Summer Associates 2014: Thoughts, Anxieties, Experiences... Forum

[09042014]

I mean you fired yourself from being a dad right

Nope, actually rehired myself for that position, and it's going ok. Fired myself from anything resembling a relationship for a while, though.

Fired yourself. More like, YOU CAN'T FIRE ME I QUIT.

[Old Gregg]

I mean you fired yourself from being a dad right

Nope, actually rehired myself for that position, and it's going ok. Fired myself from anything resembling a relationship for a while, though.

Fired yourself. More like, YOU CAN'T FIRE ME I QUIT.

My favorite is when summers accept cold offers.

[bjsesq]

I mean you fired yourself from being a dad right

Nope, actually rehired myself for that position, and it's going ok. Fired myself from anything resembling a relationship for a while, though.

Fired yourself. More like, YOU CAN'T FIRE ME I QUIT.

Maybe. Had a crazy, crazy ass woman tryna get tha pipe the other day, though. You know how fucking insane a woman has to be for me not to want to put my penis in her? Botwin's somewhere doing schizophrenia research as we speak.

[Anonymous User]

How much does having most of your work come from one partner hurt your chances of an offer?

Firm emphasizes working with many attorneys. I have worked with several attorneys, but this one partner has given me probably 70% of my work. I can't turn the work down (she is on exec committee, been there for many years, etc). The good news is she has told recruiting I have done well and she is in a department I want to work for. Bad news is that dept may not be hiring a new associate and I haven't thoroughly explored other areas.

I think having a partner on the exec committee pulling for you while you get 30% of your work from "several attorneys" is more than fine.

That's good news. Thanks for the response.

How much does having most of your work come from one partner hurt your chances of an offer?

Firm emphasizes working with many attorneys. I have worked with several attorneys, but this one partner has given me probably 70% of my work. I can't turn the work down (she is on exec committee, been there for many years, etc). The good news is she has told recruiting I have done well and she is in a department I want to work for. Bad news is that dept may not be hiring a new associate and I haven't thoroughly explored other areas.

Your options may depend on where you are. What market?

Definitely secondary. I.e., Indy, Atlanta, Cleveland, etc.

[LRGhost]

I mean you fired yourself from being a dad right

Nope, actually rehired myself for that position, and it's going ok. Fired myself from anything resembling a relationship for a while, though.

Fired yourself. More like, YOU CAN'T FIRE ME I QUIT.

My favorite is when summers accept cold offers.

How does that work? If a 3L strikes out at 3L OCI, why continue to "accept" and not inform NALP that the firm no-offered? I thought the reason to accept was the advantage of trying to get a job while having a "job" but if the ship sails, fuck them, right?

[2014]

They give you an actual offer but tell you that your future at the firm is bleak. Meaning you can show up and work your first day, but the work you get or your advancement prospects are bad. There are (many?) stories of people getting that speech, showing up, and the firm basically forgetting their offer was cold and treating them like any other junior.

I'd probably rather roll the dice on that than just drag the firm through the mud w/ Nalp. Especially if enough firms realize that 98-99% doesn't meaningfully impact their recruiting compared to 100%, we might see more no offers at the expense of cold ones which seems bad.

[LRGhost]

They give you an actual offer but tell you that your future at the firm is bleak. Meaning you can show up and work your first day, but the work you get or your advancement prospects are bad. There are (many?) stories of people getting that speech, showing up, and the firm basically forgetting their offer was cold and treating them like any other junior.

I'd probably rather roll the dice on that than just drag the firm through the mud w/ Nalp. Especially if enough firms realize that 98-99% doesn't meaningfully impact their recruiting compared to 100%, we might see more no offers at the expense of cold ones which seems bad.

Yeah, I don't think many people would not bid a firm because they no-offered one or two people. But yeah, I didn't know you could show up and still get paid. Three months of salary is much better than no months of nothing.

[SA2014]

They give you an actual offer but tell you that your future at the firm is bleak. Meaning you can show up and work your first day, but the work you get or your advancement prospects are bad. There are (many?) stories of people getting that speech, showing up, and the firm basically forgetting their offer was cold and treating them like any other junior.

I'd probably rather roll the dice on that than just drag the firm through the mud w/ Nalp. Especially if enough firms realize that 98-99% doesn't meaningfully impact their recruiting compared to 100%, we might see more no offers at the expense of cold ones which seems bad.

