Any attorneys with insight on firm's view on no-offers? Forum

[A. Nony Mouse]

No, no one thought you should hand out LR invites like candy. They just thought you shouldn't use people's performance on one artificial exercise conducted at the end of 1L to judge people's ability to be a lawyer. All it shows you is someone's ability to perform that particular artificial exercise (which is even less like actual practice than most law school activities). I mean, a LR rejection isn't even analogous to getting no-offered.

And just because not everything is arbitrary doesn't mean nothing is arbitrary. Come on.

[NYstate]

We know bro, your brilliant legal mind is fucking leagues ahead of all those idiots whose write-ons you had to read.

Oh right, sorry. I'm not allowed to express the opinion that some people are better at some things than others. That offends the sensibilities of this forum where every other thread is about ranking which school, which firm, which practice group is "better." But ranking people? Totally not cool.

Bro, you need to stop drinking the law firm kool aid. Keep your eye on what is actually happening around you in your firm, your practice and your market. You are the number one person who will be blind sided when your firm stealths you or your friends. Pay attention to reality for your own self- interest.

You have no sense of what big law firm hiring and practice is really like. Let me break this down for you: the partners don't need you or anyone else other than to do their work. If for any reason their work slows or their own money is at risk, you're gone. The old days when only people who didn't fit in got no offered (and note that classes were much larger then so the total number of people getting no offered was a tiny percentage of a class maybe one or two out of more than a hundred people) and everyone kept their job through at least the first few years as long as they passed the bar are over. Those days ended with the crash. They aren't coming back.

Get over yourself and stop judging people you know nothing about.

I don't feel entitled to have a job. If understanding that means I've drunk the kool-aid, then I guess I've drunk the kool-aid. You, on the other hand, seem to feel that partners should owe something to their associates other than the shitload of money they throw at you? Why exactly? I think it's you and your kind who need to wake up. You're all so worried that the deck is stacked against you that you've given up even trying to play your hands.

I'm the one arguing that people are being cut for cause, not because of some cosmic bad luck. How the hell will I ever be blindsided when I'm the one arguing that no one is intrinsically valuable? I'm the one advocating getting up everyday and acting like you could be fired if you don't bring absolutely everything you have to table. I'm advocating working damn hard to be provide real value to a firm in the language they understand (re:billables and work product that makes the partner's lives easier), and saying, if you don't cut it, don't be under any delusion that it was just arbitrary. Me personally, I'm well aware that I'm working for a business and if I'm not worth having, they'll cease having me; I wouldn't have it any other way. BK1 thinks I have an inflated sense of self because, when I was asked to select people to invite to join my journal, I did the exact same thing partners do and invited only those who I felt would make my life easier (i.e. not idiots). I don't know why this became a controversial statement -- apparently people think I should have just picked people random to join law review because that would reinforce the caricature of how you guys seem to think law firms run their business.

See, you think that you have control here by workin hard and bringing value as if all the stealthed and lathamed people didn't do the same damn thing. You're missing the point. Doing all those things you plan to do will not save you if the economy goes south or maybe just doesn't go as well as projected. Maybe you will have to experience for yourself seeing hard working and talented people get fired before you will get what I'm tring to warn you about. You are very foolish if you don't think that can happen.

I know the deck isn't stacked against me because my firm has stuck with me through a lot of time of illness and disability. But I also have strong connections with partners who support me. Other people don't have that. I've seen plenty of random shit happen to good lawyers. Just stop acting like everything is in your control and that the people who are no offered or stealthed deserved what happened because they are lazy or weird. It just isn't true.

[KidStuddi]

No, no one thought you should hand out LR invites like candy. They just thought you shouldn't use people's performance on one artificial exercise conducted at the end of 1L to judge people's ability to be a lawyer. All it shows you is someone's ability to perform that particular artificial exercise (which is even less like actual practice than most law school activities). I mean, a LR rejection isn't even analogous to getting no-offered.

And just because not everything is arbitrary doesn't mean nothing is arbitrary. Come on.

