Top Law Schools

So, no-offers are bad.

I was hoping to get a practicing attorney's view/their firm's view when they are discussing a candidate who got no-offered.

Are the discussions different between a 2L that was no offered, and a 1L who was no offered?

In addition, what can a candidate do to prove to the new firm that despite the no offer, they have sharpened their skills and will do excellent work with the new firm?

Would also be interested.

The topic of hiring and no-offers came up one day at lunch (with partners). People that work hard who are smart and get along with others get offered. The few no-offers they had over the years were in-part due to laziness, having their work constantly corrected and not playing nice with others. FWIW: No-offers are not casually dispersed.

This came up during my SA over a lunch. The problem is that the attorneys relate a no-offer the only way they know how, by looking at the SAs in the past at their own firm that have been no-offered. Chances are they will write you off as lazy/incompetent regardless of your individual circumstances, as that is historically who gets no-offered at their own firm.

iLaw wrote:The topic of hiring and no-offers came up one day at lunch (with partners). People that work hard who are smart and get along with others get offered. The few no-offers they had over the years were in-part due to laziness, having their work constantly corrected and not playing nice with others. FWIW: No-offers are not casually dispersed.

Lol

e: just looked through your shitty posting history. You're an SA. Kill yourself

User has been warned.

So is it safe to assume that a no-offered 1L SA is viewed the same as a no-offered 2L SA?

iLaw wrote:The topic of hiring and no-offers came up one day at lunch (with partners). People that work hard who are smart and get along with others get offered. The few no-offers they had over the years were in-part due to laziness, having their work constantly corrected and not playing nice with others. FWIW: No-offers are not casually dispersed.

You realize this is just their talking point, right? It's really easy for a firm to call someone "lazy" and no-offer them when they don't have space for everyone in their class because they don't want to list the real reason the person was no-offered. People like you will believe them because you think you're better than the person who was no-offered. You're not.

At my T14, I know of at least 9 people who was no-offered. There's probably more that I just don't know about. I've been told this year's no-offer rate is worse by CS. It'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".

Anonymous User wrote:At my T14, I know of at least 9 people who was no-offered. There's probably more that I just don't know about. I've been told this year's no-offer rate is worse by CS. It'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".

I don't think people with no offers are considered lazy. I have never heard that. Don't buy what that moron said. The fundamental problem is that firms have many more qualified applicants than they have jobs available. The no offer is a criteria they can use as a filter to cut people out from the group of applicants.

People know that no offers can be indications of financial issues at a firm. But the firm is not going to admit it.

It is a high hurdle to overcome. You need to use connections and hard work to get another job.

I don't know about no offered 1 Ls. It isn't that common. I would say it is a similar issue.

But: I would never talk about how you've learned from mistakes. I'm not sure how OP is presenting the 1L sA experience and no offer but it sounds like you are doing it wrong.

.

As a no-offered 1L, I've definitely changed my approach.

First, you may not even be asked. You may be asked something like, "So, why are you interested in us, and not simply going back to your 1L firm."

When I first got that question, I talked about how I had a positive summer, but got mixed reviews on some projects, and did not receive a return offer. But I learned from my mistakes, and all positive reviews the rest of the summer. DON'T DO THIS.

Instead, do some damn good research on the firm you're interviewing with, and explain to them why you're not going back to your 1L firm because this new firm has a strong specialty in [x] area.

In addition, if you're making the move from a big law firm to a mid-size law firm, talk about how you would enjoy a mid-size firm more because of the immediate opportunity to work on substantive work, etc.

Unless they straight up say, "Did you get a return offer?" I think it's acceptable for me to pivot towards why you want to join the new firm over going back to your 1L firm.

Yet, if they do straight up ask, don't lie.

Anonymous User wrote:So is it safe to assume that a no-offered 1L SA is viewed the same as a no-offered 2L SA?

A lot of firms don't ever offer 1L's. I don't think it's nearly as bad.

Have firm's criteria on no-offering someone changing?

It seems that in the past (pre-recession) that no-offers were solely because of the individual.

Yet now, no-offers seem to be a combination of the individual and the firm simply not having the money to bring on that person.

Or, to be more cynical, the firm simply over-estimated how many summer associates they could bring on, and no-offered the people who were good, but not rockstars.

shumpshump wrote:

iLaw wrote:The topic of hiring and no-offers came up one day at lunch (with partners). People that work hard who are smart and get along with others get offered. The few no-offers they had over the years were in-part due to laziness, having their work constantly corrected and not playing nice with others. FWIW: No-offers are not casually dispersed.

You realize this is just their talking point, right? It's really easy for a firm to call someone "lazy" and no-offer them when they don't have space for everyone in their class because they don't want to list the real reason the person was no-offered. People like you will believe them because you think you're better than the person who was no-offered. You're not.

Eh, I'll say that at my firm, the rare no offers we give are usually because the person was strangely unable to get along with people, pissed of someone in particular, or was otherwise weird. We're a 100% offer firm (that's the goal) - and truly you have to EARN your no-offer with us, and that was true even through the recession. In other words, every no-offer I've ever heard of has a great story behind it. Thus, for lack of other reference, I would think a 2L who got no-offered was damaged goods.

As for a 1L no-offer - never encountered it, but personally I wouldn't think negatively of it. It's a 1L job, who cares.

I worked my 1L summer at a foreign office of a relatively small international law firm, with a small presence in the US. The foreign office doesn't offer any of its 1L SAs - it assumes they're all going back to the US and will get jobs there.

