Does biglaw "blacklist" stealthed associates? Forum

[Anonymous User]

In short, I was stealthed by my law firm because I turned down work when I was very busy, and also didn't gun for work when I wasn't busy. (I was a transactional associate on the "feast or famine" cycle.)

(This is what I was officially told, although there were plenty of other reasons why my firm fired me--including inappropriate internet usage and always maxing out the food budget whenever I worked late.)

My questions are:

• Do biglaw firms maintain a blacklist that they share with other firms?
  
  Do HR personnel or hiring partners call your old firm's HR or supervising partners as part of the hiring process? Will your old firm's supervising partners actually criticize you at length, even though on paper they agree not to say anything about you?

Just curious, and would be deeply grateful for thoughts from those in the know.

[AntipodeanPhil]

I know a few people stealthed from my last firm for complete incompetence and they're almost all still in biglaw. One went to a V10 and spent over two years there before moving on to another V10. A different one is now at her fourth Vault ranked firm in 5 years. So, in short, the answer to your questions seems to be 'no.'

Out of curiosity, what did you do on the internet?

[Anonymous User]

My questions are:

• Do biglaw firms maintain a blacklist that they share with other firms?
  
  Do HR personnel or hiring partners call your old firm's HR or supervising partners as part of the hiring process? Will your old firm's supervising partners actually criticize you at length, even though on paper they agree not to say anything about you?

1. I doubt it. Plenty of people stealthed at one place who wind up at comparable or better firms.

2. "The firm" won't say anything. HR people may or may not know what happened in detail, but I'd be surprised if this were part of their searches.

The risk is that partners/associates at prospects call people they know (through law school, bar association committees, church/temple, or just professional relationships) to ask what they think. It depends a little on practice group and seniority, but key people in the bigger corporate groups (certainly in NY, which tells me it's likely in smaller markets too) have contacts at firms they come across regularly. (E.g., not that common to see bad capital markets associates move between STB, DPW and Latham, all repeat players in that space).

This may seem disheartening, but it's not meant to be. Since you don't know who knows who or is saying what, it's really not worth sweating it. I'm sorry you've been stealthed, but it's probably the best market to try to get back on the horse since 2009. As someone who was once in your position, my advice is to worry about nailing the interviews you do get without second guessing the reasons why others don't interview or make offers. Stressing about whether it happened because of you as an individual or for one of a plethora of other possible reasons isn't productive and adds exhaustion to what's already a stressful time.

[Anonymous User]

My questions are:

• Do biglaw firms maintain a blacklist that they share with other firms?
  
  Do HR personnel or hiring partners call your old firm's HR or supervising partners as part of the hiring process? Will your old firm's supervising partners actually criticize you at length, even though on paper they agree not to say anything about you?

1. I doubt it. Plenty of people stealthed at one place who wind up at comparable or better firms.

2. "The firm" won't say anything. HR people may or may not know what happened in detail, but I'd be surprised if this were part of their searches.

The risk is that partners/associates at prospects call people they know (through law school, bar association committees, church/temple, or just professional relationships) to ask what they think. It depends a little on practice group and seniority, but key people in the bigger corporate groups (certainly in NY, which tells me it's likely in smaller markets too) have contacts at firms they come across regularly. (E.g., not that common to see bad capital markets associates move between STB, DPW and Latham, all repeat players in that space).

This may seem disheartening, but it's not meant to be. Since you don't know who knows who or is saying what, it's really not worth sweating it. I'm sorry you've been stealthed, but it's probably the best market to try to get back on the horse since 2009. As someone who was once in your position, my advice is to worry about nailing the interviews you do get without second guessing the reasons why others don't interview or make offers. Stressing about whether it happened because of you as an individual or for one of a plethora of other possible reasons isn't productive and adds exhaustion to what's already a stressful time.

Agreeing with what previous posters have said, but also chiming in to note that while all transactional practices at big firms are a grind, they're really not all the same. When things didn't work out at my first firm, I could barely bring myself to apply to new firms, because I was so unhappy about the whole associate lifestyle. It's still a grind, but I've had much better luck after starting over with a new team in a new place, and I'm grateful in hindsight that I didn't just blow off biglaw entirely (at least for a few years). Anyway, it's possible the whole situation can be a blessing in disguise.

[nixy]

It’s pretty universal for past employers not to say anything about your time at the job other than confirming dates of employment, for fear of lawsuits. Obviously you have to line up references who can say more (and good things), but if a prospective employer calls up your old firm’s HR or someone who worked with you who’s not a reference, they shouldn’t get anything more than confirmation of past employment. *Especially* if they have some kind of written agreement not to bad mouth you.

