Top Law Schools

Not a flame, I guess I'm just more aspie than I realized. Slightly above median grades at HYS. Did not overbid: rejected in secondary/tertiary markets where I have some ties. Obviously have interviewing problems. Mock/Screening interviews were ok and didn't get serious criticism. Interviewers said I asked good questions, so not sure why my results were so poor. Any advice on what worked for other people in interviews and where I should go from here (will be graduating with 150k in debt) would be appreciated. Am done with CBs, also don't see how having more would help until I improve interviewing skills. Thanks.

Are you done with your CB's or are there more coming up?

Are you trying for a specific practice area?

That hurt me at the beginning. I was interested in a specific practice area, everyone I spoke with was all "rah rah we are so good at that and we would be glad to have you in it," and then....ding.

Found out it was because they aren't looking to hire new associates in that practice area in 2 years.

you can't be that aspie if you got 12 CBs

Anonymous User wrote:Are you trying for a specific practice area?

That hurt me at the beginning. I was interested in a specific practice area, everyone I spoke with was all "rah rah we are so good at that and we would be glad to have you in it," and then....ding.

Found out it was because they aren't looking to hire new associates in that practice area in 2 years.

Echo this. At first I was trying the "I want to do what you're good at" strategy, then switched to a more honest "whatever, all I know about is false imprisonment anyway" strategy, and got better results.

I also switched halfway through from super enthusiastic to as professional as I could possibly be, to the point of maybe a little boring, and got a lot more callbacks (that is, any) out of it. My friend describes this as the "zero-deductions" approach--if you're from HYS, just don't give them a reason to ding you. I also stopped asking person-specific questions and switched to general firm questions. It seems like everything I intuited would be the right approach was the wrong one.

yeah agree with the above sentiments. I thought a specific practice interest would be a positive...but its not. my experience is that HR takes a guess at what you are interested in based on your resume (ie corporate vs lit) and if you seemed married/super interested in some other practice area the interview will not go well. they might even try to "reshuffle" your schedule once they learn of some other interest which I think is auto-ding.

Its just frustrating because my T14 career services office couldn't offer this advice to me until half way through, basically when it was almost too late.

The state of the legal market is that firms want you where they need you, and no where else. You're better going into interviews without having a clue in the world want you want to do than wanting to do something specific.

Anonymous User wrote:Its just frustrating because my T14 career services office couldn't offer this advice to me until half way through, basically when it was almost too late.

The state of the legal market is that firms want you where they need you, and no where else. You're better going into interviews without having a clue in the world want you want to do than wanting to do something specific.

Yeah, I felt the same way. I could really have used this info BEFORE I flubbed half of my OCI.

I've been told by Partners At Law firms (who I met outside of the OCI process, but asked their advice) that they prefer candidates who come in with something specific that they want to do. The overwhelming sentiment was "every law student says they want to do litigation or corporate, but you set yourself apart by having a specific interest that you can clearly articulate." Now, I can see how this might hurt you if you happen to state a practice area that the firm doesn't need new hires in, but if you do your research right and also mention that you have an open mind, I feel like it could help.

Then again, I've been taking the "specific practice area" approach and I have no offers yet after 6 CB's (two rejections, four silence), so maybe I'm deluded as well.

Its hard to tell what practice areas a firm is hiring in. I've had the hiring partner tell me at a networking session that they are hiring in that group, only to be told the complete opposite in an interview a month later.

You really can't tell until you get there.

ResIpsa21 wrote:I've been told by partners at law firms (who I met outside of the OCI process, but asked their advice) that they prefer candidates who come in with something specific that they want to do. The overwhelming sentiment was "every law student says they want to do litigation or corporate, but you set yourself apart by having a specific interest that you can clearly articulate." Now, I can see how this might hurt you if you happen to state a practice area that the firm doesn't need new hires in, but if you do your research right and also mention that you have an open mind, I feel like it could help.

Then again, I've been taking the "specific practice area" approach and I have no offers yet after 6 CB's (two rejections, four silence), so maybe I'm deluded as well.

