Top Law Schools

.

No, it's unprofessional and shit sucks, but move on.

Truth be told you should have expected stuff like that happens to busy associates. If this was 2 hours late, then yeah that sucks but move on. The fact it was 20 minutes is really your fault for not waiting. But anyway, regardless of this, just move on. It happens, people are busy.

Anonymous User wrote:I recently had a phone screening interview with a V10. The screener was an associate who called me 25 min late for a 20 min interview. By the time he called me, I had given up hope for him calling me so I was now driving. He spent 5 min on the phone with me then said he has other meetings and cut the interview off. Got dinged the next day.

Would it be appropriate to explain what happened to recruiting and ask for a new screener?

No. Hindsight is obviously 20/20, but if I were in your original situation, I probably would have waited 30 minutes to one hour for the associate to call, and I probably would've pulled over to the side of the road to conduct the phone screener once the associate called. Obviously, all that is moot now.

I think you should just chalk this experience up as bad luck and move on. There will be other job opportunities for you if you keep working at it. Good luck!

ETA: scooped by the post above.

You should have waited longer, but you also got very unlucky. This is how OCI goes, especially the higher up the V rankings you go. There are so many qualified applicants (read: billable meatbags) that firms have to rely on unqualified associates to ding 80% of the pool before anyone important gets involved. You got screwed. It's not really your fault, but there's also nothing you can do about it now.

On the other hand, who cares what's "appropriate"? You could send a very friendly e-mail to the recruiting coordinator explaining the situation. They might appreciate knowing how awful this associate was and maybe they'll take him/her out of the OCI rotation. I'd give you a 0.5% chance of getting a second screener, and if you did, it'd probably be more for PR purposes (to make up for this associate being so unprofessional) than to actually consider you for an SA. But if you've got time to kill, go for it.

Finally, out the firm?

Anonymous User wrote:I recently had a phone screening interview with a V10. The screener was an associate who called me 25 min late for a 20 min interview. By the time he called me, I had given up hope for him calling me so I was now driving. He spent 5 min on the phone with me then said he has other meetings and cut the interview off. Got dinged the next day.

Would it be appropriate to explain what happened to recruiting and ask for a new screener?

I'm unclear about what you're saying (and what you'd say to recruiting). Are you claiming that the driving had something to do with it, i.e. you were really distracted or the interviewer could hear road noise and didn't like it? Or more that the associate was unprofessional and didn't give you a fair shot, i.e. called you late and only spent about a quarter of the allotted time with you? Doubt you can get a different outcome either way, though.

ResIpsa21 wrote:You should have waited longer, but you also got very unlucky. This is how OCI goes, especially the higher up the V rankings you go. There are so many qualified applicants (read: billable meatbags) that firms have to rely on unqualified associates to ding 80% of the pool before anyone important gets involved. You got screwed. It's not really your fault, but there's also nothing you can do about it now.

On the other hand, who cares what's "appropriate"? You could send a very friendly e-mail to the recruiting coordinator explaining the situation. They might appreciate knowing how awful this associate was and maybe they'll take him/her out of the OCI rotation. I'd give you a 0.5% chance of getting a second screener, and if you did, it'd probably be more for PR purposes (to make up for this associate being so unprofessional) than to actually consider you for an SA. But if you've got time to kill, go for it.

Finally, out the firm?

Yeah if you're particularly vindictive could respond to your ding e-mail: "Thank you for your consideration of me as an applicant. I want to apologize for not being able to fully field the screening interview call. I unfortunately had other commitments that day and could not wait 30 mins past the scheduled interview" etc... ORRRR you could just chalk it up to "life is a bitch"

It is what it is don't out the firm. This shit happens and you can't get hung up on it even though it's not "fair" and it's not really your fault.

If they gave you another screener and word got out, tons of people who felt they got horrible screener interviews will be beating down the door for another interview. Recruiting really doesn't want that kind of headache.

I might be wrong, and it is probably too late now, but I kinda disagree with the other responses here. My understanding of OP's situation is that the associate didn't call until 25 minutes after the scheduled time, OP answered and was ready to engage, and then the associate got off the phone after only 5 minutes (instead of the planned 20-30) for reasons unrelated to OP's performance. If I were in OP's position, I think I would at least send an email to the recruiter to explain the situation and request another screener. Sounds to me like the associate was just slammed and didn't feel like dealing with it, and essentially auto-dinged OP against the recruiting dept.'s judgment that he/she was a viable candidate and should be given an opportunity to interview; from what OP describes, I imagine that even the strongest possible 5 minute screener performance would not have led to a CB.

