Did my answer hurt me? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Just struck out at OCI and have been scrutinizing all of my interview answers to find out why. I have para experience at a v10 prior to law school and worked for a federal judge over 1L summer so my experience so far is all litigation. When asked whether I wanted to do corporate or lit, I answered that while I enjoyed my lit experience, I was willing to explore corporate work because law school has not given me a lot of corporate experience so far (I didn't do the 1L corporations elective). I further elaborated that I enjoyed the negotiation portion of my LRW class and that I enjoyed working in a collaborative setting more. Part of me was under the impression that saying I'm open will give me more opportunities, as my grades were not tippy top (~1/3 at T14). However, did my "why corporate" answer hurt me because my resume screams litigation so maybe interviewers found me indecisive? I received positive feedbacks from all of my mock interviewers on my other answers so I really can't seem to figure out what else went wrong in my interviews.

Thoughts? Thanks so much in advance.

[2013]

Don’t overthink it. Just practice your delivery more next time. You aren’t guaranteed a job in top 1/3 at a lower t14 (especially not at Georgetown, which I’m not even sure is a t14 anymore)

[Wild Card]

Your paralegal background (willingness and ability to eat shit) and your grades (well above median) are very impressive. It must have been something else.

[Anonymous User]

Just struck out at OCI and have been scrutinizing all of my interview answers to find out why. I have para experience at a v10 prior to law school and worked for a federal judge over 1L summer so my experience so far is all litigation. When asked whether I wanted to do corporate or lit, I answered that while I enjoyed my lit experience, I was willing to explore corporate work because law school has not given me a lot of corporate experience so far (I didn't do the 1L corporations elective). I further elaborated that I enjoyed the negotiation portion of my LRW class and that I enjoyed working in a collaborative setting more. Part of me was under the impression that saying I'm open will give me more opportunities, as my grades were not tippy top (~1/3 at T14). However, did my "why corporate" answer hurt me because my resume screams litigation so maybe interviewers found me indecisive? I received positive feedbacks from all of my mock interviewers on my other answers so I really can't seem to figure out what else went wrong in my interviews.

Thoughts? Thanks so much in advance.

I am just a 2L, but I actually think it's a great answer and you have good reasons. If I have to say sth, maybe leave out the "collaborative" part if your interviewer is doing litigation. Good luck.

[QContinuum]

When asked whether I wanted to do corporate or lit, I answered that while I enjoyed my lit experience, I was willing to explore corporate work because law school has not given me a lot of corporate experience so far (I didn't do the 1L corporations elective).

I'd deliver that line more along the lines of, you enjoyed your lit experience but also want to try corporate over the summer. The mine run of firms let summers explore both corporate and lit. So the "willing to explore" phrase strikes me as a bit odd.

(Obviously, at firms that prefer/require a choice between corporate and lit, you should have a compelling answer as to why you're certain you want corporate/why you're certain you want lit.)

[Yea All Right]

I'm going to offer a different perspective here. Beyond making sure that your answers are professional, well-articulated, and tailored to the context of that firm, you should focus on building rapport with your interviewer. Let your personality come through (within reason). Show that you're positive, interested, intellectually curious, etc. as appropriate for that specific interviewer. When it comes to deciding on candidates, I think people are more willing to choose those who they felt a connection with and thought stood out positively.

Keep hustling, it's not over yet. Best of luck.

[Anonymous User]

I can only speak from my experience, including from my firm where I'm an OCI interviewer and member of the hiring committee. Your answer likely hurt you at some firms, but it didn't cause you to strike out. If some firm (office) is heavily slanted litigation or transactional, you should know that going in and answer accordingly. If you were interviewing at my office, which is heavily slanted towards one, being indecisively open would be a negative (thought not a ding). 1/3 at a lower T14 won't make up for that.

That said, I gave similar answers during my OCI process, which took place during a worse economy, and still got a bunch of callbacks and offers. Also, my office has given offers to indecisive people, even though we're 90% towards one of lit/corp. It isn't a dealbreaker.

If you were open to anything and just wanted biglaw, you should've (and should in mass mailing) double down on a lit preference. Paralegal experience at a top firm is actually a pretty big plus, and gives you a coherent answer to why law / why lit / etc. No one really cares about a judicial externship.

In all likelihood something else went wrong though. Find someone who will give you brutally honest feedback, set your ego aside, and listen to what they have to say. Most people are poor interviewers and need all the help they can get. And, if nothing else, it's practice and will make you more comfortable for the real deal.