This thread is truly enlightening. Thanks for all your input.

To ResIpsa, yes, I believe you are deluding yourself. Stupidity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. I've been doing the exact same thing, and extremely similar results - 3 dings, 3 MIA, 4 to go.
Now, you have 4 silences, which means probably still in the running for their second-round offers. If you have more CBs, i'd say you should alter your strategy as I will be doing for my next 4.

Best of Luck!!

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote: I also switched halfway through from super enthusiastic to as professional as I could possibly be, to the point of maybe a little boring, and got a lot more callbacks (that is, any) out of it. My friend describes this as the "zero-deductions" approach--if you're from HYS, just don't give them a reason to ding you. I also stopped asking person-specific questions and switched to general firm questions. It seems like everything I intuited would be the right approach was the wrong one.

May I ask which school youre from? Trying to figure out if there are two types of interviews 1) start with offer - just don't get urself dinged or 2) start with nothing - earn your offer. If so, HYS probably the former, T2 or TTT, the latter (if lucky enough for CBs)

ResIpsa21 wrote:I've been told by partners at law firms (who I met outside of the OCI process, but asked their advice) that they prefer candidates who come in with something specific that they want to do. The overwhelming sentiment was "every law student says they want to do litigation or corporate, but you set yourself apart by having a specific interest that you can clearly articulate." Now, I can see how this might hurt you if you happen to state a practice area that the firm doesn't need new hires in, but if you do your research right and also mention that you have an open mind, I feel like it could help.

Then again, I've been taking the "specific practice area" approach and I have no offers yet after 6 CB's (two rejections, four silence), so maybe I'm deluded as well.

It's not surprising that from the law firm's perspective, this would be desirable and encouraged. They want people with a specific interest to be candid about it so they can eliminate them with confidence if they don't fit the firm's growth model.

somewhatwayward wrote:you can't be that aspie if you got 12 CBs

This is a good example of posts we will de-anon. Use the feature responsibly.

Anonymous User wrote:

ResIpsa21 wrote:I've been told by partners at law firms (who I met outside of the OCI process, but asked their advice) that they prefer candidates who come in with something specific that they want to do. The overwhelming sentiment was "every law student says they want to do litigation or corporate, but you set yourself apart by having a specific interest that you can clearly articulate." Now, I can see how this might hurt you if you happen to state a practice area that the firm doesn't need new hires in, but if you do your research right and also mention that you have an open mind, I feel like it could help.

Then again, I've been taking the "specific practice area" approach and I have no offers yet after 6 CB's (two rejections, four silence), so maybe I'm deluded as well.

It's not surprising that from the law firm's perspective, this would be desirable and encouraged. They want people with a specific interest to be candid about it so they can eliminate them with confidence if they don't fit the firm's growth model.

Exactly, the specific interest approach is only good for you if you fit with the firm's needs. If you have a good idea that an office is expanding their litigation department for IP, and you have a technical background along with moot court and public speaking, then articulating a specific interest in IP litigation is a great idea. I think if you aren't sure if your specific interest fits their office, or if you don't know, don't be specific. But if you have a good sense, then you should go for it.

Maybe the guy you de-anoned wanted to conceal his casual use of the term 'aspie' to denote people with a legit health problem.

You have interview problems. I would read, "Knock Em' Dead" by Martin Yate. Type out your answers to commonly asked interview questions. Study them. Rehearse them (without sounding canned).

Read the questions that you ask an employer. Type these questions on resume paper and bring them to the interview. Don't be specific when they ask where you want to be in five years.

Interesting.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

ResIpsa21 wrote:I've been told by partners at law firms (who I met outside of the OCI process, but asked their advice) that they prefer candidates who come in with something specific that they want to do. The overwhelming sentiment was "every law student says they want to do litigation or corporate, but you set yourself apart by having a specific interest that you can clearly articulate." Now, I can see how this might hurt you if you happen to state a practice area that the firm doesn't need new hires in, but if you do your research right and also mention that you have an open mind, I feel like it could help.

