Top Law Schools

Do firms ever extend callback invitations for any reason other than genuine interest in the candidate?

nightfly wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:19 pm

Do firms ever extend callback invitations for any reason other than genuine interest in the candidate?

To some extent all businesses do this. They might do this to (A) maintain the relationship with the law school, (B) as a courtesy because the candidate was well-connected, e.g. to a client or rainmaker, despite not actually being qualified for an offer.

Res Ipsa Loquitter wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:30 pm

nightfly wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:19 pm

Do firms ever extend callback invitations for any reason other than genuine interest in the candidate?

To some extent all businesses do this. They might do this to (A) maintain the relationship with the law school, (B) as a courtesy because the candidate was well-connected, e.g. to a client or rainmaker, despite not actually being qualified for an offer.

Or (C) for diversity reasons to fulfill the Rooney Rule. https://www.jdjournal.com/2017/06/09/30 ... diversity/ As Brian Flores' experience indicates, the noble intentions behind the rule have sometimes led to URMs interviewing for positions they aren't being considered seriously for.

Res Ipsa Loquitter wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:30 pm

nightfly wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:19 pm

Do firms ever extend callback invitations for any reason other than genuine interest in the candidate?

To some extent all businesses do this. They might do this to (A) maintain the relationship with the law school, (B) as a courtesy because the candidate was well-connected, e.g. to a client or rainmaker, despite not actually being qualified for an offer.

Can you please elaborate on how a CB might help a firm maintain a relationship with a school? I would think that any firm participating in OCI would screen a pool of applicants comprising at least several qualified candidates who would be called back. I can see how if the firm were not to call any of those qualified students back, it would redound negatively on the firm. But it also would not make sense from the firm's perspective, so I assume that rarely (if ever) happens. Conversely, if an OCI firm was not bid on by any qualified students, wouldn't the burden of maintaining the firm-school relationship shift to the school?

Might a firm offer a CB to an unqualified candidate in order to register a CSO data point that would entice more qualified students in subsequent years to bid on the firm?

Can we clarify what OP means by "genuine interest"? Some of the above (e.g., re: diversity or connections) suggest that interest in a candidate isn't "genuine" if they wouldn't qualify purely on the strength of their grades/resumes. But firms are still genuinely interested in diverse or connected people for those precise reasons. Not sure what the issue is there.

I took OP to be suggesting that firms extend a CB without any expectation that the CB would result in an offer (i.e., they have no genuine interest in hiring the candidate). If that's what OP means, I can't imagine a firm would waste resources to do that purely in furtherance of some relationship with a school, whatever that means. It's a waste of time for both parties, and it probably leaves a worse taste in the student/school's mouth than just rejecting the candidate outright. That's different from providing a candidate with a screener, though, which comes at a much lower cost. That's often done as a courtesy (e.g., to the friend of some high power partner or client) with no expectation that it will lead to something more like a CB or offer.

nightfly wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 08, 2022 9:00 am

Res Ipsa Loquitter wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:30 pm

nightfly wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:19 pm

Do firms ever extend callback invitations for any reason other than genuine interest in the candidate?

To some extent all businesses do this. They might do this to (A) maintain the relationship with the law school, (B) as a courtesy because the candidate was well-connected, e.g. to a client or rainmaker, despite not actually being qualified for an offer.

Can you please elaborate on how a CB might help a firm maintain a relationship with a school? I would think that any firm participating in OCI would screen a pool of applicants comprising at least several qualified candidates who would be called back. I can see how if the firm were not to call any of those qualified students back, it would redound negatively on the firm. But it also would not make sense from the firm's perspective, so I assume that rarely (if ever) happens. Conversely, if an OCI firm was not bid on by any qualified students, wouldn't the burden of maintaining the firm-school relationship shift to the school?

Might a firm offer a CB to an unqualified candidate in order to register a CSO data point that would entice more qualified students in subsequent years to bid on the firm?

I think career services and the administration would be pissed if firm X did dozens of screeners at their law school and gave 0 CBs. So the firm may throw in a couple CBs, even if the class is full from pre-OCI or if they didn’t like anyone they screened.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 07, 2022 8:27 pm

Res Ipsa Loquitter wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:30 pm

nightfly wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:19 pm

Do firms ever extend callback invitations for any reason other than genuine interest in the candidate?

