Top Law Schools

Was interviewing a candidate for biglaw. Topic went to what his goals are. Said he wants to invest his career into the firm, but also said that he feels a lot less pressure because earlier that morning he got word of an inheritance that is more than enough to pay off his loans.

Have to complete the evaluation by next week. Is this ding worthy?

Anonymous User wrote:Was interviewing a candidate for biglaw. Topic went to what his goals are. Said he wants to invest his career into the firm, but also said that he feels a lot less pressure because earlier that morning he got word of an inheritance that is more than enough to pay off his loans.

Have to complete the evaluation by next week. Is this ding worthy?

Yes.

I mean it seems kind of douchey to mention it, but I guess you know that he's not someone who is just looking to pay off loans and exit as soon as possible. On the other hand he might be more likely to leave just because he could afford a lower paying job. On balance I guess it's neutral.

Anonymous User wrote:Was interviewing a candidate for biglaw. Topic went to what his goals are. Said he wants to invest his career into the firm, but also said that he feels a lot less pressure because earlier that morning he got word of an inheritance that is more than enough to pay off his loans.

Have to complete the evaluation by next week. Is this ding worthy?

It sounds like he was being honest, and forthright with you. Nothing he said seems to off putting. It seems interviewers complain that applicants are too rehearsed, but then deny a candidate for saying anything that goes off of the prototypical script. How insufferable.

People in their natural state communicate what's on their mind. If you got this news you would want to communicate it if you were comfortable with the person across the table.

There is something seriously wrong with a person that volunteers this type of information during an interview or at all to someone he does not know.

..

I don't think people are giving consideration to how big of a deal this would be if it happened to you. If someone told you tomorrow morning you are receiving 500k, would it be on your mind tomorrow afternoon? The fear shouldn't be that they're a flight risk. If someone hates their job then having debt alone won't keep them there. The fear should be that they're a weirdo.

sublime wrote:I would.

Speaking of, how is having low debt from schollies viewed. I am generally curious, as it may mean someone would be able to leave whenever they wanted.

People shouldn't talk about this stuff with interviewers.

..

sublime wrote:I would.

Speaking of, how is having low debt from schollies viewed. I am generally curious, as it may mean someone would be able to leave whenever they wanted.

Damn holy shit I never thought about it this way. I go to a regional school and whenever people ask why I chose it I say financially it made sense I didn't want to be 250k in debt blah blah but now I'm thinking about the angle that they worry without massive loans you won't hang around.

..

sublime wrote:

lawhopeful10 wrote:

sublime wrote:I would.

Speaking of, how is having low debt from schollies viewed. I am generally curious, as it may mean someone would be able to leave whenever they wanted.

Damn holy shit I never thought about it this way. I go to a regional school and whenever people ask why I chose it I say financially it made sense I didn't want to be 250k in debt blah blah but now I'm thinking about the angle that they worry without massive loans you won't hang around.

Obv depends on the interviewer, but I don't know either, just something I considered. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can chime in.

I had one partner brag about going to a state school and graduating debt free. Multiple times in the interview. So yeah definitely depends on the interviewer.

sublime wrote:

lawhopeful10 wrote:

sublime wrote:I would.

Speaking of, how is having low debt from schollies viewed. I am generally curious, as it may mean someone would be able to leave whenever they wanted.

Damn holy shit I never thought about it this way. I go to a regional school and whenever people ask why I chose it I say financially it made sense I didn't want to be 250k in debt blah blah but now I'm thinking about the angle that they worry without massive loans you won't hang around.

Obv depends on the interviewer, but I don't know either, just something I considered. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can chime in.

There is an obvious difference between someone with a sizable inheritance (and dumb enough to bring it up in an interview) and someone who went to school on a substantial scholarship.

It would be laughable if firms actively wouldn't recruit someone with low debt. BIGLAW is attractive to people without BIGDEBT

I'm not sure how this is even a question. Saying that = serious lapse in judgment.

...

El Pollito wrote:

sublime wrote:I would.

Speaking of, how is having low debt from schollies viewed. I am generally curious, as it may mean someone would be able to leave whenever they wanted.

People shouldn't talk about this stuff with interviewers.

I think it all depends on how you frame it. My explanation for the conspicuous one-year gap in my resume between UG and LS was that "I didn't like my law school prospects at graduation, but I knew I wanted to be a lawyer, so I took a year off to work part-time while improving my law school app. Now between my savings from the year off and the scholarship I got from improving my LSAT score, my decision to go to law school seems much more likely to be a worthy investment." Unless you have a specific reason to bring it up, however, I probably wouldn't.

hichvichwoh wrote:

El Pollito wrote:

sublime wrote:I would.

Speaking of, how is having low debt from schollies viewed. I am generally curious, as it may mean someone would be able to leave whenever they wanted.

People shouldn't talk about this stuff with interviewers.

I think it all depends on how you frame it. My explanation for the conspicuous one-year gap in my resume between UG and LS was that "I didn't like my law school prospects at graduation, but I knew I wanted to be a lawyer, so I took a year off to work part-time while improving my law school app. Now between my savings from the year off and the scholarship I got from improving my LSAT score, my decision to go to law school seems much more likely to be a worthy investment." Unless you have a specific reason to bring it up, however, I probably wouldn't.

