How important is a professional appearance in law school? Forum

[jbagelboy]

Hell, man. You give me two candidates with roughly the same elite credentials and winning personalities, I'm pulling for (and hiring) the less generic of the two.

Again, not saying OP can or should look like a teenager fresh out of Hot Topic, I'm just saying he or she doesn't need to shed every idiosyncratic feature of his or her identity to be hired. What screams "lack of common sense" to you, might well say "adds diversity and possesses self confidence" to another.

Most law firms that hire law students aren't entrepreneurial businesses that want brilliant but quirky people. They just want smart people who are going to keep their head down, do what they're told without asking annoying questions, and leave after a few years. The bolded parts are largely harmful to your chances of getting hired by a corporate law firm. If you're being interviewed by Adam Raposa though, then yeah, I'd say go as quirky as you can.

Not that it matters, but this isn't a fair generalization of all large firm recruiting. Sullivan is only one model. There are firms that look for entrepreneurial spirit, self-starting, yes even "brilliant" people who will contribute more than billable-hour-bodies.

[Tanicius]

Hell, man. You give me two candidates with roughly the same elite credentials and winning personalities, I'm pulling for (and hiring) the less generic of the two.

Again, not saying OP can or should look like a teenager fresh out of Hot Topic, I'm just saying he or she doesn't need to shed every idiosyncratic feature of his or her identity to be hired. What screams "lack of common sense" to you, might well say "adds diversity and possesses self confidence" to another.

Most law firms that hire law students aren't entrepreneurial businesses that want brilliant but quirky people. They just want smart people who are going to keep their head down, do what they're told without asking annoying questions, and leave after a few years. The bolded parts are largely harmful to your chances of getting hired by a corporate law firm. If you're being interviewed by Adam Raposa though, then yeah, I'd say go as quirky as you can.

Not that it matters, but this isn't a fair generalization of all large firm recruiting. Sullivan is only one model. There are firms that look for entrepreneurial spirit, self-starting, yes even "brilliant" people who will contribute more than billable-hour-bodies.

Steve Jobs wouldn't be a qualified associate at any big law firm. He could be the smartest guy they've ever interviewed, but his not showering would get him canned fast.

[Power_of_Facing]

Hell, man. You give me two candidates with roughly the same elite credentials and winning personalities, I'm pulling for (and hiring) the less generic of the two.

Again, not saying OP can or should look like a teenager fresh out of Hot Topic, I'm just saying he or she doesn't need to shed every idiosyncratic feature of his or her identity to be hired. What screams "lack of common sense" to you, might well say "adds diversity and possesses self confidence" to another.

Most law firms that hire law students aren't entrepreneurial businesses that want brilliant but quirky people. They just want smart people who are going to keep their head down, do what they're told without asking annoying questions, and leave after a few years. The bolded parts are largely harmful to your chances of getting hired by a corporate law firm. If you're being interviewed by Adam Raposa though, then yeah, I'd say go as quirky as you can.

Not that it matters, but this isn't a fair generalization of all large firm recruiting. Sullivan is only one model. There are firms that look for entrepreneurial spirit, self-starting, yes even "brilliant" people who will contribute more than billable-hour-bodies.

Steve Jobs wouldn't be a qualified associate at any big law firm. He could be the smartest guy they've ever interviewed, but his not showering would get him canned fast.

Not if he brought in the Benjamins (at an extraordinarily high, irreplaceable level).

[Tanicius]

Not if he brought in the Benjamins.

partner with book of business =/= first year asscociate

[Nekrowizard]

.

[t-14orbust]

Hell, man. You give me two candidates with roughly the same elite credentials and winning personalities, I'm pulling for (and hiring) the less generic of the two.

Again, not saying OP can or should look like a teenager fresh out of Hot Topic, I'm just saying he or she doesn't need to shed every idiosyncratic feature of his or her identity to be hired. What screams "lack of common sense" to you, might well say "adds diversity and possesses self confidence" to another.

