Anyone at Cooley worried? Forum

[giggaman1228]

Isn't that discrimination? Why did they only target associates from China?

-Chris

[Anonymous User]

Isn't that discrimination? Why did they only target associates from China?

-Chris

Because no one in charge cares about discrimination against Asians, it's tacitly accepted in all elite institutions, and a substantial amount of Asians will deny it occurs or even defend it.

[Anonymous User]

Isn't that discrimination? Why did they only target associates from China?

-Chris

Chris. Thanks for flagging this question. Have you tried Westlaw?

Thank.

- Jim

[Anonymous User]

I'm curious -- did any HYS kids get no offered, or were less glitzy schools first on the chopping block

[becodalapa]

Isn't that discrimination? Why did they only target associates from China?

-Chris

Because no one in charge cares about discrimination against Asians, it's tacitly accepted in all elite institutions, and a substantial amount of Asians will deny it occurs or even defend it.

Oh come on, I'm sure it was probably just a "fit" thing. The Chinese SAs were probably just too one-dimensional -- smart, but maybe not assertive or outgoing enough. They probably just couldn't connect with partners, associates, and other summers.

[Anonymous User]

Isn't that discrimination? Why did they only target associates from China?

-Chris

Because no one in charge cares about discrimination against Asians, it's tacitly accepted in all elite institutions, and a substantial amount of Asians will deny it occurs or even defend it.

Oh come on, I'm sure it was probably just a "fit" thing. The Chinese SAs were probably just too one-dimensional -- smart, but maybe not assertive or outgoing enough. They probably just couldn't connect with partners, associates, and other summers.

Nobody gets no offered for failure to connect. Not getting a CB or offer from a CB? Maybe. But to get no offered as a summer you have to do something offensive to get fired, like discriminate against Asians by calling them "one-dimensional."

Now it's entirely possible these three associates happened to do something together that falls into that category, but we won't know until someone from their class spills the beans.

[BrainsyK]

Isn't that discrimination? Why did they only target associates from China?

-Chris

Because no one in charge cares about discrimination against Asians, it's tacitly accepted in all elite institutions, and a substantial amount of Asians will deny it occurs or even defend it.

Oh come on, I'm sure it was probably just a "fit" thing. The Chinese SAs were probably just too one-dimensional -- smart, but maybe not assertive or outgoing enough. They probably just couldn't connect with partners, associates, and other summers.

Nobody gets no offered for failure to connect. Not getting a CB or offer from a CB? Maybe. But to get no offered as a summer you have to do something offensive to get fired, like discriminate against Asians by calling them "one-dimensional."

Now it's entirely possible these three associates happened to do something together that falls into that category, but we won't know until someone from their class spills the beans.

*Whoosh*

[mandrewsf]

Heard secondhand that there were at least 4 no-offers this summer in the Bay Area. No obviously egregious behavior to warrant them either.

Can confirm that they no offered 3 summers in Palo Alto. Out of 4 Chinese summers, 3 got no offered, and only them 3. And they have green cards so it's not a visa sponsorship issue.

How many total summers were there in Palo Alto?

20-ish so a substantial proportion

Around 30 2Ls actually. Still a significant proportion though. And yes this did happen. Source: summered there

Anon, please tell us what happened with the three no-offers. Did they do something to deserve it? If so could you give us hints of what might have happened?

[Anonymous User]

Isn't that discrimination? Why did they only target associates from China?

-Chris

Because no one in charge cares about discrimination against Asians, it's tacitly accepted in all elite institutions, and a substantial amount of Asians will deny it occurs or even defend it.

Oh come on, I'm sure it was probably just a "fit" thing. The Chinese SAs were probably just too one-dimensional -- smart, but maybe not assertive or outgoing enough. They probably just couldn't connect with partners, associates, and other summers.

Nobody gets no offered for failure to connect. Not getting a CB or offer from a CB? Maybe. But to get no offered as a summer you have to do something offensive to get fired, like discriminate against Asians by calling them "one-dimensional."

