Jr. BigLaw Associate in NY Taking Questions

[kb]

I think the key difference is feeling like you're qualified/are a good candidate for a job vs. feeling like you've earned/deserve a job. The first speaks to your accomplishments and qualifications, and the second speaks to what you think you're owed. Being conscious of where your accomplishments and qualifications should generally place your prospects is important; thinking someone owes you something because of what you've done can make you come across as an entitled feminine hygiene product.

I think often people actually mean/are attempting to express the former, but it comes out sounding like the latter, especially when they're shut out from something for which they're, generally speaking, qualified.

This is my point, but you say it better cuase u went to fancy law schoolz.

LOL at suggesting that people learn things in law school! 

[Burning Sands, Esq.]

I think the key difference is feeling like you're qualified/are a good candidate for a job vs. feeling like you've earned/deserve a job. The first speaks to your accomplishments and qualifications, and the second speaks to what you think you're owed. Being conscious of where your accomplishments and qualifications should generally place your prospects is important; thinking someone owes you something because of what you've done can make you come across as an entitled feminine hygiene product.

I think often people actually mean/are attempting to express the former, but it comes out sounding like the latter, especially when they're shut out from something for which they're, generally speaking, qualified.

Well stated.

[Matthies]

I think the key difference is feeling like you're qualified/are a good candidate for a job vs. feeling like you've earned/deserve a job. The first speaks to your accomplishments and qualifications, and the second speaks to what you think you're owed. Being conscious of where your accomplishments and qualifications should generally place your prospects is important; thinking someone owes you something because of what you've done can make you come across as an entitled feminine hygiene product.

I think often people actually mean/are attempting to express the former, but it comes out sounding like the latter, especially when they're shut out from something for which they're, generally speaking, qualified.

This is my point, but you say it better cuase u went to fancy law schoolz.

LOL at suggesting that people learn things in law school! 

Yea me studying from the bar is proof I leanred nothing cuase none of this *&^% looks remotly familer to me

[groundkontrol]

Hey, how's it going? I was reading through this post. I will be applying to law school (a bunch of T14s) this fall and I'm mostly interested in NYC Biglaw to some extent. I'm a black URM male and I just graduated from Cornell studying Industrial and Labor Relations. In the first post of your thread you spoke about  a buddy of yours who worked in the Labor & Employment division of your firm. This is ultimately something I would like to do within a big law firm after I graduate from law school. I just wanted to ask you-- how common is it for first year associates to work in a department such as Labor & Employment?  Do you need prior experience in labor to be hired? My entire undergrad career at Cornell was focused around labor.

 You mentioned that the L&E associates didn't do very much document review, while associates did doc review 24/7. When interview for jobs do you get to specify what department you would like to work in or are you automatically placed? I know it's wayy to early to be thinking about this but L&E at a BIGLAW or mid-sized firm is something I'm interested in. Thanks!

[Burning Sands, Esq.]

Hey, how's it going? I was reading through this post. I will be applying to law school (a bunch of T14s) this fall and I'm mostly interested in NYC Biglaw to some extent. I'm a black URM male and I just graduated from Cornell studying Industrial and Labor Relations. In the first post of your thread you spoke about  a buddy of yours who worked in the Labor & Employment division of your firm. This is ultimately something I would like to do within a big law firm after I graduate from law school. I just wanted to ask you-- how common is it for first year associates to work in a department such as Labor & Employment?  Do you need prior experience in labor to be hired? My entire undergrad career at Cornell was focused around labor.

 You mentioned that the L&E associates didn't do very much document review, while associates did doc review 24/7. When interview for jobs do you get to specify what department you would like to work in or are you automatically placed? I know it's wayy to early to be thinking about this but L&E at a BIGLAW or mid-sized firm is something I'm interested in. Thanks!

Thanks for steering us back on topic.     Great question.

Of course I have to preface that every firm will do things slightly differently, but for the most part, assuming you go the traditional summer associate route, when you are summering at your firm you will be given assignments from various partners.  This represents the minimum of what you are required to do.  For somebody like yourself who knows that they are interested in L&E, it will be incumbent upon you to walk over to the L&E partners' offices and ask for work in L&E. 

