Improving Your Application for Articling

[QueensGrad 59]

I'm a solo practitioner who is working to expand, and as part of that I just finished going about hiring an articling student. What follows is my advice to students on what to and not to do in the course of securing an articling spot. Please note that this does not necessarily work with every other employer, even if they are small firms. These are merely my own observations and views based on my recent experience in hiring an articling student, mixed in with my experience of hiring summer students in the past. I will break this down into the following sections: Cover Letter, Resume, Application in General, Interview,  Application Procedure, and Concluding Thoughts.

 

Cover Letter

 

The reason I put the cover letter first is because it is the single most important thing I look at.

 

Surprised? Frankly, I was too. When I was a student I didn't think the cover letter mattered all that much. What could you possibly want to know about me that isn't in my resume? That's where my education and experience are, so why do you want me to state it again in the cover letter? Well, it turns out, employers don't want that. We've just gotten used to it because, frankly, most applications suck.

 

1. I'm going to lay a hard truth on you now. You aren't special. I know, Disney said otherwise, but you have no idea how not-special people are until you've got a bunch of CV's lined up and everyone is basically the same. Most of the classes are the same, most of the grades are pretty close (that B curve...), most of you have the same experiences as each other (basically pick two or three of a legal clinic, pro bono, writing for or editing a law journal, entry level summer position at a firm where you basically filed documents when you weren't just sitting around with nothing to do, and/or some kind of law school club). Do you know what I use the cover letter for? I use it to determine if you can string coherent sentences together. How's your spelling and grammar. Did you manage to spell my name/the name of my firm correctly? No joke, that's how low the bar is. What I've found is that a lot of people are very, VERY careless with their cover letters. You know what it says to me if you're careless with your job application? It tells me that you have poor attention to detail and are going to let a lot of things slip through the cracks.

 

2. Your cover letter should make it seem like you bothered to look at my firm's website. It's not rare that I get a cover letter that talks about wanting to do stuff that my firm clearly doesn't do.

 

3. I get it. You're busy. I remember thinking "I don't have time to make an individualized cover letter for every single firm." That's fine. I did the same thing. But you can't make it be obvious that you didn't care. If you want to design paragraphs that you can just reuse again and again and just have to change out the firm name, that's fine, but at least put some effort into that.

 

4. So if the basic use of a cover letter, for my purposes, is to see that a person can manage to show basic attention to detail, good spelling, grammar, and writing habits, what does a great cover letter look like?

 

The best cover letter I have ever seen was submitted this summer by a Queen's student. He had three solid paragraphs on what he could do for me and my firm, and a final short paragraph about why he was interested in working for me. The paragraphs were concise and got straight to the point. He had clearly either looked at my website or else had devised a cover letter that worked for small firms and blended things very well. He talked about what he'd accomplish and that translates into "this kid will make my life better," and "this guy will help my business grow/help me make money." I was ready to hire him over the phone just based on that. Sadly, when I called him to book the interview the very next day, he'd received a job offer that morning and taken it. 

 

Just based on how amazing his cover letter was, I wanted to hire him. I had my assistant look into the budget to see if we could increase what we were going to pay because I didn't want him to slip away. THAT is what a good cover letter can do.

 

You have to think about it from the employer's perspective. I'm not trying to hire someone so I can give someone a job. I have a need that I am trying to meet. What is my need? How do you help fulfill that need? That's what you need to ask yourself. It has little to nothing to do with what you're interested in or mentor-ship (usually. That said, I personally get a kick out of teaching and mentoring so I do look for an eager student as well).

 

5. By the way, if you have a problem with your academic history, such as your grades or a gap in time, confront that in your cover letter. Don't go on about it at great length, but at least mention it and be upfront. One of the students I interviewed had such a deficiency in his academics that I almost tossed his application into the pile of applications to interview only if I didn't find a winner in my top 10 list (I broke down the applications into an initial top 10, followed by subsequent groups of 10). But when I looked over his cover letter, I was impressed that he addressed the issue. He did it succinctly and directly. I respected that and put him straight into the top 10 to interview (I didn't select him in the end, but I think he was in my top 3).

 

6. Oh, and don't include weird stuff. If your cover letter starts to read like a dating profile then I'm going to slowly get weirded out.

 

7. As an additional note, I'm just going to point out that women are really kicking men's asses in this area. So to the men reading, if you want to do better then maybe talk to women you know. I find women put in the effort to properly edit their cover letters, and pay close attention to detail. When it isn't done, then it really shows, and guys... your stuff really shows. Also, men seem to be prone to doing weird stuff like giving me strange information and even including head shots. Why would you do this? I'm told it's common in Europe, but this isn't Europe. Do the normal things everyone else is doing!

