Former V5/V15 NYC Associate Involved with Hiring; AMA Forum

[Anonymous User]

1) You spoke of red flags -- can you mention some? I want to be mindful that I stay away from saying anything that could be taken the wrong way. For instance, I have 10 years of prior work experience not in legal but at some great companies. 2) One thing I fear is that the partners/associates will think I don't sincerely want big law.

I wouldn't be too worried about that in particular. Good work experience is probably a plus for you.

If you took the time (and debt) to go to law school, you want a law job. The only way it seems like a risk is if you talk glowingly and passionately about that work experience, then you have zero enthusiasm when it comes to talking about the law and what you'd like to do in your legal career. If you're genuinely interested in the firm and what it does, you're fine.

Red flags are things that make you seem like a dud/someone you wouldn't want to work with. They're often personality-based. Examples:

• Anything that makes you sound lazy. It's OK to do things and have passions outside of work, but please, please don't describe what a drag 1L and your summer job were then focus all your questions on work-life balance. For what it's worth, work-life balance is a thing and it's fair to ask about, but the narrative you're conveying shouldn't suggest you hate work. If you were in the firm's shoes, would you want to hire someone who was completely work-averse? "Work hard play hard" I have no issues with.
• Consistent over-the-top brown-nosing. This is a pretty high bar but I literally had someone ask me, "What's molded you into the first-class lawyer you are today? My career goal's to turn out exactly like you."
• Lying or embellishing. Ex. Even putting things down in your interests section you couldn't care less for can put a sour taste in someone's mouth. It doesn't matter what the interests themselves are, but if someone shares that "interest" and you just kinda faked it you'll get exposed pretty quick. It seems like a light foul but inauthenticity is memorable.
• Being completely unable to carry a conversation. This doesn't mean you have to be dynamite - a lot of lawyers are introverts (I certainly am) - but if their questions are consistently met with terse answers they can't follow up on, your interview's going to feel pretty awkward pretty fast. "I'd love to hear more about your 1L summer job. How'd you enjoy your experience at the SEC?" "It was good." The question's an invitation to talk a bit more about what you did there.

It comes down to common sense.

Do practice interviews. Other people can help you spot interview problems you can't yourself. Ask a 2L/3L friend if you can, or your career services office if they do those. I thought I was a solid interviewer before my own OCI process but it turns out I had plenty of room for improvement, and a lot of things were simple quick fixes after being made aware of them by others.

[ingoodkompany]

I know this is something you’d have never experienced in your role, but how would you assume firms are looking at transfer students now that we’ll have one semester of grades from our new school? I left a t25 and transferred to Penn and just got around a 3.7 this semester. Just wondering if firms will really consider this semester or if it will mostly be dependent on my 1L fall grades.

[Anonymous User]

I know this is something you’d have never experienced in your role, but how would you assume firms are looking at transfer students now that we’ll have one semester of grades from our new school? I left a t25 and transferred to Penn and just got around a 3.7 this semester. Just wondering if firms will really consider this semester or if it will mostly be dependent on my 1L fall grades.

I posted a couple thoughts on grades a couple posts up (though I know they're not specific to transfers, they're applicable here). In short, while it's speculation on my part, a 3.7's great and there's no way they don't notice it on your transcript. Most firms (none that I know of) don't plug your grades into a formula they've carefully weighted and compare the weighted scores among all candidates... it's more of a glance and a gut impression, absent some indication of honors. If your 1L fall grades are good enough to transfer to Penn, I'm sure those are more than fine, too.

Transfers at Columbia seemed to do just fine, I assume it's the same at Penn. At any rate, your 2L fall grades will only help. Good job on your last semester and good luck.

[Anonymous User]

CLS 2L here, thank you OP for the helpful thread.

A niche question for you: thoughts on use of self-deprecation during OCI interviews? My tendency especially when nervous is to slip in a few little self-deprecating jokes. Would you (or the generic interviewer) find that off-putting? I know the point of these interviews is to ‘sell yourself,’ and I don’t want people to think the self-deprecation is a mask for insecurity.