To some extent all businesses do this. They might do this to (A) maintain the relationship with the law school, (B) as a courtesy because the candidate was well-connected, e.g. to a client or rainmaker, despite not actually being qualified for an offer.

Or (C) for diversity reasons to fulfill the Rooney Rule. https://www.jdjournal.com/2017/06/09/30 ... diversity/ As Brian Flores' experience indicates, the noble intentions behind the rule have sometimes led to URMs interviewing for positions they aren't being considered seriously for.

Isn't the Rooney Rule only applicable to leadership roles/lateral hiring? Even the article you linked says that "firms have agreed to consider women and attorneys of color when hiring for leadership roles, equity partner promotions and filling lateral positions."

How would this apply in a law student callback situation?

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 08, 2022 11:32 am

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 07, 2022 8:27 pm

Res Ipsa Loquitter wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:30 pm

nightfly wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:19 pm

Do firms ever extend callback invitations for any reason other than genuine interest in the candidate?

To some extent all businesses do this. They might do this to (A) maintain the relationship with the law school, (B) as a courtesy because the candidate was well-connected, e.g. to a client or rainmaker, despite not actually being qualified for an offer.

Or (C) for diversity reasons to fulfill the Rooney Rule. https://www.jdjournal.com/2017/06/09/30 ... diversity/ As Brian Flores' experience indicates, the noble intentions behind the rule have sometimes led to URMs interviewing for positions they aren't being considered seriously for.

Isn't the Rooney Rule only applicable to leadership roles/lateral hiring? Even the article you linked says that "firms have agreed to consider women and attorneys of color when hiring for leadership roles, equity partner promotions and filling lateral positions."

How would this apply in a law student callback situation?

It doesn't apply. The anon you're replying to is trolling (or stupid).

Would be idiotic for firms to deliberately skew callbacks in a way that might cause them to have worse callback>offer rates for minorities. Never mind the resources wasted in performing all those interviews.

Res Ipsa Loquitter wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 08, 2022 10:44 am

nightfly wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 08, 2022 9:00 am

Res Ipsa Loquitter wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:30 pm

nightfly wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:19 pm

Do firms ever extend callback invitations for any reason other than genuine interest in the candidate?

To some extent all businesses do this. They might do this to (A) maintain the relationship with the law school, (B) as a courtesy because the candidate was well-connected, e.g. to a client or rainmaker, despite not actually being qualified for an offer.

Can you please elaborate on how a CB might help a firm maintain a relationship with a school? I would think that any firm participating in OCI would screen a pool of applicants comprising at least several qualified candidates who would be called back. I can see how if the firm were not to call any of those qualified students back, it would redound negatively on the firm. But it also would not make sense from the firm's perspective, so I assume that rarely (if ever) happens. Conversely, if an OCI firm was not bid on by any qualified students, wouldn't the burden of maintaining the firm-school relationship shift to the school?

Might a firm offer a CB to an unqualified candidate in order to register a CSO data point that would entice more qualified students in subsequent years to bid on the firm?

I think career services and the administration would be pissed if firm X did dozens of screeners at their law school and gave 0 CBs. So the firm may throw in a couple CBs, even if the class is full from pre-OCI or if they didn’t like anyone they screened.

Is this very likely at most of the schools where these firms would be doing dozens of screeners? I’d think that if a firm filled their class pre-OCI, they wouldn’t be setting up dozens of screeners, and that it would be unlikely that in dozens of screeners they wouldn’t find anyone they liked well enough to call back. (If it’s a school they’re sort of borderline about, I’d be surprised if they set up dozens of screeners in that context, too.)

I don’t think anyone wants to go through an interview when they actually know they don’t want to hire the person. I could see a firm not being equally excited about all the people they call backs (there may be some candidates the firm is ready to hire on the spot and others they need to be convinced about), but I doubt there’s a lot of true courtesy interviewing where the firm has already made up its mind and has no interest in the candidate.

All that said: lottery OCI makes this a little weird in that a firm can’t offer a courtesy screener because it doesn’t pick who gets screeners. So if a firm does want to make a client happy by pretending to consider their kid, they’d have to do it via callback.

