Top Law Schools

I am a V50 associate in DC and I'll be conducting on-campus interviews tomorrow. I just received a packet of resumes, cover letters, and transcripts, and I am now glancing over them in preparation for my interviews. I figured it would be fun to do a role reversal for a change: ITT, rising 2Ls - or others - get to give advice to interviewers.

What questions do you (or don't you) want us to ask? Do you want us to give you information about the firm, or just sit and listen while you make your pitch? Do you like tough questions or softballs? Substantive legal conversation or behavioral/personal interviewing?

As an added bonus, I will actually consider your input this evening before I do my interviews tomorrow.

Put the emphasis on the interviewee to carry the conversation - let them sink or swim at their own risk

Do not sugar coat anything - be frank when necessary

Go into each interview optimistic, but if the interviewee sucks, don't fake it

Make eye contact (can't tell you how many interviewers looked above me and acted as if I couldn't tell)

When asked a question, do not carry on and on about it - be short and concise - if the interviewee isn't satisfied by the response, they'll delve a bit deeper.

Keep in mind interviewees only have 20-30 minutes to paint a good portrait of themselves for you, so don't take up all the time bullshittin' bout the weather




* These are just some thoughts I've had regarding my interviewers

I always just like the basic standard interviews. Ask me about my resume, what classes I'm taking, why law, why certain classes. Why x city. Convo will flow from that. I hated being asked if I was good at something. Are you a good writer was probably the most common question I hated. There's no way for a modest, normal person to answer that.

it would be pretty cool if you would tell people at the end whether you were or were not going to recommend them for a call back it would be ballsy on your part but I think most people even those you said no to would appreciate not having to stew on it for a while. I also realize there are prob some borderline cases where you wouldnt know right then, but there have got to be some obvious tankers/standouts.

edit: I realize your recommendation is prob not the deciding factor on a call back but just telling them your rec. one way or the other would be cool and prob give them at least a little better idea.

Anonymous User wrote:Put the emphasis on the interviewee to carry the conversation - let them sink or swim at their own risk

You are a horrible person.

ymmv wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Put the emphasis on the interviewee to carry the conversation - let them sink or swim at their own risk

You are a horrible person.

I stopped reading after that opening

as can you be the one person who doesn't ask why law school...and instead of asking what your biggest weakness is ask them what their biggest failure was and how they overcame it.

Anonymous User wrote:

ymmv wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Put the emphasis on the interviewee to carry the conversation - let them sink or swim at their own risk

You are a horrible person.

I stopped reading after that opening

Whoops, last anon was me. I would suggest literally doing the opposite of everything in post 2 (except for the point about eye contact)

Be ready for the walk-in assault. Almost every interviewer at GW this morning got pepper with ~10 kids as soon as they walked in the door. If you know how you're going to answer "Can we speak on a break or after your schedule?" question, you'll save both sides a ton of frustration.

Anonymous User wrote:I am a V50 associate in DC and I'll be conducting on-campus interviews tomorrow. I just received a packet of resumes, cover letters, and transcripts, and I am now glancing over them in preparation for my interviews. I figured it would be fun to do a role reversal for a change: ITT, rising 2Ls - or others - get to give advice to interviewers.

What questions do you (or don't you) want us to ask?

Don't ask "so what questions do you have for me" until the last five minutes of the interview, if you must ask it at all. Better for everyone to let the interviewee ask you questions organically in between your questions.

Do you want us to give you information about the firm, or just sit and listen while you make your pitch?

By all means, tell us what you think we should know. Share the strengths of the firm and the most unique aspects, legit and BS alike.

Do you like tough questions or softballs?

Personally I find "tough" more interesting, if you mean what I think you mean. Probably best to go for a mix.

Substantive legal conversation or behavioral/personal interviewing?

Please don't ask law school exam type questions. You already have our grades, so you know whether we're capable of issue spotting under pressure.

Personal/resume questions are our favorites and will probably tell you the most about us. Good for everyone.

As an added bonus, I will actually consider your input this evening before I do my interviews tomorrow.

You sound pretty chill. Just make casual conversation. You and the interviewee alike will have the best time, and you'll learn the answer to the all-important "would I grab a drink with this person / are they a psychopath" question.