(For what it’s worth, I’m a strong candidate on paper, 3.8+, solid work experience, etc.)

[Anonymous User]

CLS 2L here, thank you OP for the helpful thread.

A niche question for you: thoughts on use of self-deprecation during OCI interviews? My tendency especially when nervous is to slip in a few little self-deprecating jokes. Would you (or the generic interviewer) find that off-putting? I know the point of these interviews is to ‘sell yourself,’ and I don’t want people to think the self-deprecation is a mask for insecurity.

(For what it’s worth, I’m a strong candidate on paper, 3.8+, solid work experience, etc.)

Not OP, but also familiar with process from the firm side.

You are not selling yourself anymore. Your resume and transcript will speak for themselves and I am capable of reading them. Instead, I look to interviews to see if I would want to work with you. (Read: will you be a good co-worker? Will I like spending time with you on a matter?) If you have some ultra-compelling thing that would make you a great associate that isn't on your resume, push it and explain to me why you think that would make you a great associate. Mostly I'm checking to see 1.) have you prepared for the interview (do you have answers to questions like "why my firm?") and 2.) if you're a person who's enjoyable in a 20 minute interview session. Someone who spends the interview trying to "sell themselves" won't do well on those metrics.

As to self-deprecation: in theory fine, but don't play down your accomplishments. If you want to tell me that you're not that smart, it's all just luck, etc -- fine, I believe you!

[Anonymous User]

Instead, I look to interviews to see if I would want to work with you. (Read: will you be a good co-worker? Will I like spending time with you on a matter?) If you have some ultra-compelling thing that would make you a great associate that isn't on your resume, push it and explain to me why you think that would make you a great associate. Mostly I'm checking to see 1.) have you prepared for the interview (do you have answers to questions like "why my firm?") and 2.) if you're a person who's enjoyable in a 20 minute interview session. Someone who spends the interview trying to "sell themselves" won't do well on those metrics.

My experience is that law firm interviews are generally competitive BSing, probably with bad results for diversity and probably counterproductively (see Lauren Rivera at Northwestern's work on it). Unfortunately law firms that try to do it differently, like White & Case, generally end up in a different sort of BS, endless behaviorals.

[Anonymous User]

Instead, I look to interviews to see if I would want to work with you. (Read: will you be a good co-worker? Will I like spending time with you on a matter?) If you have some ultra-compelling thing that would make you a great associate that isn't on your resume, push it and explain to me why you think that would make you a great associate. Mostly I'm checking to see 1.) have you prepared for the interview (do you have answers to questions like "why my firm?") and 2.) if you're a person who's enjoyable in a 20 minute interview session. Someone who spends the interview trying to "sell themselves" won't do well on those metrics.

My experience is that law firm interviews are generally competitive BSing, probably with bad results for diversity and probably counterproductively (see Lauren Rivera at Northwestern's work on it). Unfortunately law firms that try to do it differently, like White & Case, generally end up in a different sort of BS, endless behaviorals.

I read her book Pedigree a few months after my (pretty horrible) OCI experience, and it made so much sense. I was way too naive going into the whole experience, and that hurt me. Highly recommend at least reading about it, especially if you're coming from lower-ranked law schools or lesser known undergrad or a small town or something.

[Anonymous User]

Instead, I look to interviews to see if I would want to work with you. (Read: will you be a good co-worker? Will I like spending time with you on a matter?) If you have some ultra-compelling thing that would make you a great associate that isn't on your resume, push it and explain to me why you think that would make you a great associate. Mostly I'm checking to see 1.) have you prepared for the interview (do you have answers to questions like "why my firm?") and 2.) if you're a person who's enjoyable in a 20 minute interview session. Someone who spends the interview trying to "sell themselves" won't do well on those metrics.

My experience is that law firm interviews are generally competitive BSing, probably with bad results for diversity and probably counterproductively (see Lauren Rivera at Northwestern's work on it). Unfortunately law firms that try to do it differently, like White & Case, generally end up in a different sort of BS, endless behaviorals.

