Practicing Lawyers' Opinions Please - Rank in terms of badness Forum

[ballouttacontrol]

.

[ballouttacontrol]

ALL OF THAT OUT OF THE WAY....

Work product worst to tell people
Partying 2nd
Fit 1st

Fit can be portrayed multiple ways - practice groups, location, future of firm, etc.

Partying is bad but maybe you spin it as you've learned your lesson

Work product is telling firms that you suck at your job

Thank you for this. This basically mimics exactly what my thoughts were originally. I'm thinking the poll is being blown up by O/1Ls.

[smaug]

Why not just ball your way to another 200k+ offer?

[ballouttacontrol]

Why not just ball your way to another 200k+ offer?

Doing my best. Kinda like rolling a 3-sided die between that, /self, and going solo

[Anonymous User]

Definitely don't even consider the /self option. It's just a job. There will be more jobs. You got s great one to start and can do it again. If you're religious you obviously don't want the outcome that goes along with it, and f you're an atheist it's not like endless nothingness is more appealing than what you've currently got. Good luck out there, man.

[lymenheimer]

At the risk of being banned from posting ITT...

Calling in for response to the above-posted anon.

[ballouttacontrol]

At the risk of being banned from posting ITT...

Calling in for response to the above-posted anon.

not 100% what that referring to, but im still on this earth. roughly one last good-seeming lead left outstanding.

[SplitMyPants]

And if you say that because of my now-deleted $$$ comment...FYI, there are a LOT more firms than Desmarais that start at $200k+.

Which ones?

[BaiAilian2013]

ALL OF THAT OUT OF THE WAY....

Work product worst to tell people
Partying 2nd
Fit 1st

Fit can be portrayed multiple ways - practice groups, location, future of firm, etc.

Partying is bad but maybe you spin it as you've learned your lesson

Work product is telling firms that you suck at your job

Thank you for this. This basically mimics exactly what my thoughts were originally. I'm thinking the poll is being blown up by O/1Ls.

I'm not so sure. I agree with what someone above said - work product can be remedied, or maybe you got stuck doing a hard project for a dick partner, but there's no excuse for the partying. It shows you have no professional judgment or just don't take the job seriously, and either way that's one of the few things that are unforgivable in an otherwise malleable 2L. That said, I wouldn't cite work product either - stick with fit, or else, preferably, repeat whatever lie the firm probably told you about hiring needs.

[ballouttacontrol]

I'm not so sure. I agree with what someone above said - work product can be remedied, or maybe you got stuck doing a hard project for a dick partner, but there's no excuse for the partying. It shows you have no professional judgment or just don't take the job seriously, and either way that's one of the few things that are unforgivable in an otherwise malleable 2L. That said, I wouldn't cite work product either - stick with fit, or else, preferably, repeat whatever lie the firm probably told you about hiring needs.

thank you for the input. I see where you're coming from.

[ballouttacontrol]

And if you say that because of my now-deleted $$$ comment...FYI, there are a LOT more firms than Desmarais that start at $200k+.

Which ones?

Plenty of IP boutiques, for one

[rpupkin]

And if you say that because of my now-deleted $$$ comment...FYI, there are a LOT more firms than Desmarais that start at $200k+.

Which ones?

Plenty of IP boutiques, for one

Name three.

[smaug]

And if you say that because of my now-deleted $$$ comment...FYI, there are a LOT more firms than Desmarais that start at $200k+.

Which ones?

Plenty of IP boutiques, for one

for example?

[A. Nony Mouse]

I'm not so sure. I agree with what someone above said - work product can be remedied, or maybe you got stuck doing a hard project for a dick partner, but there's no excuse for the partying. It shows you have no professional judgment or just don't take the job seriously, and either way that's one of the few things that are unforgivable in an otherwise malleable 2L. That said, I wouldn't cite work product either - stick with fit, or else, preferably, repeat whatever lie the firm probably told you about hiring needs.

Yeah, fit is clearly the least damaging of the explanations, so the poll is kind of fucked in that respect. (Then again, anonymous poll.)