The original context of the LR analog was people striking out at OCI, not being no-offered. BK1 brought it up here to illustrate that I'm a pompous asshole. Guilty as charged. Still, I think a LR rejection is pretty similar to not being offered a CB after reviewing a firm reviews your resume, transcript and a writing sample (all things that I had too, btw), and I still don't understand how what firms do can be called arbitrary without saying what I did in grading write-ons was also arbitrary.

And I'm not arguing that nothing is arbitrary, I'm arguing that no one is trying to be arbitrary. If firms have to cut an SA for financial reasons, they aren't getting rid of the guy everyone thinks is the best SA (re: the SA they think will make them the most money). Unless a firm no-offers its entire summer class, even if the underlying reason they're not making 100% offers is financial, they'll still not making the determination of who to cut by flipping a coin. I've always been willing to admit that firms will sometimes get this wrong, and if you want to argue that people should take no-offers with a grain of salt because human judgment is imperfect, fine, but it doesn't mean hiring committees are just throwing darts at names to decide who gets a chance at a career in BigLaw as suggested by posts like this:

t's not fair if those of us who were not lucky enough to have powerful partners go to bat for us are automatically considered "lazy".

People like you will believe them because you think you're better than the person who was no-offered. You're not.

[KidStuddi]

See, you think that you have control here by workin hard and bringing value as if all the stealthed and lathamed people didn't do the same damn thing. You're missing the point. Doing all those things you plan to do will not save you if the economy goes south or maybe just doesn't go as well as projected. Maybe you will have to experience for yourself seeing hard working and talented people get fired before you will get what I'm tring to warn you about. You are very foolish if you don't think that can happen.

I know the deck isn't stacked against me because my firm has stuck with me through a lot of time of illness and disability. But I also have strong connections with partners who support me. Other people don't have that. I've seen plenty of random shit happen to good lawyers. Just stop acting like everything is in your control and that the people who are no offered or stealthed deserved what happened because they are lazy or weird. It just isn't true.

I don't think I have absolute control over other people's decisions; I just don't pretend that my actions and failings have nothing to do with their decisions. What I can control, I will try to control. What I can't control, I won't simply dismiss as being arbitrary because I think I'm the only rational actor in the world.

[Summerz]

No-offered is another way of saying “you’re fired.” So how does one convey that their firing is not an accurate reflection of their work or personality? Sorry to say but I believe a few posters accurately deduced the attitude of firms dealing with no-offered prospects. The good news is, people can bounce back from a no-offer.

[A. Nony Mouse]

KidStuddi, you seem to interpret "arbitrary" as "capricious," or a conscious choice on the part of the people making hiring decisions to abandons standards (e.g. partners deciding who to no-offer). I think the rest of us are using it to mean simply "things outside of the applicant's control." If all the SAs are good and in a normal year all would get offered, but the year isn't normal, then to a certain extent yes, firms are flipping a coin to decide which SA(s) to cut, and making those decisions according to factors that have nothing to do with the individual SA's work or abilities and outside of their control (who has a big partner to go to bat for them. Which practice groups are least oversubscribed).

[NYstate]

See, you think that you have control here by workin hard and bringing value as if all the stealthed and lathamed people didn't do the same damn thing. You're missing the point. Doing all those things you plan to do will not save you if the economy goes south or maybe just doesn't go as well as projected. Maybe you will have to experience for yourself seeing hard working and talented people get fired before you will get what I'm tring to warn you about. You are very foolish if you don't think that can happen.

I know the deck isn't stacked against me because my firm has stuck with me through a lot of time of illness and disability. But I also have strong connections with partners who support me. Other people don't have that. I've seen plenty of random shit happen to good lawyers. Just stop acting like everything is in your control and that the people who are no offered or stealthed deserved what happened because they are lazy or weird. It just isn't true.

I don't think I have absolute control over other people's decisions; I just don't pretend that my actions and failings have nothing to do with their decisions. What I can control, I will try to control. What I can't control, I won't simply dismiss as being arbitrary because I think I'm the only rational actor in the world.

Too bad you can't control being a stubborn idiot who has no interest in understanding or taking advice based on experience. I said if business is slow or the partners money is at stake, you are expendable. Is that saying it is arbitrary?