Most law firms that hire law students aren't entrepreneurial businesses that want brilliant but quirky people. They just want smart people who are going to keep their head down, do what they're told without asking annoying questions, and leave after a few years. The bolded parts are largely harmful to your chances of getting hired by a corporate law firm. If you're being interviewed by Adam Raposa though, then yeah, I'd say go as quirky as you can.

Not that it matters, but this isn't a fair generalization of all large firm recruiting. Sullivan is only one model. There are firms that look for entrepreneurial spirit, self-starting, yes even "brilliant" people who will contribute more than billable-hour-bodies.

any examples?

[Nebby]

Flame thread.

[DELG]

Looking at firm profiles, I am pretty sure biglaw is with me on this one. On the other hand, if you want to be a barista at an independent coffee place, then long hair is ideal.

We can change biglaw together. Let your hair grow long! Cause I want to be a barrister.

what biglaw tries to be: stable, consistent, reliable

I really can't overstate how much biglaw values conformity. The most important thing is to do everything exactly as it has been done. Should we underline defined terms, or underline and bold them? We should do exactly what we did in the last motion. And then quadruple check to make sure it's all EXACTLY THE SAME down to use (or nonuse) of Oxford comma

[Power_of_Facing]

Not if he brought in the Benjamins.

partner with book of business =/= first year asscociate

But Steve Jobs =/= first year asscociate.

[Power_of_Facing]

Looking at firm profiles, I am pretty sure biglaw is with me on this one. On the other hand, if you want to be a barista at an independent coffee place, then long hair is ideal.

We can change biglaw together. Let your hair grow long! Cause I want to be a barrister.

what biglaw tries to be: stable, consistent, reliable

I really can't overstate how much biglaw values conformity. The most important thing is to do everything exactly as it has been done. Should we underline defined terms, or underline and bold them? We should do exactly what we did in the last motion. And then quadruple check to make sure it's all EXACTLY THE SAME down to use (or nonuse) of Oxford comma

Maybe this sounds hippy-dippy, but what you've just explained is exactly the reason why biglaw in its present form is DYING. Embrace change, future and current lawyers.

[anyriotgirl]

Looking at firm profiles, I am pretty sure biglaw is with me on this one. On the other hand, if you want to be a barista at an independent coffee place, then long hair is ideal.

We can change biglaw together. Let your hair grow long! Cause I want to be a barrister.

what biglaw tries to be: stable, consistent, reliable

I really can't overstate how much biglaw values conformity. The most important thing is to do everything exactly as it has been done. Should we underline defined terms, or underline and bold them? We should do exactly what we did in the last motion. And then quadruple check to make sure it's all EXACTLY THE SAME down to use (or nonuse) of Oxford comma

Maybe this sounds hippy-dippy, but what you've just explained is exactly the reason why biglaw in its present form is DYING. Embrace change, future and current lawyers.

yeah I'll get right on that

reforming biglaw from the bottom up

what could possibly go wrong

[Tanicius]

Not if he brought in the Benjamins.

partner with book of business =/= first year asscociate

But Steve Jobs =/= first year asscociate.

You're not getting my hypo. I'm saying you could invent Macintosh or Windows, or cure cancer, and you still aren't getting special treatment if you're applying for a first-year associate-ship if you're a slob. If you want more job security in return for your legit special snowflake qualities, then apply to a position that's not a first-year associateship, because the firm doesn't want special associates; they want compliant associates. When you're a hotshot rainmaking partner it's a totally different story.

[DELG]

Looking at firm profiles, I am pretty sure biglaw is with me on this one. On the other hand, if you want to be a barista at an independent coffee place, then long hair is ideal.

We can change biglaw together. Let your hair grow long! Cause I want to be a barrister.

what biglaw tries to be: stable, consistent, reliable

I really can't overstate how much biglaw values conformity. The most important thing is to do everything exactly as it has been done. Should we underline defined terms, or underline and bold them? We should do exactly what we did in the last motion. And then quadruple check to make sure it's all EXACTLY THE SAME down to use (or nonuse) of Oxford comma

Maybe this sounds hippy-dippy, but what you've just explained is exactly the reason why biglaw in its present form is DYING. Embrace change, future and current lawyers.