[Anonymous User]

I can only speak from my experience, including from my firm where I'm an OCI interviewer and member of the hiring committee. Your answer likely hurt you at some firms, but it didn't cause you to strike out. If some firm (office) is heavily slanted litigation or transactional, you should know that going in and answer accordingly. If you were interviewing at my office, which is heavily slanted towards one, being indecisively open would be a negative (thought not a ding). 1/3 at a lower T14 won't make up for that.

That said, I gave similar answers during my OCI process, which took place during a worse economy, and still got a bunch of callbacks and offers. Also, my office has given offers to indecisive people, even though we're 90% towards one of lit/corp. It isn't a dealbreaker.

If you were open to anything and just wanted biglaw, you should've (and should in mass mailing) double down on a lit preference. Paralegal experience at a top firm is actually a pretty big plus, and gives you a coherent answer to why law / why lit / etc. No one really cares about a judicial externship.

In all likelihood something else went wrong though. Find someone who will give you brutally honest feedback, set your ego aside, and listen to what they have to say. Most people are poor interviewers and need all the help they can get. And, if nothing else, it's practice and will make you more comfortable for the real deal.

op here. Thanks so much. I was just wondering if I double down on a lit preference, will my grades put me in some disadvantage since my impression is that lit is more grade selective? Based on your experience, what kind of narrative do the successful corporate candidates provide (having little if any prior experience)?

[Anonymous User]

I'm going to offer a different perspective here. Beyond making sure that your answers are professional, well-articulated, and tailored to the context of that firm, you should focus on building rapport with your interviewer. Let your personality come through (within reason). Show that you're positive, interested, intellectually curious, etc. as appropriate for that specific interviewer. When it comes to deciding on candidates, I think people are more willing to choose those who they felt a connection with and thought stood out positively.

Keep hustling, it's not over yet. Best of luck.

Op. Thank you for this very helpful insight. I am indeed bad at small talk sometimes and maybe tend to put the focus of my questions on the interviewer’s practice/how people get work at the firm etc a little too much. I thought i was showing curiosity (I do care about those tbh) but in hindsight it was probably poor strategy?

[oblig.lawl.ref]

I'm going to offer a different perspective here. Beyond making sure that your answers are professional, well-articulated, and tailored to the context of that firm, you should focus on building rapport with your interviewer. Let your personality come through (within reason). Show that you're positive, interested, intellectually curious, etc. as appropriate for that specific interviewer. When it comes to deciding on candidates, I think people are more willing to choose those who they felt a connection with and thought stood out positively.

Keep hustling, it's not over yet. Best of luck.

I think this is 100%, unqualified, the best advice I've seen on here in a while. If they interview you, 95% of the time, your resume should be sufficient and I think this will carry you through.

[nixy]

I’m confused by the idea that “if they interview you, 95% of the time your resume should be sufficient.” Maybe for callbacks, but don’t lots of T14s use lotteries at OCI? The firm hasn’t even seen your resume, so it can’t be that your resume will carry you through.

[Anonymous User]

I’m confused by the idea that “if they interview you, 95% of the time your resume should be sufficient.” Maybe for callbacks, but don’t lots of T14s use lotteries at OCI? The firm hasn’t even seen your resume, so it can’t be that your resume will carry you through.

op here—sorry for the confusion but I’m asking in the context of callbacks; i struck out because my cbs didn’t turn into offers.

[Anonymous User]

Op. Thank you for this very helpful insight. I am indeed bad at small talk sometimes and maybe tend to put the focus of my questions on the interviewer’s practice/how people get work at the firm etc a little too much. I thought i was showing curiosity (I do care about those tbh) but in hindsight it was probably poor strategy?

I don't think asking about the interviewer's practice/how people get work at the firm is by itself a problem; I asked those same questions during my callbacks and did alright. It might've been a problem though if your interviewers were trying to make small talk and you awkwardly steered them back to talking about work (ex. "Oh that sounds like a really cool trip to X country." "Yeah, I had a really great time. I was wondering though if I could ask you more about the work assignment system at your firm?"). I had interviews where the interviewer and I talked pretty much exclusively about traveling/public transportation system of city I was interviewing at/soap operas, and I doubt it would have gone over well if I forcefully steered the interviewer back to my resume or the firm.

[Anonymous User]

I honestly don't think this was the problem. It does depend on the firm though. Some (unfairly) want you to firmly declare one way or the other, while others want you to express a preference but remain open to the other side. You can generally learn this by investigating how the summer program works - some summer programs have you do work for everyone while others have you commit to one group.

For the former, I would often just say "I am litigation focused [explain why], but that always comes with the qualifier that I'm a 1L that doesn't know anything [usually gets a laugh], so I am more than willing to learn about corporate work."

Honestly though, I don't think your answer was bad - like a previous poster said, it could be the delivery rather than the content. That said, there is no way that this single answer is what did you in.