A

[09042014]

They give you an actual offer but tell you that your future at the firm is bleak. Meaning you can show up and work your first day, but the work you get or your advancement prospects are bad. There are (many?) stories of people getting that speech, showing up, and the firm basically forgetting their offer was cold and treating them like any other junior.

I'd probably rather roll the dice on that than just drag the firm through the mud w/ Nalp. Especially if enough firms realize that 98-99% doesn't meaningfully impact their recruiting compared to 100%, we might see more no offers at the expense of cold ones which seems bad.

Agreed. There's no risk here, because even if an offer is initially enthusiastic at first, it can turn out just like a cold offer if your performance suffers down the line ("stealth layoff"). so a cold offer should be treated like an offer with a pro0bationary period..... if you outperform their expectations, they'll forget that it's cold, and if not, you've got some time to look for other work.

There is risk they fire you after 2 weeks.

[NYSprague]

I never thought the accepted- a -cold -offer rumors are true. Is the firm going to pay for the bar or give you an advance if they don't want you?

[2014]

There is risk they fire you after 2 weeks.

COP DAT SEVERANCE

I never thought the accepted- a -cold -offer rumors are true. Is the firm going to pay for the bar or give you an advance if they don't want you?

There's a partner here who is proud to talk about her accepting what was effectively a cold offer and still being around.

[OneMoreLawHopeful]

I never thought the accepted- a -cold -offer rumors are true. Is the firm going to pay for the bar or give you an advance if they don't want you?

Back in the day (pre-ITE) there were degrees of cold offer. One type was saying "You can come work here, but you really don't have a future with us and we encourage you to look elsewhere." Presumably this type would involve paying for the bar and an advance.

The other type (which NALP has supposedly cracked down upon, but I know used to be given out circa 2004) was presented as "We are not extending you an offer, but if you tell other firms that we did extend you an offer, we will not contradict that statement." Presumably this type of cold offer does not include payment for the bar or anything else.

[run26.2]

The other type (which NALP has supposedly cracked down upon, but I know used to be given out circa 2004) was presented as "We are not extending you an offer, but if you tell other firms that we did extend you an offer, we will not contradict that statement." Presumably this type of cold offer does not include payment for the bar or anything else.

Do you have a source for this? This phraseology presents a problem for a firm reporting to NALP that it gave an offer to this person, and a better offer ratio has presumably always been the reason for a cold offer. I think the end of summer discussion would probably go more along the lines of "Here's your offer. We expect that you will not accept it."

[OneMoreLawHopeful]

The other type (which NALP has supposedly cracked down upon, but I know used to be given out circa 2004) was presented as "We are not extending you an offer, but if you tell other firms that we did extend you an offer, we will not contradict that statement." Presumably this type of cold offer does not include payment for the bar or anything else.

Do you have a source for this? This phraseology presents a problem for a firm reporting to NALP that it gave an offer to this person, and a better offer ratio has presumably always been the reason for a cold offer. I think the end of summer discussion would probably go more along the lines of "Here's your offer. We expect that you will not accept it."

I have two sources, both relatives who worked in biglaw (one was at Dewey...so yeah...and the other became an AUSA and hasn't worked in biglaw for a while now) and used to tell no-offered summer associates this at the end of the program. I actually said that NALP had cracked down, and I don't know if it's done anymore, but like I said, I know for a fact that it was done in 2004.

I will say, however, that there's more wiggle room in the NALP reporting than you are allowing for. The actual phrasing is:
"Number of offers made to summer who were considered for associate offers" which allows wiggle room around who is being considered for an offer in the first place.

For example, compare the Vault and NALP reports for S&C:
http://www.vault.com/company-profiles/l ... rview.aspx
https://www.nalpdirectory.com/employer_ ... ivan%22%7D

S&C told Vault that it no-offered someone (Summer associate offers: 122 out of 123)
But S&C also told NALP that it extended 100% offers (Number of summers considered for offers: 124, Number of offers made to summer associates: 124).

Not only are the numbers different (where did the extra SA come from?) but reading NALP's report would lead you to believe that S&C had not made any no-offers, whereas they told Vault that they did no-offer someone.

Winston & Strawn seems to have pulled something similar, reporting 28 our of 29 offers to Vault, but then also reporting 28 out of 28 offers to NALP.

As you stated above, a "better ratio" looks better, so it's hard to believe that these firms are purposefully making up no-offers to report to Vault; it's far more likely that the the NALP reporting is being massaged.

