Top Law Schools

maybe if it's like the Anti-Transgender League

Not OP but wondering the same thing regarding atheist orgs.

is this at TLDEF?

they do good work? I don't know what the problem would be

Anonymous User wrote:Not OP but wondering the same thing regarding atheist orgs.

this seems like it would actually be shaky/something I wouldn't do unless it was part of general free speech thing

Anonymous User wrote:Not OP but wondering the same thing regarding atheist orgs.

Yes to both, I wouldn't want to work with someone preachy.

most atheist orgs that a law student might work at seem to be professional trolls though. I'd give you a CB

Desert Fox wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Not OP but wondering the same thing regarding atheist orgs.

Yes to both, I wouldn't want to work with someone preachy.

I know you're joking, but TLDEF is sponsored by a number of NY firms, so you might have a bad interviewer who is an awful person and would judge you for it, but it's an organization with connections to NY biglaw.

I was going to put "DF call in" in the title but it wouldn't fit.

utahraptor wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Not OP but wondering the same thing regarding atheist orgs.

Yes to both, I wouldn't want to work with someone preachy.

I know you're joking, but TLDEF is sponsored by a number of NY firms, so you might have a bad interviewer who is an awful person and would judge you for it, but it's an organization with connections to NY biglaw.

I wouldn't personally care, but you will be facing like 5-7 people at a firm, with varying opinions.

Some dood at Cadwalader was MAF I worked for free market think tank as a RA during my 1L summer. A partner at Mayerbrown wanted to talk about congress steal ARE MONEY.

It's probably fine, but if you are super borderline, maybe avoid.

Desert Fox wrote: Some dood at Cadwalader was MAF I worked for free market think tank as a RA during my 1L summer. A partner at Mayerbrown wanted to talk about congress steal ARE MONEY.

It's probably fine, but if you are super borderline, maybe avoid.

This seems fair. It seems like pretty much anything will set someone off, though.

I had an interview that consisted of "But human rights law isn't a real thing, right?" and another that moved from IHRL to state sovereignty to me being asked to support the state sovereignty of Israel. (this at a firm known for its CULTURE)

Lawyers are awful interviewers.

(And, that isn't to say that I'm good at interviews. I'm awful. Some of the things you're asked are amazing, though.)

i got accused of disrespecting veterans at a CB lunch

Remember these are rich as fuck boomers who are doing the shot calling. If you don't think at least some of these people think transsexuals are weird and gross, well

All firm diversity stuff is 100% related to marketing and/or recruitment.

fats provolone wrote:i got accused of disrespecting veterans at a CB lunch

I got accused of having PTSD at a callback once.

Thanks everyone!

If anyone has a similar situation (w/r/t trans or SJW places) and did OCI, it would be awesome if you quoted this so I could PM you with questions or just post your experiences in here.

e: this is OP

In my experience, transgender will not be worse than any other political / public interest job. I.e., no one cares about your politics w/r/t interviews, at least at a big firm.

BUT all public interest / politics jobs are inferior to commercially-oriented jobs in terms of positioning yourself for interviews. Transgender Rights OR Ayn Rand Institute both scream someone whose heart isn't in commercial law, which is what we do at big firms.

Of course, nothing is worse than a resume gap, so if your options are political public interest job or barista, the answer is the political public interest job.

fats provolone wrote:i got accused of disrespecting veterans at a CB lunch

story time

eta and corbetti

North wrote:

fats provolone wrote:i got accused of disrespecting veterans at a CB lunch

story time

eta and corbetti

i said one of the things i didn't like about the army was that everyone had a really negative attitude all the time and mostly was just killing time until their enlistment was up

which in hindsight is a perfect analogy for biglaw so im not entirely sure where i was going w/ that.

Anonymous User wrote:In my experience, transgender will not be worse than any other political / public interest job. I.e., no one cares about your politics w/r/t interviews, at least at a big firm.

BUT all public interest / politics jobs are inferior to commercially-oriented jobs in terms of positioning yourself for interviews. Transgender Rights OR Ayn Rand Institute both scream someone whose heart isn't in commercial law, which is what we do at big firms.

Of course, nothing is worse than a resume gap, so if your options are political public interest job or barista, the answer is the political public interest job.

Strong +1 to this. I honestly, in a competitive market, would not hire either of these type of people for a capital markets, corporate, commercial lit, IP, etc. type of practice b/c it just does not show interest in relevant issues or add to the development of relevant skills, business acumen, jargon, etc. The counter is of course that you just did whatever you could get, but you don't want to say that in an interview because it speaks poorly of your ability to get a 1L job versus your peers. Many public interest and government jobs, the majority of 1L positions, evince a strong interest in business, finance, commercial transactions and litigations, etc. (e.g. judge's office, AG's, chamber of commerces, etc.) and would be much better options.

