Can I get my 2L summer employer supervisors to vouch for my work ethic/horsepower/etc.? Forum

[Anonymous User]

1) I don't know what you mean by flair. I'm pretty sure I've said that repeatedly. What do you mean by flair? If it means you did a good and thorough job, that's not flair. That's just doing what's expected, no matter if you're at a V10 or shitlaw.

2) You didn't get a SA at a firm and now you're trying to make up for it by turning in work product that you think would demonstrate your "horsepower" so you can get a second bite at the BL apple because your 1L grades resulted in you striking out. That's feels a lot like "compensating for grades." How would you characterize it?

3) You've actually stuck to your script of denying constructive criticism quite nicely.

I don't know why it's so hard for you to admit that you think you're better than your cointerns. It's obvious. You think they're stuck doing doc review while you've been asking for *substantive* assignments. You also think you've flaired your way into turning in work that's a "cut above" even though you have no idea what their work product looks like. I'm not sure what "context" that's supposed to provide other than you think you're better than they are - either you're substantively smarter, or craftier in being able to avoid menial assignments.

I don't know why it's so hard for you to admit that you're being defensive when confronted. Every single poster has told you your flair is misguided and you're still defending your use of it.

I especially don't know why you can't admit that this all an effort to compensate for low grades. There's no shame in that. The curve is what the curve is. Some people strike out at OCI. Hustling for a second chance is expected. It's not a deficiency. But know that your energy is misguided. As long as your work product passes the "good enough" bar, any additional flair is not going to make a difference in your supervisor passing your resume along, and the hiring contacts aren't going to ask "does he/she have the horsepower?" They'll look at the resume and either give you a call or toss it.

What spurred all of this was that one day, someone gave me a last-second assignment, even though I was already occupied with something else--and even though my cointerns were visibly twindling their thumbs & playing Street Fighter or something on their smartphones. And I don't mean they're on their smartphones waiting for a message that Grandma is recovering just fine at the hospital. I mean when you walk by, you can clearly see that it's a button-mashing video game in the Street Fighter mold.

The assigner said that that was because the other attorneys for whom I had already done work said to him that those other attorneys commended my previous work's quality and said that they thought I could handle this upcoming assignment's complexity.

Meanwhile, the only things my cointerns have said that's even remotely work-related were frustration with the doc review they're stuck doing. But you're right (as you always are)--what do I know? They probably do a little doc review here and there interspersed with ghostwriting the next ConLaw treatise with Kathleen Sullivan.

[A. Nony Mouse]

OP, I'd suggest not worrying about how your work compares to your co-interns'. You're never going to be in a position to evaluate that and the summer isn't about proving yourself to be better than your co-interns - it's just to do the best work that you can. Comments about the quality of your work don't say anything about what people think of the other interns - maybe they'd say "you can handle the complexity of this" to all the interns, some, or none other than you. You can't know that and it doesn't matter. You're not being evaluated on a curve.

If you can make some connections with people who used to work at firms where you want to apply, that's great. But that's not going to be because you win some kind of intern competition - those connections aren't prizes to be doled out to the top intern. The people you're working for are human and it's about developing human relationships. They will help you if they think you did good work and if they want to help you. They're not going to help you because you've won an imaginary competition with all the other interns - after all, they hired the others, too.

I also think you're a little over-concerned with this idea that people succeed at 3L hiring because another firm has vetted them and found them acceptable. To the extent that's true, there's nothing you can do about it, because you didn't work at a firm and get an offer, and you can't change that now. Trying to fit your round summer experience into that square peg is going to look awkward and forced. You want to sell the experience you got the best way that you can, for what it is. Trying to equate it to something you didn't do (work at a firm) is just going to highlight that you didn't work at a firm.

[Anonymous User]

I get that LORs don't mean jack. No one would read them. By "recommendations," I meant my supervisors putting me in touch with their former colleagues. I.e., "can you recommend me to John Smith, Partner at Smith LLP."

Legal aptitude: Outside of one semester during which I had other things going on, my transcript looks like most of my peers'. Yes, everyone's grades improve after their first year, but that doesn't negate that, 1L Spring and afterward, my transcript looks like many of my peers'.

