Top Law Schools

So I had a callback way back in Mid-October, and I sent my travel reimbursement form in about one after that. After sending a follow up email, I just got a response that it is not the firm's policy to reimburse for travel expenses unless prior approval is sought. I had no idea this was their policy. Being on a student's budget, the $250 I spent on travel expenses is pretty significant to me. I was under the impression that all firms who interviewed for summer associates paid travel expenses. Has this happened to anyone else and is my surprise here warranted? What, if anything, should I do here?

and I just found the NALP guidelines... looks like I'm screwed.

Out that TTT!

How did you get the resimbursement form if you were not authorized for a reimbursement?

ggocat wrote:How did you get the resimbursement form if you were not authorized for a reimbursement?

NALP website.

Hmm... Not a single firm that I did a callback with gave me prior authorization for billing them, yet they all reimbursed me. I think that there's a reasonable expectation that they would reimburse you and this is a bit unfair of them. I would consider an email to Above the Law.

Anonymous User wrote:Hmm... Not a single firm that I did a callback with gave me prior authorization for billing them, yet they all reimbursed me. I think that there's a reasonable expectation that they would reimburse you and this is a bit unfair of them. I would consider an email to Above the Law.

You probably have that reasonable expectation because you're in biglaw world where unreasonable entitlements are the norm. I suspect the OP wasn't interviewing at a Skadden.

NALP = lulz.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect something that seems to be such a firmly entrenched norm. I interviewed at a range of NALP and non NALP firms. Every single firm either payed for my travel up front, or reimbursed me later. Some gave me the check the day of the interview. I even had one firm reimburse me for a second trip to their offices after I had already received an offer.

It's something you should expect, and I would be really upset if a firm didn't reimburse me. I would send a return email stating that the policy was not made clear to you before you made the decision to travel for the callback, and that you made that decision based on the expectation that your travel would be reimbursed as it had been with other firms you dealt with.

What's with all the righteous indignation in this thread? Posters are calling for breaking news alerts to be sent to the legal blogs, along with snarky emails to the firm's recruiters, and all because some inexperienced 1.25L failed to ask a simple question about travel arrangements when offered an interview?

The OP made a foolish assumption: if he couldn't afford to pursue this interview opportunity unless the firm paid for his travel expenses, then he shouldn't have paid those expenses out-of-pocket without first making certain that he would be reimbursed.

Anonymous Loser wrote:What's with all the righteous indignation in this thread? Posters are calling for breaking news alerts to be sent to the legal blogs, along with snarky emails to the firm's recruiters, and all because some inexperienced 1.25L failed to ask a simple question about travel arrangements when offered an interview?

The OP made a foolish assumption: if he couldn't afford to pursue this interview opportunity unless the firm paid for his travel expenses, then he shouldn't have paid those expenses out-of-pocket without first making certain that he would be reimbursed.

I agree that OP should not have made the assumption. Even though travel reimbursement seems to be the general rule, it's always good to double-check.

That said, I do think that a polite (not snarky!) email to the recruiting coordinator is a good idea. I doubt that the firm will reimburse you, but it's good to let them know that the "prior approval" policy was not made clear to you. When the interview is schedules, I think the recruiting coordinator should be the one to bring up the topic, as many students feel uncomfortable asking whether their travel expenses will be reimburse for fear of looking like they are begging for money. All the recruiting coordinators to whom I've spoken made sure to clarify their policy (which was just a simple keep-your-receipts and we'll reimburse you, no problem kind of policy) before I even said a word about it.

I agree that OP should not have made the assumption. Even though travel reimbursement seems to be the general rule, it's always good to double-check.

That said, I do think that a polite (not snarky!) email to the recruiting coordinator is a good idea. I doubt that the firm will reimburse you, but it's good to let them know that the "prior approval" policy was not made clear to you. When the interview is schedules, I think the recruiting coordinator should be the one to bring up the topic, as many students feel uncomfortable asking whether their travel expenses will be reimburse for fear of looking like they are begging for money. All the recruiting coordinators to whom I've spoken made sure to clarify their policy (which was just a simple keep-your-receipts and we'll reimburse you, no problem kind of policy) before I even said a word about it.