I agree with the person above that that interest in a diverse or connected candidate is genuine interest, though. Interviewing lots of URM students and not hiring them isn’t going to help a firm get diversity points. Interviewing a connected applicant and not hiring them isn’t going to win them any favors with the connection (though I get that at least letting the applicant interview is better than not).

Which is to say: I think that if you get a callback, you absolutely have a shot at the position. Others may nonetheless have a better shot, but I wouldn’t rule yourself out.

nixy wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 08, 2022 2:02 pm

Res Ipsa Loquitter wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 08, 2022 10:44 am

nightfly wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 08, 2022 9:00 am

Res Ipsa Loquitter wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:30 pm

nightfly wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:19 pm

Do firms ever extend callback invitations for any reason other than genuine interest in the candidate?

To some extent all businesses do this. They might do this to (A) maintain the relationship with the law school, (B) as a courtesy because the candidate was well-connected, e.g. to a client or rainmaker, despite not actually being qualified for an offer.

Can you please elaborate on how a CB might help a firm maintain a relationship with a school? I would think that any firm participating in OCI would screen a pool of applicants comprising at least several qualified candidates who would be called back. I can see how if the firm were not to call any of those qualified students back, it would redound negatively on the firm. But it also would not make sense from the firm's perspective, so I assume that rarely (if ever) happens. Conversely, if an OCI firm was not bid on by any qualified students, wouldn't the burden of maintaining the firm-school relationship shift to the school?

Might a firm offer a CB to an unqualified candidate in order to register a CSO data point that would entice more qualified students in subsequent years to bid on the firm?

I think career services and the administration would be pissed if firm X did dozens of screeners at their law school and gave 0 CBs. So the firm may throw in a couple CBs, even if the class is full from pre-OCI or if they didn’t like anyone they screened.

Is this very likely at most of the schools where these firms would be doing dozens of screeners? I’d think that if a firm filled their class pre-OCI, they wouldn’t be setting up dozens of screeners, and that it would be unlikely that in dozens of screeners they wouldn’t find anyone they liked well enough to call back. (If it’s a school they’re sort of borderline about, I’d be surprised if they set up dozens of screeners in that context, too.)

I don’t think anyone wants to go through an interview when they actually know they don’t want to hire the person. I could see a firm not being equally excited about all the people they call backs (there may be some candidates the firm is ready to hire on the spot and others they need to be convinced about), but I doubt there’s a lot of true courtesy interviewing where the firm has already made up its mind and has no interest in the candidate.

All that said: lottery OCI makes this a little weird in that a firm can’t offer a courtesy screener because it doesn’t pick who gets screeners. So if a firm does want to make a client happy by pretending to consider their kid, they’d have to do it via callback.

I agree with the person above that that interest in a diverse or connected candidate is genuine interest, though. Interviewing lots of URM students and not hiring them isn’t going to help a firm get diversity points. Interviewing a connected applicant and not hiring them isn’t going to win them any favors with the connection (though I get that at least letting the applicant interview is better than not).

Which is to say: I think that if you get a callback, you absolutely have a shot at the position. Others may nonetheless have a better shot, but I wouldn’t rule yourself out.

There are CBs where the candidate has a very low chance coming in the door. Last year there was a guy who got hammered at a dinner for people who'd just gotten CBs. We didn't cancel his CB because that seemed too dramatic, but he had no chance of getting an offer after that point.

As for the law school relationship aspect, I think you're right that it's uncommon. The issue is that hiring needs change and firms may be booking OCI slots months in advance of the actual OCI. So they may book the OCI slots with genuine intent to hire people, but business needs can change in the intervening months leading up to OCI (heavier than expected pre-OCI hiring, economic shifts, partners leaving and taking clients with them, etc.). This wouldn't be like Cravath skipping Harvard. It'd be more like White & Case realizing things have slowed down to the point they no longer need to recruit at Hofstra this year.

Res Ipsa Loquitter wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 08, 2022 2:30 pm

There are CBs where the candidate has a very low chance coming in the door. Last year there was a guy who got hammered at a dinner for people who'd just gotten CBs. We didn't cancel his CB because that seemed too dramatic, but he had no chance of getting an offer after that point.

