Top Law Schools

How bad does it look to leave to a comparable firm after 3 months? In particular if you joined the firm as a 3L.

Depending on the timing, no one may ever have to know?

If moving firms is what is best for you, then that's all that matters.

Leaving one firm after three months, if you have another job to go to, isn't a problem. Do that more than once and you start to look like a flake, so you should ideally stay at the next job for a few years at least.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:Leaving one firm after three months, if you have another job to go to, isn't a problem. Do that more than once and you start to look like a flake, so you should ideally stay at the next job for a few years at least.

Agree with this. There's really no difference between leaving after three months and leaving after one year.

los blancos wrote:Depending on the timing, no one may ever have to know?

Huh?

rpupkin wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:Leaving one firm after three months, if you have another job to go to, isn't a problem. Do that more than once and you start to look like a flake, so you should ideally stay at the next job for a few years at least.

Agree with this. There's really no difference between leaving after three months and leaving after one year.

I third this, but also: query why you want to leave so soon? There are legitimate reasons, but I would wonder about whether someone who did this had burned a bridge or something... Point being, be prepared to explain this decision in your next job interview, even if that isn't for another several years.

rpupkin wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:Leaving one firm after three months, if you have another job to go to, isn't a problem. Do that more than once and you start to look like a flake, so you should ideally stay at the next job for a few years at least.

Agree with this. There's really no difference between leaving after three months and leaving after one year.

Really? Feels like a year is a lot more experience relative to 3 months, taking into account training and the sometimes slow assimilation of first years to practice groups.

I think it raises questions. It's much easier to spin leaving after a year. However, if the benefits somehow outweigh the costs of staying, then go for it.

Anonymous User wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:Leaving one firm after three months, if you have another job to go to, isn't a problem. Do that more than once and you start to look like a flake, so you should ideally stay at the next job for a few years at least.

Agree with this. There's really no difference between leaving after three months and leaving after one year.

Really? Feels like a year is a lot more experience relative to 3 months, taking into account training and the sometimes slow assimilation of first years to practice groups.

eh people are still quite useless and undesirable lateral candidates after a year

rpupkin wrote:

los blancos wrote:Depending on the timing, no one may ever have to know?

Huh?

I meant in terms of future employers past job #2 looking at a resume - might one be able to leave such a short stint off altogether if it doesn't belie an employment gap?

No real difference between leaving after 3 months and leaving after 1 year. In both cases, its clear that some kind of course correction was necessary, and that could be for a number of reasons. For example, maybe you were stuffed into a practice group you didn't want to be in, or the firm simply wasn't a match for you. Or maybe you suddenly had a need to switch geographic markets. Whatever the reason, an early change is an early change and 1 year isn't really all that much more than 3 months as far as how people will perceive it.

But keep in mind that you had better be making the right choice in doing the switch. A common mantra is that everyone gets 1 free pass early in their biglaw career to make some kind of course correction, and almost no one will question it. But you will almost certainly need to put in a few solid years at the new firm if you want to avoid looking like a serial hopper. So make sure the new place really is the right fit.

los blancos wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

los blancos wrote:Depending on the timing, no one may ever have to know?

Huh?

I meant in terms of future employers past job #2 looking at a resume - might one be able to leave such a short stint off altogether if it doesn't belie an employment gap?

That might work for someone planning to leave law altogether. But if you're applying for legal jobs, you have to tell your prospective employer about all the firms you've worked at as an attorney, including your dates of employment.

Desert Fox wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

los blancos wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

los blancos wrote:Depending on the timing, no one may ever have to know?

Huh?

I meant in terms of future employers past job #2 looking at a resume - might one be able to leave such a short stint off altogether if it doesn't belie an employment gap?

That might work for someone planning to leave law altogether. But if you're applying to legal jobs, you pretty much have to tell your prospective employer about all the firms you've worked at as an attorney, including your dates of employment.

For conflicts checks, doesn't have to go on the resume.

Technically true. But I wouldn't leave a law firm I worked at off my resume unless it was a long time ago.