Top Law Schools

I've found that sometimes a CB interviewer will ask which other firms I'm also interviewing with (especially when interviewing outside the formal recruitment process, like in a faraway market via mass-mailing). In those situations, should you list every firm? What if you aren't interviewing with any other firms in that market, wouldn't saying so make you seem less desirable as a candidate?

I split with two markets and had a bunch of interviews with the best firms in market 1 and only a few interviews with a range of firms in market 2. For market 1, I just said the firms. For market 2, I was just like "oh well I was in market 1 interviewing last week, and I have callbacks here in market 2 all of this week."

I think it's okay to be vague-ish, like "I'm focusing on firms in X and Y markets with great litigation practices, but I'm especially happy to be at FIRM today because..." or whatever.

I think some people-- especially partners who did OCI years ago-- are just curious about the process and not necessarily trying to size you up. I've been asked about how quick other firms turnaround from CB to offer in the market I'm in, how many of these I'm doing, how I acticipate making my decision, how many interviewers are "typical," etc. and I honestly think some people are just intrigued to know how things are going this year.

But if you answer vaguely, I don't think you'll get push back.

Anonymous User wrote:I think it's okay to be vague-ish, like "I'm focusing on firms in X and Y markets with great litigation practices, but I'm especially happy to be at FIRM today because..." or whatever.

I think some people-- especially partners who did OCI years ago-- are just curious about the process and not necessarily trying to size you up. I've been asked about how quick other firms turnaround from CB to offer in the market I'm in, how many of these I'm doing, how I acticipate making my decision, how many interviewers are "typical," etc. and I honestly think some people are just intrigued to know how things are going this year.

But if you answer vaguely, I don't think you'll get push back.

FWIW I answered vaguely because at the time I only had two other CBs. The woman took out a pen and pad and said, no, specifically, give me the name of the firms.

Needless to say, no offer. Yes!

To add a counterpoint: I interview people at OCI and callbacks all the time, and I often ask this question (although of course only at callbacks). When i ask it, it's not a "gotcha" question designed to trick you into revealing that this is not your top choice or whatever, and i'm not really looking for some puff piece answer that you're interested in "all the great litigation firms" in market X or something like that.

Instead, this is to help ME figure out how to sell the position to YOU because it gives me information about your priorities and it allows me to choose what to emphasize. I can then respond, for example "Well, you said you might want to try PE deals, so here's something to consider . . . ", or otherwise try to direct the conversation accordingly. I'll do this if I really like someone and want to try to get them to come.

Caveat that this is New York corporate so we don't care about ties. May be different for a small market, like maybe Portland will ding you if every other place you're interviewing is Chicago.

I usually just tell them. I think it's mostly designed to gauge:

1. Your practice area preferences (IE if you tell them you are interested in corporate don't tell them you are interviewing with Boies)
2. Which market you are interested in (IE if you are interviewing with CA firms don't tell them you are interviewing with NY and Chicago).
3. How they can sell their firm vis-a-vis the other firms you are interviewing with.
4. Just plain fact gathering (sort of like how recruiting asks you which firm you accepted at after you turn them down)

FWIW, I feel like it's always the V10s who ask this question and they seem to want to hear that you are interviewing with their competition in the market.

"3. How they can sell their firm vis-a-vis the other firms you are interviewing with."

Exactly, it allows us to have a frank conversation about the pros and cons from our perspective that we think the candidate would find useful in making his or her choice. I don't even necessarily think of it as "selling"; there are some people who say "it's between you and Cravath" who should probably end up at Cravath, and it's not in anyone's interest for me to try to persuade them otherwise.

But I'd hate for us to lose someone who would be perfect and would be happier with us simply because they didn't have access to the information they need. It allows me to make sure we discuss what i think they'll find relevant, decide who else to recommend they talk to or meet with, etc.

If you are clever, you will list say something like, "oh, several firms. For example:...." then list 3 firms you are actually interviewing with that are in the same market/region. Highlight the same practice group you are interviewing for with the interviewer.

DO NOT LIE.

But no one expects you to list every single firm you are talking to. So provide a curated list.

Anonymous User wrote:I think it's okay to be vague-ish, like "I'm focusing on firms in X and Y markets with great litigation practices, but I'm especially happy to be at FIRM today because..." or whatever.

This is a bad answer. You should provide some actual firm names.

Someone asked this same question in another thread a few weeks back. If you truly do not have another call back, I think I would lie. Lying is almost never the correct answer, but in this scenario if the answer is "oh, I have zero other call backs-- lot of screeners tho!" the firm/interviewer has the potential to think something is "wrong" with you and that he/she is missing something.

I don't think that is a fair assumption, but its reality.

Some interviewers have mentioned this is a way to talk up their firm. This is also a great opportunity for interviewees to show interest. "I'm interviewing with some other firms with strong X practices, but what I'm especially interested in your firm because you also do a lot of work in Y/have an office in Z/whatever."

I've gotten this from associates a few times (I don't think ever from partners), particularly at lunches, and they've never seemed that happy with any answer I've given (I've tried saying peer firms that are similarly strong in xyz areas I'm interested in, and also saying the names of a few other firms that I've met with). I usually do try to just turn it around to why I'm interested in them particularly because it seems like kind of a no win question.

LetsGoMets wrote:I've gotten this from associates a few times (I don't think ever from partners), particularly at lunches, and they've never seemed that happy with any answer I've given (I've tried saying peer firms that are similarly strong in xyz areas I'm interested in, and also saying the names of a few other firms that I've met with). I usually do try to just turn it around to why I'm interested in them particularly because it seems like kind of a no win question.

lunches always suck. this is probably just associates trying to make conversation, and then realizing they have nothing to say about any of those firms that you listed.