Quoted anon. I agree 1000% and don't like it. (I read Pedigree as a guide to how to do law firm interviews and it worked, un/fortunately.) But I think it's at least fair that I explicitly warn people how I (and many others) see this process so you walk in understanding what's going on.

If you could come up with an effective way to predict who will be a good (loaded term, very difficult to define) associate, firms would pay $millions for it.

[Anonymous User]

CLS 2L here, thank you OP for the helpful thread.

A niche question for you: thoughts on use of self-deprecation during OCI interviews? My tendency especially when nervous is to slip in a few little self-deprecating jokes. Would you (or the generic interviewer) find that off-putting? I know the point of these interviews is to ‘sell yourself,’ and I don’t want people to think the self-deprecation is a mask for insecurity.

(For what it’s worth, I’m a strong candidate on paper, 3.8+, solid work experience, etc.)

OP here. A couple would work perfectly fine for me, but I wouldn't make a TON to the point you're overwhelmingly negative about yourself. In short, no sweat if a couple come out without you thinking.

Like the other person said, likeability comes first and foremost (especially at the callback stage). If I generally like you and would like to work with you, I'll push for you, even if your grades are weaker (so long as they're not truly bottom of the barrel). If you come off pretentious and lazy, I'll vote no, even if you have a 3.8. A self-deprecating joke or two doesn't move the needle much on the spectrum. Congrats on the grades and hope it goes great soon.

For what it's worth, you'll feel much more comfortable with interviews after the first day of your OCI, and that should help you feel less nervous. It's only going to get easier.

My experience is that law firm interviews are generally competitive BSing, probably with bad results for diversity and probably counterproductively (see Lauren Rivera at Northwestern's work on it). Unfortunately law firms that try to do it differently, like White & Case, generally end up in a different sort of BS, endless behaviorals.

I read her book Pedigree a few months after my (pretty horrible) OCI experience, and it made so much sense. I was way too naive going into the whole experience, and that hurt me. Highly recommend at least reading about it, especially if you're coming from lower-ranked law schools or lesser known undergrad or a small town or something.

I haven't read this, sadly, and honestly didn't know it was out there, but I'll look this up sometime!

[Anonymous User]

Not sure if you've come across this before, but way back in March, shortly before the pandemic lockdown, I had a lateral screener through a connection. I was rejected. I sent my application again a few days ago and shortly afterward received an screener invitation again, with the same partners as last time. I was wondering what your recommendation is for going about it? It feels a bit awkward to get a second chance with the same people. I am guessing that the initial rejection was perhaps related to the lockdowns and uncertainty that it produced, but I won't dwell on it. So this is a general inquiry as to how you think the best way to go about the screener would be? I am a bit hesitant to bring up the prior screener. Thanks!

[Anonymous User]

Not sure if you've come across this before, but way back in March, shortly before the pandemic lockdown, I had a lateral screener through a connection. I was rejected. I sent my application again a few days ago and shortly afterward received an screener invitation again, with the same partners as last time. I was wondering what your recommendation is for going about it? It feels a bit awkward to get a second chance with the same people. I am guessing that the initial rejection was perhaps related to the lockdowns and uncertainty that it produced, but I won't dwell on it. So this is a general inquiry as to how you think the best way to go about the screener would be? I am a bit hesitant to bring up the prior screener. Thanks!

I'd be surprised if they're not aware that you're coming up a second time. Most likely, the hiring team consciously decided to bring you in again, based on renewed need (which is a great thing for you). If they're somehow not aware, I'm sure the interviewers will remember upon seeing you.

Regardless, there's nothing much for you to do other than say you're still interested in the role and would love to work with them. To the extent you've gained any extra relevant experience since the last set of interviews, you can highlight that. Don't change your strategy any and come in like you have an advantage.

[Anonymous User]

Mid-level/Approaching senior lateral interview to V10. Is it possible to convey that I have zero issues with stress and actually appreciate the hour requirements that are expected without annoying the interviewer? I think it's one of my strengths but worried that people would see me as bsing or be annoyed because who likes working long hours.