Not happening. Summer assignments aren't substantive enough for that. Your grades are infinitely better evidence of your aptitude than your summer performance. If you had worked in this firm for a year or two - then yes, I could see that happening although recall that firms generally do not want to facilitate you moving to other firms if they like you, because they want to keep you for themselves.

You have to come to terms with the fact that you didn't "whiff' on 1L grades. That implies something temporary, insignificant. The single most important attribute for getting a job for years 1 through ~3 of your career are your 1L grades, and yours are bad. It is a long term stain on your metaphorical resume. Your grades improved when the folks who got good grades stopped trying. The perception of employers is, and will be, that you are less talented at legal analysis than your peers. I don't know if that's fair or not, but that's how it is, so the sooner you drop the defensiveness and start trying to hustle with other attributes - the ones that don't come with a 1000 lb weight tied to your ankle - the more successful your job search will be.

[Anonymous User]

I get that LORs don't mean jack. No one would read them. By "recommendations," I meant my supervisors putting me in touch with their former colleagues. I.e., "can you recommend me to John Smith, Partner at Smith LLP."

Legal aptitude: Outside of one semester during which I had other things going on, my transcript looks like most of my peers'. Yes, everyone's grades improve after their first year, but that doesn't negate that, 1L Spring and afterward, my transcript looks like many of my peers'.

Not happening. Summer assignments aren't substantive enough for that. Your grades are infinitely better evidence of your aptitude than your summer performance. If you had worked in this firm for a year or two - then yes, I could see that happening although recall that firms generally do not want to facilitate you moving to other firms if they like you, because they want to keep you for themselves.

You have to come to terms with the fact that you didn't "whiff' on 1L grades. That implies something temporary, insignificant. The single most important attribute for getting a job for years 1 through ~3 of your career are your 1L grades, and yours are bad. It is a long term stain on your metaphorical resume. Your grades improved when the folks who got good grades stopped trying. The perception of employers is, and will be, that you are less talented at legal analysis than your peers. I don't know if that's fair or not, but that's how it is, so the sooner you drop the defensiveness and start trying to hustle with other attributes - the ones that don't come with a 1000 lb weight tied to your ankle - the more successful your job search will be.

1. This thread is just...wow.

2. OP - I interviewed extensively for 3L positions at good firms. No one gives a shit what you did over the summer. The above re: grades is absolutely correct. The 1L grades are all that matter. That may very well be bs, but you can't overcome poor 1L grades with better grades later, at least when you're then applying to the firms who hired people who had good grades all 3 years. That's where I think the disconnect is - firms are hiring people with purely good grades and that's who you're up against - not the ones who had good 1L marks and then tanked.

[Anonymous User]

You have to come to terms with the fact that you didn't "whiff' on 1L grades. That implies something temporary, insignificant. The single most important attribute for getting a job for years 1 through ~3 of your career are your 1L grades, and yours are bad. It is a long term stain on your metaphorical resume. Your grades improved when the folks who got good grades stopped trying. The perception of employers is, and will be, that you are less talented at legal analysis than your peers. I don't know if that's fair or not, but that's how it is, so the sooner you drop the defensiveness and start trying to hustle with other attributes - the ones that don't come with a 1000 lb weight tied to your ankle - the more successful your job search will be.

I generally agree, but isn't there such a thing as an anomalous class/semester? If your principle were as absolute as it sounds, law school applicants/admissions would have no business talking about "upward trends" or "a bad semester explainable by extenuating circumstances." It would just be "your freshman year grades suck? Your upperclassman grades may have improved, but that's just because you took easier classes/majored in underwater basketweaving. Sorry kiddo, your freshman year grades are a 1k lb weight that screams that your aptitude is inferior to your classmates'."

