Senior Associate Taking Questions Forum

[rcsrassociate]

I'm a senior associate on the recruiting committee of an AmLaw Top 50 firm and, as usual, I am seeing a typical profusion of bad advice this year on Top Law Schools.

Happy to take any questions on the interview process and dos and don'ts.

[Anonymous User]

How do you approach an On Campus screener? What are the worst things law students do in screeners that lead to dings and what are the things students who get callbacks consistently do in screeners (if anything)?

[A. Nony Mouse]

What's the worst advice you've seen here?

[oliv8518]

What is your advice on answering the question "What kind of law are you interested in?". Is it better to actually voice a particular interest (i.e. M&A, Litigation) or say your are open to learning about different areas of law? I guess I'm asking if it's better to make up that you have a strong interest in M&A when you don't know exactly what type of law you would like to practice

[CJ.]

Provide a link to two pieces of bad advice you claim you've seen.

Interviewing and applying for jobs is hardly rocket science.

[Anonymous User]

What sort of experience would you expect a second or third year lit associate at your firm to have? Several depositions (fact or 30(b)(6) or expert or what?)? What else?

[DJ JD]

Provide a link to two pieces of bad advice you claim you've seen.

Interviewing and applying for jobs is hardly rocket science.

In the vein of this, what are some examples of bad advice you've seen here?

[rcsrassociate]

How do you approach an On Campus screener? What are the worst things law students do in screeners that lead to dings and what are the things students who get callbacks consistently do in screeners (if anything)?

There are two things law students do (more often than you'd think) that most often are going to lead to a ding:

• Resume - a candidate should be able to intelligently talk about everything on their resume. If you worked as a caddy at a golf course a summer in college, you don't need to be able to relate it to why you're in law school or interested in a firm or practice group, but at least have more than a one word answer prepared about it.
  Don't talk about someone else - you would be shocked at the number of interviews I've given where a candidate has spent all or a majority of their allotted time speaking about an attorney they know, family friend, or worst, another candidate we are interviewing. If there's a specific reason to bring another person up (e.g. if you're interested in a firm because of a strong recommendation from a mentor), it's obviously okay to do so. But don't spend 15 minutes talking about how the next candidate to interview's father is a bankruptcy trustee (this actually happened to me last spring).

[rcsrassociate]

What's the worst advice you've seen here?

For some reason, there is this attitude on TLS that the recruiters don't matter and their opinions don't get taken into account. Obviously, I can't speak to other firms, but our recruiters' interactions with candidates (and opinions they form from those interactions) are a crucial piece of deciding whether or not to give someone a callback (or to give them an offer if they've been to the office for a callback). You shouldn't treat recruiters any differently than you would treat an attorney interviewing you (and you should probably do your best to treat them better - someone attorneys may get busy and give you a one to two sentence evaluation - the recruiter is always going to be in the room when the offer decision is being made).

[rcsrassociate]

What is your advice on answering the question "What kind of law are you interested in?". Is it better to actually voice a particular interest (i.e. M&A, Litigation) or say your are open to learning about different areas of law? I guess I'm asking if it's better to make up that you have a strong interest in M&A when you don't know exactly what type of law you would like to practice

The best thing to do is be honest. It's okay if you have a preference (even if it's just a gut feeling) as to whether litigation or a transactional practice is what you're more interested in. That's something we really want to know. Obviously, if a firm is looking to hire more summers interested in transactional work and you're more interested in litigation, this might cut against you. But if you have a strong preference and try to slowplay your way through the "I'm interested in both but have a slight lean towards x" answer, chances are we're going to be able to tell what you are really saying is "I want to do X for sure but I mostly want a job." If you really don't know which way you are leaning, that's totally fine. The two answers I would recommend (depending on your personal situation) are as follows:
(1) if you didn't get exposure to both litigation and transactional work during your 1L summer, focus your answer on the fact that you really haven't had exposure to one or the other and want to experience that type of work before you know what you're truly interested in.
(2) if you've had exposure to both and really aren't sure, it's okay to say you are still unsure, but a best answer might point to one or more specific litigation practices (e.g. white collar, securities, banking, insurance defense) or transactional practices (e.g. M&A, capital markets, finance) that have particularly piqued your interest.

[rcsrassociate]

What sort of experience would you expect a second or third year lit associate at your firm to have? Several depositions (fact or 30(b)(6) or expert or what?)? What else?

I'm a corporate associate so not really equipped to answer this question, sorry.

[BigZuck]

What's the worst advice you've seen here?