My current thought would be to avoid mentioning it to associates and feel out partners to see what kind of person they might be. I also wouldn't bring it up cold and only in response to related questions about hours.

[Anonymous User]

Mid-level/Approaching senior lateral interview to V10. Is it possible to convey that I have zero issues with stress and actually appreciate the hour requirements that are expected without annoying the interviewer? I think it's one of my strengths but worried that people would see me as bsing or be annoyed because who likes working long hours.

My current thought would be to avoid mentioning it to associates and feel out partners to see what kind of person they might be. I also wouldn't bring it up cold and only in response to related questions about hours.

It could just be me, but it seems like a weird thing to say directly to them. There's no organic way to bring it up, even if you ask about hours first. I'd be a little sketched out if someone asked, "What's the billable hour target at X firm?" and when I told them the answer, they replied with, "That's more than fine with me, I'm ready to work much harder than that." I think the risk of coming across pandering or disingenuous is too high, like you noted.

There are ways to convey you're willing to work hard without saying, "I like working long hours." Let them make the judgment that you'll be a hard worker without telling them you'll smash their billable hour requirement.

Every interviewer you'll come across will ask you questions designed to sus out if you're a dud or a great employee looking to make a career change, whether that's in the form of asking about what you've been working on lately, your interactions with clients, how you manage different workflows and people up/down the chain, whatever it might be. In answering those questions, your goal is to demonstrate your competence, i.e., that you're reliable, a self-starter and people want you on their team at you current firm: "I ran these deals lately." "I've done a lot of repeat work for Client X on their serial acquisitions, and have gotten very close with their business and legal teams." "I've become the go-to guy for ____." [Answers simplified for clarity, I wouldn't say it exactly like this, but the point's that you have many ways of conveying that people want you on their team and can work hard.] If they ask what you're looking for in their law firm (and they will), you can focus on the chance to work with X clients or Y industry, build out a practice in Z, or other work-focused things (as opposed to focusing on a laid-back culture or whatever).

[Anonymous User]

I wonder if you find it very off-putting / a dealbreaker for the interviewee to end the interview when time's up (when it's already 30 minutes and have asked 1-3 questions already)? What could be a nonharmful way to exit the interview? Maybe I should never be the person to end an interview? Thank you very much.

[Anonymous User]

I wonder if you find it very off-putting / a dealbreaker for the interviewee to end the interview when time's up (when it's already 30 minutes and have asked 1-3 questions already)? What could be a nonharmful way to exit the interview? Maybe I should never be the person to end an interview? Thank you very much.

I'd probably let them decide if they want to end it, instead of you. They probably have decently strict time limitations already (for screeners, they need to move on to the next person; for callbacks, to make sure they pass you on to the next interviewer while that next interviewer's still available), so you probably only need to stall for another minute or two in most situations.

The easiest work-around for this is to ask another question. If you're unsure what to ask, just run with, "You mentioned X earlier in the interview. I'd love to hear more about your experience with that." [X could be anything, seriously, but preferably something they seemed to feel strongly about, e.g., mentorship, how they picked their practice group, some unique part of their law firm, etc.] You could even ask what initially drew them to their law firm (if they're a lateral), if they could tell you a little more about about their practice, anything. Anything else you're interested in works.

[Anonymous User]

I wonder if you find it very off-putting / a dealbreaker for the interviewee to end the interview when time's up (when it's already 30 minutes and have asked 1-3 questions already)? What could be a nonharmful way to exit the interview? Maybe I should never be the person to end an interview? Thank you very much.

I'd probably let them decide if they want to end it, instead of you. They probably have decently strict time limitations already (for screeners, they need to move on to the next person; for callbacks, to make sure they pass you on to the next interviewer while that next interviewer's still available), so you probably only need to stall for another minute or two in most situations.

The easiest work-around for this is to ask another question. If you're unsure what to ask, just run with, "You mentioned X earlier in the interview. I'd love to hear more about your experience with that." [X could be anything, seriously, but preferably something they seemed to feel strongly about, e.g., mentorship, how they picked their practice group, some unique part of their law firm, etc.] You could even ask what initially drew them to their law firm (if they're a lateral), if they could tell you a little more about about their practice, anything. Anything else you're interested in works.