Then when they give you an assignment (and they more than likely will if you ask for one), it is imperative that you knock it out of the park - nothing kills a relationship faster than doing bad work for a partner.  Provided you do a decent job for them, they will probably give you a couple more before your summer is over.  This will establish a relationship between yourself and the L&E group so that when you have your exit interview, and as you go through your 3L year and communicate with the firm as to where you might like to be placed, you can have something linking you to the L&E group.  Who knows, by then they might even request you by name if you're lucky.

Again, each firm will do it differently.  Some only give you 2 options when you start:  Litigation or Transactional.  And then you have to do general work within that division for a year or so before you pick a practice group.

My old firm gave associates the choice around the time we were taking the bar exam of which groups we would prefer to work in.  My new firm just places people in either general lit or general trans and allows you to pick your own group after 3 years.

[groundkontrol]

Great, thanks for the response! A few more questions:

1) What types of "assignments" do SA's do? Is it all doc review as well?

2) Is the pay the same for all 1st year associates across the board? A 1associate working in L&E will make the same as a 1associate in litigation?

3) Are you ever asked during interviews what department you would prefer working in?

Thanks.

[Matthies]

You've got to define "says you're in."  Even for an MP, mandating a significantly subpar candidate requires the use of a good amount of political capital.

He can tell a recruiting coordinator or hiring partner, "look out for this guy, good kid."  And that's more than helpful, right, but it's still within the province of the hiring committee to say "sorry Bob, couldn't squeeze him in from (class rank, school, whatever)."  Then at the other end of the spectrum, he can tell a hiring partner, "we need this kid, have to have him."  Probably that'll do the trick, but it's cost Bob a little bit to be that forward and pull rank on a hiring decision.  Let alone if it smells to somebody on the hiring committee like nepotism.

Anyway, in response to Sands' bit, yes and no.

Matthies would say, and would be right, that the thing to do is to have the MP put in the word for you, then to try to build a strong relationship with the HP as well.

(Personal experience here, in re the different degrees of help you can get & nepotism considerations.)

TITCR from what I understand.  Reezy is, as usual, spot on.

nepotism is pretty widespred in law firms though, I mean we are not talking about publicaly traded corporations, the only shareholder you have any responseblity to is the other partners, and if you bring in a lot of money for them you'd be suprised what you can get away with.

[Matthies]

Not always correct, Matthies.  Firms--huge ones, anyway--have very serious nepotism policies.  Known for a fact at three of the V50s.

Hehe, they also have polices against sleeping with the staff. That gets ignored a lot too if you make the firm enough money and you do it so it does not end up on ATL or in court.  If there is anything we are all familer with at this point is that for every rule there is an exception. Or at least I hope we are all familer with that by now.


Protip: best sources for gossip about who’s doing in who in firms: the IT guy (yea like he does not read those e-mails he’s archiving) and the legal secretary, they screen the calls and e-mails they know when some is calling too much for a business relationship and when your lying to your wife about there you actually are. Don’t forget them on secretaries day cause they got all the dirt on you.

[Matthies]

honestly the "know the right people" or "make enough rain" and therefore "do what you please and have carpet rolled out for you or your kin or just some acquaintance of yours" shtick is cute, but sometimes, swear to god man, there are policies and best practices that are respected.  some firms take their best practices seriously because there's value in not making the place a favor factory; not every firm operates like a 50-lawyer friendship shop.

redated becuase I don't feel like outing myself or dealing with my bat *&^% crazy realtives who might wonder here

[Jamie Stringer]

Sands, another question...

I'm not sure if you did a clerkship at all or not, but my question sort of revolves around that. I am thinking I'm more interested in transactional work (says the 0L with no experience), but I'm also interested in clerking. Would you say that it's completely useless for a transactional person to pursue a clerkship or otherwise hinder their chances of being placed in a transactional group at a big firm?