When did law recruiting become so risk averse? Forum

[FluidMosaic]

When did law firm recruiting become so "safe" where firms that don't offer people are trashed? Has this traditionally been a thing or is it a new phenomenon?

I don't understand why places that are supposed to be super high level professional services firms don't shave poor performers over the summer versus say consulting or banking where 70-80% offer rates are more normal.

[Cobretti]

When did law firm recruiting become so "safe" where firms that don't offer people are trashed? Has this traditionally been a thing or is it a new phenomenon?

I don't understand why places that are supposed to be super high level professional services firms don't shave poor performers over the summer versus say consulting or banking where 70-80% offer rates are more normal.

We have significantly more student debt than those professions and it makes us more risk averse. So they attract us by minimizing risks to us if we summer there.

[acijku2]

When did law firm recruiting become so "safe" where firms that don't offer people are trashed? Has this traditionally been a thing or is it a new phenomenon?

I don't understand why places that are supposed to be super high level professional services firms don't shave poor performers over the summer versus say consulting or banking where 70-80% offer rates are more normal.

We have significantly more student debt than those professions and it makes us more risk averse. So they attract us by minimizing risks to us if we summer there.

/Thread

[thesealocust]

Probably a mix of competition for students coupled with it being so much of a black mark / career killer for people who are already sinking three years and often huge debt into the credential.

Lots of things in the legal world operate on bizarre inertia. Almost nothing about legal education makes sense if you really stop to think about it.

Don't many federal courts even still use Word Perfect?

[rahulg91]

When did law firm recruiting become so "safe" where firms that don't offer people are trashed? Has this traditionally been a thing or is it a new phenomenon?

I don't understand why places that are supposed to be super high level professional services firms don't shave poor performers over the summer versus say consulting or banking where 70-80% offer rates are more normal.

We have significantly more student debt than those professions and it makes us more risk averse. So they attract us by minimizing risks to us if we summer there.

Also from what I've seen/heard most no-offers are not for poor performance, rather for attitude/personality/fit/firm-financial issues. Summer "performance" is largely expected to suck (so long as they show some minimal level of attention to detail).

[FluidMosaic]

Probably a mix of competition for students coupled with it being so much of a black mark / career killer for people who are already sinking three years and often huge debt into the credential.

Lots of things in the legal world operate on bizarre inertia. Almost nothing about legal education makes sense if you really stop to think about it.

Don't many federal courts even still use Word Perfect?

But when did it become a career killer to get no-offered. I know a few guys who got no-offered at their banks and just went to new banks.


Also MBAs take just as much debt as most law students.

[Clearly]

Probably a mix of competition for students coupled with it being so much of a black mark / career killer for people who are already sinking three years and often huge debt into the credential.

Lots of things in the legal world operate on bizarre inertia. Almost nothing about legal education makes sense if you really stop to think about it.

Don't many federal courts even still use Word Perfect?

But when did it become a career killer to get no-offered. I know a few guys who got no-offered at their banks and just went to new banks.


Also MBAs take just as much debt as most law students.

^This is absolutely false.

[BmoreOrLess]

Probably a mix of competition for students coupled with it being so much of a black mark / career killer for people who are already sinking three years and often huge debt into the credential.

Lots of things in the legal world operate on bizarre inertia. Almost nothing about legal education makes sense if you really stop to think about it.

Don't many federal courts even still use Word Perfect?

But when did it become a career killer to get no-offered. I know a few guys who got no-offered at their banks and just went to new banks.


Also MBAs take just as much debt as most law students.

And can get equally fucked with Banking, they just have a million other high paying options. I doubt a bulge bracket IB is taking a cast off from another bulge bracket in IBD. But there are still huge differences between banking and law. Summer analysts are getting really good experience actually working 80 hour weeks, whereas law SA's are generally on a glorified recruiting trip. Additionally, when the best of the best are competing for jobs with a 70% offer rate (and I'm skeptical it's that high), as a smaller IB you can understand that they weren't cut because they can't hack it in IB, there were just better candidates.

[FluidMosaic]

Probably a mix of competition for students coupled with it being so much of a black mark / career killer for people who are already sinking three years and often huge debt into the credential.

Lots of things in the legal world operate on bizarre inertia. Almost nothing about legal education makes sense if you really stop to think about it.

Don't many federal courts even still use Word Perfect?

But when did it become a career killer to get no-offered. I know a few guys who got no-offered at their banks and just went to new banks.


Also MBAs take just as much debt as most law students.

^This is absolutely false.

Right I always forget that having a 2.4 undergrad only makes law school cheaper for myself.

Still, its a calculated risk. You don't see MBB getting flak for no offering parts of their class, while Winston and Latham are the devil from their Chicago antics a few years back.

[FluidMosaic]

Probably a mix of competition for students coupled with it being so much of a black mark / career killer for people who are already sinking three years and often huge debt into the credential.

