Appellate Law

Law students and interviewees are not so bad: a reply to HowT

By S. COTUS

Have Opinion Will Travel produces his usual shtick, which is something like this:

1. Look at me I am a judge;
2. I am really smart whereas other people are not (did I mention that I am a judge?);
3. I understand what judicial activism is (and I know it when I see it); and
4. Look at what I read in the paper.

Anyway, this episode of HoWT thinks it is funny that people don't have the "social skills" to properly perform in interviews.  I don't share his sense of humor.  Here is why.

Law students go into interviews prepared.  Sometimes too prepared.  Law schools (even ones ranked lower than mine) tell people exactly what to say and how to look the part.  It is virtually unheard of for a law student to an obvious faux pas, unless the law student really didn't want the job, or was deliberately throwing the interview. 

Not all law firms treat interviewees with respect.  Believe it or not, interviews are not just a ?begging? session.  Both sides are sniffing each other out.  Many interviewees are trying to get a feel for what the firm is like by asking questions.  In fact, sometimes there is so little respect, that some people are known to start deliberately throwing interviews.   In fact, some law students will throw interviews, because simply because they don't want to work for the employer, or they sense that the interview is not serious.  If word gets out that a firm is conducting interviews that are not serious, people will start treating such a firm with a similar lack of respect.  People will  cancel at the last minute, and some clowns I know (and I mean "clowns" in a good way) will set up interviews with you as a prank.  Do you really want to turn your firm into a target of pranksters?  Ask yourself whether you ?Really want to receive 15 resumes with joke names??

Legal employers do not often understand basic common courtesy.  Sure, large law firms know how to take people out to lunch (and offer people bottled water), but solo practitioners seem to relish the idea of interviewing dozens of people for one slot.  But, every now and again, small firms understand that an interviewee is an honored guest.  The interviewee is not kept waiting.  The interviewee is offered refreshments, and phonecalls are returned.  Strangely, some lawyers think it is acceptable to take calls during interviews, but condemn interviewees for doing the same thing. (It is a fair bet that anyone d***ked around with will never refer business to such a firm.)  Judging by the way small firms treat law students, it is no wonder why they all want to work at large firms who tend to abuse people after they are hired.

People generally don't want honesty. While it is true that some people will only stay in a position for a certain amount of time, most people want to be lied to about it.  If an employer wants people to stay in a job, they need to pay them enough and make the job pleasant enough to do this.  Most government agencies seem to have no trouble keeping their lawyers, because they tend not to abuse their help, and keep the work interesting.  Now, what constitutes "interesting" is a matter of perspective, but determining whether the work (and the way it is done in an office) is genuinely interesting, and the interviewee is genuinely interested in it is what the interview is all about.

A lot of interviewers are jerks.  Insulting interviewees might seem like a "test" of someone's metal, but it just generates bad karma.  If an interviewer decides he doesn't like someone, insulting his school or training doesn't do much good.  If a firm calls someone in for an interview that doesn't meet their basic qualifications, they are the jerk.  Hopefully someone will sue one of these jerks in the near future.  But, since lawsuits for non-serious interviews don?t seem a reality, small interviewers need to remind themselves pretty soon an interviewee that was so despised may be sought out for help or some accommodation.

Judges are probably among the most discourteous of interviewers, but I will discuss them some other day.

Full post as published by Appellate Law and Practice on March 17, 2008 (boomark / email).