How are summer associates picked? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I'm curious to know whether or not is it mainly the partners that make the decision or do the associates have heavy say in who get's picked. For example if your interview went well with partners, but so-so with the associates (mainly one) is this bad? At one of my call backs, I was told that one of the associates is going to be running the summer associate program, does that mean that that associate will be picking who will be in the class?

[JusticeJackson]

.

[jbagelboy]

[Anonymous User]

Similar system for entry level hires/laterals?

[Anonymous User]

There are no rules. At my firm, summer associate offers are decided by the "recruiting committee," which is composed of a mix of partners and associates. Those invited for callbacks are usually interviewed by at least one or two members of the committee. Obviously an associate who is on the committee will have a lot more say than someone who does nothing more than fill out an online evaluation. But if an important partner really wants someone to get an offer, then it won't matter what anyone else thinks.

Similar system for entry level hires/laterals?

In my experience the associates' opinions are basically irrelevant, because the hiring decisions are far more important. My firm only hires into specific practice groups rather than general corporate or litigation, and since the partners making the hiring decisions are going to be directly working with the associates hired, they will hire whoever they feel most confident about.

[TooOld4This]

In my experience, it is rare that someone who gets an actual bad review will get hired, no matter who gave that review. There are generally too many qualified candidates to justify hiring someone that really stood out as a poor candidate.

That said, it is hard to tell if someone actually didn't like you. Some interviewers are tough on everyone, some are tougher on candidates they like (if you know you are going to ding someone, there is no point in wasting energy actually "testing" them), etc. Also, if someone at the top has a really strong positive opinion, it is much less likely that a junior person will weigh in with a negative review.

As for associates running the summer program, that is often an administrative function. This will give greater substantive input, but it would be rare for associates to be in charge of actual hiring decisions.

[Anonymous User]

well one of the big partners really liked me - he was there when the firm just opened their office in Boston. I met with my screener again (who is a partner) and he asked for my writing sample (again). Two of the other partners that I had to interview with one was kind of so-so, she really didn't ask much, just explained what she does and whether or not I have questions. The other partner asked me more behavioral questions and why this firm yada yada yadee. I just don't know about the other three associates (one of them i felt like did not like me). The other two were nice and engaging at the lunch.

[Anonymous User]

This is mostly speculation on my part as I just did OCI this past summer. In my experience, it seemed that to get an offer, a candidate needs to have (at the worst) decent interviews with all of the interviewers. At one callback, I felt like I had five generally solid interviews, and one sub-par one, and I got dinged. And the one was a first year associate. I think one negative review will result in a ding.

[Anonymous User]

My firm's recruiting committee makes the choice but their criteria is almost entirely whether you got a "yes" vote from everyone who did a CB interview with you (normally half partners half associates). If anyone says no for any reason, there are enough other candidates that they will ding you. I'm sure they have discretion to deviate in rare circumstances but it just doesn't really happen.

[Anonymous User]

So if an associate says no to a candidate, you guys don't think that that associate can get out voted by a partner or partners and therefore that candidate can still be in the running?

Same theory if one partner didn't like you, can that partner be out voted by a majority of other partners?

[patogordo]

dude, it depends on the firm and also makes no difference at all. go play some xbox or something.

[Scotusnerd]

dartboard.

[TooOld4This]

So if an associate says no to a candidate, you guys don't think that that associate can get out voted by a partner or partners and therefore that candidate can still be in the running?

Same theory if one partner didn't like you, can that partner be out voted by a majority of other partners?

I don't think you are really understanding what an oversupply of candidates there are and how fungible they are. There is generally no reason to make an offer to someone who actually got a really bad review in callbacks. Partners don't care that much about any one candidate to bother overriding an associate vote. In fact many partners want the feedback of associates and staff to see if candidates act differently with different levels of the hierarchy.

If you are talking about a small firm that hires into a particular group, then yeah, if a partner says I want him, sure, other votes don't count as much. But in large firms, one vote not to make an offer is a huge issue.*

*again, you have know way of knowing whether someone will actually recommend against hiring -- your "feel" for how the interview went is useless. Also, many firms have scaled feedback, and there is a difference between a "eh" review and a recommendation not to hire.

[smallfirmassociate]

Our small firm does 1L OCI instead of 2L so that we can be picky without worrying about screwing up students' careers if we don't offer them. We're particularly picky about personality fit and credentials (especially writing ability, as we do a lot of appellate work), so some years we don't hire any SA's. Of the SA's we do hire, we offer about one in every four to six. The choice has to be unanimous or very close to it. The managing partner's opinion is usually the starting point in discussion and carries a lot of weight, but everyone's opinion--partner or associate--is a major factor. If any one attorney has major questions, issues, misgivings, then it's probably a no-offer.

[JusticeJackson]

.

[911 crisis actor]

Summer associates are picked when they get ripe

[mbison]

FWIW, I'm an associate who said no to a candidate this year that we ended up hiring. Surprised me quite a bit, as I have done a whole ton of interviewing at multiple firms and have never had this happen. I have had plenty of candidates that I said yes to that got dinged though.