Yet, if you want to do appellate litigation, the above is probably less relevant. But good luck with that, as most litigators at big firms start off doing general commercial lit.

yea im glad i worked at a firm 1L summer. my jargon game is miles ahead of other first years

fats provolone wrote:

North wrote:

fats provolone wrote:i got accused of disrespecting veterans at a CB lunch

story time

eta and corbetti

i said one of the things i didn't like about the army was that everyone had a really negative attitude all the time and mostly was just killing time until their enlistment was up

which in hindsight is a perfect analogy for biglaw so im not entirely sure where i was going w/ that.

my interviewer asked if after deploying i was still able to relate to my classmates

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:In my experience, transgender will not be worse than any other political / public interest job. I.e., no one cares about your politics w/r/t interviews, at least at a big firm.

BUT all public interest / politics jobs are inferior to commercially-oriented jobs in terms of positioning yourself for interviews. Transgender Rights OR Ayn Rand Institute both scream someone whose heart isn't in commercial law, which is what we do at big firms.

Of course, nothing is worse than a resume gap, so if your options are political public interest job or barista, the answer is the political public interest job.

Strong +1 to this. I honestly, in a competitive market, would not hire either of these type of people for a capital markets, corporate, commercial lit, IP, etc. type of practice b/c it just does not show interest in relevant issues or add to the development of relevant skills, business acumen, jargon, etc. The counter is of course that you just did whatever you could get, but you don't want to say that in an interview because it speaks poorly of your ability to get a 1L job versus your peers. Many public interest and government jobs, the majority of 1L positions, evince a strong interest in business, finance, commercial transactions and litigations, etc. (e.g. judge's office, AG's, chamber of commerces, etc.) and would be much better options.

Yet, if you want to do appellate litigation, the above is probably less relevant. But good luck with that, as most litigators at big firms start off doing general commercial lit.

OP here

This seems to run counter to the general TLS "just do something legal they don't care what."

Though I'll have you know I'm now concerned about this.

If I had to pick a dream outcome, it would be appellate lit, but I'm aware that the possibility of that happening is slim-to-none. I figured working somewhere that does some amount of lit (on the atty side) would be good and if it was something I'm super interested in then even better.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:In my experience, transgender will not be worse than any other political / public interest job. I.e., no one cares about your politics w/r/t interviews, at least at a big firm.

BUT all public interest / politics jobs are inferior to commercially-oriented jobs in terms of positioning yourself for interviews. Transgender Rights OR Ayn Rand Institute both scream someone whose heart isn't in commercial law, which is what we do at big firms.

Of course, nothing is worse than a resume gap, so if your options are political public interest job or barista, the answer is the political public interest job.

Strong +1 to this. I honestly, in a competitive market, would not hire either of these type of people for a capital markets, corporate, commercial lit, IP, etc. type of practice b/c it just does not show interest in relevant issues or add to the development of relevant skills, business acumen, jargon, etc. The counter is of course that you just did whatever you could get, but you don't want to say that in an interview because it speaks poorly of your ability to get a 1L job versus your peers. Many public interest and government jobs, the majority of 1L positions, evince a strong interest in business, finance, commercial transactions and litigations, etc. (e.g. judge's office, AG's, chamber of commerces, etc.) and would be much better options.

Yet, if you want to do appellate litigation, the above is probably less relevant. But good luck with that, as most litigators at big firms start off doing general commercial lit.

OP here

This seems to run counter to the general TLS "just do something legal they don't care what."

Though I'll have you know I'm now concerned about this.

If I had to pick a dream outcome, it would be appellate lit, but I'm aware that the possibility of that happening is slim-to-none. I figured working somewhere that does some amount of lit (on the atty side) would be good and if it was something I'm super interested in then even better.

I am just speaking based on my own experience going through recruiting and as a lawyer. If you do know you want to do litigation, and even more so are interested in appellate, then sure this seems like a fine outcome, partiularly if it's what your going to speak most intelligibly and passionately about in an interview. If you have multiple options though that are equally interesting / not, then apply above advice. Otherwise I'm sure this is a fine position.

But no, the tradition "TLS knowledge" that 1L position is irrelevant is wrong, if it comes down to you and a couple other candidates. The most important thing is having a coherent narrative for why you did something, what you learned, and how it fits into your overall career plans and the firm / place you're applying to. If you can do that, then you're good.

people on tls sure confuse "doesn't matter" with "makes a negligible difference in light of other factors" a lot

Anonymous User wrote:I am just speaking based on my own experience going through recruiting and as a lawyer. If you do know you want to do litigation, and even more so are interested in appellate, then sure this seems like a fine outcome, partiularly if it's what your going to speak most intelligibly and passionately about in an interview. If you have multiple options though that are equally interesting / not, then apply above advice. Otherwise I'm sure this is a fine position.

But no, the tradition "TLS knowledge" that 1L position is irrelevant is wrong, if it comes down to you and a couple other candidates. The most important thing is having a coherent narrative for why you did something, what you learned, and how it fits into your overall career plans and the firm / place you're applying to. If you can do that, then you're good.

It's probably best not to imply that you've graduated law school when you haven't yet.

Edited to add: this is the same person who said

Anonymous User wrote:I honestly, in a competitive market, would not hire either of these type of people for a capital markets, corporate, commercial lit, IP, etc. type of practice b/c it just does not show interest in relevant issues or add to the development of relevant skills, business acumen, jargon, etc.

lol i had a feeling