Now it's entirely possible these three associates happened to do something together that falls into that category, but we won't know until someone from their class spills the beans.

Because everything is behind closed doors, people always assume it's the summers' fault even though the firm is clearly showing signs of financial trouble.

Now, based of a conversation with one of their fellow summers, no one knew what's the reason because there was no warning sign. Of course, the firm is always going to say it's a "fit" issue because they would kill themselves before admitting that they can't afford to keep everyone. When the process is opaque and all you were told that you aren't a good "fit", what would you think to yourself? You would probably second guess yourself - did I not engage enough during social events, should I talk more, etc. But at the end of the day, the reason may well be that international students were on the chopping block first.

[Anonymous User]

Isn't that discrimination? Why did they only target associates from China?

-Chris

Because no one in charge cares about discrimination against Asians, it's tacitly accepted in all elite institutions, and a substantial amount of Asians will deny it occurs or even defend it.

Oh come on, I'm sure it was probably just a "fit" thing. The Chinese SAs were probably just too one-dimensional -- smart, but maybe not assertive or outgoing enough. They probably just couldn't connect with partners, associates, and other summers.

Nobody gets no offered for failure to connect. Not getting a CB or offer from a CB? Maybe. But to get no offered as a summer you have to do something offensive to get fired, like discriminate against Asians by calling them "one-dimensional."

Now it's entirely possible these three associates happened to do something together that falls into that category, but we won't know until someone from their class spills the beans.

Because everything is behind closed doors, people always assume it's the summers' fault even though the firm is clearly showing signs of financial trouble.

Now, based of a conversation with one of their fellow summers, no one knew what's the reason because there was no warning sign. Of course, the firm is always going to say it's a "fit" issue because they would kill themselves before admitting that they can't afford to keep everyone. When the process is opaque and all you were told that you aren't a good "fit", what would you think to yourself? You would probably second guess yourself - did I not engage enough during social events, should I talk more, etc. But at the end of the day, the reason may well be that international students were on the chopping block first.

I don't know about you, but even if this was a covert cost cutting measure, I can't imagine that the powers that be at Cooley would think it's a good idea pick three Asian summers over everyone else, even if they could cast it as a "fit" issue. I'm not saying Cooley had a good reason, but I am saying that something must have happened beyond generalized "fit" issues. No warning signs doesn't prove anything - if I did something that risked getting no offered I probably wouldn't tell anybody about it out of embarrassment. I suspect there was some online group chat or overheard conversation disparaging a partner or a serious performance issue on a group project that nobody else knows about.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah, I believe anti-Asian discrimination exists, and it could well be at play here - people genuinely think that they were the weakest summers and need to go, but their assessment is based on the kind of racist assumptions referenced above. But I also think a firm should be aware of the concerns and possible legal liability it would raise if the only SAs you don’t offer are all the same race/ethnicity (assuming the group left doesn’t overwhelmingly share that race/ethnicity). The firm could just not care, or there’s something else going on, or some combo of both - but it doesn’t seem possible to tell based on this thread.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah, I believe anti-Asian discrimination exists, and it could well be at play here - people genuinely think that they were the weakest summers and need to go, but their assessment is based on the kind of racist assumptions referenced above. But I also think a firm should be aware of the concerns and possible legal liability it would raise if the only SAs you don’t offer are all the same race/ethnicity (assuming the group left doesn’t overwhelmingly share that race/ethnicity). The firm could just not care, or there’s something else going on, or some combo of both - but it doesn’t seem possible to tell based on this thread.

Right. In this day and age it would be outright stupid to do this just for "fit."

[Anonymous User]

Isn't that discrimination? Why did they only target associates from China?

-Chris

Because no one in charge cares about discrimination against Asians, it's tacitly accepted in all elite institutions, and a substantial amount of Asians will deny it occurs or even defend it.