This is also only looking at firms that submit a "firmwide" form to NALP - others can manipulate numbers simply by only submitting forms to NALP on an office-by-office basis. Then problematic reporting is done away with simply by leaving out any office that would be inconvenient to explain per the NALP rules.

Overall, participation in NALP is entirely voluntary - no one forces firms to go along with it. As a result, the threat of "How are we going to report this to NALP?" is a lot less problematic that you seem to be suggesting.

NOTE: I'm NOT saying that this type of cold offer still exists (I said in my original post that the latest I can confirm it happened was 2004), I'm just saying that it happened once upon a time and would be something that older attorneys are no doubt aware off. I probably should have known better than to post in ITT, however, as 2L SA neuroticism knows no bounds.

[run26.2]

No need to get so defensive or read into what I was saying. I understand you were talking about 2004. I was asking for a source because I wanted to read about what you're talking about. A quick google search didn't turn anything up from the relevant time frame. Maybe offers did go out like that, but what I was reading was that an actual offer was given along with a suggestion or a directive not to accept it.

[Anonymous User]

S&C no-offered last year. It wasn't a cold offer.

[banjo]

I personally know two people who were no-offered. One for economic reasons, the other for not going to enough social events.

Anyway, last week of my SA. If people here are unhappy, they did an amazing job of hiding it, even during a few big late-night deals. Hopefully I get some kind of return offer (1L).

[SA2014]

Listening to all this no-offer cold-offer analysis, I'm just happy that the examples given involve only a relatively small percentage (1 or 2 ppl per firm). So long as we don't get blindsided like in Winston's 2012 class (no-offered 1/3 of their class), almost all of us should be okay unless "we fire ourselves."

So yeah, DaFuck is a dick, but there's plenty of reason to be cautiously optimistic.

[Anonymous User]

If somehow I end up getting "no offered," I fully intend to press the firm to give me a cold-offer. It is mutually beneficial after all, as long as they can feel confident that you won't ninja-accept it

[El Pollito]

If somehow I end up getting "no offered," I fully intend to press the firm to give me a cold-offer. It is mutually beneficial after all, as long as they can feel confident that you won't ninja-accept it

Most firms won't give you one.

[Anonymous User]

If somehow I end up getting "no offered," I fully intend to press the firm to give me a cold-offer. It is mutually beneficial after all, as long as they can feel confident that you won't ninja-accept it

Most firms won't give you one.

why not?

edit: or rather, what would be the biggest obstacle to overcome in pulling this off? Large-firm bureaucracy? Not wanting to risk you accepting? They just want to see you burn?

[shock259]

It's not really beneficial for them. As the poster above was saying, their NALP numbers may not even take a hit. If they do, it probably won't seriously affect their recruiting next year. So why give you a cold offer (which costs $$) when they can just cut you loose?

[Anonymous User]

It's not really beneficial for them. As the poster above was saying, their NALP numbers may not even take a hit. If they do, it probably won't seriously affect their recruiting next year. So why give you a cold offer (which costs $$) when they can just cut you loose?

maybe for an office with 50 SAs, but an office with 15 or less? 1 no-offer is pretty big %. Also if you go to a top school, but this is very speculative, they may not want to sour future prospects from your school. For example, medium-tier firm in San Fransisco, kid from Stanford, probably rare for them to get one, and no offering him would probably eliminate any hope of getting them for the next year or two. Students definitely do talk about these things and warn each other of firms like this, particularly at the smaller schools.

Maybe I'm completely wrong and its just wishful things, but it's still my contingency plan for getting no offered

[Anonymous User]

S&C no-offered last year. It wasn't a cold offer.

In the NYC office, or one of the others? Why isn't this reflected on NALP?

[OneMoreLawHopeful]

No need to get so defensive or read into what I was saying. I understand you were talking about 2004. I was asking for a source because I wanted to read about what you're talking about. A quick google search didn't turn anything up from the relevant time frame. Maybe offers did go out like that, but what I was reading was that an actual offer was given along with a suggestion or a directive not to accept it.

My bad for coming off as defensive. It wasn't really your post that got me so much as the knowledge that firms massage NALP numbers in questionable ways. You may very well be right that the other form of cold offer I described just doesn't exist anymore, but I just can't get over how some firms (S&C and Winston both, and that was just with 5 minutes of looking) report 100% offers to NALP when that's not the reality (either as reported to Vault, or as echoed by posters in this thread). I don't know how they're getting away with it (perhaps they're finagling definitions? Who knows?), but it's a disservice to rising 2Ls who look to NALP for honest information.