[ballouttacontrol]

do you have anything better to do than continually troll me every time I log onto this website?
edit, sry @ the guy with pink elephant avatar

http://www.condoroccia.com/
http://www.dovellaw.com/
Desmarais as mentioned

[ballouttacontrol]

I'm not so sure. I agree with what someone above said - work product can be remedied, or maybe you got stuck doing a hard project for a dick partner, but there's no excuse for the partying. It shows you have no professional judgment or just don't take the job seriously, and either way that's one of the few things that are unforgivable in an otherwise malleable 2L. That said, I wouldn't cite work product either - stick with fit, or else, preferably, repeat whatever lie the firm probably told you about hiring needs.

Yeah, fit is clearly the least damaging of the explanations, so the poll is kind of fucked in that respect. (Then again, anonymous poll.)

Thanks for the input too

[rpupkin]

I'm not so sure. I agree with what someone above said - work product can be remedied, or maybe you got stuck doing a hard project for a dick partner, but there's no excuse for the partying. It shows you have no professional judgment or just don't take the job seriously, and either way that's one of the few things that are unforgivable in an otherwise malleable 2L. That said, I wouldn't cite work product either - stick with fit, or else, preferably, repeat whatever lie the firm probably told you about hiring needs.

Yeah, fit is clearly the least damaging of the explanations, so the poll is kind of fucked in that respect. (Then again, anonymous poll.)

Yikes. I just looked at the poll results. A third of the voters actually chose "fit" as the WORST reason for a no-offer. Absurd.

Everyone knows that "fit" is basically a euphemism for something else. But the point is that your interviewing firm can't know what that "something else" is--it could be work product, it could be personality, it could be that the summer firm had a down year financially. The ambiguity works in the applicant's favor. If you tell the interviewing firm something specific ("I have poor writing skills," "I have a drinking problem," etc.), then they'll have a specific reason to ding you. Of course that's worse. C'mon.

[ballouttacontrol]

I'm not so sure. I agree with what someone above said - work product can be remedied, or maybe you got stuck doing a hard project for a dick partner, but there's no excuse for the partying. It shows you have no professional judgment or just don't take the job seriously, and either way that's one of the few things that are unforgivable in an otherwise malleable 2L. That said, I wouldn't cite work product either - stick with fit, or else, preferably, repeat whatever lie the firm probably told you about hiring needs.

Yeah, fit is clearly the least damaging of the explanations, so the poll is kind of fucked in that respect. (Then again, anonymous poll.)

Yikes. I just looked at the poll results. A third of the voters actually chose "fit" as the WORST reason for a no-offer. Absurd.

Everyone knows that "fit" is basically a euphemism for something else. But the point is that your interviewing firm can't know what that "something else" is--it could be work product, it could be personality, it could be that the summer firm had a down year financially. The ambiguity works in the applicant's favor. If you tell the interviewing firm something specific ("I have poor writing skills," "I have a drinking problem," etc.), then they'll have a specific reason to ding you. Of course that's worse. C'mon.

Makes sense. I guess my only reason for doubts (other than my own lack of success so far) is that 'fit' could also be interpreted to be the worst thing ever. The one reason I've heard multiple different IP firms talk shit about no-offered people was when they were technically incompetent, and if that's un-overcomeable, I wouldn't want people to think that about me, as opposed to another reason that is hard but not impossible to overcome.

Sounds like there is a consensus among the majority of posters - why I posted the Q here - so thanks to all

[rpupkin]

Yikes. I just looked at the poll results. A third of the voters actually chose "fit" as the WORST reason for a no-offer. Absurd.

Everyone knows that "fit" is basically a euphemism for something else. But the point is that your interviewing firm can't know what that "something else" is--it could be work product, it could be personality, it could be that the summer firm had a down year financially. The ambiguity works in the applicant's favor. If you tell the interviewing firm something specific ("I have poor writing skills," "I have a drinking problem," etc.), then they'll have a specific reason to ding you. Of course that's worse. C'mon.

Makes sense. I guess my only reason for doubts (other than my own lack of success so far) is that 'fit' could also be interpreted to be the worst thing ever. The one reason I've heard multiple different IP firms talk shit about no-offered people was when they were technically incompetent, and if that's un-overcomeable, I wouldn't want people to think that about me, as opposed to another reason that is hard but not impossible to overcome.

You're not wrong. I mean, a no-offer is a serious problem. Any sentence that begins with "I was no-offered because . . ." is going to have downside risk. It's not like getting no-offered for "fit" is a positive. But, yeah, I think it's the least bad option you have.