As for the law school relationship aspect, I think you're right that it's uncommon. The issue is that hiring needs change and firms may be booking OCI slots months in advance of the actual OCI. So they may book the OCI slots with genuine intent to hire people, but business needs can change in the intervening months leading up to OCI (heavier than expected pre-OCI hiring, economic shifts, partners leaving and taking clients with them, etc.). This wouldn't be like Cravath skipping Harvard. It'd be more like White & Case realizing things have slowed down to the point they no longer need to recruit at Hofstra this year.

Sure, but do we really think W&C is going to say "well darn, we don't need any Hofstra students this year, but we better let one of them come to our office and waste our lawyers' and their own time so we can save face with Hofstra." Hofstra is going to want W&C to come to campus regardless of who they call back or not, and W&C knows that.

PERHAPS this might happen vis-a-vis informal quotas from particular schools. I don't know for a fact, but I imagine my Boston firm will always try to hire someone from BU/BC. Again, I don't know this for a fact, but I could see my firm just calling back the top X candidates (roughly) from those schools. If there's a bad batch some year, some may not have as much of a chance, but that's different from saying "yeah this student has no shot at an offer but we're going to call them back anyway to save face."

I'm still interested in OP's take on what "genuine interest" means.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 08, 2022 3:06 pm

Res Ipsa Loquitter wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 08, 2022 2:30 pm

There are CBs where the candidate has a very low chance coming in the door. Last year there was a guy who got hammered at a dinner for people who'd just gotten CBs. We didn't cancel his CB because that seemed too dramatic, but he had no chance of getting an offer after that point.

As for the law school relationship aspect, I think you're right that it's uncommon. The issue is that hiring needs change and firms may be booking OCI slots months in advance of the actual OCI. So they may book the OCI slots with genuine intent to hire people, but business needs can change in the intervening months leading up to OCI (heavier than expected pre-OCI hiring, economic shifts, partners leaving and taking clients with them, etc.). This wouldn't be like Cravath skipping Harvard. It'd be more like White & Case realizing things have slowed down to the point they no longer need to recruit at Hofstra this year.

Sure, but do we really think W&C is going to say "well darn, we don't need any Hofstra students this year, but we better let one of them come to our office and waste our lawyers' and their own time so we can save face with Hofstra." Hofstra is going to want W&C to come to campus regardless of who they call back or not, and W&C knows that.

PERHAPS this might happen vis-a-vis informal quotas from particular schools. I don't know for a fact, but I imagine my Boston firm will always try to hire someone from BU/BC. Again, I don't know this for a fact, but I could see my firm just calling back the top X candidates (roughly) from those schools. If there's a bad batch some year, some may not have as much of a chance, but that's different from saying "yeah this student has no shot at an offer but we're going to call them back anyway to save face."

I'm still interested in OP's take on what "genuine interest" means.

The NYC equivalent of BU/BC would be Fordham, not Hofstra. I only know one partner, at a different firm than my own, who ever admitted to this (CBs to keep a school relationship warm) anyway.

I tend to agree that not giving callbacks to any Hofstra students isn’t going to shake up a firm’s relationship with the school - the school probably needs them more than they need the school. I say this in part from knowing people at non-T14s in the previous recession, where tons of firms ditched their OCIs for economic reasons. But I get the general idea.

As for the person getting trashed at pre-CB dinner - that’s fair. I wasn’t thinking of self-inflicted wounds.

Another thing that happens is spots fill up. If the ppl who cb before you are solid, by the time you get a chance the remaining spots might be reserved for rock stars, or on a rolling scale as previous offers get rejected. So they may feel like they are going through the motions.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 08, 2022 3:44 pm

Another thing that happens is spots fill up. If the ppl who cb before you are solid, by the time you get a chance the remaining spots might be reserved for rock stars, or on a rolling scale as previous offers get rejected. So they may feel like they are going through the motions.

Right but I think that's different from extending meaningless CB as OP asked about (and same with the drunk example). They extended the CB because they were interested, it's just that callback now has a higher bar to get an offer than when originally extended.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 08, 2022 5:34 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 08, 2022 3:44 pm

Another thing that happens is spots fill up. If the ppl who cb before you are solid, by the time you get a chance the remaining spots might be reserved for rock stars, or on a rolling scale as previous offers get rejected. So they may feel like they are going through the motions.