Having said that, I HIGHLY doubt that OP will get another screener, but given the paramount importance of landing an offer, I don't think it hurts to grasp at straws. Plus, as a matter of principle, I think it is worth sending a short explanatory email; OP could be an ideal candidate for this firm, and if the associate interviewer didn't have enough time to give OP a fair shot, then he should've asked the recruiter to have someone else do it. If I were a law firm recruiter, I think this is the sort of thing I'd like to know about--could be causing them to lose really strong candidates.

Whatever, go ahead and call me stupid, naive, etc...

Wonnker wrote:I might be wrong, and it is probably too late now, but I kinda disagree with the other responses here. My understanding of OP's situation is that the associate didn't call until 25 minutes after the scheduled time, OP answered and was ready to engage, and then the associate got off the phone after only 5 minutes (instead of the planned 20-30) for reasons unrelated to OP's performance. If I were in OP's position, I think I would at least send an email to the recruiter to explain the situation and request another screener. Sounds to me like the associate was just slammed and didn't feel like dealing with it, and essentially auto-dinged OP against the recruiting dept.'s judgment that he/she was a viable candidate and should be given an opportunity to interview; from what OP describes, I imagine that even the strongest possible 5 minute screener performance would not have led to a CB.

Having said that, I HIGHLY doubt that OP will get another screener, but given the paramount importance of landing an offer, I don't think it hurts to grasp at straws. Plus, as a matter of principle, I think it is worth sending a short explanatory email; OP could be an ideal candidate for this firm, and if the associate interviewer didn't have enough time to give OP a fair shot, then he should've asked the recruiter to have someone else do it. If I were a law firm recruiter, I think this is the sort of thing I'd like to know about--could be causing them to lose really strong candidates.

Whatever, go ahead and call me stupid, naive, etc...

It could also be the case that OP's interview was not great because OP was driving instead of being fully engaged with the interview, leading to the associate's early termination of the interview.

I don't think your opinion is stupid, naive, etc., though. It's definitely reasonable.

Wonnker wrote:I might be wrong, and it is probably too late now, but I kinda disagree with the other responses here. My understanding of OP's situation is that the associate didn't call until 25 minutes after the scheduled time, OP answered and was ready to engage, and then the associate got off the phone after only 5 minutes (instead of the planned 20-30) for reasons unrelated to OP's performance. If I were in OP's position, I think I would at least send an email to the recruiter to explain the situation and request another screener. Sounds to me like the associate was just slammed and didn't feel like dealing with it, and essentially auto-dinged OP against the recruiting dept.'s judgment that he/she was a viable candidate and should be given an opportunity to interview; from what OP describes, I imagine that even the strongest possible 5 minute screener performance would not have led to a CB.

Having said that, I HIGHLY doubt that OP will get another screener, but given the paramount importance of landing an offer, I don't think it hurts to grasp at straws. Plus, as a matter of principle, I think it is worth sending a short explanatory email; OP could be an ideal candidate for this firm, and if the associate interviewer didn't have enough time to give OP a fair shot, then he should've asked the recruiter to have someone else do it. If I were a law firm recruiter, I think this is the sort of thing I'd like to know about--could be causing them to lose really strong candidates.

Whatever, go ahead and call me stupid, naive, etc...

Even in your reading of the situation, what possible positive outcome will result? At best, the firm realizes that there was a bad interview and chalks it up as such, while changing their interview process/interview rotation.

I don't think you're stupid, naive, or anything negative, but I think you're sympathetic to those going through this process. There will be times when an interviewer/interviewee possibly unfairly judges a candidate, and as a result is doomed from the start. But that doesn't mean the process was inherently unfair/deserving of reconsideration. The OP likely got screwed by the situation, but that doesn't mean much in the hiring process. They need to move on from this slight or injustice and keep applying to firms that will be a better fit.

ResIpsa21 wrote:Finally, out the firm?