Re: partners/associates getting the scoop from someone they already know, I can’t *guarantee* it would never happen, but it’s not likely at all, again, especially if they’re officially agreeing not to give a bad reference.

(Also the only inappropriate internet use that I can imagine a firm caring about is porn, although I suppose possibly it could be some kind of network-draining nonstop streaming? If it’s just, I shopped online when I didn’t have anything to do, that doesn’t seem like a reason to fire someone, nor does maxing out the food budget working late. That’s why there is a food budget.)

[thisismytlsuername]

Yeah, wtf were you doing on the internet?

[Anonymous User]

Yeah, wtf were you doing on the internet?

+1 want to know this. I've started taking job interview zoom calls on my work computer because I am past the point of caring lol - wonder where this would put me.

[Anonymous User]

I have Netflix, YouTube TV, etc. streaming constantly on a third computer screen in my office (don't judge me) from my work computer and haven't been talked to yet... makes me wonder if I should be nervous.

[Anonymous User]

There is no super secret biglaw blacklist lmfao. (In all seriousness, that would be an invitation for a supercereal lawsuit.)

What will happen--and this may contribute to the impression that there's some secret blacklist floating around--is partners who know each other across firms will talk. If you fuck up some debt financing transaction at DPW and then suddenly try to shift over to Sullivan to join their group and do the same, there's a decent change phone calls are being made to hear earnest impressions.

I should qualify the above with "this was pre-COVID." Firms in the V10/V25 are now so desperate for bodies that it feels like there's less scrutiny going on and also those sort of phone calls aren't being made as much because firms are more interested in fucking each other by poaching each other's associate classes. Aside: This is actually a perfect time for reputationally troubled associates everywhere to leave their current firms and start new reputations elsewhere because no one seems to give a damn right now about what you previously did or what your credentials are they just want bodies.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Just so juniors/law students know:

1. Maxing out the food budget, if you are actually working, is always okay. I even round up the tips on Seamless to meet the exact limit. Biglaw clients, and firms, absolutely do not care about your $40 a night or whatever, and any that claim they do are lying.

2. Netflix, social media, Youtube, personal email, games, ESPN and any other regular web browsing you would admit to in your day-to-day life are okay, if you're allowed to go on them. If you are actually doing your work, ultimately 95% of people won't really give a shit. What firms block on their networks varies but commonly includes some of the above. I like to look at the spreads for various sporting events but my current firm blocks all gambling sites. My last one blocked Imgur, which was very unhelpful. I *think* they all block porn, but if it has to be said, that's never something you should learn by experience. I've seen many "goofing off" complaints from partners (many are opposed to headphones!) but I have never heard of someone's "inappropriate internet usage" being brought up formally, let alone the basis for a stealthing. Cannot imagine, without clarification, what OP might have done.

[legalpotato]

Just so juniors/law students know:

1. Maxing out the food budget, if you are actually working, is always okay. I even round up the tips on Seamless to meet the exact limit. Biglaw clients, and firms, absolutely do not care about your $40 a night or whatever, and any that claim they do are lying.

2. Netflix, social media, Youtube, personal email, games, ESPN and any other regular web browsing you would admit to in your day-to-day life are okay, if you're allowed to go on them. If you are actually doing your work, ultimately 95% of people won't really give a shit. What firms block on their networks varies but commonly includes some of the above. I like to look at the spreads for various sporting events but my current firm blocks all gambling sites. My last one blocked Imgur, which was very unhelpful. I *think* they all block porn, but if it has to be said, that's never something you should learn by experience. I've seen many "goofing off" complaints from partners (many are opposed to headphones!) but I have never heard of someone's "inappropriate internet usage" being brought up formally, let alone the basis for a stealthing. Cannot imagine, without clarification, what OP might have done.

Seconded the bold. I always strived to max the food budget (back when I worked in the office). Sometimes I would order meals so big that I would also have my lunch covered, and I gave generous tips.

[Anonymous User]

Just so juniors/law students know:

1. Maxing out the food budget, if you are actually working, is always okay. I even round up the tips on Seamless to meet the exact limit. Biglaw clients, and firms, absolutely do not care about your $40 a night or whatever, and any that claim they do are lying.