Having accepted that 1L grades are what they are, I should focus on things still in my control, right? And what my supervisors think of me & what they're willing to say on my behalf are still to be determined, no?

but you can't overcome poor 1L grades with better grades later, at least when you're then applying to the firms who hired people who had good grades all 3 years. That's where I think the disconnect is - firms are hiring people with purely good grades and that's who you're up against - not the ones who had good 1L marks and then tanked

There's no disagreeing with this either, but the people who had good grades all 3 years--wouldn't they just be standing pat with their 2LSA offers and off chilling in the Bahamas during OCI month?

[Anonymous User]

You have to come to terms with the fact that you didn't "whiff' on 1L grades. That implies something temporary, insignificant. The single most important attribute for getting a job for years 1 through ~3 of your career are your 1L grades, and yours are bad. It is a long term stain on your metaphorical resume. Your grades improved when the folks who got good grades stopped trying. The perception of employers is, and will be, that you are less talented at legal analysis than your peers. I don't know if that's fair or not, but that's how it is, so the sooner you drop the defensiveness and start trying to hustle with other attributes - the ones that don't come with a 1000 lb weight tied to your ankle - the more successful your job search will be.

I generally agree, but isn't there such a thing as an anomalous class/semester? If your principle were as absolute as it sounds, law school applicants/admissions would have no business talking about "upward trends" or "a bad semester explainable by extenuating circumstances." It would just be "your freshman year grades suck? Your upperclassman grades may have improved, but that's just because you took easier classes/majored in underwater basketweaving. Sorry kiddo, your freshman year grades are a 1k lb weight that screams that your aptitude is inferior to your classmates'."

Having accepted that 1L grades are what they are, I should focus on things still in my control, right? And what my supervisors think of me & what they're willing to say on my behalf are still to be determined, no?

but you can't overcome poor 1L grades with better grades later, at least when you're then applying to the firms who hired people who had good grades all 3 years. That's where I think the disconnect is - firms are hiring people with purely good grades and that's who you're up against - not the ones who had good 1L marks and then tanked

There's no disagreeing with this either, but the people who had good grades all 3 years--wouldn't they just be standing pat with their 2LSA offers and off chilling in the Bahamas during OCI month?

Law school is not like UG. An upward trend from 1L to 2L to 3L is looked at as a negative, since it means you got better as your competition got weaker. There is no such thing as extenuating circumstances - mainly because you're older, and you're expected to hold your shit together in extenuating circumstances just as you would once you're a working professional. Your clients can't afford to have you do C+ work for them because you're in the throes of a divorce or have a sick parent. 19 year olds get a cushion that 24 year olds don't. Again, no judgment as to whether this is fair or not - but it is how it is.

I have a buddy who was a non-trad who had bad 1L fall grades but immediately figured it out and improved 1L spring, though his average GPA was below median. His bad 1L fall was totally explainable as a function of being out of the game for several years. No one cared. His 2L grades were excellent. No one cared. A prof who he worked with hooked him up with a district court clerkship. No one cared. That judge liked him, hooked him up with an appellate clerkship. Finally, firms took him seriously, and he got a good job. And this was a guy who finished top 25% at a T14 school!

But yes - you can, and should, control what you can control. And you should be thinking about what your narrative is to persuade firms to hire you. You probably have some great strengths and you should think about how to develop them and pitch them. (BTW: "flair" is probably not one of them )

[Anonymous User]

A prof who he worked with hooked him up with a district court clerkship. No one cared. That judge liked him, hooked him up with an appellate clerkship. Finally, firms took him seriously, and he got a good job. And this was a guy who finished top 25% at a T14 school!

So how is this different from my trying to get my ex-biglaw supervisors to hook me up? A.Nony.Mouse has said, and I've come to see, that asking my supervisors to specifically address my 1L grades is weird, inadvisable, etc.

One of the supervisors was on the hiring committee for the V10 he was at, and when I brought up "well what about the elephant in the room," he said that subsequent improvement is good. He didn't say how much, and I had other things to talk about so I didn't immediately raise the obvious counterpoint ("well won't they just discount it because everyone's grades improve after 1L")? Regardless of the exact weight it'll hold, he made it sound like "well it's not nothing."

[pancakes3]

Haha. Oh, OP...

[Anonymous User]

Haha. Oh, OP...

Haha