Law Firm's Cancelling Forum

[RaceJudicata]

I think -- as a millennial -- that asking for gas money pretty much immediately after getting an offer to interview comes off as entitled. I honestly don't blame the small firm.

Sure, many are used to the OCI style interview where reimbursement is standard practice. But here, the firm is looking for an excited/interested candidate -- not someone whose first question is about getting paid back for their travels.

[AVBucks4239]

I think -- as a millennial -- that asking for gas money pretty much immediately after getting an offer to interview comes off as entitled. I honestly don't blame the small firm.

Sure, many are used to the OCI style interview where reimbursement is standard practice. But here, the firm is looking for an excited/interested candidate -- not someone whose first question is about getting paid back for their travels.

Agree with this. My small firm would probably light your application on fire if you asked for gas money.

OP, basically a girl just said yes to go out on a date and, before meeting her at the restaurant, you texted her and asked if she was going to foot her half of the bill.

[zot1]

I was in Upstate NY for school and got an interview with a small (3-5 lawyers) bankruptcy firm in Long Island, and they cancelled on me shortly after I asked for reimbursement. They may have found out I didn't live in the area and thought it was a problem but my resume was pretty clear where I went to school and I knew one of the lawyers before the interview set up. Never heard from my 'friend' at the firm afterwards again despite several efforts to reach out. If they didn't want to reimburse, a simple no would have sufficed, I didn't demand anything.

People are ass holes.

OP here. Same here. I was simply asking. They could have said "no" and I would still consider coming. But hearing your story makes me think small law firm takes this reimbursement request as a red flag somehow. Btw are you big red?

Legal hiring is quite competitive. Firms like this one probably get tons of resumes from highly qualified people. They could throw half of the resumes in the trash at random and still have a pool of qualified applicants. At that point, it makes it harder for the hiring partner/panel to make a decision. You gave them a reason to throw your resume away.

I'll echo what has been said already: small firms =/= biglaw firms.

[Anonymous User]

I think -- as a millennial -- that asking for gas money pretty much immediately after getting an offer to interview comes off as entitled. I honestly don't blame the small firm.

Sure, many are used to the OCI style interview where reimbursement is standard practice. But here, the firm is looking for an excited/interested candidate -- not someone whose first question is about getting paid back for their travels.

Agree with this. My small firm would probably light your application on fire if you asked for gas money.

OP, basically a girl just said yes to go out on a date and, before meeting her at the restaurant, you texted her and asked if she was going to foot her half of the bill.

OP here. Your analogy makes me laugh out loud

[Npret]

Wow. You seem like you aren't that interested in the firm if you need $30 for gas and driving 8 hours is such a bother and drain on your valuable time. You aren't an impoverished student with no income.

You are the one looking for the job. You seem not enthusiastic. You may also be signaling expectations that the firm doesn't want to have to deal with. I'm sure you aren't the only person who has given them this attitude. You need them. They really and truly don't need you. They can find someone who is a better fit for them.

It has nothing to do with whether they should be able to pay for it based on your assumption of their practice.

If you want a job, go after it.

[gregfootball2001]

Interesting - I have the opposite reaction. OP asked a question. The normal thing to do would be for the partner to say, "No, we don't reimburse." Not to essentially say "OMG what an entitled person how dare you even bring up the idea that you might be reimbursed for travelling out to me when a phone call would have sufficed, I'm going to light your resume on fire now." If that's the reaction to a simple question, IMO you dodged a bullet.

[Anonymous User]

Interesting - I have the opposite reaction. OP asked a question. The normal thing to do would be for the partner to say, "No, we don't reimburse." Not to essentially say "OMG what an entitled person how dare you even bring up the idea that you might be reimbursed for travelling out to me when a phone call would have sufficed, I'm going to light your resume on fire now." If that's the reaction to a simple question, IMO you dodged a bullet.

OP here. Was gonna respond along the same line.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Eh, it's a little bit of the nuclear option, but there's no point in wasting everyone's time if the applicant clearly had expectations that were out of sync with the firm's culture/expectations.