Maybe you should read the news articles about the fired associates at Weil. I'm sure you will blame them too. I have a strong feeling that unless you are at Cravath or S&C, your attitude is going to be a huge problem at your job.

I guess you enjoy trolling. I've got no more time to waste on you.

[NYstate]

KidStuddi, you seem to interpret "arbitrary" as "capricious," or a conscious choice on the part of the people making hiring decisions to abandons standards (e.g. partners deciding who to no-offer). I think the rest of us are using it to mean simply "things outside of the applicant's control." If all the SAs are good and in a normal year all would get offered, but the year isn't normal, then to a certain extent yes, firms are flipping a coin to decide which SA(s) to cut, and making those decisions according to factors that have nothing to do with the individual SA's work or abilities and outside of their control (who has a big partner to go to bat for them. Which practice groups are least oversubscribed).

He wants to believe that all his success is based in his great talent and dedication. He is offended by the idea that people who have the same or greater talent and dedication might lose jobs. He has to believe it is their fault, not the economy, the firm or the partners.

He reminds me of all those stockbrokers who thought they were geniuses before the crash and interpreted their ability to make money in a rising market as proof of their ability. Then the crash hit and they had to understand that they weren't as good as they thought. He thinks that because he got a job that everyone who didn't must be inferior. I can see him either being stealthed or having work place issues because no one can stand working with him. He doesn't get the social part of work at all. He better be the smartest person in his class, which seems unlikely. I give him at most 2-3 years at a firm, maybe less if we hit another downturn.

What can I say, I dislike this guy. I think his attitude will come across at work and this will bite him in the ass.

And now I expect him to post about how he is charming IRL.

[mbison]

I have done a ton of interviews for two different firms, and both had a place on the evaluation form to write down the candidate's past SA positions and whether or not he/she got an offer. So, I have always had to ask very directly whether the candidate got an offer to return, both for 1L's and 2L's.

My sense is that it would be very difficult to overcome a no-offer of any kind. It's such a buyer's market for firms that there usually isn't much reason to consider somebody who likely failed at least one of the very low bar on competent work product or the very low bar on social competence.

[Anonymous User]

I was no offered as a 1L this past summer by a large firm and currently have a summer position lined up for next summer at an even better Vault 50.

When I was no offered, I was pretty shocked but I also paid attention during the summer and could tell that there was simply no room for every summer to be offered. I know my work product was good. How do I know? Because it was rare that my research memos were not literally forwarded to our clients by the partners as the firms official advice. If they felt that my work product was not up to snuff, this would never happen. The firm did offer at least one of the other 1Ls (and that 1L turned down their offer in part for fear of being no offered the next summer). He/she worked with only several of the partners, one of which was the head of recruiting (I never did any work for him). Because this 1L's work flow was so limited in scope, I'm sure that he/she did an excellent job. Also, he/she managed to maintain a 3.8-3.9 GPA which I'm sure helped.

Following my no offer, I heard from many of the attorneys in the office expressing their dismay that I would not be returning. Interestingly enough, the partners not directly involved with hiring cited economics as the reason for the no offer. The partners heavily involved with recruiting cited stiff competition for limited seats.

When I intervied at OCI, the "no offer" question rarely came up and when it did, I cited economic reasons. All frms seemed to understand. Being no offered is not necessarily an inidcation of poor performance. As I said above, I worked for many of the partners in my office (more than 15 partners) and my work product was praised. Its unfortunate that I was unable to obtain work from the hiring partner and others were able to but such is life.

[OneMoreLawHopeful]

He wants to believe that all his success is based in his great talent and dedication. He is offended by the idea that people who have the same or greater talent and dedication might lose jobs. He has to believe it is their fault, not the economy, the firm or the partners.

He reminds me of all those stockbrokers who thought they were geniuses before the crash and interpreted their ability to make money in a rising market as proof of their ability. Then the crash hit and they had to understand that they weren't as good as they thought. He thinks that because he got a job that everyone who didn't must be inferior. I can see him either being stealthed or having work place issues because no one can stand working with him. He doesn't get the social part of work at all. He better be the smartest person in his class, which seems unlikely. I give him at most 2-3 years at a firm, maybe less if we hit another downturn.

