Top Law Schools

Pretty self-explanatory. I know employers like to see students in interviews show that they are truly interested in the firm and have done their research. Along those lines, would mentioning that you read and were interested in a law review article that someone who is interviewing you wrote show initiative?

maybe if you are prepared to talk about the substance of it / you have experience in the area. Always think about the endgame here: you want to bring up topics that you can eventually turn around to display your strengths.

From partners/associates that I've spoken to, most - if not all - find it somewhat unsettling.

I suppose unless you're really into/knowledgeable about that particular topic (perhaps even coincidentally writing a note on a similar subject), then go for it.

However, the interview is 20 minutes about you. That degree of minute focus on the interviewer can be both off-putting and completely irrelevant to them.

ryegye87 wrote:Pretty self-explanatory. I know employers like to see students in interviews show that they are truly interested in the firm and have done their research. Along those lines, would mentioning that you read and were interested in a law review article that someone who is interviewing you wrote show initiative?

This has happened to me a couple of times. In one case, student mentioned reading my article as part of assigned reading for a course, and was able to discuss in context and relate it to other ideas covered in the class. In other case, student had googled me, found the article and read it (or claimed to have read it) out of "interest" but really couldn't discuss it intelligently. I'll let you guess which one I responded to positively and which one I didn't.

Best time would be that awkward last 5 minutes when you are expected to ask questions. Maybe then you could mention that you read it, and come up with a question about how this relates to a specific practice area of the firm, or perhaps a question about whether attorneys at the firm are encouraged to write, like the interviewer did. First 15 minutes should be about you, and this should be brought up only if you think you can work in to natural conversation without being stalkerish.

Anonymous User wrote:

ryegye87 wrote:Pretty self-explanatory. I know employers like to see students in interviews show that they are truly interested in the firm and have done their research. Along those lines, would mentioning that you read and were interested in a law review article that someone who is interviewing you wrote show initiative?

This has happened to me a couple of times. In one case, student mentioned reading my article as part of assigned reading for a course, and was able to discuss in context and relate it to other ideas covered in the class. In other case, student had googled me, found the article and read it (or claimed to have read it) out of "interest" but really couldn't discuss it intelligently. I'll let you guess which one I responded to positively and which one I didn't.

Are you a professor? I've totally done the latter. STUPID, I know! That was the old me... haha

gators88 wrote:Best time would be that awkward last 5 minutes when you are expected to ask questions. Maybe then you could mention that you read it, and come up with a question about how this relates to a specific practice area of the firm, or perhaps a question about whether attorneys at the firm are encouraged to write, like the interviewer did. First 15 minutes should be about you, and this should be brought up only if you think you can work in to natural conversation without being stalkerish.

Both the "about you" tips ITT are only kindof correct. The best way to talk about yourself is to relate your strengths to the problems the place your interviewing at needs to solve. If you can connect your interviewers prior experience in a job or with a publication with the firm and your own background, that's a great interview strategy. Dividing it into a strict talk about you / talk about them binary is the wrong way to think about it. Forbes had a good article on this--based on studies they found that interviews are never about "you" they are about how you can add value to the employer. Since the interviewer presumably was hired as well back in the day for their background, I bet their law review article is somehow related to the work they do at the firm. For example, I found in my interviews that a interviewers past activities in law school had some connection to the pro bono work.

Where's the line between creepy and not creepy? If I know that we went to the same (small) undergrad, I should bring that up right?

Anonymous User wrote:Where's the line between creepy and not creepy? If I know that we went to the same (small) undergrad, I should bring that up right?

of course, use it as the ice-breaker. hell, even if it's a large UG. Everyone loves to talk about the glory days

I don't think mentioning anything that is directly on their bio/lawyer page is creepy. I'd use that as the litmus test.

Younger Abstention wrote:I don't think mentioning anything that is directly on their bio/lawyer page is creepy. I'd use that as the litmus test.

+1. Don't google stalk, but looking at your interview's bio page is always fair game.