[rpupkin]

Eh, it's a little bit of the nuclear option, but there's no point in wasting everyone's time if the applicant clearly had expectations that were out of sync with the firm's culture/expectations.

We also don't have the full context. Did OP simply ask if it was the firm's policy to reimburse travel expenses? Or was the actual request a little more presumptuous--e.g., "to whom should I send my receipts for reimbursement?"

[Anonymous User]

I just had to respond.

I had squire patton boggs call for an interview.
I responded, they said they will get back to me, never did. I contacted them like 4 times when the HR finally decides to tell me the position has been filled. Welcome to the world.

[Anonymous User]

I just had to respond.

I had Squire Patton Boggs call for an interview.
I responded, they said they will get back to me, never did. I contacted them like 4 times when the HR finally decides to tell me the position has been filled. Welcome to the world.

Holy cow, this is just downright unprofessional of them.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Eh, it's a little bit of the nuclear option, but there's no point in wasting everyone's time if the applicant clearly had expectations that were out of sync with the firm's culture/expectations.

We also don't have the full context. Did OP simply ask if it was the firm's policy to reimburse travel expenses? Or was the actual request a little more presumptuous--e.g., "to whom should I send my receipts for reimbursement?"

Yes, exactly. We don't know how the request came across.

[Anonymous User]

Eh, it's a little bit of the nuclear option, but there's no point in wasting everyone's time if the applicant clearly had expectations that were out of sync with the firm's culture/expectations.

We also don't have the full context. Did OP simply ask if it was the firm's policy to reimburse travel expenses? Or was the actual request a little more presumptuous--e.g., "to whom should I send my receipts for reimbursement?"

OP here. I went back to look at the emails and the exact quote is "would it be possible if the firm can reimburse traveling expenses?" So I guess somewhere between your two examples.

[elendinel]

Interesting - I have the opposite reaction. OP asked a question. The normal thing to do would be for the partner to say, "No, we don't reimburse." Not to essentially say "OMG what an entitled person how dare you even bring up the idea that you might be reimbursed for travelling out to me when a phone call would have sufficed, I'm going to light your resume on fire now." If that's the reaction to a simple question, IMO you dodged a bullet.

I think this implies that they're taking offense to your request. In reality they're all trying to find ways to narrow down the candidate pool as fast and as easy as possible; for many, your expectations being widely out of sync with what they or their peers are offering is an easy way to bump you off the list.

In an ideal world they'd just say no and force you to decide, but they probably have a dozen other applicants like you, most of which did enough research on smaller firms to not make that faux-pas, so from their perspective, why even bother interviewing you when several other applicants are more likely to better understand what they're walking into?

FWIW I don't see how this is any worse than biglaw ghosting.

[Anonymous User]

I just had to respond.

I had Squire Patton Boggs call for an interview.
I responded, they said they will get back to me, never did. I contacted them like 4 times when the HR finally decides to tell me the position has been filled. Welcome to the world.

OP here. Big firms do run the gamut as well. My experience with hiring by Perkins Coie, for example, was nothing but spectacular. All communications were done within a timely and professional manner.

[rpupkin]

I just had to respond.

I had Squire Patton Boggs call for an interview.
I responded, they said they will get back to me, never did. I contacted them like 4 times when the HR finally decides to tell me the position has been filled. Welcome to the world.

Holy cow, this is just downright unprofessional of them.

This doesn't strike me as downright unprofessional. HR said they would get back to Anon and they did--to tell him that the position was filled. Should have they called him in for an interview even though they offered the position to someone else?

The big-law OCI process is very much catered to the applicant. Once you get outside that bubble, I think you'll find that the professional norms of folks who do hiring--law firms, judges, government agencies--are quite different that what you're expecting.

[Anonymous User]

I just had to respond.