2. Netflix, social media, Youtube, personal email, games, ESPN and any other regular web browsing you would admit to in your day-to-day life are okay, if you're allowed to go on them. If you are actually doing your work, ultimately 95% of people won't really give a shit. What firms block on their networks varies but commonly includes some of the above. I like to look at the spreads for various sporting events but my current firm blocks all gambling sites. My last one blocked Imgur, which was very unhelpful. I *think* they all block porn, but if it has to be said, that's never something you should learn by experience. I've seen many "goofing off" complaints from partners (many are opposed to headphones!) but I have never heard of someone's "inappropriate internet usage" being brought up formally, let alone the basis for a stealthing. Cannot imagine, without clarification, what OP might have done.

I can't vouch for every firm in the industry but I can say that at our firm and I believe at our peers there's no sort of active monitoring or recording of internet usage and there are very particular, thought-out reasons we don't do this, despite obviously having the capability. But at the same time it is very easy for IT to assemble this info on a case-by-case basis if there's a reason to do it.

[nixy]

I mean, it could be that the OP feels guilty about streaming and maxing the food budget and is looking for other reasons to blame themselves for the stealthing. But as others have suggested, those things aren’t a basis for getting fired. Streaming could be a problem if you’re watching Netflix (and not otherwise working) when you turn down work, maybe, but the issue isn’t really internet usage, it’s not being available for work.

It would seem sort of weird to be stealthed for non-responsiveness now, when transactional practices are so swamped and need bodies and some work is still better than no work, but it’s also possible the OP got stealthed a while ago and has had difficulty finding work since then.

[Anonymous User]

This is OP.

Thank you for your thoughts, everyone.

I'm feeling down because I've been trying to lateral without success.

A wrinkle to my situation is, after I was stealthed, I landed a clerkship in a top district. However, I've had no luck landing a junior or entry level litigation position.

I guess there isn't now or ever a need for junior litigation talent.

Also, I admit that I'm obviously socially maladjusted, that was the reason I was let go, and that is probably the reason I haven't been able to get a job.

I guess I should just keep working on my interview skills--or try to make my way back to corporate practice.

Sorry for any paranoia caused by my post. I confirm that virtually all of my former corporate colleagues have had great success lateralling, whether stealthed or not.

[uncle_rico]

Until OP says otherwise, and since they have stated that they are "socially maladjusted" and ignored the question, I will just presume they were watching porn on their computer

[nixy]

OP, what are you actually doing now?

[Anonymous User]

This is OP.

Thank you for your thoughts, everyone.

I'm feeling down because I've been trying to lateral without success.

A wrinkle to my situation is, after I was stealthed, I landed a clerkship in a top district. However, I've had no luck landing a junior or entry level litigation position.

I guess there isn't now or ever a need for junior litigation talent.

Also, I admit that I'm obviously socially maladjusted, that was the reason I was let go, and that is probably the reason I haven't been able to get a job.

I guess I should just keep working on my interview skills--or try to make my way back to corporate practice.

Sorry for any paranoia caused by my post. I confirm that virtually all of my former corporate colleagues have had great success lateralling, whether stealthed or not.

Piecing together what happened:

1. You are a lit associate who got axed pre-COVID.

2. You turned down work, saying you were busy, and so partners went to the tape and asked IT to pull your internet history and there you have it, if you have time to check reddit or whatever you have time to work.

[jbagelboy]

Just so juniors/law students know:

1. Maxing out the food budget, if you are actually working, is always okay. I even round up the tips on Seamless to meet the exact limit. Biglaw clients, and firms, absolutely do not care about your $40 a night or whatever, and any that claim they do are lying.

2. Netflix, social media, Youtube, personal email, games, ESPN and any other regular web browsing you would admit to in your day-to-day life are okay, if you're allowed to go on them. If you are actually doing your work, ultimately 95% of people won't really give a shit. What firms block on their networks varies but commonly includes some of the above. I like to look at the spreads for various sporting events but my current firm blocks all gambling sites. My last one blocked Imgur, which was very unhelpful. I *think* they all block porn, but if it has to be said, that's never something you should learn by experience. I've seen many "goofing off" complaints from partners (many are opposed to headphones!) but I have never heard of someone's "inappropriate internet usage" being brought up formally, let alone the basis for a stealthing. Cannot imagine, without clarification, what OP might have done.

To offer even further comfort: during quarantine last year, when we were out in the wilderness, my personal computer died and I had to use my work laptop for all functions for an extended period. I did so rather shamelessly and the only time IT intervened was when I downloaded and ran Steam, and that was out of (arguably justified) data privacy / malware / security concerns, not a Big Brother monitoring of how I spent my time. Even then, it came in the form of a polite, “can you please remove this software, apologies for the inconvenience” email from IT, not a reprimand from decision-makers at the firm.

