Top Law Schools

I'm currently sitting on an offer from MoFo's SF office. Doing some research, it looks like MoFo is one of the very few firms in V20-V50 that no offered several folks last summer (51/54 --> 3 no offers not counting any 'cold offers'). Any thoughts on this? Are the no offers in SF or other offices? I'm considering two other offers (both at 100% full-time offer rate), and I'm wondering if it's risky at all to accept less-than-100% offer firms. Thanks all!

You know that 51/54 still means you have to be functionally useless to not get a return offer, right?

lawlorbust wrote:You know that 51/54 still means you have to be functionally useless to not get a return offer, right?

What if you produce top level work in an efficient manner, but you throw up on a partner and pee in the punch bowl? Is that "functionally useless"? If not, that could be another concern for OP not getting a return offer. Really I'm projecting my own fears...

Always the follow up this late in the game... Do you have another offer elsewhere? Also, 51/54 doesn't really qualify as no offering "several folks."

Minnietron wrote:

lawlorbust wrote:You know that 51/54 still means you have to be functionally useless to not get a return offer, right?

What if you produce top level work in an efficient manner, but you throw up on a partner and pee in the punch bowl? Is that "functionally useless"? If not, that could be another concern for OP not getting a return offer. Really I'm projecting my own fears...

In that specific case, you should definitely take a "100%" firm. But remember that:

(1) They'll deviate from their 100% policy to no-offer you, or
(2) You'll return and then get shitcanned after 3 months anyway!

lawlorbust wrote:You know that 51/54 still means you have to be functionally useless to not get a return offer, right?

Yeah I mean statistically, if you have 54 summers, at the very least 3 of them are going to be complete shitheads who deserve a no offer. You'd be incredibly surprised at the arrogant, pompous, and rude attitude some summers can have, especially when you add in alcohol.

Do not automatically assume that every was doing great work and they just cut 3 out. You'll be fine and get an offer there unless you are one of the mentioned shitheads.

RaceJudicata wrote:Always the follow up this late in the game... Do you have another offer elsewhere? Also, 51/54 doesn't really qualify as no offering "several folks."

Whether three counts as "several" is a subject on ongoing debate.

favabeansoup wrote:

lawlorbust wrote:You know that 51/54 still means you have to be functionally useless to not get a return offer, right?

Yeah I mean statistically, if you have 54 summers, at the very least 3 of them are going to be complete shitheads who deserve a no offer. You'd be incredibly surprised at the arrogant, pompous, and rude attitude some summers can have, especially when you add in alcohol.

Do not automatically assume that every was doing great work and they just cut 3 out. You'll be fine and get an offer there unless you are one of the mentioned shitheads.

I think it's a little unfair that it's presumed people to get no-offered or cold offered are shitheads. Granted, a lot are. I won't dispute that, particularly knowing some of the people to get no offered. But there are also people who (unfairly IMO) get no offered because they're weirdos rather than being shitheads. It always makes me scratch my head because there are plenty of socially maladjusted or socially incomptent biglaw lawyers - guess you just can't be the wrong type of weird.

LaLiLuLeLo wrote:

favabeansoup wrote:

lawlorbust wrote:You know that 51/54 still means you have to be functionally useless to not get a return offer, right?

Yeah I mean statistically, if you have 54 summers, at the very least 3 of them are going to be complete shitheads who deserve a no offer. You'd be incredibly surprised at the arrogant, pompous, and rude attitude some summers can have, especially when you add in alcohol.

Do not automatically assume that every was doing great work and they just cut 3 out. You'll be fine and get an offer there unless you are one of the mentioned shitheads.

I think it's a little unfair that it's presumed people to get no-offered or cold offered are shitheads. Granted, a lot are. I won't dispute that, particularly knowing some of the people to get no offered. But there are also people who (unfairly IMO) get no offered because they're weirdos rather than being shitheads. It always makes me scratch my head because there are plenty of socially maladjusted or socially incomptent biglaw lawyers - guess you just can't be the wrong type of weird.

Agreed. I know of somebody who got no-offered only because he was incredibly weird, but they didn't catch it at the interview. But he also knew that he was incredibly weird, so he took a gamble by picking a firm that no offers on occasion.

LaLiLuLeLo wrote:

favabeansoup wrote:

lawlorbust wrote:You know that 51/54 still means you have to be functionally useless to not get a return offer, right?

Yeah I mean statistically, if you have 54 summers, at the very least 3 of them are going to be complete shitheads who deserve a no offer. You'd be incredibly surprised at the arrogant, pompous, and rude attitude some summers can have, especially when you add in alcohol.

Do not automatically assume that every was doing great work and they just cut 3 out. You'll be fine and get an offer there unless you are one of the mentioned shitheads.

I think it's a little unfair that it's presumed people to get no-offered or cold offered are shitheads. Granted, a lot are. I won't dispute that, particularly knowing some of the people to get no offered. But there are also people who (unfairly IMO) get no offered because they're weirdos rather than being shitheads. It always makes me scratch my head because there are plenty of socially maladjusted or socially incomptent biglaw lawyers - guess you just can't be the wrong type of weird.

You are correct. But that doesn't change the analysis for non-shithead, non-weird people.

ArtistOfManliness wrote:

LaLiLuLeLo wrote:

favabeansoup wrote:

lawlorbust wrote:You know that 51/54 still means you have to be functionally useless to not get a return offer, right?

Yeah I mean statistically, if you have 54 summers, at the very least 3 of them are going to be complete shitheads who deserve a no offer. You'd be incredibly surprised at the arrogant, pompous, and rude attitude some summers can have, especially when you add in alcohol.