For some reason, there is this attitude on TLS that the recruiters don't matter and their opinions don't get taken into account. Obviously, I can't speak to other firms, but our recruiters' interactions with candidates (and opinions they form from those interactions) are a crucial piece of deciding whether or not to give someone a callback (or to give them an offer if they've been to the office for a callback). You shouldn't treat recruiters any differently than you would treat an attorney interviewing you (and you should probably do your best to treat them better - someone attorneys may get busy and give you a one to two sentence evaluation - the recruiter is always going to be in the room when the offer decision is being made).

Can you link to a post saying recruiters opinions don't matter and you can treat them poorly? I've never seen someone on TLS say this before. I have, however, seen numerous posts affirming what you said.

[Johann]

knowledge source (5 yr+ legal practitioner) sits down and asks if there are any questions

a should be knowledge seeker (law student) - YOU ARE WRONG!

lol at this fucking shitboard.

[Tiago Splitter]

knowledge source (5 yr+ legal practitioner) sits down and asks if there are any questions

a should be knowledge seeker (law student) - YOU ARE WRONG!

lol at this fucking shitboard.

quit being a dipshit. the guy went out of his way to be a dick for no reason and got called on it. now that everyone's cool hopefully he can give some good tips.

[A. Nony Mouse]

knowledge source (5 yr+ legal practitioner) sits down and asks if there are any questions

a should be knowledge seeker (law student) - YOU ARE WRONG!

lol at this fucking shitboard.

I certainly didn't mean to suggest he was wrong. I was genuinely curious about the bad advice, because I'm not exactly up on firm hiring.

[Anonymous User]

I actually have a salary question. Is it possible to PM?

[BigZuck]

knowledge source (5 yr+ legal practitioner) sits down and asks if there are any questions

a should be knowledge seeker (law student) - YOU ARE WRONG!

lol at this fucking shitboard.

I would think you, of all people, would understand how impossible it is to pull off the "Hehe u r all idiots, now let me spew some knowledge, retards!" schtick

Just because someone claims to have knowledge and come from a place of authority doesn't mean we actually have to listen to their garbage you silly billy

[Johann]

your question was fine nony. i was more making fun of zuck. like hey sr associate that glances at TLS and doesnt read it cite me the evidence of what you are calling false. instead of just reading the sr associates comments and getting the takeaway, oh recruiters have input.

[DJ JD]

your question was fine nony. i was more making fun of zuck. like hey sr associate that glances at TLS and doesnt read it cite me the evidence of what you are calling false. instead of just reading the sr associates comments and getting the takeaway, oh recruiters have input.

1. Sr. Associate says he's seen pretty of bad advice given
2. Three people ask for an example
3. Sr. Associate replies, saying a widespread attitude on TLS is that recruiters have no input
4. (People start wondering who the hell on TLS has said their opinions don't matter? And even if they did, a shitstorm would obviously ensue as people correct them)
5. People point out this inconsistency.
6. You get needlessly salty.

If this isn't clear enough, I can put quotes for you too..

[chuckbass]

I actually have a salary question. Is it possible to PM?

NY to 190k.

[rcsrassociate]

I actually have a salary question. Is it possible to PM?

Sure, shoot me one.

[rcsrassociate]

your question was fine nony. i was more making fun of zuck. like hey sr associate that glances at TLS and doesnt read it cite me the evidence of what you are calling false. instead of just reading the sr associates comments and getting the takeaway, oh recruiters have input.

1. Sr. Associate says he's seen pretty of bad advice given
2. Three people ask for an example
3. Sr. Associate replies, saying a widespread attitude on TLS is that recruiters have no input
4. (People start wondering who the hell on TLS has said their opinions don't matter? And even if they did, a shitstorm would obviously ensue as people correct them)
5. People point out this inconsistency.
6. You get needlessly salty.

If this isn't clear enough, I can put quotes for you too..

Fact of the matter is this - I've seen that suggested on here - I don't spend a ton of time on the board, so it's possible that I've missed the prevailing sentiment. But you've both captured the broader point, recruiters' opinions matter, a lot.

[rpupkin]

Fact of the matter is this - I've seen that suggested on here - I don't spend a ton of time on the board, so it's possible that I've missed the prevailing sentiment.

In other words, one post = "profusion of bad advice"

Kids, the real lesson here is that associates are fond of pointless hyperbole. When you encounter this in a screener or a callback, just smile and nod.

[Anonymous User]

Rising 3L here. How do you make sure that you're building the right set of skills upon starting at the firm? If you have a junior associate under your wing, what do you want them to learn quickly upon starting, for transactional work?