Top Law Schools

Law firms, in their acceptance letters, almost always say they will do (1) a background check and (2) a conflicts check. What exactly does the "conflicts check" entail? Thanks.

Anonymous User wrote:Law firms, in their acceptance letters, almost always say they will do (1) a background check and (2) a conflicts check. What exactly does the "conflicts check" entail? Thanks.

A check to see if you have ethics conflicts with firm clients. If you summered at MoFo and worked on Apple V. Samsung Litigation, Quinn Emanuel can't hire you without giving up Samsung as the client.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Law firms, in their acceptance letters, almost always say they will do (1) a background check and (2) a conflicts check. What exactly does the "conflicts check" entail? Thanks.

A check to see if you have ethics conflicts with firm clients. If you summered at MoFo and worked on Apple V. Samsung Litigation, Quinn Emanuel can't hire you without giving up Samsung as the client.

So I'm guessing that working in a clinic that represents low-income clients should probs be okay?

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Law firms, in their acceptance letters, almost always say they will do (1) a background check and (2) a conflicts check. What exactly does the "conflicts check" entail? Thanks.

A check to see if you have ethics conflicts with firm clients. If you summered at MoFo and worked on Apple V. Samsung Litigation, Quinn Emanuel can't hire you without giving up Samsung as the client.

So I'm guessing that working in a clinic that represents low-income clients should probs be okay?

It's rarely an issue for SA and first year hiring.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Law firms, in their acceptance letters, almost always say they will do (1) a background check and (2) a conflicts check. What exactly does the "conflicts check" entail? Thanks.

A check to see if you have ethics conflicts with firm clients. If you summered at MoFo and worked on Apple V. Samsung Litigation, Quinn Emanuel can't hire you without giving up Samsung as the client.

Uh no they will just put up a Chinese Wall, it happens all the time.

2014 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Law firms, in their acceptance letters, almost always say they will do (1) a background check and (2) a conflicts check. What exactly does the "conflicts check" entail? Thanks.

A check to see if you have ethics conflicts with firm clients. If you summered at MoFo and worked on Apple V. Samsung Litigation, Quinn Emanuel can't hire you without giving up Samsung as the client.

Uh no they will just put up a Chinese Wall, it happens all the time.

What would be the point of saying your employment is contingent upon passing a "conflict check" if they could just put up this Chinese Wall thingy?

Because if you are conflicted out of a critical mass of the firm's business surely it just isn't worth it anymore. I wasn't refuting that conflict checks matter only the assumption that if they hire you they have to boot the client. Most people can just go about their business and get staffed on other things.

2014 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Law firms, in their acceptance letters, almost always say they will do (1) a background check and (2) a conflicts check. What exactly does the "conflicts check" entail? Thanks.

A check to see if you have ethics conflicts with firm clients. If you summered at MoFo and worked on Apple V. Samsung Litigation, Quinn Emanuel can't hire you without giving up Samsung as the client.

Uh no they will just put up a Chinese Wall, it happens all the time.

This isn't entirely true and it depends on what the ethical rules in your state are. Where I am, it's unethical to accept employment when you have a conflict of interest based on work at another firm (I think it applies likewise to a firm extending employment). The "wall" isn't enough, the firm you're applying to also has to obtain conflict waivers from the client causing the conflict. I had a CB at a firm for a 2L job cancelled the day before it happened because my work at a 1L firm created a conflict. It was easier for the firm to just move on to the next candidate rather than worry about getting the waivers.

2014 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Law firms, in their acceptance letters, almost always say they will do (1) a background check and (2) a conflicts check. What exactly does the "conflicts check" entail? Thanks.

A check to see if you have ethics conflicts with firm clients. If you summered at MoFo and worked on Apple V. Samsung Litigation, Quinn Emanuel can't hire you without giving up Samsung as the client.

Uh no they will just put up a Chinese Wall, it happens all the time.

Aren't there levels of conflict too high for a Chinese wall?

Anonymous User wrote:

2014 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Law firms, in their acceptance letters, almost always say they will do (1) a background check and (2) a conflicts check. What exactly does the "conflicts check" entail? Thanks.

A check to see if you have ethics conflicts with firm clients. If you summered at MoFo and worked on Apple V. Samsung Litigation, Quinn Emanuel can't hire you without giving up Samsung as the client.

Uh no they will just put up a Chinese Wall, it happens all the time.

Aren't there levels of conflict too high for a Chinese wall?

yes but as a summer, it's highly doubtful you trigger them

Anonymous User wrote:

2014 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Law firms, in their acceptance letters, almost always say they will do (1) a background check and (2) a conflicts check. What exactly does the "conflicts check" entail? Thanks.

A check to see if you have ethics conflicts with firm clients. If you summered at MoFo and worked on Apple V. Samsung Litigation, Quinn Emanuel can't hire you without giving up Samsung as the client.

Uh no they will just put up a Chinese Wall, it happens all the time.

This isn't entirely true and it depends on what the ethical rules in your state are. Where I am, it's unethical to accept employment when you have a conflict of interest based on work at another firm (I think it applies likewise to a firm extending employment). The "wall" isn't enough, the firm you're applying to also has to obtain conflict waivers from the client causing the conflict. I had a CB at a firm for a 2L job cancelled the day before it happened because my work at a 1L firm created a conflict. It was easier for the firm to just move on to the next candidate rather than worry about getting the waivers.

What jurisdiction is this?

fyi say ethical wall, not chinese wall to people are your firm, not very PC anymore

dood wrote:fyi say ethical wall, not chinese wall to people are your firm, not very PC anymore

Can't tell if srs.

BVest wrote:

dood wrote:fyi say ethical wall, not chinese wall to people are your firm, not very PC anymore

Can't tell if srs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_wall

In Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. Superior Court 200 Cal.App.3d 272, 293–294, 245 Cal.Rptr. 873, 887–888 (1988), Presiding Justice Low wrote:
The term has an ethnic focus which many would consider a subtle form of linguistic discrimination. Certainly, the continued use of the term would be insensitive to the ethnic identity of the many persons of Chinese descent. Modern courts should not perpetuate the biases which creep into language from outmoded, and more primitive, ways of thought.

no, i didnt edit the wiki page, but stupid quotes aside, just trust me bro, better safe than sorry