Right but I think that's different from extending meaningless CB as OP asked about (and same with the drunk example). They extended the CB because they were interested, it's just that callback now has a higher bar to get an offer than when originally extended.

Right, I meant that I think pure meaningless CB is unlikely, but sometimes a CB can feel that way due to factors outside your control. (or within your control, for the drunk example)

Anecdotal, but I am pretty certain that I received a pure courtesy/pity callback a few years ago. Before law school, I worked as a paralegal for the inhouse legal team of an important client for a top V20 firm in my market. I admittedly did not have the grades to be a serious candidate for this firm, but after my screener, I reached out to my old bosses and said I hoped to continue on in the interview process with the firm and asked them to put in a good word for me there. About 6 weeks after the screener, I got invited for a callback (weeks after my classmates who ended up at the firm had their CBs and accepted offers).

I guess I'll never really know if I could have sneaked in the back door if I had blown their socks off at the CB, but the strong vibe I got from everyone I talked to was that they must have known about my situation ahead of time because they all clearly did not give a single fuck about talking to me/selling the firm. Never had an interview experience like that before or since. I knew going into the CB that I got it due to the client connection, but I still thought I had some chance to getting an offer if the firm was going to take the time to have me in, but I every indication I got said that was the definitely not the case. I guess the firm thought throwing the client a bone and calling me back was better than not. I was kinda pissed about it but not enough to where I bitched to my old bosses about my experience. But even I did, there is zero chance that it would have impacted the client's relationship with the firm. The client liked me a lot, but business is business and they weren't going to move work away from the firm over my bruised ego. I think the firm knew all of that, too, so they probably saw little downside in giving me a perfunctory CB.

I agree this is likely more of a thing with regional schools where big firms have small offices and/or second level schools in major markets and not T14s.

I’m at one of those schools and accepted an offer from Pre-OCI after going through screeners (there was an overlap between OCI and that offer). But it definitely felt like some folks conducting the screeners were there as a curtesy.

Meaning: the interviewer was an alum, but no one at my school had a legitimate chance of getting hired for the summer.

Realistically, on top of the explosion of Pre-OCI, a lot of schools overenrolled this past year and the market isn’t as strong as it was last year because of concerns re: a recession, so there are more candidates at top schools competing for less spots. My school sent multiple people to the firm I am summering at last year, but this year I might very well be the only one.

it's so much time (i.e. money) to do callbacks. if you have 2 partner interviews and 2 associate interviews, the firm is losing out on at least $3k in billable hours for your interview. why would a firm give a callback if there isn't a genuine shot?

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 09, 2022 11:07 am

I agree this is likely more of a thing with regional schools where big firms have small offices and/or second level schools in major markets and not T14s.

I’m at one of those schools and accepted an offer from Pre-OCI after going through screeners (there was an overlap between OCI and that offer). But it definitely felt like some folks conducting the screeners were there as a curtesy.

Meaning: the interviewer was an alum, but no one at my school had a legitimate chance of getting hired for the summer.

Realistically, on top of the explosion of Pre-OCI, a lot of schools overenrolled this past year and the market isn’t as strong as it was last year because of concerns re: a recession, so there are more candidates at top schools competing for less spots. My school sent multiple people to the firm I am summering at last year, but this year I might very well be the only one.

*fewer spots

But as others have said, courtesy/goodwill/pity screeners are common; CBs are not.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 09, 2022 11:07 am

I agree this is likely more of a thing with regional schools where big firms have small offices and/or second level schools in major markets and not T14s.

I’m at one of those schools and accepted an offer from Pre-OCI after going through screeners (there was an overlap between OCI and that offer). But it definitely felt like some folks conducting the screeners were there as a curtesy.

Meaning: the interviewer was an alum, but no one at my school had a legitimate chance of getting hired for the summer.

Realistically, on top of the explosion of Pre-OCI, a lot of schools overenrolled this past year and the market isn’t as strong as it was last year because of concerns re: a recession, so there are more candidates at top schools competing for less spots. My school sent multiple people to the firm I am summering at last year, but this year I might very well be the only one.