Please ask about more than just summer work. If they have previous WE, give them a chance to talk about it. Giving someone a chance to speak about their previous WE gives them a chance to explain their skills, their story, and I think you will find some really great bits to grab a hold of.

All my interviews that have gone well have actually taken a real read through of my WE and talked about it as a whole.

My worst interviews talk about my summer job and then weird random anecdotes about themselves.

Just be conversational and at least act like you want to be there. Smiling and making eye contact help. I've had a couple interviews where the interviewer was downright rude and acted like I was wasting their time.

I don't mind tough questions outside of some ridiculous HR hypo type of questions.

Great thread. I am a junior who will be interviewing some candidates soon. It's not that easy being on this side of the desk either.

OP here. Thanks for the input so far. When I did OCI, I remember enjoying some interviews and hating others, completely irrespective of success or failure with the firm. Since the majority of students I meet won't be called back (firm has a target 10% callback rate), I'd like to at least provide an enjoyable experience. Allow me to respond to a few comments to spur further discussion:

atcushman wrote:it would be pretty cool if you would tell people at the end whether you were or were not going to recommend them for a call back . . . I realize your recommendation is prob not the deciding factor

I totally would've wanted the same thing as a student. Unfortunately, I'm not allowed to do this. Even if I could, it would get pretty awkward, since my rejection would likely be perceived as a personal judgment (it sort of is). I'm not prepared to say "your GPA is great but I'm rejecting you because you're too weird to carry on a basic conversation." As far as the importance of my recommendation, I can't guarantee a callback by recommending you, but if I reject you, it will be final.

atcushman wrote:can you be the one person who doesn't ask why law school

I will not be asking this question. I will likely ask only two generic questions: (1) why my firm and (2) what area of law do you want to practice. The answers aren't particularly important, but they do reveal the candidate's level of maturity and seriousness. The rest of my questions will be about the candidate's experience, with a few minutes left to solicit questions from the candidate at the end.

ymmv wrote:Personally I find "tough" more interesting, if you mean what I think you mean

By tough, I do not mean "greatest weakness" or "tell me about a difficult situation." I don't think these are tough at all; a good candidate should've prepared them as well as they've prepared "greatest strength" and "tell me about an achievement." I mean legitimately addressing the weaknesses in your resume. For example, if a candidate has a decent GPA and expresses interest in litigation, do I ask what gives with the B- in torts? What if a candidate has a year or longer gap in their resume? What about the candidate who has exclusively public interest experience? The candidate who registered for fluff classes in 2L fall unrelated to their supposed practice area of choice?

People say "tell me about a difficult situation and how you responded" is a bullshit question. It is. Say "tell me about a time you failed and how you responded. Gets some very real answers

Anonymous User wrote:Great thread. I am a junior who will be interviewing some candidates soon. It's not that easy being on this side of the desk either.

It really should be though. If you run out of things to ask and for some reason don't have a prepared list of questions - which you should - just work your way down/up the interviewee's resume. For the love of god, please don't just sit there and stare blankly at the wall or clam up after 10 seconds whenever the student asks you a question. Ramble on about yourself and your work and the firm. Enjoy being a narcissist, because for once the person across the table would rather hear about you than try to run the conversation unilaterally.

It's a little like a date, only a thousand times easier because you know the other person wants to go home with you, and all you have to do meanwhile is decide whether you'd be OK with them in your bed.

ymmv wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Great thread. I am a junior who will be interviewing some candidates soon. It's not that easy being on this side of the desk either.

It really should be though. If you run out of things to ask and for some reason don't have a prepared list of questions - which you should - just work your way down/up the interviewee's resume. For the love of god, please don't just sit there and stare blankly at the wall or clam up after 10 seconds whenever the student asks you a question. Ramble on about yourself and your work and the firm. Enjoy being a narcissist, because for once the person across the table would rather hear about you than try to run the conversation unilaterally.

It's a little like a date, only a thousand times easier because you know the other person wants to go home with you, and all you have to do meanwhile is decide whether you'd be OK with them in your bed.

beautiful metaphor

Anonymous User wrote: What about the candidate who has exclusively public interest experience?

Definitely ask this. I had a public interest oriented resume, so most interviewers ask about each experience without asking why I now have an interest in the private sector. I've definitely thought about this - enough to have a response better than $$$, but most interviewers I think shy away from asking an upfront question such as this.