Can confirm I am elite institution.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah, I believe anti-Asian discrimination exists, and it could well be at play here - people genuinely think that they were the weakest summers and need to go, but their assessment is based on the kind of racist assumptions referenced above. But I also think a firm should be aware of the concerns and possible legal liability it would raise if the only SAs you don’t offer are all the same race/ethnicity (assuming the group left doesn’t overwhelmingly share that race/ethnicity). The firm could just not care, or there’s something else going on, or some combo of both - but it doesn’t seem possible to tell based on this thread.

Right. In this day and age it would be outright stupid to do this just for "fit."

The beauty of no-offering is that the no-offered people are very unlikely to spread the tale far and wide out of shame and knowledge of the risk it would have to a legal career that is already on the rocks.

The beauty of no-offering Asians, in particular, is that they have far fewer groups of lawyers willing to help them, and quite a few groups of lawyers and interest groups that would outright defend firing them based on "fit."

[thisismytlsuername]

Yeah, I believe anti-Asian discrimination exists, and it could well be at play here - people genuinely think that they were the weakest summers and need to go, but their assessment is based on the kind of racist assumptions referenced above. But I also think a firm should be aware of the concerns and possible legal liability it would raise if the only SAs you don’t offer are all the same race/ethnicity (assuming the group left doesn’t overwhelmingly share that race/ethnicity). The firm could just not care, or there’s something else going on, or some combo of both - but it doesn’t seem possible to tell based on this thread.

Right. In this day and age it would be outright stupid to do this just for "fit."

The beauty of no-offering is that the no-offered people are very unlikely to spread the tale far and wide out of shame and knowledge of the risk it would have to a legal career that is already on the rocks.

The beauty of no-offering Asians, in particular, is that they have far fewer groups of lawyers willing to help them, and quite a few groups of lawyers and interest groups that would outright defend firing them based on "fit."

Great point, it's not like there's a case in front of the Supreme Court right now regarding Asian Americans being discriminated against. Because there are no lawyers willing to take that case on, right?

[Anonymous User]

The fact that pretty much everybody on here agrees no offering three Asians is a bad look is proof enough that, whether or not implicit bias works against Asians in other more discrete ways, Cooley should (and probably did) know better. Any half-woke partner (or un-woke partner afraid of blowback) would see a list of three Asians and say something.

[Anonymous User]

The fact that pretty much everybody on here agrees no offering three Asians is a bad look is proof enough that, whether or not implicit bias works against Asians in other more discrete ways, Cooley should (and probably did) know better. Any half-woke partner (or un-woke partner afraid of blowback) would see a list of three Asians and say something.

It's actually often the woke ones that are the most anti Asian. Someone already mentioned the Harvard thing.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah, I believe anti-Asian discrimination exists, and it could well be at play here - people genuinely think that they were the weakest summers and need to go, but their assessment is based on the kind of racist assumptions referenced above. But I also think a firm should be aware of the concerns and possible legal liability it would raise if the only SAs you don’t offer are all the same race/ethnicity (assuming the group left doesn’t overwhelmingly share that race/ethnicity). The firm could just not care, or there’s something else going on, or some combo of both - but it doesn’t seem possible to tell based on this thread.

Right. In this day and age it would be outright stupid to do this just for "fit."

The beauty of no-offering is that the no-offered people are very unlikely to spread the tale far and wide out of shame and knowledge of the risk it would have to a legal career that is already on the rocks.

The beauty of no-offering Asians, in particular, is that they have far fewer groups of lawyers willing to help them, and quite a few groups of lawyers and interest groups that would outright defend firing them based on "fit."

Great point, it's not like there's a case in front of the Supreme Court right now regarding Asian Americans being discriminated against. Because there are no lawyers willing to take that case on, right?

There's always lawyers willing to take all sorts of cases, doesn't mean there's any real institutional support.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah, I believe anti-Asian discrimination exists, and it could well be at play here - people genuinely think that they were the weakest summers and need to go, but their assessment is based on the kind of racist assumptions referenced above. But I also think a firm should be aware of the concerns and possible legal liability it would raise if the only SAs you don’t offer are all the same race/ethnicity (assuming the group left doesn’t overwhelmingly share that race/ethnicity). The firm could just not care, or there’s something else going on, or some combo of both - but it doesn’t seem possible to tell based on this thread.

