Top Law Schools

professionally in X years?

I got this during a screening. Does the attorney want me to answer "i want to be partner" or what kind of response are they getting at? I just mumbled that I wanted to be an expert in a certain practice area.

I tend to go with some BS about taking on more and more responsibilities each year, with my goal being to be the guy people can always trust to get something done right the first time. It's crap, but I never have a great answer to this question either.

Tell them you want to work at the firm forever and raise your family in the area. This is because brand new associates are expensive. The firm is going to lose money on you at first, so they need reassurances you'll be around long enough to justify your salary (or even just to justify wildly overpaying you to "work" as a Summer Associate).

The ultimate goal is to convince them you want to be a slave to the firm, working yourself up to slave-driver eventually.

Equity partner with no friends, husband or children. I used to have a dog, but my parents decided to raise it for me.

I disagree with fetishizing the firm in this way, you don't know much about the firm beyond what Google and a few websites tell you, and maybe some word of mouth. Its weird to marry yourself to a firm like that without having tried it out - shows perhaps lack of judgment and immaturity, although it does show "enthusiasm" for a firm. Its important to show an interest in a particular firm, but its gotta stop at a certain point short of fetishizing it.

I think a better response is to show your ambition/focus as a lawyer, as opposed to talking up a firm from the outside - its kinda glib and maybe insulting to their intelligence.

.

NYAssociate wrote:I don't think booyakasha was being serious. At least I hope not.

Even I have boundaries during interviews.

I told them I wanted to be on a partnership track doing litigation (which is pretty much true, btw). End of story.

If you don't have a strong connection to the city you're interviewing in I think it's a good idea to sneak in a "love the city, can see myself raising a family here"-type comment.

dresden doll wrote:I told them I wanted to be on a partnership track doing litigation (which is pretty much true, btw). End of story.

I think answers such as this are the right/good answer. Firms want confidence and people that can see themselves, even if it is bravado, being leaders.

My answer was generally along the same as dresden's, but I would add something about being the go-to guy in X practice area. That wasn't bravado though, I truly want to be the best at whatever area I practice.

Anonymous User wrote:I disagree with fetishizing the firm in this way, you don't know much about the firm beyond what Google and a few websites tell you, and maybe some word of mouth. Its weird to marry yourself to a firm like that without having tried it out - shows perhaps lack of judgment and immaturity, although it does show "enthusiasm" for a firm. Its important to show an interest in a particular firm, but its gotta stop at a certain point short of fetishizing it.

I think a better response is to show your ambition/focus as a lawyer, as opposed to talking up a firm from the outside - its kinda glib and maybe insulting to their intelligence.

I've heard the opposite, actually. If you don't show commitment to the firm, you're much less likely to get an offer.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I disagree with fetishizing the firm in this way, you don't know much about the firm beyond what Google and a few websites tell you, and maybe some word of mouth. Its weird to marry yourself to a firm like that without having tried it out - shows perhaps lack of judgment and immaturity, although it does show "enthusiasm" for a firm. Its important to show an interest in a particular firm, but its gotta stop at a certain point short of fetishizing it.

I think a better response is to show your ambition/focus as a lawyer, as opposed to talking up a firm from the outside - its kinda glib and maybe insulting to their intelligence.

I've heard the opposite, actually. If you don't show commitment to the firm, you're much less likely to get an offer.

I agree with the first Anon poster.

I think commitment to the city is important, but not the firm.

Don't say doing their wife and you should be fine.

Fark-o-vision wrote:Don't say doing their wife and you should be fine.

No wonder I haven't been getting many callbacks...

I had an interesting discussion with an interviewing partner with him. I didn't know how to answer it, so I bluntly told him I didn't. I explained that I'd done different things before coming to law school and found it hard to predict where I'd be in 10 years as a result, and I also talked about not being sure whether I'd make partner since that's partly out of my control.

He talked rather honestly about his expectations, saying he didn't expect me to say I was going to make partner since he knows a lot of associates leave after three to five years and his firm is fine with that. From his perspective, he talked about trying to separate out people who are clearly interested in still developing practical legal skills in some way in 10 years, as a way of telling those who are actually wanting to practice law from those who are just getting a law degree and hoping to go do something outside the legal profession within a few years. I could easily understand why they'd want to hire people who actually want to be practicing law.

It was a great discussion, and I got a CB out of it.