Then again, I've been taking the "specific practice area" approach and I have no offers yet after 6 CB's (two rejections, four silence), so maybe I'm deluded as well.

It's not surprising that from the law firm's perspective, this would be desirable and encouraged. They want people with a specific interest to be candid about it so they can eliminate them with confidence if they don't fit the firm's growth model.

Exactly, the specific interest approach is only good for you if you fit with the firm's needs. If you have a good idea that an office is expanding their litigation department for IP, and you have a technical background along with moot court and public speaking, then articulating a specific interest in IP litigation is a great idea. I think if you aren't sure if your specific interest fits their office, or if you don't know, don't be specific. But if you have a good sense, then you should go for it.

i think even THIS is problematic. from the firm's perspective, they are *essentially* hiring for two years in advance. IP Lit might be swamped right now, but they will hire laterals, not wait two years for this year's OCI crop to begin. what firms probably want is someone that seems pretty flexible, won't complain about work assignments, and will fit in any department where there is a need at that time.

I'm really sorry to hear it, man. I wrote this about interviewing tips, take them for what you will:

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... aking+%3Fs

ResIpsa21 wrote:I've been told by partners at law firms (who I met outside of the OCI process, but asked their advice) that they prefer candidates who come in with something specific that they want to do. The overwhelming sentiment was "every law student says they want to do litigation or corporate, but you set yourself apart by having a specific interest that you can clearly articulate." Now, I can see how this might hurt you if you happen to state a practice area that the firm doesn't need new hires in, but if you do your research right and also mention that you have an open mind, I feel like it could help.

Then again, I've been taking the "specific practice area" approach and I have no offers yet after 6 CB's (two rejections, four silence), so maybe I'm deluded as well.

Being specific is a bad idea. Firms want to place associates where they are needed. Most firms are pretty open about not being able to guarantee a specific practice area beyond litigation or corp.

Actually I've had great success this season expressing interest in a range of fairly specific practice and industry areas. I went with this approach because 1) I am genuinely interested in those practices and want to be at a firm that offers what I'm looking for, and 2) my expressed interests matched up well with my resume, personality, background.

I structured my bidlist to include firms that do at least some work in my areas of interest. I also tweaked the specific practice I expressed interest in depending on the firm's particular strengths, but my interests had a pretty strong theme across the board, and I never came across seeming too flexible about it.

Ultimately I think it helped because I came across as someone who did not just go to law school on a whim, but perhaps a more thoughtful person with actual goals and preferences. Admittedly this might be difficult to do if you don't have much work or internship experience on your resume.

^

Yea, this - or you just happened to be interested in corporate (an area where a lot of the firms are hiring.)

Express a preference, but give the whole "I'm inexperienced and wouldn't say no to anything" shpeil...

Anonymous User wrote:Actually I've had great success this season expressing interest in a range of fairly specific practice and industry areas. I went with this approach because 1) I am genuinely interested in those practices and want to be at a firm that offers what I'm looking for, and 2) my expressed interests matched up well with my resume, personality, background.

I structured my bidlist to include firms that do at least some work in my areas of interest. I also tweaked the specific practice I expressed interest in depending on the firm's particular strengths, but my interests had a pretty strong theme across the board, and I never came across seeming too flexible about it.

Ultimately I think it helped because I came across as someone who did not just go to law school on a whim, but perhaps a more thoughtful person with actual goals and preferences. Admittedly this might be difficult to do if you don't have much work or internship experience on your resume.

I have serious WE, a legit reason for coming to law school (specific practice of law), and communicated this (even with the "I just finished 1L, what do I really know/I really like your summer program because it will allow me to do something I'm interested in while getting exposure to all of your different practice areas). It backfired.

Its just a risky approach to take. I'm sure with the right practice area, its fine. With others, you are screwed.

I had a specific practice area, which fit perfectly with my 1L job. I didn't get as many callbacks as my classmates, but I got an offer from every cb. So yeah, risky but it paid off and the firm where I am going is really well regarded for the practice area I want.