[Anonymous User]

Some firms certainly do monitor aspects like internet usage, food orders and taxis. Usually the biggest problem arises when you have a controlling partner in your team. But then there’s also this: https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-conte ... at-lawyers

[mardash]

This is OP.

Thank you for your thoughts, everyone.

I'm feeling down because I've been trying to lateral without success.

A wrinkle to my situation is, after I was stealthed, I landed a clerkship in a top district. However, I've had no luck landing a junior or entry level litigation position.

I guess there isn't now or ever a need for junior litigation talent.

Also, I admit that I'm obviously socially maladjusted, that was the reason I was let go, and that is probably the reason I haven't been able to get a job.

I guess I should just keep working on my interview skills--or try to make my way back to corporate practice.

Sorry for any paranoia caused by my post. I confirm that virtually all of my former corporate colleagues have had great success lateralling, whether stealthed or not.

Piecing together what happened:

1. You are a lit associate who got axed pre-COVID.

2. You turned down work, saying you were busy, and so partners went to the tape and asked IT to pull your internet history and there you have it, if you have time to check reddit or whatever you have time to work.

The first post said OP was transactional, which puts inability to find a litigation role in better context. It’s not really a lateral move especially when you’re a junior, it’s trying to start over. That said—OP I bet you’ll have better luck once you’re in your clerkship.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Some firms certainly do monitor aspects like internet usage, food orders and taxis. Usually the biggest problem arises when you have a controlling partner in your team. But then there’s also this: https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-conte ... at-lawyers

LOL, what an awful combination of passive-aggressiveness and being too skittish to actually accuse anyone of anything.

You get a $30 dinner and a $20 cab and in exchange bill $2000 more in revenue. That's barely a win-win; it's like LittleTinyWin-EnormousWin.

I started ordering food a little before the Seamless cutoff at my last firm (because as long as you're actually there at the cutoff time, you've effectively complied with the policy), then an hour before, and then sometimes 1.5-2 hours before. Never heard a peep. Heard one guy got chewed out for ordering it at 3:00. Don't do that. And yes, I sometimes did nothing for 15-20 minutes waiting for my Seamless to arrive, took the bag and immediately left.

The budget can afford you a lot of food at some Seamless places--definitely more than a single meal. I had a mini-fridge in my office left behind by a lateral. If I had leftovers of something that would keep well for a day (usually carbs or chicken) and I wasn't also staying late the next night, I regularly took them home for dinner. Combining the paid dinners with leftovers and going out with friends/dates, I could go for weeks at a time without ever prepping food or getting personal delivery/takeout when I busy. Saved me a shitload of money over the years.

[elmar]

Some firms certainly do monitor aspects like internet usage, food orders and taxis. Usually the biggest problem arises when you have a controlling partner in your team. But then there’s also this: https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-conte ... at-lawyers

LOL, what an awful combination of passive-aggressiveness and being too skittish to actually accuse anyone of anything.

You get a $30 dinner and a $20 cab and in exchange bill $2000 more in revenue. That's barely a win-win; it's like LittleTinyWin-EnormousWin.

I started ordering food a little before the Seamless cutoff at my last firm (because as long as you're actually there at the cutoff time, you've effectively complied with the policy), then an hour before, and then sometimes 1.5-2 hours before. Never heard a peep. Heard one guy got chewed out for ordering it at 3:00. Don't do that. And yes, I sometimes did nothing for 15-20 minutes waiting for my Seamless to arrive, took the bag and immediately left.

The budget can afford you a lot of food at some Seamless places--definitely more than a single meal. I had a mini-fridge in my office left behind by a lateral. If I had leftovers of something that would keep well for a day (usually carbs or chicken) and I wasn't also staying late the next night, I regularly took them home for dinner. Combining the paid dinners with leftovers and going out with friends/dates, I could go for weeks at a time without ever prepping food or getting personal delivery/takeout when I busy. Saved me a shitload of money over the years.

I knew a guy who ordered the car when he saw the delivery driver was underway. He'd go downstairs to pick it up and get right into his ride.

[Anonymous User]

Just so juniors/law students know:

1. Maxing out the food budget, if you are actually working, is always okay. I even round up the tips on Seamless to meet the exact limit. Biglaw clients, and firms, absolutely do not care about your $40 a night or whatever, and any that claim they do are lying.

