Top Law Schools

If the reason firms are more reluctant to hire 3Ls is because they want to "try someone out" for the summer before hiring, then why can't 3Ls who don't have jobs just get a SA at a firm (along with the 2Ls) just for the summer, and then get an offer for the NEXT year (just like the 2Ls) and just do something else during the year?

srsly?

swtlilsoni wrote: If the reason firms are more reluctant to hire 3Ls is because they want to "try someone out" for the summer before hiring, then why can't 3Ls who don't have jobs just get a SA at a firm (along with the 2Ls) just for the summer, and then get an offer for the NEXT year (just like the 2Ls) and just do something else during the year?

3L SA would occur during bar prep?

Because 3Ls might want to spend some time studying for the bar.

i'm not exactly sure of the dates of the bar exam, but since the 3L wouldn't have anything to do fall/spring (after the SA is over) couldn't they just study for the bar then, and take the test before they start full time next fall?

swtlilsoni wrote:i'm not exactly sure of the dates of the bar exam, but since the 3L wouldn't have anything to do fall/spring (after the SA is over) couldn't they just study for the bar then, and take the test before they start full time next fall?

I think your idea certainly has merit. The problem is that it bucks the system, a system that does not embrace change. Nevertheless, see if you can convince a firm to see it your way…. good luck.

Murphy1022 wrote:Because 3Ls might want to spend some time studying for the bar.

Given how hard it is to find a non-biglaw job and how much less those jobs pay, I imagine 3Ls would be willing to take an extra year/suffer through an insane bar prep period to make it happen.

But I think the OP is looking at this the wrong way. Yeah, your proposal would be good for 3Ls who didn't get a 2L SA job. But firms have absolutely no problem staffing themselves under the current system, so there's zero reason for them to change.

I think firms don't do it because they would become even more inundated with applications than they already are. I think they figure that if you couldn't get a job the first time, why should they give you a chance the second time? I don't think this is correct thinking necessarily, and everyone deserves a second chance, but I think this might be on their minds.

but does there have to be an incentive for this "change"? what I mean is, wouldn't the 3L be considered the exact same as the 2Ls? both the 3L and the 2Ls are going to be in the same exact position, only going to be there for the summer, only going to join next year, going through the same exact process, so why even have a distinction? at that point wouldn't the 3L just be considered as a "2L"? then, does the firm really need an incentive or a reason to choose a well-qualified 3L with higher grades than a 2L? wouldn't that be natural? a firm would most likely choose a 3.6 2L over a 3.2 2L, so wouldn't they naturally choose a 3.6 3L over a 3.2 2L without even making a distinction (since they are in the same position anyway)?

I know a few 3Ls who are going to get their LLM so they are participating in OCI along with the 2Ls for SAs....maybe it could work like that?

swtlilsoni wrote:but does there have to be an incentive for this "change"? what I mean is, wouldn't the 3L be considered the exact same as the 2Ls? both the 3L and the 2Ls are going to be in the same exact position, only going to be there for the summer, only going to join next year, going through the same exact process, so why even have a distinction? at that point wouldn't the 3L just be considered as a "2L"? then, does the firm really need an incentive or a reason to choose a well-qualified 3L with higher grades than a 2L? wouldn't that be natural? a firm would most likely choose a 3.6 2L over a 3.2 2L, so wouldn't they naturally choose a 3.6 3L over a 3.2 2L without even making a distinction (since they are in the same position anyway)?

But there is no dearth of of 2Ls with 3.6 GPAs. There's no need to change the system to add more qualified people to the pool because firms can get everyone they need from the current pool.

The thing is, under the traditional lockstep system, a 3L who does an SA, then works for a year and then goes to the firm isn't in the same position as the former 2Ls who go straight out of graduation - the former 3L has a year of experience, and is therefore more like a lateral hire, which would complicate things. (Lockstep isn't as absolutely universal now as it was when the system developed, of course, but still common.)

Of course the system is entirely artificial and there's no reason why it has to be set up this way. But as everyone else has said, it works for the employers, so they don't have any reason to change it.

I guess my question is: what's the benefit of changing it? I know it feels like it would offer another bite at the apple, but it's not going to increase SA slots, so you'd just have 2Ls and 3Ls competing for the same number of slots that 2Ls compete for now.

Because they can find another 2L with no problem.

swtlilsoni wrote:but does there have to be an incentive for this "change"? what I mean is, wouldn't the 3L be considered the exact same as the 2Ls? both the 3L and the 2Ls are going to be in the same exact position, only going to be there for the summer, only going to join next year, going through the same exact process, so why even have a distinction? at that point wouldn't the 3L just be considered as a "2L"? then, does the firm really need an incentive or a reason to choose a well-qualified 3L with higher grades than a 2L? wouldn't that be natural? a firm would most likely choose a 3.6 2L over a 3.2 2L, so wouldn't they naturally choose a 3.6 3L over a 3.2 2L without even making a distinction (since they are in the same position anyway)?

What about 3Ls looking to trade up? are they supposed to sit out a year as well?

2L hiring is basically a result of firms trying to get the most promising students locked up early. BigLaw firms all want the same thing: top schools, top grades, good people skills, maturity. 1L is the only year that students can't try to game the grading system and that everyone takes the same classes. Firms can fill their ranks with 2Ls that meet their critria. In most cases it's not rational for firms to look to hire 3Ls. There isn't an upside and there isn't a need.

unc0mm0n1 wrote: What about 3Ls looking to trade up? are they supposed to sit out a year as well?

No, those few who do this start after the bar. This is why it's emphasized that anyone trying to do this get an offer from their 2L summer firm, because the "trade up" firm is mitigating their risk by relying on the first firm's implicit endorsement expressed through their willingness to give you an offer.

Edit: unless there's an LLM or clerkship or something involved, then I've heard of it functioning more like a 2L SA than just a new full time job.

swtlilsoni wrote:If the reason firms are more reluctant to hire 3Ls is because they want to "try someone out" for the summer before hiring, then why can't 3Ls who don't have jobs just get a SA at a firm (along with the 2Ls) just for the summer, and then get an offer for the NEXT year (just like the 2Ls) and just do something else during the year?

Why can't 3Ls just get a SA? Not sure what you've been reading on here, but getting a biglaw SA is extremely competitive. Few people just "get a SA." And class sizes are getting smaller.

The answer is that there is no room in summer programs as it is. Why would firms take 3Ls? You are misunderstanding the hiring process. 1L grades matter the most for reasons other than OCI is at the beginning of 2L.

Firms do occasionally hire 3Ls but for specific positions.

I'm baffled by what you think this would accomplish.

Just so you know there were only 82 3Ls hired last year (nationwide) according to NALP:
http://www.nalp.org/uploads/Perspective ... uiting.pdf