Do not automatically assume that every was doing great work and they just cut 3 out. You'll be fine and get an offer there unless you are one of the mentioned shitheads.

I think it's a little unfair that it's presumed people to get no-offered or cold offered are shitheads. Granted, a lot are. I won't dispute that, particularly knowing some of the people to get no offered. But there are also people who (unfairly IMO) get no offered because they're weirdos rather than being shitheads. It always makes me scratch my head because there are plenty of socially maladjusted or socially incomptent biglaw lawyers - guess you just can't be the wrong type of weird.

Agreed. I know of somebody who got no-offered only because he was incredibly weird, but they didn't catch it at the interview. But he also knew that he was incredibly weird, so he took a gamble by picking a firm that no offers on occasion.

I totally understand that people have different personalities, but why should a firm hire someone who self identifies as "incredibly weird." Law firms are in the client service business. Sure, most juniors arent ever talking to a client, and most juniors don't become partners, but the firm has a vested interest in hiring people who can--potentially--bring in business for the firm. I'm happy to fault big firms for a lot of things, but hiring personable people over self described "incredibly weird" people is not one of them.

RaceJudicata wrote:

ArtistOfManliness wrote:

LaLiLuLeLo wrote:

favabeansoup wrote:

lawlorbust wrote:You know that 51/54 still means you have to be functionally useless to not get a return offer, right?

Yeah I mean statistically, if you have 54 summers, at the very least 3 of them are going to be complete shitheads who deserve a no offer. You'd be incredibly surprised at the arrogant, pompous, and rude attitude some summers can have, especially when you add in alcohol.

Do not automatically assume that every was doing great work and they just cut 3 out. You'll be fine and get an offer there unless you are one of the mentioned shitheads.

I think it's a little unfair that it's presumed people to get no-offered or cold offered are shitheads. Granted, a lot are. I won't dispute that, particularly knowing some of the people to get no offered. But there are also people who (unfairly IMO) get no offered because they're weirdos rather than being shitheads. It always makes me scratch my head because there are plenty of socially maladjusted or socially incomptent biglaw lawyers - guess you just can't be the wrong type of weird.

Agreed. I know of somebody who got no-offered only because he was incredibly weird, but they didn't catch it at the interview. But he also knew that he was incredibly weird, so he took a gamble by picking a firm that no offers on occasion.

I totally understand that people have different personalities, but why should a firm hire someone who self identifies as "incredibly weird." Law firms are in the client service business. Sure, most juniors arent ever talking to a client, and most juniors don't become partners, but the firm has a vested interest in hiring people who can--potentially--bring in business for the firm. I'm happy to fault big firms for a lot of things, but hiring personable people over self described "incredibly weird" people is not one of them.

They do hire weirdos all the time. You can't say with a straight face that every biglaw attorney is personable and not at all weird. I really do think you can't be the wrong type of weird, but I can't really articulate what that would be.

RaceJudicata wrote:

ArtistOfManliness wrote:

LaLiLuLeLo wrote:

favabeansoup wrote:

lawlorbust wrote:You know that 51/54 still means you have to be functionally useless to not get a return offer, right?

Yeah I mean statistically, if you have 54 summers, at the very least 3 of them are going to be complete shitheads who deserve a no offer. You'd be incredibly surprised at the arrogant, pompous, and rude attitude some summers can have, especially when you add in alcohol.

Do not automatically assume that every was doing great work and they just cut 3 out. You'll be fine and get an offer there unless you are one of the mentioned shitheads.

I think it's a little unfair that it's presumed people to get no-offered or cold offered are shitheads. Granted, a lot are. I won't dispute that, particularly knowing some of the people to get no offered. But there are also people who (unfairly IMO) get no offered because they're weirdos rather than being shitheads. It always makes me scratch my head because there are plenty of socially maladjusted or socially incomptent biglaw lawyers - guess you just can't be the wrong type of weird.

Agreed. I know of somebody who got no-offered only because he was incredibly weird, but they didn't catch it at the interview. But he also knew that he was incredibly weird, so he took a gamble by picking a firm that no offers on occasion.

I totally understand that people have different personalities, but why should a firm hire someone who self identifies as "incredibly weird." Law firms are in the client service business. Sure, most juniors arent ever talking to a client, and most juniors don't become partners, but the firm has a vested interest in hiring people who can--potentially--bring in business for the firm. I'm happy to fault big firms for a lot of things, but hiring personable people over self described "incredibly weird" people is not one of them.

>90% of people who start at a biglaw firm out of school will not stay at that firm long enough to reach the seniority level required to win clients. Even junior/midlevel laterals have a slim chance, as many firms look to lateral partners rather than their own ranks to fill positions of need (and firms don't make partners if there's no need). So I don't think hiring in any way depends on attracting clients. It's more like "Can you participate in a phone call and email chain without offending people or making them unusually uncomfortable?" Plenty of super weird people can pass that litmus test, and if the actual work those people do is better than someone who is great on the phone...well, that's a reason to hire the weird person.

LaLiLuLeLo wrote: They do hire weirdos all the time. You can't say with a straight face that every biglaw attorney is personable and not at all weird.

ALL THE TIME ----(next sentence)-----> Well, at LEAST one I'm pretty sure!

GeneralLawyer wrote:

LaLiLuLeLo wrote: They do hire weirdos all the time. You can't say with a straight face that every biglaw attorney is personable and not at all weird.

ALL THE TIME ----(next sentence)-----> Well, at LEAST one I'm pretty sure!

Case in point.