Lol. When you play the mass mail game (which is how I assume OP got the screener), this kind of shit happens all the time. Firms aren't going to prioritize your unsolicited application. A firm will often just ask an associate to screen a bunch of applicants. This will result in a lot of hurried, superficial interviews. That's part of the game. If you didn't make a good impression in your few minutes of interview time, or if you got in your car and started driving somewhere instead of waiting half an hour for the phone interview, then oh well . . . better luck next time.

If you OUT THE FIRM, the most likely change (if any change were to happen) is that the firm will say: "Fuck it. Let's just shred all mass mailed apps in the future and hire only through OCI."

UVA2B wrote:
Even in your reading of the situation, what possible positive outcome will result? At best, the firm realizes that there was a bad interview and chalks it up as such, while changing their interview process/interview rotation.

I don't think you're stupid, naive, or anything negative, but I think you're sympathetic to those going through this process. There will be times when an interviewer/interviewee possibly unfairly judges a candidate, and as a result is doomed from the start. But that doesn't mean the process was inherently unfair/deserving of reconsideration. The OP likely got screwed by the situation, but that doesn't mean much in the hiring process. They need to move on from this slight or injustice and keep applying to firms that will be a better fit.

Fair enough. There are probably better ways for OP to use his/her time. My comment was written from the perspective of a guy who recently wrote an angry letter (accompanied by a check) to the PA Turnpike Authority, accusing them of intentionally not installing card readers at toll booths because they know that most people no longer carry cash, and it gives them cover to charge a $25 administrative fee on a $2.50 unpaid toll in order to solicit revenue for their little racket. Seriously, a $2.50 toll to traverse 10 miles of poorly-maintained highway in rural Pennsylvania? Stingy toll trolls even made me pay postage!

Point is, it accomplished nothing, but it made me feel better...

Wonnker wrote:

UVA2B wrote:
Even in your reading of the situation, what possible positive outcome will result? At best, the firm realizes that there was a bad interview and chalks it up as such, while changing their interview process/interview rotation.

I don't think you're stupid, naive, or anything negative, but I think you're sympathetic to those going through this process. There will be times when an interviewer/interviewee possibly unfairly judges a candidate, and as a result is doomed from the start. But that doesn't mean the process was inherently unfair/deserving of reconsideration. The OP likely got screwed by the situation, but that doesn't mean much in the hiring process. They need to move on from this slight or injustice and keep applying to firms that will be a better fit.

Fair enough. There are probably better ways for OP to use his/her time. My comment was written from the perspective of a guy who recently wrote an angry letter (accompanied by a check) to the PA Turnpike Authority, accusing them of intentionally not installing card readers at toll booths because they know that most people no longer carry cash, and it gives them cover to charge a $25 administrative fee on a $2.50 unpaid toll in order to solicit revenue for their little racket. Seriously, a $2.50 toll to traverse 10 miles of poorly-maintained highway in rural Pennsylvania? Stingy toll trolls even made me pay postage!

Point is, it accomplished nothing, but it made me feel better...

Your advice was bad and biased, got it.

UVA2B wrote:
Your advice was bad and biased, got it.

I prefer "unproductive" and "sympathetic" (as you said in previous comment). IMO, sometimes the effort required to express oneself is worth the resulting peace of mind, so long as the risks associated with expression are negligible.

Edit: accidental anon- Wonnker

Was this your first phone interview? Phone interviews basically always start late.

honestly 25 mins aint even that bad Ive had plenty that were like an hour late

OP HERE: I was given a new screening interview

Dont f it up this time OP.

happy for you OP - good luck!!!

Anonymous User wrote:OP HERE: I was given a new screening interview

It's time for a revenge power move. Don't answer when they call, and then call back 25 minutes later, saying that you're ready for the interview.

rpupkin wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:OP HERE: I was given a new screening interview

It's time for a revenge power move. Don't answer when they call, and then call back 25 minutes later, saying that you're ready for the interview.

Then, reschedule a third screener where you both show up on time — the Goldilocks method. Callback guaranteed.

Anonymous User wrote:happy for you OP - good luck!!!

phew, good thing you went anon for this.

Anonymous User wrote:OP HERE: I was given a new screening interview

you shittin us, this actually worked?

i'm honestly shocked