No, that is not why. Clients still want boring, consistent, reliable lawyers in suits and pressed shirts. They just don't like paying first years $450/hr to get it.

[Power_of_Facing]

Not if he brought in the Benjamins.

partner with book of business =/= first year asscociate

But Steve Jobs =/= first year asscociate.

You're not getting my hypo. I'm saying you could invent Macintosh or Windows, or cure cancer, and you still aren't getting special treatment if you're applying for a first-year associate-ship if you're a slob. If you want more job security in return for your legit special snowflake qualities, then apply to a position that's not a first-year associateship, because the firm doesn't want special associates; they want compliant associates. When you're a hotshot rainmaking partner it's a totally different story.

But so then how does the compliant associate emerge as a creative make-it-rain sort of gal/guy? Law firms value their hotshots more than their automatons, no? Why stifle (and why not hire) people with that sort of potential? (I do realize appearance is not the best or even a good way to judge this).

[Tanicius]

But so then how does the compliant associate emerge as a creative make-it-rain sort of gal/guy? Law firms value their hotshots more than their automatons, no? Why stifle (and why not hire) people with that sort of potential? (I do realize appearance is not the best or even a good way to judge this).

Over time you have opportunities to become more popular with your firm, will be given more responsibilities, entrusted to work with clients more directly, and have the opportunity to succeed in ways that actually matter. Rainmaking itself often happens just because a client likes you, which could be for any reason on Earth. Helping in substantial ways to win cases will also help though. Most of the people who get this far at a firm followed the "rules."

The zaniness and idiosyncrasies actually tend to develop with the firm's consent or encouragement after you have already made it big. If your shtick is to wake up at noon and work until 5am every day, your firm is not going to tolerate that until after you have started making them lots of money. Most of the quirky (and often assholish, self-centered) behavior exhibited by partners wasn't used as a signal to a firm that caused the firm to hire them. Rather, the firm keeps the quirky partner in spite of their unusual qualities because they just don't want (or can't afford) to let the partner's profits go somewhere else.

[Power_of_Facing]

No, that is not why. Clients still want boring, consistent, reliable lawyers in suits and pressed shirts. They just don't like paying first years $450/hr to get it.

Clients want expert and reliable service first and foremost (and probably in this order), and the firms that can provide it the the most cost effectively will survive. Tedium and starched shirts be damned.

If a law firm identifies creative potential in an applicant whose appearance is somehow beyond the pale, white collar of business, well then I think the firm would be foolhardy to let that person go because his or her hair was too long. Again, this is only my humble and clearly minority opinion.

It sucks that a profession so supposedly supportive of "diversity" is in practice comprehensively intolerant of minor deviations from a corporate norm.

[NYSprague]

"Hotshot" associates make themselves apparent by their brilliant work. I don't know what hairstyles have to do with this.

[Tanicius]

No, that is not why. Clients still want boring, consistent, reliable lawyers in suits and pressed shirts. They just don't like paying first years $450/hr to get it.

Clients want expert and reliable service first and foremost (and probably in this order), and the firms that can provide it the the most cost effectively will survive. Tedium and starched shirts be damned.

This applies to partners, not the nameless associates that the client will never meet except for when they tag along to simply watch a deposition.

If law a firm identifies creative potential in an applicant whose appearance is somehow beyond the pale, white collar of business, well then I think the firm would be foolhardy to let that person go because his or her hair was too long. Again, this is only my humble and minority opinion.

The firm only recruits these people later, when they have years of relevant experience and are lateraling in. At that point, they're looking for creative people to innovate and solve problems and shoulder great amounts of responsibility. They poach the creative people like the amazing trial lawyers. But when you have 50 applicants for every first-year associate position, no, you're not interesting in hiring people with creative potential who are only going to be doing secretarial work for the next few years.