2. Netflix, social media, Youtube, personal email, games, ESPN and any other regular web browsing you would admit to in your day-to-day life are okay, if you're allowed to go on them. If you are actually doing your work, ultimately 95% of people won't really give a shit. What firms block on their networks varies but commonly includes some of the above. I like to look at the spreads for various sporting events but my current firm blocks all gambling sites. My last one blocked Imgur, which was very unhelpful. I *think* they all block porn, but if it has to be said, that's never something you should learn by experience. I've seen many "goofing off" complaints from partners (many are opposed to headphones!) but I have never heard of someone's "inappropriate internet usage" being brought up formally, let alone the basis for a stealthing. Cannot imagine, without clarification, what OP might have done.

To offer even further comfort: during quarantine last year, when we were out in the wilderness, my personal computer died and I had to use my work laptop for all functions for an extended period. I did so rather shamelessly and the only time IT intervened was when I downloaded and ran Steam, and that was out of (arguably justified) data privacy / malware / security concerns, not a Big Brother monitoring of how I spent my time. Even then, it came in the form of a polite, “can you please remove this software, apologies for the inconvenience” email from IT, not a reprimand from decision-makers at the firm.

csgo or dota?

[Anonymous User]

Some firms certainly do monitor aspects like internet usage, food orders and taxis. Usually the biggest problem arises when you have a controlling partner in your team. But then there’s also this: https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-conte ... at-lawyers

LOL, what an awful combination of passive-aggressiveness and being too skittish to actually accuse anyone of anything.

You get a $30 dinner and a $20 cab and in exchange bill $2000 more in revenue. That's barely a win-win; it's like LittleTinyWin-EnormousWin.

I started ordering food a little before the Seamless cutoff at my last firm (because as long as you're actually there at the cutoff time, you've effectively complied with the policy), then an hour before, and then sometimes 1.5-2 hours before. Never heard a peep. Heard one guy got chewed out for ordering it at 3:00. Don't do that. And yes, I sometimes did nothing for 15-20 minutes waiting for my Seamless to arrive, took the bag and immediately left.

The budget can afford you a lot of food at some Seamless places--definitely more than a single meal. I had a mini-fridge in my office left behind by a lateral. If I had leftovers of something that would keep well for a day (usually carbs or chicken) and I wasn't also staying late the next night, I regularly took them home for dinner. Combining the paid dinners with leftovers and going out with friends/dates, I could go for weeks at a time without ever prepping food or getting personal delivery/takeout when I busy. Saved me a shitload of money over the years.

I knew a guy who ordered the car when he saw the delivery driver was underway. He'd go downstairs to pick it up and get right into his ride.

Yup we had a lot of places around us to eat. I would walk to one, get dinner and then order the Uber to there and take it home with me.

[Elston Gunn]

Some firms certainly do monitor aspects like internet usage, food orders and taxis. Usually the biggest problem arises when you have a controlling partner in your team. But then there’s also this: https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-conte ... at-lawyers

LOL, what an awful combination of passive-aggressiveness and being too skittish to actually accuse anyone of anything.

You get a $30 dinner and a $20 cab and in exchange bill $2000 more in revenue. That's barely a win-win; it's like LittleTinyWin-EnormousWin.

I started ordering food a little before the Seamless cutoff at my last firm (because as long as you're actually there at the cutoff time, you've effectively complied with the policy), then an hour before, and then sometimes 1.5-2 hours before. Never heard a peep. Heard one guy got chewed out for ordering it at 3:00. Don't do that. And yes, I sometimes did nothing for 15-20 minutes waiting for my Seamless to arrive, took the bag and immediately left.

The budget can afford you a lot of food at some Seamless places--definitely more than a single meal. I had a mini-fridge in my office left behind by a lateral. If I had leftovers of something that would keep well for a day (usually carbs or chicken) and I wasn't also staying late the next night, I regularly took them home for dinner. Combining the paid dinners with leftovers and going out with friends/dates, I could go for weeks at a time without ever prepping food or getting personal delivery/takeout when I busy. Saved me a shitload of money over the years.

I knew a guy who ordered the car when he saw the delivery driver was underway. He'd go downstairs to pick it up and get right into his ride.

I would go home and order delivery to my apartment, and then submit the receipt for reimbursement (which had my home address on it and thus was painfully obviously not complying with the policy designed to make it easier to stay late at the office), and still never had any issues. In my mind I was working, just from home, so i obviously didn’t feel bad.