You should ask this because the interviewee will be placed on the spot to produce a compelling reason or, on the other hand, you will find that the interviewee really doesn't know and just wants cash (as we all do) but doesn't have the time to think of responses to questions that should be asked.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote: What about the candidate who has exclusively public interest experience?

Definitely ask this. I had a public interest oriented resume, so most interviewers ask about each experience without asking why I now have an interest in the private sector. I've definitely thought about this - enough to have a response better than $$$, but most interviewers I think shy away from asking an upfront question such as this.

You should ask this because the interviewee will be placed on the spot to produce a compelling reason or, on the other hand, you will find that the interviewee really doesn't know and just wants cash (as we all do) but doesn't have the time to think of responses to questions that should be asked.

I totally agree. I'm getting a JD/MBA and you would be remiss to not ask whether I'm looking to do something related. I thing the same applies to heavy public interest resumes.

By tough, I do not mean "greatest weakness" or "tell me about a difficult situation." I don't think these are tough at all; a good candidate should've prepared them as well as they've prepared "greatest strength" and "tell me about an achievement." I mean legitimately addressing the weaknesses in your resume. For example, if a candidate has a decent GPA and expresses interest in litigation, do I ask what gives with the B- in torts?

You're a lawyer. You should know full well that law school grades are not only arbitrary as fuck, but that a B- in torts is not an indicator of a person's ability to be a litigator by any stretch of the imagination. If their GPA is above your floor, that's really all you need to know about their grades.

It's not the worst question in the world, but I can tell you that the student will be rolling their eyes internally and wondering why you would make them address something so idiotic when you could be talking about literally a thousand more interesting and relevant things. It forces them to make up some bullshit apologia for why they had an A+ in Civ Pro but a B- in torts when the real answer is that they have no fucking clue because The Curve and/or asshole professor and/or they felt sick as a dog that day, none of which they can tell you because it would sound like a whiney excuse.

What if a candidate has a year or longer gap in their resume?

Definitely ask about that. Either they're hiding something or they have a really interesting reason that they would love to tell you about.

What about the candidate who has exclusively public interest experience?

I have mixed feelings about this, and don't really feel qualified to answer since it wasn't a direct issue for me. Other anon's advice seemed solid:

Definitely ask this. I had a public interest oriented resume, so most interviewers ask about each experience without asking why I now have an interest in the private sector. I've definitely thought about this - enough to have a response better than $$$, but most interviewers I think shy away from asking an upfront question such as this.

You should ask this because the interviewee will be placed on the spot to produce a compelling reason or, on the other hand, you will find that the interviewee really doesn't know and just wants cash (as we all do) but doesn't have the time to think of responses to questions that should be asked.

The candidate who registered for fluff classes in 2L fall unrelated to their supposed practice area of choice?

Dude, it's 2L. You know none of it matters. But ask them anyway if you must; they probably have a clever BS rationale they'd love to share with you and thereby kill some time.

Thanks for doing this. One of my favorite interviewers asked me what I was looking for in a firm. Conversely, he also asked me if there were any qualities in a firm that would dissuade me from working for them. I also liked the "what do you think will be one of the challenges of this job" and "tell me about a time you failed" questions.

ymmv wrote:

The candidate who registered for fluff classes in 2L fall unrelated to their supposed practice area of choice?

Dude, it's 2L. You know none of it matters. But ask them anyway if you must; they probably have a clever BS rationale they'd love to share with you and thereby kill some time.

I actually think this would be an interesting question. It's easy for us to tell you we want to practice xyz if we've looked up your firm's website and know that your firm specializes in xyz. So from that perspective, our class choices may be more telling of our real interests (unless we took a class just because it was required, or because we heard it had an easy curve). Sure, not everyone is going to give you a straight answer. But I think it could be an interesting question.

As a K-JD, I love behavioral questions. It allows me to oversell my experiences without the "over" part coming out.

I enjoy interviews where the interviewer interweaves personal details, not just career details. Usually, a personal detail gives me an opening to bring something up spontaneously, and it keeps the convo fluid! This gives you a chance to bring out unrehearsed answers and get to know your interviewees a little better