[Power_of_Facing]

"Hotshot" associates make themselves apparent by their brilliant work. I don't know what hairstyles have to do with this.

The rub is that entry level law firm hiring seems to prize people who make conscious choices to stifle whatever spark and vim they possess that could make them shine.

[Tanicius]

"Hotshot" associates make themselves apparent by their brilliant work. I don't know what hairstyles have to do with this.

The rub is that entry level law firm hiring seems to prize people who make conscious choices to stifle whatever spark and vim that could make them shine.

Cause that's what makes the partners who control the associate drone armies the most money. Associates are the people they outsource all the technically legal work that they don't have the time or patience to do. You're there to do bitch work -- formatting an amazing brief that someone else wrote, or write motions on completely frivolous topics that spend time and justify a higher billing cost to the client. You are the big law firm equivalent of the Chinese sweat shop worker.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Looking at firm profiles, I am pretty sure biglaw is with me on this one. On the other hand, if you want to be a barista at an independent coffee place, then long hair is ideal.

We can change biglaw together. Let your hair grow long! Cause I want to be a barrister.

what biglaw tries to be: stable, consistent, reliable

I really can't overstate how much biglaw values conformity. The most important thing is to do everything exactly as it has been done. Should we underline defined terms, or underline and bold them? We should do exactly what we did in the last motion. And then quadruple check to make sure it's all EXACTLY THE SAME down to use (or nonuse) of Oxford comma

Maybe this sounds hippy-dippy, but what you've just explained is exactly the reason why biglaw in its present form is DYING. Embrace change, future and current lawyers.

Dude, aren't you a 0L? You probably shouldn't be advising someone on what big law firms look for. I get your point that it shouldn't matter, but you can change that when you make partner.

I mean, I'm not even in a firm, and there's no men in my office with hair below their ears.

[Power_of_Facing]

Dude, aren't you a 0L? You probably shouldn't be advising someone on what big law firms look for. I get your point that it shouldn't matter, but you can change that when you make partner.

I mean, I'm not even in a firm, and there's no men in my office with hair below their ears.

I'm indeed a 0L, but I currently work (and have done for some time) with a biglaw firm on stuff like recruiting -- and my experience has been pretty at odds with the cynicism put forth by most TLSers.

People with hair beyond their collars (partners and associates of both sexes) exist if not abound.

[A. Nony Mouse]

My office is filled with military and ex-military, so it may be even more conservative. But what part of the country are you in? And how many men have hair down their backs?

[Power_of_Facing]

Dude, aren't you a 0L? You probably shouldn't be advising someone on what big law firms look for. I get your point that it shouldn't matter, but you can change that when you make partner.

I mean, I'm not even in a firm, and there's no men in my office with hair below their ears.

I'm indeed a 0L, but I currently work (and have done for some time) with a biglaw firm on stuff like recruiting -- and my experience has been pretty at odds with the cynicism put forth by most TLSers.

People with hair beyond their collars (partners and associates of both sexes) exist if not abound.

Again, I am not advising anyone to rage against professional norms -- that's a stupid plan. I just don't think it's 100% necessary to divest oneself of distinguishing features, like hair, to obtain a biglaw job. I admit that it's probably a safer bet than not (in employment terms) to do so, though.

[NYSprague]

Dude, aren't you a 0L? You probably shouldn't be advising someone on what big law firms look for. I get your point that it shouldn't matter, but you can change that when you make partner.

I mean, I'm not even in a firm, and there's no men in my office with hair below their ears.

I'm indeed a 0L, but I currently work (and have done for some time) with a biglaw firm on stuff like recruiting -- and my experience has been pretty at odds with the cynicism put forth by most TLSers.

People with hair beyond their collars (partners and associates of both sexes) exist if not abound.

Your the one saying law firms don't give associates a way to shine. That is not true.