What can I say, I dislike this guy. I think his attitude will come across at work and this will bite him in the ass.

And now I expect him to post about how he is charming IRL.

This is such a terrible strawman that I'm having a hard time respecting your opinions going forward.

KidStuddi is not saying that luck didn't play a part in his own success. You wish he was saying that because you want someone to hate, but that does not mean he is actually claiming that.

Your posts make it sound like law firms, unlike every single other for-profit business in the world, make personnel decisions based upon dice-rolls. Simply put: they do not. When someone is no-offered or fired, there was a reason for it.

When the reason is "economics," they're going to start by looking at things like hours - if you're billing 1900 a year and the other guy in your class billed 2100, guess who's going to go. At some firms this will mean the difference between 2200 and 2250. This is not to say that the guy billing 2200 wasn't working hard - a 2200 hour year can be brutal for months on end, but it also isn't to say that he was let go based on a dice-roll: there was a real, rational, definable reason why he was let go. This is all KidStuddi is saying.

You brought up the decimation of the Weil litigation group in Boston. Yes, that is a great example of a termination beyond anyone's control - the whole group was let go, and so individual success did not matter. But that is also NOT the vast majority of no-offers, which is the topic of this thread. For every Winston & Strawn there are dozens of offices that no-offered 1 guy because he missed 3 deadlines in a 10-week time period. Pointing to Weil or Winston and claiming that this should shift the default view of what a "no offer" means is hollow argument because Weil and Winston do not define the market. The anon who posted up-thread about the 3 no offers he had seen "over the years" is far more typical - bad personality, missed deadlines, refusal to take work from other practice groups.

Some people definitely get terminated through no fault of their own - but you have not demonstrated that this is where the majority of no-offers come from. Unless and until you can demonstrate that, there is no reason to shift from a point of view that a no-offer is earned more often than it is not.

This is also not to say that someone who was no-offered is objectively lazy, stupid, or arrogant. It's just to say that they were comparatively worse than those in their class. If the firm hired 6 summers but only has room for 5 associates, they're not going to roll dice, they're going to ask who missed a deadline, who couldn't hold a conversation with others, and who turned down work when they weren't busy. Missing 1 deadline in a field of work that you have never done before doesn't make you lazy, but if the other 5 summers didn't miss any, you cannot say you worked as hard as them. You may have still worked hard, no one is saying you didn't. But that doesn't mean the firm is deciding your fate on a dice roll either.

[bjsesq]

Former Winston SA caught in the 2012 shitfest signing in to tell you folks defending firms' no offers as signs of SA's shortcomings: die in a massive dumpster fire.

[OneMoreLawHopeful]

Former Winston SA caught in the 2012 shitfest signing in to tell you folks defending firms' no offers as signs of SA's shortcomings: die in a massive dumpster fire.

We get it: you're bitter. You have every right to be, you were treated unfairly.

But can you prove that the majority of no-offered summer associates were treated equally unfairly? And if you cannot, why should we shift our views?

[Anonymous User]

I’m a practicing attorney at a biglaw firm and a summer I was very close with was no-offered. That summer rushed through 2-3 projects for high-level partners that worked in a practice group the summer had no interest in, but did good work with the group s/he wanted to be in. Unfortunately, the 2-3 high level partners really thought the work was a disaster and lobbied hard to get her/him no offered. His biggest supporters were lower level partners in the group he wanted to be in, but all the higher level partners in that group were super busy on a trial/deal/closing/etc. for the entire summer, so they had no input. The high level partners won.

In the end, in what I think is a move of rationalization, everyone but a handful of people that really liked the summer now act like s/he did terrible work and deserved the no-offer. In sum, the firm tries not to think of it, and when they need to, they rationalize. No one wants to go to work every day for an evil employer, so they ignore the things that point that way.

[bjsesq]

Former Winston SA caught in the 2012 shitfest signing in to tell you folks defending firms' no offers as signs of SA's shortcomings: die in a massive dumpster fire.

