Top Law Schools

What are interviewers looking for? Obviously not the real truth. "I'll surf the internet on company time, and I'm sloppy with grammar" = ding. But obvious bullshit like "I care too much" doesn't seem like the right answer.

Should I find some common flaw that doesn't have an effect on business work?

Perfectionist is always a good response.

I've always been taught to tell the interviewer about a problem that you can improve upon. Maybe you are not experienced in a particular aspect of the job, but you make it clear that you are willing to work on it.

Sentry wrote:Perfectionist is always a good response.

But it's obvious bullshit.

Sentry wrote:Perfectionist is always a good response.

Don't just don't do above.

Talk about a weakness you are working on that they know is surmountable.

I.e. talk about poor handwriting if yours is poor and how you are working on getting better at it - maybe throw in a joke about buying books with how to write letters. They likely won't care and you practicing it will show you are actively trying to work on it. Talk about how much better it has gotten.

Talk about poor time management and using your new smart phone to actively combat it and how it is 100X better, but you still have to actively do it and therefore is a weakness. Spin it to sound like the weakness is now a plus, but is still a weakness. Sounds weird I know, but you can do it.

and so forth.

They want to know first that you realize you have faults and second that you try to combat them. Saying you try to be perfect is silly, since first it isn't surmountable and second it is cliche.

coveyellow wrote:I've always been taught to tell the interviewer about a problem that you can improve upon. Maybe you are not experienced in a particular aspect of the job, but you make it clear that you are willing to work on it.

TITCR

Sentry wrote:Perfectionist is always a good response.

TINTCR

I don't know how it applies to law--I'm sure it does--but I was always under the impression that you want to present a weakness upon which you are improving. For instance, say "I've been unorganized in the past, but I'm correcting that," at which point you pull out your daily planner to demonstrate that you are earnestly trying to improve.

I shit gold bricks.

I'm working really hard to change that to platinum.

Mine tends to be that I can be too critical of both myself and others. Usually end by saying that I am learning to be more diplomatic.

Think of something where moderation is key, and it would be a good trait in moderation, but you have it in excess and you're working on reining it in.

My example is the real truth, doesn't reveal anything really bad about myself, and isn't bullshit.

Unitas wrote:

Sentry wrote:Perfectionist is always a good response.

Don't just don't do above.

Talk about a weakness you are working on that they know is surmountable.

I.e. talk about poor handwriting if yours is poor and how you are working on getting better at it - maybe throw in a joke about buying books with how to write letters. They likely won't care and you practicing it will show you are actively trying to work on it. Talk about how much better it has gotten.

Talk about poor time management and using your new smart phone to actively combat it and how it is 100X better, but you still have to actively do it and therefore is a weakness. Spin it to sound like the weakness is now a plus, but is still a weakness. Sounds weird I know, but you can do it.

and so forth.

They want to know first that you realize you have faults and second that you try to combat them. Saying you try to be perfect is silly, since first it isn't surmountable and second it is cliche.

I think this is generally good advice but I agree with DF that this remains a problematic question. I'm not sure I'd want to reveal poor time management top an interviewer...bad handwriting sounds a little corny because its obvious no one cares.

I have to be honest - I usually go with I care too much which I recongize is obvious BS. Your approach though is credited talk about how you are actively working on it whatever you choose. Still an annoying question thiough.

I always answer with something like "I tend to get slightly distracted with the social side of the job, but I respond incredibly well to goals so thats never really been much of a problem."


Answer egregiously stolen from a certain tls admin.

"I have trouble working with idiots, but I hope that won't be a problem at your firm."

I think the best thing to do is to state a weakness that won't conflict with your ability to perform the job. It should be something that you can give substantive examples of how you've worked to overcome it as well.

I don't floss every day.

fatduck wrote:"I have trouble working with idiots, but I hope that won't be a problem at your firm."

"LOL DINGED" - dla piper

BlueDevil2007 wrote:I don't floss every day.

barbaric.

fatduck wrote:"I have trouble working with idiots, but I hope that won't be a problem at your firm."

Only TCR when interviewing at Susman.

My schlong makes it difficult to find suit pants that fit comfortably, which can be a distraction. However, I have worked to overcome this issue by working with a tailor to find pants that meet my needs.

Do we really have people advocating saying poor time management? You do realize all they care about is your ability to manage/bill your time.

That'd be like interviewing to be a chef and saying "I struggle with making food, but I got these new knives which are helping."

Bears.

Also, Sharks.

I talk about a strength that doesn't always fit within the scope of a previous job but would be good in the setting of a law firm. Lately, I have been using "assertiveness". I have a "make it happen" work ethic, and this wasn't always appropriate when negotiating settlements in my previous job, as time would often work in my favor. etc....

DF you should go with occasionally will troll mods.

I think an answer which says "I struggle with X, but I'm addressing it by doing Y" is much better than the strength-as-weakness BS the books often suggest. It shows that you both (a) understand what your weaknesses are (everybody has them, and if you don't recognize yours, that's a liability) and (b) address your weaknesses rather than hide them.

Now, obviously "I'm a two-time felon, but I'm working on avoiding strike three" doesn't quite work, but you get what I'm saying.

I think a good approach to take for this very predictable question is to simply have something well prepared.

I think having something ready to discuss shows you (a) prepare well and (b) are aware enough to know what to expect in certain situations. Staring off into space looking to draw off of the most glittering piece of BS you can think of while Mr or Mrs hiring partner is sitting in front of you isn't a good look. The reality is we all have weaknesses, and the person looking to hire you is most likely looking for someone to help with his or hers. (wouldn't point that out btw)

I would massage the context or usage of the term "weakness" to represent something I haven't mastered yet, but am actively working on, and will master soon. Then I'd transition into talking about something else I'm skilled at, which I got there by practice, preparation, study, experience, etc, etc.

The worst thing you can do is frame your weakness as something you're aware of, aren't doing anything about, and have no hope of every becoming good at. That actually does say a lot about someone.