I actually had many questions I wanted to ask because I am very interested in that group, just thought that they were busy and would be annoyed if I kept talking, so ended the interview. For one of the interviewers, when time's up and he asked me do you have more questions, I said no. That must be very weird for the interviewers. Probably not many interviewees had done this before. Well, lesson learned.

Thanks a lot btw.

[Anonymous User]

How often do you see 5th or 6th years try and lateral while changing practice group? Have you ever seen them have any success with that?

(Anon because I have a post about this topic and don’t want to be linked).

[Anonymous User]

How often do you see 5th or 6th years try and lateral while changing practice group? Have you ever seen them have any success with that?

(Anon because I have a post about this topic and don’t want to be linked).

I've seen an IP litigator move to Tech Transactions after 5-6 years, and same with a labor and employment-focused litigator moving to transactional employee benefits work. There are always cases of M&A/Cap Markets/etc. attorneys jumping to a start-up/VC-focused firms, though at your seniority level they tend to keep doing M&A and such for the most part at these firms.

While I've seen it, it can be tough. Your billing rate is so high that if you keep your seniority level, it's hard for partners to justify your billing rate to clients. It might be very reasonable to accept a seniority cut of 1-2 or more years, depending on the group. You may also need a strong narrative identifying why you want to make the switch, since five or six years is pretty high compared to people lateraling at 2-3 years (I'm sure you have a good reason, but be prepared to get drilled on it if you land an interview).

Overall, odds are very slim (absent a giant year cut), but you can still try. What practice group are you in now, and what practice group do you want to get into?

[Anonymous User]

What is the selection process for applicants to interview for lateral hires? Do recruiters select you from a pile and then schedule an interview? Or do the partners select people to interview and then recruiters contact?

[Anonymous User]

Is it really true that once you get a callback you've met the base requirements for the job? I have a callback at a firm that is known for being quite grade selective at my school and I fall under the "floor" that most 3Ls have told me the firm has. I expected to get rejected after my screener, but moved on. Just trying to not get my hopes up too much if it's unlikely to result in an offer.

[Anonymous User]

What is the selection process for applicants to interview for lateral hires? Do recruiters select you from a pile and then schedule an interview? Or do the partners select people to interview and then recruiters contact?

Changes firm by firm.

I think the most common scenario's that a hiring partner takes a look at the resumes/etc. that come in, and then decides who they'd like to bring in for a first interview. In some cases, that resume stack could be pre-screened slightly by the firm's own recruiting/HR team, though if they do at all I imagine they apply a very light hand.

There's really a ton of variation here, though. I'm sure the process at Kirkland or Paul Weiss (i.e., places where they bring in a boatload of laterals, and have gigantic associate classes) is substantially different than a place like Proskauer.

Is it really true that once you get a callback you've met the base requirements for the job? I have a callback at a firm that is known for being quite grade selective at my school and I fall under the "floor" that most 3Ls have told me the firm has. I expected to get rejected after my screener, but moved on. Just trying to not get my hopes up too much if it's unlikely to result in an offer.

Why are you deciding for them? If they saw fit to bring you back in, you have, at the minimum, a fighting chance. You really should take a different attitude here.

If you get a callback, someone thought highly of you in spite of your grades. It's not a light decision to decide to bring someone back for a callback. It would be odd to waste several lawyers' time (who could be billing $1,000+/hour) to see someone that never had a chance. I mean this in a good way, I promise - prep hard and don't sweat the grades here. Whether or not your grades impact your callback interviewers' decisions is firm by firm is a firm by firm (or interviewer by interviewer) decision, so there's a chance it's not entirely meaningless, but try anyway.

