is the most harmed by this experience; you're upset because you think they were behaving illogically, and you didn't have the opportunity to prove to them that you are a quality candidate.

You have to remember, though, that everyone places different weight on different things. What seems like illogic to you may, to the firm, be precisely the kind of thing which they, by belief or experience, feel is really important. The fundamental problem isn't with your or the firm's reasoning; the problem is that it's incumbent upon the person interviewing to do their best to understand the company or sector they're interviewing with. Insofar as it is understood in that market that interviewees pay their own travel expenses, you likely signaled a disconnect. Either way, you certainly appear to have soured the hiring partner's desire to interview you, and that's enough.

It's just silly and immature to say, "it's a negotiation; they could have just told me no." By that logic, if one were to begin a hypothetical interview with an assertion that you hoped to start at $600,000 a year and get Mondays off, no one would doubt that such a request would likely end the interview immediately, even though they could have just said no. The interview process itself, as well as the pre-interview period, exists to evaluate fit. Your fit was evaluated. If you don't want it to happen again, put in as much work as you need in order to ensure that you present yourself, from start to finish, as an outstanding fit.

[ookoshi]

You are stupid for asking. This is a small firm with a single Partner. I drove 3 hours to interview with my current firm and even stayed at a hotel on the second and final rounds of interview. I did not ask for reimbursement because I know a mid-size firm is most likely not going to pay for travel reimbursement. You interviewed with "Small Firm X," not Skadden.

OP here. Beside stating your belief in reimbursement and my mental faculty, your post adds zero substance to what has already been said by the other posters. Just because you like to spend potentially $500-700 on plane, hotel, and meals on a less than 50% chance at getting an offer does not mean other people can afford it. Apparently, I had the luxury of ditching the firms who are stingy, you don't.

As more people chime in to think that it was a bad idea to ask for reimbursement, I think this post illustrates you aren't learning the critical lesson from this thread. You choose to label firms that don't reimburse for interviews as "stingy" and apparently worthy of "ditching." Not only is that naive, that misses the point. Your goal in a job hunt is to get the job, not win a debate on interview etiquette. It's simply a question of maximizing your odds of success at every step of the process. If asking for reimbursement in a scenario where you are in driving distance to the firm potentially impacts your chances negatively, because there are likely some percentage of people at any firm who might care, the best strategy is not to ask.

I can totally see an employer viewpoint of: If you aren't willing to make smart strategic decisions during your interview process, when your own interests are on the line, why should they believe that you are going to make smart strategic decisions regarding clients?

Calling the firm stingy is simply rationalizing away responsibility.

[AVBucks4239]

Just to echo what many have said: OP, in the future, it's really not common for potential employees to receive interview reimbursement packages. If a company offers this, they will almost certainly let you know up front. For biglaw, it's a way to ensure that they stand out--or don't fall behind--compared to their competitors; no one wants to be the "cheap" biglaw firm, so they do this.

For all manner of employment moving forward, you should expect to have to cover all costs related to your interviews. At the bare minimum, you should not be asking about reimbursement until after you've received an offer--but again, if they wanted to give it to you, they would have proudly announced it; asking at all, when they know so little about your character as yet, is a bad look. Without a doubt--and clearly it was unintentional on your part--you accidentally signaled to the firm that you expected to be the one controlling the interview, and that you believed your value to them was greater than their value to you. Clearly you didn't intend this, but it is the way it would likely come across to a small firm or branch.

For the future, be a bit more careful. Getting a job is indeed often an expensive process; it stinks, but that's how it is.

Your post echoes what others have said, and I won't disagree. But if you're an owner of a small law firm, also understand that this is a mutually beneficial relationship. No law firm hires out of charity. The hiring process is a negotiation. If you are unwilling to help out with traveling, just say so.

FYI, the "negotiation" part of the hiring process begins after they extend you an offer, not before you even come into interview.

[AVBucks4239]

OP here. Beside stating your belief in reimbursement and my mental faculty, your post adds zero substance to what has already been said by the other posters. Just because you like to spend potentially $500-700 on plane, hotel, and meals on a less than 50% chance at getting an offer does not mean other people can afford it. Apparently, I had the luxury of ditching the firms who are stingy, you don't.

Also, just LOL at calling a small firm "stingy" when you are the one seeking $20 reimbursement for gas money.

As I said in one of my earlier posts, you likely came off as incredibly stingy by asking for this petty request so early on in the process.

[HonestAdvice]

I can see it coming across as though you will do the bare minimum. $20 is so insignificant relative to the equation of job or no job that it suggests you're not going to to spend significant time trying to bring in business, etc. as this requires you to invest value/time in something that may produce a big reward. I don't know if this is fair, but some people would see it this way.

In my experience, whether they cover your travel is a big tell on what you can expect. It almost always means you'll be meeting with several people, and there will be a legitimate chance to turn it into an offer. If you're flying in to meet one person who isn't the decision maker, it's much likelier that it will be a waste of time. They may not know what they're looking for, and may be too focused on their work to even be present in the interview.

[tyroneslothrop1]

Sometimes law firm do stuff that isn't pleasant. It isn't personal and its best to just let it roll off your back. I had a lateral interview two months ago where the partner, at the conclusion of interview, said "I'd like to have you back for a call back interview next week. I'll have my secretary contact you to find a time." Never heard from them again and my follow up email went unanswered. Sucks but that is life.

[HonestAdvice]

The consensus is not that the firm shouldn't reimburse your expenses. It's that it reflects poorly on you to ask before the interview. There are social norms, and venturing from them makes you look weird. That's the reason they canceled.