[Anonymous User]

So if an associate says no to a candidate, you guys don't think that that associate can get out voted by a partner or partners and therefore that candidate can still be in the running?

Same theory if one partner didn't like you, can that partner be out voted by a majority of other partners?

It's not a matter of "voting", at most firms anyway. Typically, everyone will submit reviews, and the reviews will be used in assessing the candidate. Only a few people on the recruiting committee will actually make the decision, which often includes no one you actually met.

For what it's worth, I gave genuinely bad reviews to three candidates I met during the hiring process this year, out of about 12 who I met in some capacity. Two didn't get offers, but one did, to my surprise, though thankfully she did not accept. (Extra surprising because she did not seem particularly impressive otherwise [grades, background, etc.], which I don't factor into my recommendations, but I would have understood if we gave her an offer because she had 10 Hs at Harvard even if an associate didn't like her much.)

[patogordo]

what did people do on CBs to get bad reviews

[Anonymous User]

what did people do on CBs to get bad reviews

Bad-mouth other law firms. Talk constantly about prestige. Those were the two biggest and most common problems.

[patogordo]

what did people do on CBs to get bad reviews

Bad-mouth other law firms. Talk constantly about prestige. Those were the two biggest and most common problems.

yea those are also the reasons i turned down firms

i was hoping for something juicier though

[jbagelboy]

what did people do on CBs to get bad reviews

Bad-mouth other law firms. Talk constantly about prestige. Those were the two biggest and most common problems.

Question about "bad-mouthing" other firms. To what extent is this frowned on when its brought up by the attorney, and how can it be avoided? Obviously its uncouth to specifically slam a firm ("Yea, I hated everyone at X"), but often at callbacks, partners would name drop other firms and comment negatively on something about them to highlight an attribute of their own practice (i.e., "Debevoise had 60 attorneys billing on this investigation, and as a testament to our great lean staffing model here, we did a better job with five!"). I felt like almost every firm (not all but nearly) took some time to contrast themselves positively with peers or other markets, naming specific other firms as examples, and its a bit awkward to disagree/not respond in kind, which leads to some inadvertent bad mouthing.

[XxSpyKEx]

Our small firm does 1L OCI instead of 2L so that we can be picky without worrying about screwing up students' careers if we don't offer them. We're particularly picky about personality fit and credentials (especially writing ability, as we do a lot of appellate work), so some years we don't hire any SA's. Of the SA's we do hire, we offer about one in every four to six. The choice has to be unanimous or very close to it. The managing partner's opinion is usually the starting point in discussion and carries a lot of weight, but everyone's opinion--partner or associate--is a major factor. If any one attorney has major questions, issues, misgivings, then it's probably a no-offer.

What is the starting salary at your firm, and what are the major practice areas that it actually gets business in? That seems insanely harsh if it's a $60k /year job doing personal injury work. Probably pretty reasonable if you work at a firm like Bartlit Beck, though.

[smallfirmassociate]

Our small firm does 1L OCI instead of 2L so that we can be picky without worrying about screwing up students' careers if we don't offer them. We're particularly picky about personality fit and credentials (especially writing ability, as we do a lot of appellate work), so some years we don't hire any SA's. Of the SA's we do hire, we offer about one in every four to six. The choice has to be unanimous or very close to it. The managing partner's opinion is usually the starting point in discussion and carries a lot of weight, but everyone's opinion--partner or associate--is a major factor. If any one attorney has major questions, issues, misgivings, then it's probably a no-offer.

What is the starting salary at your firm, and what are the major practice areas that it actually gets business in? That seems insanely harsh if it's a $60k /year job doing personal injury work. Probably pretty reasonable if you work at a firm like Bartlit Beck, though.

Since you asked:

We're not in a major market, but we are a full-service firm. That means we do civil litigation, a lot of appellate work (I've drafted sections of four appellate briefs in the past three weeks), represent municipalities, school districts, municipal utilities, etc., do some family law, lots of estate planning / trusts / probate, along with a decent amount of bankruptcy and criminal defense work (state and federal), plus taxes, and I'm sure other stuff I'm forgetting. Associate pay is ok; profits per partner are nearly double most other area firms just because we tend to get first dibs at the most profitable litigation and have almost all the local government clients. It's hard to categorize the firm. I can take on a new divorce client, then draft an appellate brief section, then a city ordinance, then back to "shitlaw," all in the same day sometimes. I think people will accuse me of being in a unicorn firm, but I don't think this is all that extraordinary for the proverbial big fish in a small pond: a preeminent firm in an area without a ton of population but with some good incomes and profitable natural resources, industries, etc.

We're selective about associate hiring because we need someone who can be credible to a divorce client, then to a guy facing a 25 year sentence for a felony, then meet with a city administrator and police chief regarding our defense of an excessive force lawsuit, then return to the office and knock out a memo on the remedy of contract rescission in a case of undue influence. We can't hide associates from being client-facing, and we can't afford to have a bad writer on staff who can't do his own appellate briefs and help others if needed. In addition, the firm doesn't want to just leverage associates and burn through them. Our model only works if we get good associates and transform them into partners who uphold the reputation and retain our clients.

[JusticeJackson]

.