A little off topic but wtf are people talking about “pre OCI” being so much bigger this year? Literally since at least 2010 it’s been standard practice for people to interview and lock up pre-OCI offers, I remember reading a post here describing how it made OCI so much easier, and advocating to “get the early offer”.

Back in the day, I interviewed with every v5-10 pre-OCI (except WLRK and CSM) and locked up a pre-OCI offer back in mid/late July, well before the August OCI rush.

I know that NALP supposedly eased some restriction but I’m not aware of any v10-20 firm that actually minded the restriction—every top 10% candidate walking into my OCI had an offer somewhere.

Can someone clue me into what changed?

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 09, 2022 4:06 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 09, 2022 11:07 am

I agree this is likely more of a thing with regional schools where big firms have small offices and/or second level schools in major markets and not T14s.

I’m at one of those schools and accepted an offer from Pre-OCI after going through screeners (there was an overlap between OCI and that offer). But it definitely felt like some folks conducting the screeners were there as a curtesy.

Meaning: the interviewer was an alum, but no one at my school had a legitimate chance of getting hired for the summer.

Realistically, on top of the explosion of Pre-OCI, a lot of schools overenrolled this past year and the market isn’t as strong as it was last year because of concerns re: a recession, so there are more candidates at top schools competing for less spots. My school sent multiple people to the firm I am summering at last year, but this year I might very well be the only one.

A little off topic but wtf are people talking about “pre OCI” being so much bigger this year? Literally since at least 2010 it’s been standard practice for people to interview and lock up pre-OCI offers, I remember reading a post here describing how it made OCI so much easier, and advocating to “get the early offer”.

Back in the day, I interviewed with every v5-10 pre-OCI (except WLRK and CSM) and locked up a pre-OCI offer back in mid/late July, well before the August OCI rush.

I know that NALP supposedly eased some restriction but I’m not aware of any v10-20 firm that actually minded the restriction—every top 10% candidate walking into my OCI had an offer somewhere.

Can someone clue me into what changed?

I don't think anything really changed, just every year it's slightly more and every year a bunch of students trust career services office and get punched in the face by reality when they strike out.

Also, to add - it's no longer just top 10% candidates getting poached early. It's everyone now. If you wait for OCI you're actively harming your chances.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 09, 2022 4:14 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 09, 2022 4:06 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 09, 2022 11:07 am

I agree this is likely more of a thing with regional schools where big firms have small offices and/or second level schools in major markets and not T14s.

I’m at one of those schools and accepted an offer from Pre-OCI after going through screeners (there was an overlap between OCI and that offer). But it definitely felt like some folks conducting the screeners were there as a curtesy.

Meaning: the interviewer was an alum, but no one at my school had a legitimate chance of getting hired for the summer.

Realistically, on top of the explosion of Pre-OCI, a lot of schools overenrolled this past year and the market isn’t as strong as it was last year because of concerns re: a recession, so there are more candidates at top schools competing for less spots. My school sent multiple people to the firm I am summering at last year, but this year I might very well be the only one.

A little off topic but wtf are people talking about “pre OCI” being so much bigger this year? Literally since at least 2010 it’s been standard practice for people to interview and lock up pre-OCI offers, I remember reading a post here describing how it made OCI so much easier, and advocating to “get the early offer”.

Back in the day, I interviewed with every v5-10 pre-OCI (except WLRK and CSM) and locked up a pre-OCI offer back in mid/late July, well before the August OCI rush.

I know that NALP supposedly eased some restriction but I’m not aware of any v10-20 firm that actually minded the restriction—every top 10% candidate walking into my OCI had an offer somewhere.

Can someone clue me into what changed?

I don't think anything really changed, just every year it's slightly more and every year a bunch of students trust career services office and get punched in the face by reality when they strike out.

Also, to add - it's no longer just top 10% candidates getting poached early. It's everyone now. If you wait for OCI you're actively harming your chances.