Yeah, I think there's a difference between mentioning your financial situation because it fits into your larger "why law school" narrative and is evidence of you being a prudent and responsible person, and bringing it up simply to let someone know how rich you now are.

Anonymous User wrote:Was interviewing a candidate for biglaw. Topic went to what his goals are. Said he wants to invest his career into the firm, but also said that he feels a lot less pressure because earlier that morning he got word of an inheritance that is more than enough to pay off his loans.

Have to complete the evaluation by next week. Is this ding worthy?

Yep.

Doesn't matter much at this point, but when it came up why I didn't K-JD it, I mentioned that 2009-10 was not the best time to go into the legal profession so I decided to wait.

Bad idea or not?

Anonymous User wrote:Doesn't matter much at this point, but when it came up why I didn't K-JD it, I mentioned that 2009-10 was not the best time to go into the legal profession so I decided to wait.

Bad idea or not?

I think I would more just be skeptical of if this was actually true.

Learn_Live_Hope wrote:

sublime wrote:I would.

Speaking of, how is having low debt from schollies viewed. I am generally curious, as it may mean someone would be able to leave whenever they wanted.

That's just plain and simple creepy. That's not something that's brought up in an interview. Your loans are your personal finances. That's like asking you how much you have in your personal checking. It should not concern your prospective employer, and if it does please decline the offer (if you receive one), and never look back.

It's not all that common in BigLaw, but in the working world at large quite a few employers run credit checks on potential employees. I think the reason more firms don't do it themselves is that they've outsourced C&F inquires to the bar examiners; submitting a credit report is required for admission to most state bars. I know VA requires it for sure.

To the original question, scholarships come up pretty often during interviews. "Why'd you pick X school?" is a standard stock question and no one expects you to just pretend money isn't a consideration. So long as you aren't obnoxious about it, it's never going to hurt you.

IMO, if you're going to ding someone for any reason besides "I'm not confident he/she could be an excellent lawyer" or "I'm absolutely convinced this person is an asshole," you need a very, very good reason to do so. This isn't it. He has money so he's not going to be shackled by loans? Okay, fine, law students typically don't exactly come from the other side of the tracks. Then it's a question of his judgment on the answer: The upshot is that he said he wants to invest in a career but doesn't feel "pressured" to do so. Anything wrong with that? Nah. There's nothing even really wrong with saying that; it's just sort of a missed opportunity to highlight his focus. Turning that into a negative would be making a mountain out of a molehill.

But the fact that you'd even consider a ding for an answer like this shows a certain adherence to the omnipresent pedantry in this highly arbitrary process, so I'm guessing your mind's already made up.

Either he has no sense of judgment/social norms or he's a douchebag. Both are ding worthy

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:IMO, if you're going to ding someone for any reason besides "I'm not confident he/she could be an excellent lawyer" or "I'm absolutely convinced this person is an asshole," you need a very, very good reason to do so. This isn't it. He has money so he's not going to be shackled by loans? Okay, fine, law students typically don't exactly come from the other side of the tracks. Then it's a question of his judgment on the answer: The upshot is that he said he wants to invest in a career but doesn't feel "pressured" to do so. Anything wrong with that? Nah. There's nothing even really wrong with saying that; it's just sort of a missed opportunity to highlight his focus. Turning that into a negative would be making a mountain out of a molehill.

But the fact that you'd even consider a ding for an answer like this shows a certain adherence to the omnipresent pedantry in this highly arbitrary process, so I'm guessing your mind's already made up.

This is fucking stupid. Everything in an interview goes to the nebulous term "fit". Based on your reasoning, the guys at the top of the class and without clearly awful social skills should get a callback for every screener, but that doesn't happen. Fit is a thing, and if this guy is stupid enough to bring up his inheritance in a job interview, he'll probably do the same thing at the coffee machine, the printer/copier, in the elevator, during lunch, etc. Believe it or not, having a sense of tact does go into the whole "excellent lawyer" analysis.

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:IMO, if you're going to ding someone for any reason besides "I'm not confident he/she could be an excellent lawyer" or "I'm absolutely convinced this person is an asshole," you need a very, very good reason to do so. This isn't it. He has money so he's not going to be shackled by loans? Okay, fine, law students typically don't exactly come from the other side of the tracks. Then it's a question of his judgment on the answer: The upshot is that he said he wants to invest in a career but doesn't feel "pressured" to do so. Anything wrong with that? Nah. There's nothing even really wrong with saying that; it's just sort of a missed opportunity to highlight his focus. Turning that into a negative would be making a mountain out of a molehill.

But the fact that you'd even consider a ding for an answer like this shows a certain adherence to the omnipresent pedantry in this highly arbitrary process, so I'm guessing your mind's already made up.

But the problem is that there are a lot of qualified non-assholes going out for a very limited number of jobs. Firms can't give callbacks or offers to every candidate who, in the course of a 20 minute interview, doesn't prove that they wouldn't be a great attorney or is a complete asshole. 90% of candidates will pass this test in a 20 minute interview. So you do have to look for smaller things to distinguish candidates by. And forcing into the conversation how you just became a whole lot richer so you DGAF is just the kind of thing to distinguish someone. Is there a chance that this kid is still a good person and would make a great attorney? Sure. But you need something by which to distinguish candidates, and the vast majority of people would have the sense to not bring this up in an interview.