Future Impact of Turning Down Offer

A couple of you asked about the future impact of turning down a firm's offer.  For instance, if a firm gave student Adam a summer associate offer that Adam declined, would Adam hurt his chances of getting an offer from the firm if he tried to join laterally some time later.  I can't speak for every firm out there, but I think it unlikely Adam's turning down an offer, say, in 2008 would hurt him in 2011.  The practice may vary from firm to firm, but I am not away of firms that research every lateral's prior employment inquiry (versus history) with the firm. The instance in which the "past" could catch up to you is if you acted in a perceived jerky way -- e.g., not responding to offer, submitting odd and inflated expense reimbursement requests, etc.  If you act professional and classy when dealing with the firms, you should be judged on your merit going forward.  FYI the same goes for the way you treat people when you are an attorney.  A few posts back, I warned that it is a small legal world and "people know people."  If you've been a total nightmare with whom to deal (e.g, never giving courtesy extensions in litigation, being nasty or dishonest in negotiations, etc.), there is a pretty good chance that word can get out on the street about you.  Lateral hiring does involve diligence.  In addition to credit and criminal checks, diligence regarding your legal acumen, personality (for fit with firm and its attorneys), ethics and professionalism may be explored.  Bear that in mind as you undertake your career.  Your exit strategy will be hampered ...or helped...by your reputation in the legal community.  

new NALP rules, etc.

Anonymous (I seem to have a lot of friends here named Anonymous) asked whether HP thinks that the new NALP 45 day rule will have an effect on how quickly firms will notify people of offers after callbacks.  (For those who are not familiar with this new rule, candidates have 45 days from the date of an offer to act on that offer -- this is for summer associate positions).  My experience is that it is making us act more quickly in giving offers so that we can get a clock started and have an ability to move on to other candidates if a candidate declines an offer.  

Anonymous also asked if firms generally try to wait until all candidates from a particular school go through callbacks before making decisions as to which candidates to hire.  This varies.  We do like to see all the candidates from a school so we can compare and contrast. We prefer to have a mix of law schools in our summer programs.  However, even if we have not seen all candidates from a particular school, if we have a candidate who we perceive to be in demand and who we know we want, we will go ahead and issue and offer ASAP.  My theory is that hot candidates are more inclined to go to firms that show they are very interested.  One year, we had a candidate who we really wanted (good grades, solid undergraduate institution, great outside activities, diverse candidate).  We issued the offer about a day after the candidate came in for a callback.  The candidate accepted shortly thereafter.  Candidate now works for firm.  

One other point.  This year's market is cooler than in past years.  What that means is that I don't feel we need to act on all candidates so quickly.  It gives us the opportunity to keep people in "hold" longer than we normally would do so.  Thus, if you haven't heard back after a callback, and it has been some time, check in with the recruiting coordinator to express your continued interest.  You are probably still on hold and this will help us know that you haven't accepted another offer.  

Proof Your Docs, People

I mentioned this in an earlier post, but today's 2L blunder is worth repeating.  Our recruiting coordinator passed along the resume of a 2L male at a good law school.  He grades were quite good; he was on law review.  His work experience and language capabilities were also very interesting.  Normally he would merit a screen, or maybe even a call back because he is local. But, I dinged him.  Why??  No, HP wasn't just in a crappy mood.  This supposed law review dude put in his e-mail cover 2 references to a different law firm as in "Attached is my resume for consideration for XYZ law firm's summer program (let's say we are ABC firm). If that mail merge disaster wasn't enough, he then said something like "my research has confirmed that XYZ firm's xxxyyy practice (a practice we DON'T have) would fit my interests and experience."  To make matters worse, when you opened the actual cover letter, it had our firm name, sort of. The firm name was not correctly spelled and the name was off.  So, to quote the dearly departed Bernie Mac, "I ask you AMERICA"...what kind of law review student is this?  ATTENTION TO DETAIL PEOPLE!    GEEZ. 

attire

A woman commenter asked whether it is still necessary to wear a skirt suit vs. a pant suit to interviews.  In most larger cities, a nice pantsuit is perfectly acceptable.  Perhaps there are smaller markets where the traditional skirt reigns, but most of the women attorneys  I know and surveyed think a tailored pantsuit is appropriate.  Should be paired with appropriately fitting shirt -- no gaps, cleavage, etc.  Accessories tastefully done.  The main point is that you want to present a professional, serious appearance and if there's a big gap showing your bra, this will distract from the interview.  A little silly to discuss, I realize, but since you asked, I answered (plus it was kind of an easy one). 

Outing Self on Resume

One of our commenters asked a terrific question.  This person said they really want to spend their 1L summer at a gay rights organization or similar group and is concerning about the "outing" effect this would have on their resume as they interview for 2L firm slots.