Lots of things in the legal world operate on bizarre inertia. Almost nothing about legal education makes sense if you really stop to think about it.

Don't many federal courts even still use Word Perfect?

But when did it become a career killer to get no-offered. I know a few guys who got no-offered at their banks and just went to new banks.


Also MBAs take just as much debt as most law students.

And can get equally fucked with Banking, they just have a million other high paying options. I doubt a bulge bracket IB is taking a cast off from another bulge bracket in IBD. But there are still huge differences between banking and law. Summer analysts are getting really good experience actually working 80 hour weeks, whereas law SA's are generally on a glorified recruiting trip. Additionally, when the best of the best are competing for jobs with a 70% offer rate (and I'm skeptical it's that high), as a smaller IB you can understand that they weren't cut because they can't hack it in IB, there were just better candidates.

Why wouldn't that model work for law firms? Well your attention to detail isn't great, and your writing isn't the best so yeah we aren't giving you an offer at (insert v5). However the V100 down the street would love to pick up the magna Georgetown grad with LR who still can write pretty well.

And if your in transactional, I'm a firm believer that you can snag business jobs straight out of law school. The recruiting from a T25 wasn't bad, for MBA roles this 1L summer, and if you had the stats to pick up a biglaw offer in the first place you should be able to again.

[BmoreOrLess]

It probably would work, except for the bizarre inertia TSL was talking about. The problem is it's going to be verrrrry difficult to change the model. It's not like Cravath could come out and say "We're only going to offer 70% of our SA's."

[Desert Fox]

[JaysonNix1aDay]

Some thoughts:

A) Risk aversion comes from age. Three years of your life, even K-JD, spits you onto the job market at 26-27. If you take one or more gap years, as many of my classmates have, that can push past 30 easily. If you're a high achiever from high school, undergrad etc. then your friends in other professional fields could be 3-7 years into their careers already. While it's been three years since you've made a decent salary. Which brings me to...

B) Exit options. If you miss biglaw on the 2L SA train, you likely can't get on again until either a clerkship or 2-3 years at another job. So suddenly you're not even getting started on your real job until you're in your early to mid 30s. It's easy to go from BigLaw V? Associate ==> Virtually any other legal job you'd want. It's significantly harder to do that in reverse. So starting your career in big law is a great move that you'll really only get one easy shot at. Gotta make that shot count.

C) The firms aren't different enough to provide any benefit that can make up for a decline in "certainty of job." If we reduce everything to salary, inaccurate but simple, and don't provide for the diminishing marginal returns high income provides which are significant when talking biglaw salary; then the value of an SA can be reduced to (Probability it results in a job)(Salary). But for most of the firms we're talking about, Salary is the same. So naturally students select entirely based on Probability.

D) The circlejerk is real. Getting no offered from an SA is a real stain on your resume for other employers later. Especially at 3L OCI, your next best shot at a job that will pay off...

E) Debt. When you have a colossal mound of debt compounding, having a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Present, or at least near future, dollars become significantly more valuable because every dollar you pay down your debt is a dollar that isn't adding to the interest on your debt.

For a "top" firm to successfully recruit "top" candidates with a 70% offer rate (on the low end) away from firms with "don't shit the bed" offer rates, you'd have to see 1) Around 30% above market pay rate at that firm, roughly 200-215k. I suspect it would have to be more, because of diminishing marginal returns on income and the present value/debt issue; maybe even as high as 230k? And at that point, it's just tough to see even a really selective "elite" firm pulling that much value from their first years. 2) A significant surge in 3L hiring and/or quick detour (DA's office, PI etc.) hiring at firms/jobs that, if not necessarily top tier, are at least paying enough that you have a hope of retiring your loans. 3) An industrywide recognition that "Oh, you missed the cut at Selective LLP; you're still more than good enough for Mediocre LLP."

[MT Cicero]

To borrow an XO term:

Law operates on a ONE|WRONG|MOVE basis. Otherwise smart lawyers will totally and completely write you off for any deviation from what they consider the right path. It's part of the risk-adverse pussiness of lawyers. Failure is fatal. You don't make mistakes, there are no accidents--you lack attention to detail. No such thing is bad luck, you just weren't good enough.

A guy gets no offered? Nobody wants to touch him. "Nice guy, I don't give a shit. Good father, fuck you, go home and play with your kids."

And it's not just lawyers. The risk adverseness plays both ways. 2Ls on TLS go nuts because a profitable V50 no offers like 5-7% of it's SA class.

Plus it doesn't really matter. Say you have some autistic retard who gets through the 2L offer gate. "Wine him, dine him, sign him, grind him, and the columbine him" after making him do bitchwork for 2 years billed at 500 an hour.

Thank you for this. I think I'll watch it tonight now.

[FSK]

I have a really hard time explaining the one wrong move syndrome to those who ask about careers in law. They can't believe it is as real as it is.

[Desert Fox]

DF Thread