I had Squire Patton Boggs call for an interview.
I responded, they said they will get back to me, never did. I contacted them like 4 times when the HR finally decides to tell me the position has been filled. Welcome to the world.

Holy cow, this is just downright unprofessional of them.

This doesn't strike me as downright unprofessional. HR said they would get back to Anon and they did--to tell him that the position was filled. Should have they called him in for an interview even though they offered the position to someone else?

The big-law OCI process is very much catered to the applicant. Once you get outside that bubble, I think you'll find that the professional norms of folks who do hiring--law firms, judges, government agencies--are quite different that what you're expecting.

I don't think you read the comment properly.
he/She was offered an interview. Plus, she called, emailed 4 times, then HR finally decides to tell her no more interview-sorry.
it is definitely unprofessional. If there was no interview in the first place, its a different story. But, when the firm offers an interview, we wait for the date. duh? no?

[rpupkin]

I just had to respond.

I had Squire Patton Boggs call for an interview.
I responded, they said they will get back to me, never did. I contacted them like 4 times when the HR finally decides to tell me the position has been filled. Welcome to the world.

Holy cow, this is just downright unprofessional of them.

This doesn't strike me as downright unprofessional. HR said they would get back to Anon and they did--to tell him that the position was filled. Should have they called him in for an interview even though they offered the position to someone else?

The big-law OCI process is very much catered to the applicant. Once you get outside that bubble, I think you'll find that the professional norms of folks who do hiring--law firms, judges, government agencies--are quite different that what you're expecting.

I don't think you read the comment properly.
She was offered an interview. Plus, she called, emailed 4 times, then HR finally decides to tell her no more interview-sorry.
it is definitely unprofessional

I understood all that. I stand by my assessment. If you find this behavior strikingly unprofessional, you're going to have a tough time in the world.

[happyhour1122]

I just had to respond.

I had Squire Patton Boggs call for an interview.
I responded, they said they will get back to me, never did. I contacted them like 4 times when the HR finally decides to tell me the position has been filled. Welcome to the world.

Holy cow, this is just downright unprofessional of them.

This doesn't strike me as downright unprofessional. HR said they would get back to Anon and they did--to tell him that the position was filled. Should have they called him in for an interview even though they offered the position to someone else?

The big-law OCI process is very much catered to the applicant. Once you get outside that bubble, I think you'll find that the professional norms of folks who do hiring--law firms, judges, government agencies--are quite different that what you're expecting.

I don't think you read the comment properly.
She was offered an interview. Plus, she called, emailed 4 times, then HR finally decides to tell her no more interview-sorry.
it is definitely unprofessional

I understood all that. I stand by my assessment. If you find this behavior strikingly unprofessional, you're going to have a tough time in the world.

hello jesus. Please don't do that to young applicants if you ever become a hiring partner in a big firm. just saying

[Anonymous User]

I just had to respond.

I had Squire Patton Boggs call for an interview.
I responded, they said they will get back to me, never did. I contacted them like 4 times when the HR finally decides to tell me the position has been filled. Welcome to the world.

Holy cow, this is just downright unprofessional of them.

This doesn't strike me as downright unprofessional. HR said they would get back to Anon and they did--to tell him that the position was filled. Should have they called him in for an interview even though they offered the position to someone else?

The big-law OCI process is very much catered to the applicant. Once you get outside that bubble, I think you'll find that the professional norms of folks who do hiring--law firms, judges, government agencies--are quite different that what you're expecting.

I don't think you read the comment properly.
She was offered an interview. Plus, she called, emailed 4 times, then HR finally decides to tell her no more interview-sorry.
it is definitely unprofessional

I understood all that. I stand by my assessment. If you find this behavior strikingly unprofessional, you're going to have a tough time in the world.

hello jesus. Please don't do that to young applicants if you ever become a hiring partner in a big firm. just saying

It is unprofessional. Going dark and failing to respond to 4 emails is unprofessional if you requested an interview from a busy working professional. There are ways you can respond to those 4 emails, like, "Sorry we are assessing our needs now. Please check back in 1-2 weeks."