TITCR

warumnicht wrote: That said, I do think that a polite (not snarky!) email to the recruiting coordinator is a good idea. I doubt that the firm will reimburse you, but it's good to let them know that the "prior approval" policy was not made clear to you. When the interview is schedules, I think the recruiting coordinator should be the one to bring up the topic, as many students feel uncomfortable asking whether their travel expenses will be reimburse for fear of looking like they are begging for money. All the recruiting coordinators to whom I've spoken made sure to clarify their policy (which was just a simple keep-your-receipts and we'll reimburse you, no problem kind of policy) before I even said a word about it.

This.

Anonymous Loser wrote:What's with all the righteous indignation in this thread? Posters are calling for breaking news alerts to be sent to the legal blogs, along with snarky emails to the firm's recruiters, and all because some inexperienced 1.25L failed to ask a simple question about travel arrangements when offered an interview?

The OP made a foolish assumption: if he couldn't afford to pursue this interview opportunity unless the firm paid for his travel expenses, then he shouldn't have paid those expenses out-of-pocket without first making certain that he would be reimbursed.

OP here. Just to clear up your commentary, I am not breaking the bank with a callback trip. But who wouldn't want $250 back in their pocket? And honestly, this thread was probably more about justifying my frustration than actually finding a solution, so mission accomplished. So stop raining on my parade!

Also 1.25L? Have we really come to that TLS? Really?

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous Loser wrote:What's with all the righteous indignation in this thread? Posters are calling for breaking news alerts to be sent to the legal blogs, along with snarky emails to the firm's recruiters, and all because some inexperienced 1.25L failed to ask a simple question about travel arrangements when offered an interview?

The OP made a foolish assumption: if he couldn't afford to pursue this interview opportunity unless the firm paid for his travel expenses, then he shouldn't have paid those expenses out-of-pocket without first making certain that he would be reimbursed.

OP here. Just to clear up your commentary, I am not breaking the bank with a callback trip. But who wouldn't want $250 back in their pocket? And honestly, this thread was probably more about justifying my frustration than actually finding a solution, so mission accomplished. So stop raining on my parade!

Also 1.25L? Have we really come to that TLS? Really?

I think we moved there the day that someone said T10 and a lynch mob failed to form.

Kohinoor wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous Loser wrote:What's with all the righteous indignation in this thread? Posters are calling for breaking news alerts to be sent to the legal blogs, along with snarky emails to the firm's recruiters, and all because some inexperienced 1.25L failed to ask a simple question about travel arrangements when offered an interview?

The OP made a foolish assumption: if he couldn't afford to pursue this interview opportunity unless the firm paid for his travel expenses, then he shouldn't have paid those expenses out-of-pocket without first making certain that he would be reimbursed.

OP here. Just to clear up your commentary, I am not breaking the bank with a callback trip. But who wouldn't want $250 back in their pocket? And honestly, this thread was probably more about justifying my frustration than actually finding a solution, so mission accomplished. So stop raining on my parade!

Also 1.25L? Have we really come to that TLS? Really?

I think we moved there the day that someone said T10 and a lynch mob failed to form.

And to be fair, wouldn't I be a 2.25L? You don't become a 3L at graduation, and you're not a 0L once you start ls.

Anonymous User wrote:

Kohinoor wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous Loser wrote:What's with all the righteous indignation in this thread? Posters are calling for breaking news alerts to be sent to the legal blogs, along with snarky emails to the firm's recruiters, and all because some inexperienced 1.25L failed to ask a simple question about travel arrangements when offered an interview?

The OP made a foolish assumption: if he couldn't afford to pursue this interview opportunity unless the firm paid for his travel expenses, then he shouldn't have paid those expenses out-of-pocket without first making certain that he would be reimbursed.

OP here. Just to clear up your commentary, I am not breaking the bank with a callback trip. But who wouldn't want $250 back in their pocket? And honestly, this thread was probably more about justifying my frustration than actually finding a solution, so mission accomplished. So stop raining on my parade!

Also 1.25L? Have we really come to that TLS? Really?

I think we moved there the day that someone said T10 and a lynch mob failed to form.

And to be fair, wouldn't I be a 2.25L? You don't become a 3L at graduation, and you're not a 0L once you start ls.

I designate myself as an 18th grader