Top Law Schools

A firm I am interviewing with explicitly told me "We dress casually here unless we are going to court. For your interview DO NOT WEAR A SUIT."

Umm...so kahkis? Dress pants and shirt? Tie or no tie? The recruiter made it sound like even tie would be overboard.

Can you ask someone at the firm? Casual means different things at different places.

I'd do khakis and a polo.

Not kahkis; they can look too casual or juvenile or both. Slacks (black, charcoal, light grey, or navy, etc.), button-up shirt, no tie. Look put together and nice.

For women, either a dress or a blouse with a skirt or slacks.

Since they explicitly emphasize their dress code, you have more freedom with colors and patterns, but don't go crazy. It's still an interview, and you still want to look professional.

Good luck!

I would go with dress shoes, dark slacks, and a button down with the top button unbuttoned. Rolling up the sleeves on the button down is about as casual as I would be willing to go for an interview.

a11 1n wrote:I would go with dress shoes, dark slacks, and a button down with the top button unbuttoned. Rolling up the sleeves on the button down is about as casual as I would be willing to go for an interview.

If this place goes out of it's way to say they are casual, I think normal rules go out the window.

I think slacks and dress shoes with a button down is the way I am gonna go. The no tie thing is really weird for me as I have never interviewed or gone into work without a tie, but the recruiter made it pretty clear that they were really casual in the office. I guess I can stand some verbal abuse if they ask why no tie

Is this QE?

Desert Fox wrote:

a11 1n wrote:I would go with dress shoes, dark slacks, and a button down with the top button unbuttoned. Rolling up the sleeves on the button down is about as casual as I would be willing to go for an interview.

If this place goes out of it's way to say they are casual, I think normal rules go out the window.

The only explicit guideline he received was to not wear a suit. Yes they said casual but that is all relative. I would rather be over-dressed than even somewhat under-dressed.

Desert Fox wrote:Is this QE?

?

quinn emanuel

No, not Quinn, though I have applied there as well.

I interviewed with Quinn, as did several friends. Their e-mail said almost exactly the same thing. One of my friends went suit with no tie and was told that was common. The other friend and I both went khakis with a button down. We all wore dress shoes. Mine was very casual (the khakis were not nice, and the button down was not the type of dress shirt I'd wear with a tie). I felt very comfortable and was not in the least bit underdressed. Half the attorneys I met with were in shorts and half were in jeans. We also all got offers. The firm you're interviewing with might be different and maybe you want to dress up a little more than I did, but I don't think a suit is necessary and I definitely wouldn't wear a tie.

BarbellDreams wrote:I think slacks and dress shoes with a button down is the way I am gonna go. The no tie thing is really weird for me as I have never interviewed or gone into work without a tie, but the recruiter made it pretty clear that they were really casual in the office. I guess I can stand some verbal abuse if they ask why no tie

A tie without a jacket isn't strictly proper anyway, and it makes you look like you're selling something. As you get dressier, the jacket goes on, then the tie.

I would probably do suit sans tie. It's usually good practice to err on the more professional end of whatever relevant spectrum you're looking at. I would personally not do khakis because I'd feel silly, but I think that might be somewhat personal, and regional.