We get it: you're bitter. You have every right to be, you were treated unfairly.

But can you prove that the majority of no-offered summer associates were treated equally unfairly? And if you cannot, why should we shift our views?

I'm venting. Let me.

[bk1]

I’m a practicing attorney at a biglaw firm and a summer I was very close with was no-offered. That summer rushed through 2-3 projects for high-level partners that worked in a practice group the summer had no interest in, but did good work with the group s/he wanted to be in. Unfortunately, the 2-3 high level partners really thought the work was a disaster and lobbied hard to get her/him no offered. His biggest supporters were lower level partners in the group he wanted to be in, but all the higher level partners in that group were super busy on a trial/deal/closing/etc. for the entire summer, so they had no input. The high level partners won.

In the end, in what I think is a move of rationalization, everyone but a handful of people that really liked the summer now act like s/he did terrible work and deserved the no-offer. In sum, the firm tries not to think of it, and when they need to, they rationalize. No one wants to go to work every day for an evil employer, so they ignore the things that point that way.

Thanks for sharing. Do you think that these people then apply that same mentality to people who they interview who have been no offered?

To try and further get this shitshow back on track: have any attorneys here actually had hiring discussions re candidates who were no offered? If so, what did people think?

[Amity]

There were two SAs in my group that were clearly hopeless but they sailed right through. To this degree I believe there is a “cosmic roll of the dice.” I do not know anyone who was no-offered but sadly I do know of several who were never given a chance.

[NYstate]

I’m a practicing attorney at a biglaw firm and a summer I was very close with was no-offered. That summer rushed through 2-3 projects for high-level partners that worked in a practice group the summer had no interest in, but did good work with the group s/he wanted to be in. Unfortunately, the 2-3 high level partners really thought the work was a disaster and lobbied hard to get her/him no offered. His biggest supporters were lower level partners in the group he wanted to be in, but all the higher level partners in that group were super busy on a trial/deal/closing/etc. for the entire summer, so they had no input. The high level partners won.

In the end, in what I think is a move of rationalization, everyone but a handful of people that really liked the summer now act like s/he did terrible work and deserved the no-offer. In sum, the firm tries not to think of it, and when they need to, they rationalize. No one wants to go to work every day for an evil employer, so they ignore the things that point that way.

Thanks for sharing. Do you think that these people then apply that same mentality to people who they interview who have been no offered?

To try and further get this shitshow back on track: have any attorneys here actually had hiring discussions re candidates who were no offered? If so, what did people think?

I've never interviewed anyone who was no offered because I don't do on campus interviewing and I don't think they will get in the door outside someone pulling for them- maybe a senior partner who had them in a class. Or someone from the no offering firm calling to say what a good lawyer the person is.

I've helped one person from my firm who got no offered. She was a top student at a T6 but one partner just didn't like her. Her work was good,it was just personal. She got another job at a firm but she had very strong credentials, she had other partners pulling for her and she could honestly say that the firm just isn't for everybody. ( btw: this and other examples I know about are why I wasted my time trying to argue with people on this thread who somehow want to assume that law firms, most of which are terrible in personnel management, behave like a major corporation when it comes to hiring and firing. )

[Anonymous User]

Thanks for sharing. Do you think that these people then apply that same mentality to people who they interview who have been no offered?

To try and further get this shitshow back on track: have any attorneys here actually had hiring discussions re candidates who were no offered? If so, what did people think?

This is the anonymous you quoted:

They probably do apply the same mentality. There is definitely a stigma. It sucks. I wouldn't apply it because I was a 2009 summer, and I remember how big of a disaster that was. I knew good people that didn't get offers. I also really liked the SA I referenced, and and lobbied hard against a no-offer. In the end, I'm a junior associate and the rainmakers won.

I've never been a part of a hiring decision related to a person that was previously no offered, so this is a little bit of speculation.

[NYstate]

Former Winston SA caught in the 2012 shitfest signing in to tell you folks defending firms' no offers as signs of SA's shortcomings: die in a massive dumpster fire.