We HP and recruiting staff are very used to seeing people self identify on their resumes as gay, lesbian, member of certain minority groups, etc.  No biggie in most big cities. In fact, we are told to increase diversity, so we are often looking for attorneys from diverse backgrounds.  Our clients want diversity, many recruits want diversity, and we have to list our female/minority/gay/lesbian/transgender attorneys on various forms and surveys. So, self-disclosing may actually benefit you.  And, if that is what you really want to do as a 1L, i.e. your dream 1L job, then go for it...but I caveat...

There will be some reviewers who will be biased.  Of course, they are not supposed to be discriminating.  If they turn you down because of your self-identifying, I would say you wouldn't want to work for that person or at that place anyway.  The bigger issue -- and this applies not to alternative lifestyles but to any public interest gig -- is that the HP or other reviewer may wonder about your commitment and interest in working in BigLaw.  We know most people do not make it to partnership, but we don't want someone who comes in ready to go. And, we wonder about whether someone who is so vested in certain issues could properly advocate/counsel clients who may have diverging interests.  We don't like or agree with all our clients, but we have to represent them zealously within the confines of the law.  Some years back, I interviewed a bright young woman from a top law school who had worked in many women-oriented organizations, women's advocacy, etc.  She claimed she wanted to work in the employment practice of a law firm.  I had my doubts about her ability/interest in representing employers (i.e., the clients) in defending them against the claims of say, a lady who alleged pregnancy discrimination.  This candidate answered that she saw herself working on advising clients before any troubles, helping with employee handbooks and policies, etc.  But I told her that kind of work was only a small part of what the employment lawyers did.  Most of it was dog eat dog litigation.  Someone alleges discrimination of some covered type. We defend them, usually digging up dirt on employee (e.g., falsified resume in first place, or sent email saying how much she enjoyed working with alleged nasty boss man).   I ended up dinging the woman, not because of her work at a women's organization but because I did not see any even medium (not to mention long) term potential at the firm. 

So, the long and short of it is that you will be outing yourself, but so be it.  Just be aware that the public interest/private interest issue may arise.  My advice would be to try to do some work at the organization that might translate in the private sector -- e.g., contract review, interviewing witnesses, drafting affidavits and declarations, research and drafting memoranda, etc.  That way, when you write it up next summer on your resume, you will have substantive items to list and discuss that can go beyond the obvious public interest and that you can relate to your law firm interviewing.   

I hope that helps. Please keep the good questions and comments coming.  Oh, and do we have experienced attorneys out there as well as law students?  

Spin?

One of our commenters asked about how believable the comments by HPs and others are when one is interviewing.  He/or is it she since I have now learned there are several fine women attorneys or attorneys to be out there wondered whether it is all spin/some true/false, or what.  

My friends, remember, we HPs and interviewers are selling as well as buying.  So, of course we do sell.  This means different things at different places and yes, this does apply to laterals as well as law students. This HP does not lie.  But I do sound enthusiastic about certain groups and people that I may not personally like.   Let's say there's a partner or practice group I personally would not want to work in.  Do I still recruit people for that group/partner?  Yes, I do. That's my job.  That said, I try to look for candidates who will fit personality wise with that group/partner.  

All firms are spinning.  If you think we are not, you are fooling yourselves.  I know of a firm that treats women (particularly those with families) like crap.  Are they selling themselves these days as family and women friendly?  Of course they are.  What are they going to say, we only want She-men who will sell lives to firm?  At HPs current firm, I think we have good policies and a good work environment, and I don't have to do a whole lot of spinning because I believe in what I am selling, usually.  But do keep your eyes open.   At my prior firm, a candidate once asked me about what I didn't like about the firm, or what I would change if I were the managing partner.  I thought these were good questions, and I gave honest answers that probably gave the candidate some solid information.  

So...how to get the straight poop?  Ask prior summer associates or associates who worked there, if you know of them.  Search Google, Vault, other sites.  Check out the composition of the office/firm.  If you are a minority candidate and you see no minority partners and few associates, you may not be comfortable there.  Same thing for women.  If you see 2 or 4 women partners in an office over 100 people...this is not a good sign.  At this day in age, where women have come out of law school at the same percentage of men for many years, there should be more women partners, period.  I am sure there have been enough highly competent people through the doors over the years there that we can't blame the women.  There is likely an issue regarding retention and advancement.    

Keeping it Fresh

Thanks for all your suggestions.  It is useful to hear feedback.  I've actually really wanted to expand beyond the interviewing/OCI/callback/law student postings but kept getting questions about those issues.  In the future, I will address more "actual practice" topics, including participating in firm social events and firm administrative committees, bar associations, etc., as well as positioning yourself for advancement and plotting exit strategies.  By the way, I've noticed many of you readers appear to be young male law students.  Are there any women out there?  Just wondering since I haven't heard from any and I have a "guest" poster who would like to address issues particular to women in the law.  

In terms of increasing readership, I know the blog got some attention from abovethelaw.com, abajournal.com and the Wall Street Journal law blog when it first went online.  But feel free to share with your friends and others.  We can all learn from each other, so the more participation, the better.  Even though I have been practicing for a number of years, I know I continue to learn.