I was worried that during OCI and CBs people would ask me whether I got an offer, but no one did - out of almost 30 screeners and 10 or so CBs. Some people asked whether I wanted to return to the foreign market, and I explained why I didn't.

As one of the anon's said above, just focus on explaining why you would rather work for the firm you're interviewing with. My guess is that it's also important not to sound defensive or upset when asked about your 1L summer. If they don't ask whether you were offered, they might instead guess based on your emotional response.

I've witnessed three no-offers over several summers.

1) Horrible work-product. Didn't do what was asked, missed deadlines, etc. It's fine to make mistakes, but you should make sure you understand what's being asked of you and make sure to meet all deadlines.

2) Total douche. Went to YHS, and on the first day, asked an associate from a tier-two law school "how are you here?" There were several similar incidents. You don't have to be super outgoing or anything; summers who are socially-clueless will still get offers as long as they're nice. Behavior like that, however, will lead to a no-offer.

3) Was only interested in one practice-group, and refused to take work from any others. The practice group he was interested wasn't hiring. If you're at a firm that hires by practice group, you shouldn't refuse work from groups you aren't interested in.

I think it may come down to why you were no-offered. If you were no offered for work product or social issues, it might be best to be vague about it. If you were no-offered for economic reasons or other issues not of your own doing, it's in your best interest to fully explain the situation so attorneys don't start guessing why.

I was no offered this summer (my 2L summer) solely for economic reasons. As much as I am pissed off with the firm for it, I straight up asked the firm what I should tell other firms, and they, to their credit, did not hesitate to tell me to say it was solely for their financial reasons. I think it's probably because they actually wanted to hire me (my satellite office recommended me to the home office for hire) that they have been pretty supportive. In my situation, I feel if I fully explain the situation, I can hope the no-offer stigma doesn't hurt me too much.

1L summer no offers aren't nearly as bad, imo.

shumpshump wrote:

iLaw wrote:The topic of hiring and no-offers came up one day at lunch (with partners). People that work hard who are smart and get along with others get offered. The few no-offers they had over the years were in-part due to laziness, having their work constantly corrected and not playing nice with others. FWIW: No-offers are not casually dispersed.

You realize this is just their talking point, right? It's really easy for a firm to call someone "lazy" and no-offer them when they don't have space for everyone in their class because they don't want to list the real reason the person was no-offered. People like you will believe them because you think you're better than the person who was no-offered. You're not.

You realize this is just the talking point of people who got no-offered, right? It's really easy for someone who got no-offered to say "the firm is evil and screwed me" and "I really wasn't bad at my job, it was undisclosed financial reasons!" because they don't want to accept the possibility that they got no-offered because they weren't as good as the rest of the summers. Seriously, when was the last time you heard someone who got no-offered admit that they fucked up something major and deserved it? Sure, this isn't going to always be the case, and some SAs get no-offered for circumstances entirely out of their control, but you people who act like law firms are just flipping coins when deciding which of their SAs to no-offer are just living in a delusion.

Do you guys really think that no one is ever fired for meritorious reasons in the real world? There are a couple thousand SAs hired every year, how can so many of you honestly sit here and argue that all of them are equally employable?

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

KidStuddi wrote:

shumpshump wrote:

iLaw wrote:The topic of hiring and no-offers came up one day at lunch (with partners). People that work hard who are smart and get along with others get offered. The few no-offers they had over the years were in-part due to laziness, having their work constantly corrected and not playing nice with others. FWIW: No-offers are not casually dispersed.

You realize this is just their talking point, right? It's really easy for a firm to call someone "lazy" and no-offer them when they don't have space for everyone in their class because they don't want to list the real reason the person was no-offered. People like you will believe them because you think you're better than the person who was no-offered. You're not.

You realize this is just the talking point of people who got no-offered, right? It's really easy for someone who got no-offered to say "the firm is evil and screwed me" and "I really wasn't bad at my job, it was undisclosed financial reasons!" because they don't want to accept the possibility that they got no-offered because they weren't as good as the rest of the summers. Seriously, when was the last time you heard someone who got no-offered admit that they fucked up something major and deserved it? Sure, this isn't going to always be the case, and some SAs get no-offered for circumstances entirely out of their control, but you people who act like law firms are just flipping coins when deciding which of their SAs to no-offer are just living in a delusion.

Do you guys really think that no one is ever fired for meritorious reasons in the real world? There are a couple thousand SAs hired every year, how can so many of you honestly sit here and argue that all of them are equally employable?

It's 10 weeks and it's the first time the vast majority of the people have exposure to that kind of work. Many summers will be "bad at their job" at some point during the summer.

The problem I see is that people hear "no-offer" and the default assumption is that the person did some wrong or was very awkward or something else negative. This shouldn't be the default assumption, no matter what firms might say.

bk1 wrote: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.

Yet again, I don't know why "the talking point of the people who got no-offered" is automatically more suspect than the talking point of firms - firms don't have any purer motives in giving explanations than the no-offered do. Yes, some people get no-offered because of work product or personal awkwardness. But that doesn't mean that, when confronted with someone who was no-offered, the default assumption should be that the no-offered person is less capable than those who got offers (especially when you're talking globally, across all students/firms).

KidStuddi wrote:

bk1 wrote: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 did a 1L SA at a firm that regularly rejects 1L summers after great performance reviews and after having established they were a great fit at the firm because of grades. The give summer offers before seeing grades and didn't ask for my transcript until my last week. It was a nerve wracking summer to say the least. But I don't think this is uncommon in some markets.

NYstate wrote:

KidStuddi wrote:

bk1 wrote: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.