We get it: you're bitter. You have every right to be, you were treated unfairly.

But can you prove that the majority of no-offered summer associates were treated equally unfairly? And if you cannot, why should we shift our views?

Wtf? You guys are so solidly drinking firm kool aid that you don't see it as inherently wrong they no offered a number of people after telling everyone that there were spots for everyone?

You tell me, how rationally do you think this process goes? They get a list, the top partners or the busiest groups chose who they want and then everyone else is pretty much a crap shoot. If I had to guess someone like bj might have been on the no offer list just because he is older and has different, though impressive life experience. They might decide to go with a more maleable person. Saying it has to be work product related is incredibly naive.

I'm trying to warn you guys. Just always watch your back. Do not trust your firm to have your best interest at heart.

Sorry bk if I veered off track again. I guess it is living through the recession that scarred me regarding firms.

[bk1]

Sorry bk if I veered off track again. I guess it is living through the recession that scarred me regarding firms.

No need to apologize. This is just an argument that we essentially went through in another thread and didn't want to discourage people at firms from posting their insights (thankfully an anon did that before I even posted that message). Nothing wrong with this tangent though, more that I just hoped to get more people from firms to share their views.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Former Winston SA caught in the 2012 shitfest signing in to tell you folks defending firms' no offers as signs of SA's shortcomings: die in a massive dumpster fire.

We get it: you're bitter. You have every right to be, you were treated unfairly.

But can you prove that the majority of no-offered summer associates were treated equally unfairly? And if you cannot, why should we shift our views?

And I'm sorry to continue the argument, too, and this will be my last comment, but I wanted to answer this: unless you know the specific reason why someone was no-offered - and I mean really know it, from the lion's mouth, not just think you know - it's worth shifting your views and giving the no-offeree the benefit of the doubt, for the sake of human decency and compassion for someone who's going through an extremely crappy experience.

[Anonymous User]

During my SA, I asked what someone has to do in order to get no-offered. The attorneys I worked with said that the only people they gave negative reviews to were those with the wrong attitudes, who didn't get along with others, and who didn't seem open to learning. They said that anyone who showed intellectual curiosity, had a positive attitude, and got along well with others was going to get an offer, even if the work itself contained some mistakes (which of course is inevitable for a beginner).

[andythefir]

During my SA, I asked what someone has to do in order to get no-offered. The attorneys I worked with said that the only people they gave negative reviews to were those with the wrong attitudes, who didn't get along with others, and who didn't seem open to learning. They said that anyone who showed intellectual curiosity, had a positive attitude, and got along well with others was going to get an offer, even if the work itself contained some mistakes (which of course is inevitable for a beginner).

This kind of thing leads me to a question I have for practicing attorneys: if you have never heard of a firm and an applicant got no-offered will you assume that this was the firm's MO? In the South and Texas lots of firms only do 1/2 summers, so their offer rates are much lower. I interviewed with a medium sized firm that was planning on bringing on 10 summers and keeping 1-2. I just don't understand why people talk about no-offers as an apples to apples experience across markets without accounting for regional differences.

[NYstate]

During my SA, I asked what someone has to do in order to get no-offered. The attorneys I worked with said that the only people they gave negative reviews to were those with the wrong attitudes, who didn't get along with others, and who didn't seem open to learning. They said that anyone who showed intellectual curiosity, had a positive attitude, and got along well with others was going to get an offer, even if the work itself contained some mistakes (which of course is inevitable for a beginner).

This kind of thing leads me to a question I have for practicing attorneys: if you have never heard of a firm and an applicant got no-offered will you assume that this was the firm's MO? In the South and Texas lots of firms only do 1/2 summers, so their offer rates are much lower. I interviewed with a medium sized firm that was planning on bringing on 10 summers and keeping 1-2. I just don't understand why people talk about no-offers as an apples to apples experience across markets without accounting for regional differences.

No I wouldn't assume this. You should do something in the cover letter maybe to explain it. Not sure the best way to deal with this. Until I was on this forum I had no clue that southern firms hire this way. I would not assume lawyers in other regions are aware of this different approach.