Anonymous User wrote:I had an interesting discussion with an interviewing partner with him. I didn't know how to answer it, so I bluntly told him I didn't. I explained that I'd done different things before coming to law school and found it hard to predict where I'd be in 10 years as a result, and I also talked about not being sure whether I'd make partner since that's partly out of my control.

He talked rather honestly about his expectations, saying he didn't expect me to say I was going to make partner since he knows a lot of associates leave after three to five years and his firm is fine with that. From his perspective, he talked about trying to separate out people who are clearly interested in still developing practical legal skills in some way in 10 years, as a way of telling those who are actually wanting to practice law from those who are just getting a law degree and hoping to go do something outside the legal profession within a few years. I could easily understand why they'd want to hire people who actually want to be practicing law.

It was a great discussion, and I got a CB out of it.

Even though your first paragraph was a mess to read, I like your style. Good answer -- I think partners enjoy honesty, to a certain extent.

Fark-o-vision wrote:Don't say doing their wife and you should be fine.

Don't say "Doing your wife." Don't say "Doing your wife."

"Doing your.... son?"

pandacot wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I disagree with fetishizing the firm in this way, you don't know much about the firm beyond what Google and a few websites tell you, and maybe some word of mouth. Its weird to marry yourself to a firm like that without having tried it out - shows perhaps lack of judgment and immaturity, although it does show "enthusiasm" for a firm. Its important to show an interest in a particular firm, but its gotta stop at a certain point short of fetishizing it.

I think a better response is to show your ambition/focus as a lawyer, as opposed to talking up a firm from the outside - its kinda glib and maybe insulting to their intelligence.

I've heard the opposite, actually. If you don't show commitment to the firm, you're much less likely to get an offer.

I agree with the first Anon poster.

I think commitment to the city is important, but not the firm.

It depends on the firm.

Adjudicator wrote:

Fark-o-vision wrote:Don't say doing their wife and you should be fine.

Don't say "Doing your wife." Don't say "Doing your wife."

"Doing your.... son?"

For those confused:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXop3zIPkic

Anonymous User wrote:

pandacot wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I disagree with fetishizing the firm in this way, you don't know much about the firm beyond what Google and a few websites tell you, and maybe some word of mouth. Its weird to marry yourself to a firm like that without having tried it out - shows perhaps lack of judgment and immaturity, although it does show "enthusiasm" for a firm. Its important to show an interest in a particular firm, but its gotta stop at a certain point short of fetishizing it.

I think a better response is to show your ambition/focus as a lawyer, as opposed to talking up a firm from the outside - its kinda glib and maybe insulting to their intelligence.

I've heard the opposite, actually. If you don't show commitment to the firm, you're much less likely to get an offer.

I agree with the first Anon poster.

I think commitment to the city is important, but not the firm.

It depends on the firm.

True. Some partners/associates refuse to recognize the homogeneity of firms.

amyLAchemist wrote:

dresden doll wrote:I told them I wanted to be on a partnership track doing litigation (which is pretty much true, btw). End of story.

Same, and I mention something about specializing in patent proceedings I am interested in. Seems to be good, or at worst innocuous.

I would have dinged you.

pandacot wrote:

amyLAchemist wrote:

dresden doll wrote:I told them I wanted to be on a partnership track doing litigation (which is pretty much true, btw). End of story.

Same, and I mention something about specializing in patent proceedings I am interested in. Seems to be good, or at worst innocuous.

I would have dinged you.

Yeah, but you're also kind of a douche.

Objection wrote:

pandacot wrote:

amyLAchemist wrote:

dresden doll wrote:I told them I wanted to be on a partnership track doing litigation (which is pretty much true, btw). End of story.

Same, and I mention something about specializing in patent proceedings I am interested in. Seems to be good, or at worst innocuous.

I would have dinged you.

Yeah, but you're also kind of a douche.

How so, friend?

amyLAchemist wrote:

pandacot wrote:

amyLAchemist wrote:

dresden doll wrote:I told them I wanted to be on a partnership track doing litigation (which is pretty much true, btw). End of story.

Same, and I mention something about specializing in patent proceedings I am interested in. Seems to be good, or at worst innocuous.

I would have dinged you.

I guess I am not sure what they are looking for here. I wanna work towards/become a partner and focus on patent lit. It's not the most exciting answer, given, but it is the truth.

It's a good answer. The response was from boredom.

Thanks. Keep the responses coming.