Good lord, people, there was some amount of sarcasm there, certainly in the last line. I mean, I certainly think that among law students generally (and among young lawyers, for that matter) there is a lot of kowtowing to people who are in positions of power, and a lot of internalization of these hierarchies. But I didn't mean it as a personal attack on your specific choices
Nevertheless, I will say that I don't think that it's wrong or unreasonable to expect (in the normative, not the predictive, sense) ANY employer to get back to you. I mean, no, this doesn't happen in practice -- many if not most employers will even tell candidates they should expect to hear from them and then they never do. But ought it? I think so. It's rude whether it's Blockbuster, a corporation, an insurance defense firm, or Wachtell. At the very least there is very little administrative cost to telling candidates up front that they won't be hearing from them unless it's good news.
And to say that, well, in practice most employers in other industries don't do this, so you shouldn't expect this from law firms -- the set of firms that participate in OCI recruiting have created expectations through a long history of certain behaviors. And this determines how applicants interpret what firms' behavior means, and then adjust their own behavior accordingly. Within the context of the legal community, and even different parts of the legal community, behaviors signify differently than they would in other contexts (think for example about how thank you notes are completely standard in some industries but are more controversial with firms). So what other industries do is of little relevance. And now that firms behavior has changed dramatically, I find it difficult to justify why the onus should be entirely on the applicant to either figure it out or to just suck it up and deal with not knowing. And furthermore, I doubt that if the topic of, say, students accepting multiple offers or violating some other non-NALP, unspoken norms of the recruiting process came up, that the majority would think it's appropriate, yet applicants are operating under the same degree of changed economic circumstances.
The fact that we are applying to them (and need jobs) . . . well, maybe this is the overall source of our disagreement. I am thankful in a sort of broad cosmic sense for having an offer, but I by no means see this as, like, a gift from the firm, for which I should be grateful to THEM. Because if I go there, they're going to make a shitload of money off of me -- arguably MOST of their money is from associate leverage, rather than high fees for partner expertise. Whatever benefits there are to any of us in going to a firm, the relationship works fundamentally in their favor, especially if you stay longer than a year or two. I think the same is true of the recruiting process -- interviewing us isn't doing any of us a favor, even if working at a firm will be beneficial to us as well for whatever reason. This whole process is ultimately a moneymaking enterprise for them, even if it requires spending money up front to fly us around, take time to talk to us, etc. To be clear, I'm not saying that on this point you guys are wrong and I am right. There certainly IS a lot of time and expense involved in recruiting and getting a new associate class to the point where they're profitable. And not everyone they hire becomes a profitable associate, so there is some risk involved for them. So who you think comes out the winner in this arrangement will depend on how you prioritize each of these risks and rewards for both you and the firm. I think that the majority of you are more inclined to see it as a more equitable relationship than I. But coming from my point of view -- that the relationship is already more exploitative of associates than not -- a lot of behavior seems more like an abuse of power/bargaining position than a legitimate exercise thereof.
And as far as accusations that I'm a hypocrite go, I don't think it's entirely fair to characterize this as an indictment of everyone else's choices when I'm making the exact same ones. I wasn't joking when I said that this experience has really made me question whether I want to go this route at all. I considered not doing OCI, because having worked at a firm I not only knew what I was getting into, more or less, but also knew that I hated the working conditions (and my old firm was even a "nice" firm). But I didn't really feel like I had any choice (I mean, what kind of idiot turns down interviewing opportunities ITE?). I guess I am a bit of a weirdo in that I find some areas of private practice interesting, but also have strong interests in areas in government and in public interest, so my practice area goals are rather fluid. In a way that makes me lucky, I know, because it gives me leeway that others with more focused goals don't have. But in other ways it makes things really difficult. I mean, is it a good idea to just go ahead with a firm despite reservations just because otherwise I wouldn't be able to do certain practice areas? Or do those reservations really justify taking a riskier path and pursuing another interest -- a bird in the hand, you know? I've obviously been disappointed in how some firms have handled recruiting ITE. But I think my real frustration stems from feeling like I'm being forced into a choice that I'm not sure is right for me -- certainly not ideologically, at least -- while also feeling like a lot of the baggage that comes along with working for a firm is unnecessary.
(ETA: I feel I should further clarify my previous post because I think it really came off wrong -- I also didn't mean it personally in the sense that I was reading everyone's individual posts and thinking, "Wow, you all are morons" or something. Although Wally feeling sorry for partners was a little surreal, haha. It was just a response to the general tenor of the conversation, and what I was reading as a necessary underlying assumption behind
defending the behavior of firms. I certainly recognize that they have the power right now, especially because it's a buyer's market so to speak, and I am not insensitive to everyone's individual problems that necessitate just grinning and bearing it. I think what I was trying to say was that even if that's the way things are, that sucks, and that there's nothing inherently special about firms that justifies them treating applicants with any disrespect even if we're forced to accept it for practical reasons. I hope that makes sense.)
51 Replies
23066 Views