Top Law Schools

http://abovethelaw.com/2013/08/what-sho ... o-offered/

The above link highlights a thread on TLS, a thread that was apparently taken down by someone.... hard to figure why.

If no offered, TCR is a fed clerkship.



OK Lat

JamMasterJ wrote:If no offered, TCR is a fed clerkship.



OK Lat

Lat only gives advice that applies to YLS grads.

JamMasterJ wrote:If no offered, TCR is a fed clerkship.



OK Lat

It does seem to be the best option. Seems like you can hustle a flyover clerkship if you are just a little over median.

Curious why TLS yanked the entire thread…. especially a thread interesting enough for ATL to feature it. What’s up with that?

J. D. wrote:Curious why TLS yanked the entire thread…. especially a thread interesting enough for ATL to feature it. What’s up with that?

I get it, but it's probably an attempt to protect the anonymity of the poster.

I can all but guarantee that's what prompted the yanking.

In other news, does this mean ATL regularly reads TLS? If so, does that mean we're famous?

(HI LAT)

(By the way, I’m using the feminine pronoun not because the SA is necessarily a woman but just because I’m being politically correct. The SA might be a man.)

Oh, Lat.

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:

JamMasterJ wrote:If no offered, TCR is a fed clerkship.



OK Lat

Lat only gives advice that applies to YLS grads.

Borrow money from your parents if you have to, start a business!

IAFG wrote:

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:

JamMasterJ wrote:If no offered, TCR is a fed clerkship.



OK Lat

Lat only gives advice that applies to YLS grads.

Borrow money from your parents if you have to, start a business!

Can I get 500 grand to start the next amazon?

There is already a thread where this post and no offers are discussed. If people need advice or to vent.


http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=212272

NYstate wrote:There is already a thread where this post and no offers are discussed. If people need advice or to vent.


http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=212272

I think this thread is just to discuss how much ATL is a festering TTT blog.

Danger Zone wrote:

NYstate wrote:There is already a thread where this post and no offers are discussed. If people need advice or to vent.


http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=212272

I think this thread is just to discuss how much ATL is a festering TTT blog.

Which makes me hopeful that they will post about Bearsgrl's ban.

The thread was about an SA who did a whistleblower number on someone at the firm during the exit interview and s/he was then no-offered. This wasn’t the typical no-offer because the stars were not in alignment.

J. D. wrote:The thread was about an SA who did a whistleblower number on someone at the firm during the exit interview and s/he was then no-offered. This wasn’t the typical no-offer because the stars were not in alignment.

Your description is off. she had been told to expect an offer. when asked a question put to her by people she thought she could trust, she gave an honest answer.

Anyway, article was linked in two different threads yesterday.

Danger Zone wrote:

NYstate wrote:There is already a thread where this post and no offers are discussed. If people need advice or to vent.


http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=212272

I think this thread is just to discuss how much ATL is a festering TTT blog.

I'm shocked at how much it has gone downhill. I think they were wrong to write an article that could out someone who was no offered. She is already in a tough spot. Also, that they would gchat about threads on TLS is extremely lame.
They need to find some real stories. Maybe a reader here sent them the link.

I'm sure some of the posters here could start their own blog consisting of gchat discussion of TLS threads and do a much better job than ATL.

NYstate wrote:

J. D. wrote:The thread was about an SA who did a whistleblower number on someone at the firm during the exit interview and s/he was then no-offered. This wasn’t the typical no-offer because the stars were not in alignment.

Your description is off. she had been told to expect an offer. when asked a question put to her by people she thought she could trust, she gave an honest answer.

IMHO: Your version is a bit sugarcoated. Since s/he claimed to have the offer locked, then why-o-why go the whistleblower route? The exit interview is not a bright light in your face interrogation, it’s a two minute hi/bye.

J. D. wrote:

NYstate wrote:

J. D. wrote:The thread was about an SA who did a whistleblower number on someone at the firm during the exit interview and s/he was then no-offered. This wasn’t the typical no-offer because the stars were not in alignment.

Your description is off. she had been told to expect an offer. when asked a question put to her by people she thought she could trust, she gave an honest answer.

IMHO: Your version is a bit sugarcoated. Since s/he claimed to have the offer locked, then why-o-why go the whistleblower route? The exit interview is not a bright light in your face interrogation, it’s a two minute hi/bye.

Do you know what a whistle blower is? She was asked a question and she answered it. I am guessing she answered truthfully because she thought the firm that was going to hire her cared about her.

J. D. wrote:

NYstate wrote:

J. D. wrote:The thread was about an SA who did a whistleblower number on someone at the firm during the exit interview and s/he was then no-offered. This wasn’t the typical no-offer because the stars were not in alignment.

Your description is off. she had been told to expect an offer. when asked a question put to her by people she thought she could trust, she gave an honest answer.

IMHO: Your version is a bit sugarcoated. Since s/he claimed to have the offer locked, then why-o-why go the whistleblower route? The exit interview is not a bright light in your face interrogation, it’s a two minute hi/bye.

Why are you such a shitty poster?

NYstate wrote:Do you know what a whistle blower is? She was asked a question and she answered it. I am guessing she answered truthfully because she thought the firm that was going to hire her cared about her.

I think s/he pretty much is the whistleblower poster person. Seriously, maybe there is more to it than we know because to me the timing makes no sense. Our differences is that you are taking it at face value and I believe there has to be more to it. Given the circumstances as you know them, what would you have said in the exit interview?

J. D. wrote:

NYstate wrote:Do you know what a whistle blower is? She was asked a question and she answered it. I am guessing she answered truthfully because she thought the firm that was going to hire her cared about her.

I think s/he pretty much is the whistleblower poster person. Seriously, maybe there is more to it than we know because to me the timing makes no sense. Our differences is that you are taking it at face value and I believe there has to be more to it. Given the circumstances as you know them, what would you have said in the exit interview?

How is this remotely helpful to anyone, to crap on the person who is now no-offered? And why do you think there has to be more to it? Because you just don't want to think that things can go badly for someone who hasn't done anything wrong and we're not actually in control of our fates?

Besides, when asked the question, you don't know why the firm asked. They could have just as easily asked because they had problems in the past, want to clean up their act, and wanted to know if they're hiring someone who will be willing to talk about problems and help keep them from getting their asses sued in future. There are certainly reasons not to tell the truth in that situation, but there's no reason to crap on someone who decides to do so. The person in question wasn't posting a pity-me thread, they just wanted advice on how to move forward.

It's just a little back n' force on an internet board. Cool your jets.

And why do so many people post as an Anonymous User?

Crap, that was supposed to be me (nice that I can fix that).

And it's a back and forth on a message board about a real person who's in a sucky position.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:Crap, that was supposed to be me (nice that I can fix that).

And it's a back and forth on a message board about a real person who's in a sucky position.

Point taken. So what now... just do not discuss it?

Ludovico Technique wrote:

J. D. wrote:

NYstate wrote:

J. D. wrote:The thread was about an SA who did a whistleblower number on someone at the firm during the exit interview and s/he was then no-offered. This wasn’t the typical no-offer because the stars were not in alignment.

Your description is off. she had been told to expect an offer. when asked a question put to her by people she thought she could trust, she gave an honest answer.

IMHO: Your version is a bit sugarcoated. Since s/he claimed to have the offer ld, then why-o-why go thewhistleblower route? The exit interview is not a bright light in your face interrogation, it’s a two minute hi/bye.

Why are you such a shitty poster?

Seriously. Every fucking post from this guy is a marvel of douchiness.