Right. In this day and age it would be outright stupid to do this just for "fit."

The beauty of no-offering is that the no-offered people are very unlikely to spread the tale far and wide out of shame and knowledge of the risk it would have to a legal career that is already on the rocks.

The beauty of no-offering Asians, in particular, is that they have far fewer groups of lawyers willing to help them, and quite a few groups of lawyers and interest groups that would outright defend firing them based on "fit."

Great point, it's not like there's a case in front of the Supreme Court right now regarding Asian Americans being discriminated against. Because there are no lawyers willing to take that case on, right?

No sane person would proceed with legal actions unless some insiders have already shared some evidence. Chances of success are minimal.

Then why would anyone tries to publicize the fact that they didn't get return offers when it's going to be a he-say-she-say against a billion dollar law firm? Even if the law firm is at fault, whose story would any future employer believe? It's going to burn so many bridges for almost nothing.

And I think law firms know this. No summer can produce perfect work products. No one is at least socially awkward at some point. They can always claim "performance issues" or "not a great fit."

Not saying this is what happened here. No one knows for sure. But I don't think Cooly would perceive potential legal actions as a risk factor at all.

[Anonymous User]

The fact that pretty much everybody on here agrees no offering three Asians is a bad look is proof enough that, whether or not implicit bias works against Asians in other more discrete ways, Cooley should (and probably did) know better. Any half-woke partner (or un-woke partner afraid of blowback) would see a list of three Asians and say something.

It's actually often the woke ones that are the most anti Asian. Someone already mentioned the Harvard thing.

I think there's a difference between what's going on in the Harvard case (where people use race as a plus factor for some races, and arguably as a negative for others) and the bad look that would come from no offering only 3/4 Asians in a class of 30 for "fit" only. I personally don't think it's a principled difference - I agree both are likely driven by racism (or xenophobia) in some form. But consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds as they say, and there is much more public support (or acceptance?) for the former than for the latter.

For example, if Harvard had to ask some freshman to defer for a year because they overenrolled, and they happened to only send that invitation to Asians, there would be a media frenzy. But people tend to be much more okay with the subtle wink/nudge that happens behind closed doors in an admissions office so long as Asians are represented roughly proportionate to their population in the US (even if the population of highly qualified Asians is much larger, and thus warrants more representation in Harvard's class).

I don't want to fight about what's racist. I just think we can all agree that no offering 3 Asians purely for "fit" is a bad look, and therefore unlikely to make it past the management committee. You could be right that woke partners might be more likely to clash with these summers, but they'd still see what happened as taboo.

[Anonymous User]

They no offered 3 of the 4 Chinese nationals, not 3 out of 4 Asian summers. It's possible it was easiest to just no offer the foreign kids over U.S. students. Also possible that there were more asian summers than just those 4. I would bet there was a decent amount more than just those 4, Palo Alto offices usually have a higher rate of asian summers/attorneys than other locations.

[Anonymous User]

The fact that pretty much everybody on here agrees no offering three Asians is a bad look is proof enough that, whether or not implicit bias works against Asians in other more discrete ways, Cooley should (and probably did) know better. Any half-woke partner (or un-woke partner afraid of blowback) would see a list of three Asians and say something.

It's actually often the woke ones that are the most anti Asian. Someone already mentioned the Harvard thing.

I think there's a difference between what's going on in the Harvard case (where people use race as a plus factor for some races, and arguably as a negative for others) and the bad look that would come from no offering only 3/4 Asians in a class of 30 for "fit" only. I personally don't think it's a principled difference - I agree both are likely driven by racism (or xenophobia) in some form. But consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds as they say, and there is much more public support (or acceptance?) for the former than for the latter.

For example, if Harvard had to ask some freshman to defer for a year because they overenrolled, and they happened to only send that invitation to Asians, there would be a media frenzy. But people tend to be much more okay with the subtle wink/nudge that happens behind closed doors in an admissions office so long as Asians are represented roughly proportionate to their population in the US (even if the population of highly qualified Asians is much larger, and thus warrants more representation in Harvard's class).