A couple notes here:

• A lot of times, your callback interviewers may not even see your transcript. They may just get your resume. If your resume doesn't specify your GPA, your interviewer may never know your grades (absent some indication of honors on your resume).
• The above isn't categorical. My first law firm gave full copies of all materials, including transcripts, to each interviewer. That said, even if this is the case at whatever firm you're interviewing with, your grades will be de-prioritized (at a minimum). Speaking as someone who did a lot of interviews, you generally want to trust the decision of your colleagues to bring the person back in the first place, and you're much more inclined to focus on fit and whether or not you'd want to work with that person.
• On the flip side, I can promise I've never thought, "This guy was a lackluster interviewer, but he had straight As, so let's give him an offer." Literally never. A bad interview is a hard no no matter what the grades. A lot of people who were Kent Scholars (i.e., top 3-5% at Columbia) didn't get offers at my firms, and a lot of people who weren't Kent did.

Good luck and congrats on the callback. At worst, it's great interview prep, and at best you get a great job. There's no downside to trying.

[Anonymous User]

Do callback interviewers look at grades? Wondering how to best approach callbacks when grades are lower than the average for an offer at the firm. Thanks.

[Anonymous User]

Do callback interviewers look at grades? Wondering how to best approach callbacks when grades are lower than the average for an offer at the firm. Thanks.

See my last post, it covers exactly this in more detail!

In short, it's possible grades may still matter for callbacks (depending on each interviewer), but regardless, they'll matter a lot less. If you got a callback, give it your best shot. Your strategy for the interviews doesn't really change any for the callbacks based on what your grades are, just be a decent person and seem like decent person who'd be good to work with.

[Anonymous User]

Do callback interviewers look at grades? Wondering how to best approach callbacks when grades are lower than the average for an offer at the firm. Thanks.

See my last post, it covers exactly this in more detail!

In short, it's possible grades may still matter for callbacks (depending on each interviewer), but regardless, they'll matter a lot less. If you got a callback, give it your best shot. Your strategy for the interviews doesn't really change any for the callbacks based on what your grades are, just be a decent person and seem like decent person who'd be good to work with.

Thanks!

[Anonymous User]

How often do you see 5th or 6th years try and lateral while changing practice group? Have you ever seen them have any success with that?

(Anon because I have a post about this topic and don’t want to be linked).

I've seen an IP litigator move to Tech Transactions after 5-6 years, and same with a labor and employment-focused litigator moving to transactional employee benefits work. There are always cases of M&A/Cap Markets/etc. attorneys jumping to a start-up/VC-focused firms, though at your seniority level they tend to keep doing M&A and such for the most part at these firms.

While I've seen it, it can be tough. Your billing rate is so high that if you keep your seniority level, it's hard for partners to justify your billing rate to clients. It might be very reasonable to accept a seniority cut of 1-2 or more years, depending on the group. You may also need a strong narrative identifying why you want to make the switch, since five or six years is pretty high compared to people lateraling at 2-3 years (I'm sure you have a good reason, but be prepared to get drilled on it if you land an interview).

Overall, odds are very slim (absent a giant year cut), but you can still try. What practice group are you in now, and what practice group do you want to get into?

I want to move to tech, either general tech transactions or even more focused like cybersecurity and data privacy from.... a niche within real estate finance/acquisitions, though I can always tailor my resume to not emphasize the niche. I don't care if it's a support group or primary group, used to both.

Beyond hating real estate (which I would never mention in an interview), it would be combining my passion with my career, which sounds incredible. In addition, I have significant client potential in tech due to family and family friend relationships. I think I'd really be holding myself back if I didn't transition. I did tech before law school, and I let my first firm pick my practice group for me and just silently did it for 5 years.

Typing this, it doesn't sound like a compelling reason at all. But it's compelling to me. It's my passion, and I'm confident that in X amount of years I'll look back and regret not making the switch.

I have zero issue with class cut. Can I mention class cuts in my cover letter or is that too desperate? I do have experience in tech transactions and cybersecurity. I regularly reach out to partners at my firm in the group and volunteer whenever they need help. I have some experience, just nothing like my current deal sheet.

If you have any advice at all about what you would need to hear to let a 4-6th year lateral to a new practice group, without displaying desperateness, I would greatly appreciate it.