[A. Nony Mouse]

1) We don't know how much time went by over the 4 contacts (were they every day? once a week?), and
2) none of this is personal, and people need to not take it personally. Yeah, it sucks not to get the interview after all, but if they decided to pull the interview you clearly weren't going to get that job. These things happen.

[mjb447]

I just had to respond.

I had Squire Patton Boggs call for an interview.
I responded, they said they will get back to me, never did. I contacted them like 4 times when the HR finally decides to tell me the position has been filled. Welcome to the world.

Holy cow, this is just downright unprofessional of them.

This doesn't strike me as downright unprofessional. HR said they would get back to Anon and they did--to tell him that the position was filled. Should have they called him in for an interview even though they offered the position to someone else?

The big-law OCI process is very much catered to the applicant. Once you get outside that bubble, I think you'll find that the professional norms of folks who do hiring--law firms, judges, government agencies--are quite different that what you're expecting.

I don't think you read the comment properly.
he/She was offered an interview. Plus, she called, emailed 4 times, then HR finally decides to tell her no more interview-sorry.
it is definitely unprofessional. If there was no interview in the first place, its a different story. But, when the firm offers an interview, we wait for the date. duh? no?

If 'unprofessional' is basically a synonym for 'impolite,' the things that happened in this story were, and law firm hiring often is, unprofessional. If 'unprofessional' means 'something that professional organizations, e.g. law firms, don't do,' I disagree that this experience was particularly unprofessional. (The closest call for me is the failure to respond to inquiries, not being strung along and ultimately having the interview canceled.)

[rpupkin]

If 'unprofessional' is basically a synonym for 'impolite,' the things that happened in this story were, and law firm hiring often is, unprofessional.

As Nony suggests, we don't know if the law firm's behavior even qualifies as impolite. If the anon sent four emails over two or three days, I don't think it crosses any sort of professional or social line for the law firm to wait for its hiring situation to settle before responding. If the anon was, say, inquiring once a week and getting no response, then I agree that the firm was rude.

[AVBucks4239]

Interesting - I have the opposite reaction. OP asked a question. The normal thing to do would be for the partner to say, "No, we don't reimburse." Not to essentially say "OMG what an entitled person how dare you even bring up the idea that you might be reimbursed for travelling out to me when a phone call would have sufficed, I'm going to light your resume on fire now." If that's the reaction to a simple question, IMO you dodged a bullet.

I'm bored, so here's my anecdotal experience in three years working at a small firm. We posted a job about three months ago. We are not in any downtown setting or anything (think 30-40 miles outside Cleveland). And even for this associate job at a small firm, we received more than a hundred applicants. A hiring committee of four of the younger partners narrowed it down to ten, discussed each at a shareholders meeting, then invited six to interview.

With that sort of competition, I have no idea why on earth you'd ask for such a petty reimbursement.

It comes off as cheap. If you're too cheap to pay for a tank and a half of gas, you're probably too cheap to pick up the tab when you meet a client for lunch.

It further signals that you're not from or currently practicing in the area. Why you would waive a giant red flag to remind them of this is beyond me.

It also signals that you may be interviewing for a ton of firms.

I'm rambling now, but again, I have no idea why OP would even bother seeking such a petty reimbursement. Nothing good can come from it except a $30 reimbursement check. The cons significantly outweigh that.

[Anonymous User]

Wow... didn't think it was a big issue. To me it was definitely unprofessional and think it could have been handled differently by the firm.
I was contacted by them 1st week of Dec. The interview offer was still pending but was delayed due to Christmas and New years holiday. HR emailed me saying they will get back to me again 1st week of Jan once all the partners return from their holiday. (Dec 15th)

My first contact was 2nd week of Jan. No response.
I called and left vm 3rd week. No response.
Third contact was 4th week. no response.

They returned my email first week of Feb.

Not upset that my interview was cancelled, I was just disappointed with the way they handled it. Thats all.