This may be school dependent. At my Y/S, very few people did pre-OCI (at least of the ones I've spoken to). Some exceptions for people doing diversity interviews, etc. I think the mentality is that Y/S students don't need the extra pre-OCI bump, and the firms people are really interested in aren't super into pre-OCI anyway.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 08, 2022 3:06 pm

Res Ipsa Loquitter wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 08, 2022 2:30 pm

There are CBs where the candidate has a very low chance coming in the door. Last year there was a guy who got hammered at a dinner for people who'd just gotten CBs. We didn't cancel his CB because that seemed too dramatic, but he had no chance of getting an offer after that point.

As for the law school relationship aspect, I think you're right that it's uncommon. The issue is that hiring needs change and firms may be booking OCI slots months in advance of the actual OCI. So they may book the OCI slots with genuine intent to hire people, but business needs can change in the intervening months leading up to OCI (heavier than expected pre-OCI hiring, economic shifts, partners leaving and taking clients with them, etc.). This wouldn't be like Cravath skipping Harvard. It'd be more like White & Case realizing things have slowed down to the point they no longer need to recruit at Hofstra this year.

Sure, but do we really think W&C is going to say "well darn, we don't need any Hofstra students this year, but we better let one of them come to our office and waste our lawyers' and their own time so we can save face with Hofstra." Hofstra is going to want W&C to come to campus regardless of who they call back or not, and W&C knows that.

PERHAPS this might happen vis-a-vis informal quotas from particular schools. I don't know for a fact, but I imagine my Boston firm will always try to hire someone from BU/BC. Again, I don't know this for a fact, but I could see my firm just calling back the top X candidates (roughly) from those schools. If there's a bad batch some year, some may not have as much of a chance, but that's different from saying "yeah this student has no shot at an offer but we're going to call them back anyway to save face."

I'm still interested in OP's take on what "genuine interest" means.

Lots of great insight ITT; thanks to all who have participated!

To clarify, by "genuine interest" I mean actual, legitimate willingness to hire the candidate. Having combed through the content on TLS, I understand the general consensus is that the CB stage is almost entirely about fit. In other words, if you get a callback, you're in the running for an offer, irrespective of grades, experience, ties, etc., all of which were already vetted prior to the CB.

This definitely makes sense when firms are footing the bill for in-person CBs, but I would think that if there are firms that call back candidates for ulterior motives (i.e., any reason other than a legitimate willingness to hire the candidate), they are more likely to do it now via virtual interviews than ever before. There's certainly a lot less to lose. On a related note, does the virtual CB option mean some firms are now less stringent in the screener to CB culling process, thereby resulting in CBs for candidates who firms would not have had genuine interest in had those candidates been properly vetted?

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 09, 2022 4:06 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 09, 2022 11:07 am

I agree this is likely more of a thing with regional schools where big firms have small offices and/or second level schools in major markets and not T14s.

I’m at one of those schools and accepted an offer from Pre-OCI after going through screeners (there was an overlap between OCI and that offer). But it definitely felt like some folks conducting the screeners were there as a curtesy.

Meaning: the interviewer was an alum, but no one at my school had a legitimate chance of getting hired for the summer.

Realistically, on top of the explosion of Pre-OCI, a lot of schools overenrolled this past year and the market isn’t as strong as it was last year because of concerns re: a recession, so there are more candidates at top schools competing for less spots. My school sent multiple people to the firm I am summering at last year, but this year I might very well be the only one.

A little off topic but wtf are people talking about “pre OCI” being so much bigger this year? Literally since at least 2010 it’s been standard practice for people to interview and lock up pre-OCI offers, I remember reading a post here describing how it made OCI so much easier, and advocating to “get the early offer”.

Back in the day, I interviewed with every v5-10 pre-OCI (except WLRK and CSM) and locked up a pre-OCI offer back in mid/late July, well before the August OCI rush.

I know that NALP supposedly eased some restriction but I’m not aware of any v10-20 firm that actually minded the restriction—every top 10% candidate walking into my OCI had an offer somewhere.

Can someone clue me into what changed?

Pre-OCI was not really a thing in some markets before the NALP changes, and certain schools (including HLS) have now institutionalized pre-OCI through early interview programs. I'm a judicial clerk and the pre-OCI our interns did this year vs. what people in my law school class did seemed very different--some of them did a dozen or more pre-OCI screeners.