I don't want to fight about what's racist. I just think we can all agree that no offering 3 Asians purely for "fit" is a bad look, and therefore unlikely to make it past the management committee. You could be right that woke partners might be more likely to clash with these summers, but they'd still see what happened as taboo.

The point that started this tangent was that Asians lack institutional support when they get discriminated against so if 3 individuals get no offered sure it looks bad for the firm but they doesn't help those individuals. I think that is valid. And it's probably doubly true if they are foreign nationals.

Anyway, apologies for derailing the thread this is my last comment on this.

Anyone have any info on broader no offers at Cooley? Did class of 22 start as expected?

[Anonymous User]

They no offered 3 of the 4 Chinese nationals, not 3 out of 4 Asian summers. It's possible it was easiest to just no offer the foreign kids over U.S. students. Also possible that there were more asian summers than just those 4. I would bet there was a decent amount more than just those 4, Palo Alto offices usually have a higher rate of asian summers/attorneys than other locations.

Does anyone know if the Chinese nationals were "regular" associates, or did they have a special designation? For example, firms might have "legal managers" that are like associates and work in the US but specialize in working with China offices and clients. I ask because the no-offers could be related to client issues in China.

[Anonymous User]

The fact that pretty much everybody on here agrees no offering three Asians is a bad look is proof enough that, whether or not implicit bias works against Asians in other more discrete ways, Cooley should (and probably did) know better. Any half-woke partner (or un-woke partner afraid of blowback) would see a list of three Asians and say something.

It's actually often the woke ones that are the most anti Asian. Someone already mentioned the Harvard thing.

I think there's a difference between what's going on in the Harvard case (where people use race as a plus factor for some races, and arguably as a negative for others) and the bad look that would come from no offering only 3/4 Asians in a class of 30 for "fit" only. I personally don't think it's a principled difference - I agree both are likely driven by racism (or xenophobia) in some form. But consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds as they say, and there is much more public support (or acceptance?) for the former than for the latter.

For example, if Harvard had to ask some freshman to defer for a year because they overenrolled, and they happened to only send that invitation to Asians, there would be a media frenzy. But people tend to be much more okay with the subtle wink/nudge that happens behind closed doors in an admissions office so long as Asians are represented roughly proportionate to their population in the US (even if the population of highly qualified Asians is much larger, and thus warrants more representation in Harvard's class).

I don't want to fight about what's racist. I just think we can all agree that no offering 3 Asians purely for "fit" is a bad look, and therefore unlikely to make it past the management committee. You could be right that woke partners might be more likely to clash with these summers, but they'd still see what happened as taboo.

This thread has obviously gone off the rails, and apologies for contributing, but can't help but comment that this is one of the more egregious toeing of unnational ideological lines i've ever seen (i.e., racism is bad but it is also ok sometimes because muh power structures and in fact the latter is not even racism).

I would be willing to bet my left arm (apologies to any left armless ppl I'm offending) that IF a grossly disproportionate amount of individuals of one gender/race/orientation were no offered (and think we are arguing about unverified shit in this thread), it is a coincidence and was not because Cooley of all places has some hidden racial bias.

Now back to the topic at hand: is VC work dead or what?

[Anonymous User]

They no offered 3 of the 4 Chinese nationals, not 3 out of 4 Asian summers. It's possible it was easiest to just no offer the foreign kids over U.S. students. Also possible that there were more asian summers than just those 4. I would bet there was a decent amount more than just those 4, Palo Alto offices usually have a higher rate of asian summers/attorneys than other locations.

Does anyone know if the Chinese nationals were "regular" associates, or did they have a special designation? For example, firms might have "legal managers" that are like associates and work in the US but specialize in working with China offices and clients. I ask because the no-offers could be related to client issues in China.

They are your average 2L summers just like everyone else, we are not talking about associates that have started working already.