 

Resume

1. Your resume's all look fairly standard, and that's not a bad thing. When resumes stood out for me because of their style instead of their content, it was NEVER for a good reason. You want to go the extra mile on your resume style? Make sure it matches the style of your cover letter and reference list (if you make one. I did when I was applying around, since it give a quick reference guide, but you don't have to, in my opinion). If you use a letter head that indicates your contact info and name, and especially if it has a line below it to separate it from the page, then it should align with the one on your cover letter. It makes it look crisp, well thought out, and well put together instead of being a hodgepodge of documents.

 

2. As for how you order the content, I recommend that you start with your education (which can include a section on awards, or you can weave it in to the education points), then go to work experience, then go to volunteer, and then leave associations/clubs for last (if you do it at all. Frankly, you should only be listing that stuff if you did something on the exec).You can have a publication section if it's applicable, but I'd probably put that after work experience. Frankly, your education and work experience should appear on the first page. It's okay if your work experience bleeds onto the second page, but that's why you always do these things with the most recent stuff first.

 

3. If you're going to include an "interests" section, please keep it really, REALLY short. It can be one line at the very bottom. 

 

4. If you went to school abroad, please don't put your work experience first and then bury your education on the second page. Every single time I saw this it was done by an Ontario student who went to school abroad at one of the usual suspects (Bond, City of London, Leicester, Cooley, etc.). It's not clever. It just makes me assume you're ashamed of where you went. Pretty well anyone looking at your application will assume you went to one of those schools because you couldn't get into school in Ontario or even Canada at large. Maybe your undergrad grades were crap (usually the case from what I saw), or maybe your LSAT score wasn't good enough (which I assumed was the case when the undergraduate grades seemed fine). But then there's always the chance that you actually wanted to go to one of those schools (for some weird reason), or that you were actually a fine student with a fine LSAT score and just didn't get into a Canadian school. It happens. I'm sure there are a number of people who go to these schools who were the final ones to not make the list into a law school here who were as good or even better than the bottom admits who may have been admitted for other random reasons (like a particularly good entry essay/"about me" section/personal statement).

 

Be upfront. Trying to hide this stuff makes me think that 1. you're ashamed, and 2. you think you can pull that one past me (or anyone. We will obviously check where you went, if only out of curiosity). Hiding it does nothing. It doesn't emphasize your experience to me. Have both education and work experience on the first page and you're fine. I will sift through your resume to find what I want in the order I want to find it (what school did you go to, what experience do you have, did you keep busy with extra-curriculars instead of work experience, is your resume a hot mess). It doesn't increase your odds of me noticing your work experience and it just makes you stand out as different from the rest of the applicants (and not in a way that's good).

 

Law isn't generally about reinventing the wheel. We have particular formats that we MUST follow. I want to see that you can follow a format. What you do inside of that format is where you can impress me. Great experience, great writing, etc. but if you can't handle formatting/instructions then we have a problem and I don't care what experience you have. Whether I like it or not I have to submit stuff in particular formats as mandated by the courts and/or the government. That's life.

 

 

Application in General

 

1. Your formatting should match throughout. It just looks better and doesn't look half-hazard as a result of mismatch.

 

2. On a couple of occasions (it's rare that I do it) I have seen applications where I thought the applicant might be interesting and worth at least an interview, but their application was kind of crap. On one occasion I asked the individual to redo their application package and resubmit it. I even gave notes as to what I thought the problems were (normally they'd just go into the rejection pile, but there was something about this person that made me interested enough to want to give them a second chance). What was sent back to me was largely the same damn thing. They made a few changes, but they didn't alter one of my main notes to them, and then justified leaving it as was in the email back to me. Basically, I thought they put too much about their interests all over the application. Again, to be frank, I don't care about your interests. That you really like to bake is not going to make me hire you (though when you mention particular things that you cook my assistant wonders if you're going to bring samples to the interview since you talk it up so much). I informed this applicant that it was a bit strange that it appeared so prominently in their cover letter, and then again in the resume interests. While it was fine to have it in their resume interests, the cover letter wasn't really the place for it and there was more I wanted to know. They emailed back that they decided to leave it all in because they'd gotten good feedback and follow up questions about it from others who had interviewed them. In my head, all I could think was "I'm sure you got follow up questions, and feedback, but I don't think the feedback was as good as you think it was." Basically, it's something that makes you stand out in a weird way. Not that baking is a weird hobby, but just that it's a weird choice to feature it so prominently when applying for a position that has nothing to do with baking. Also, I had just given them negative feedback about it but they chose to leave it in. Even if you want to leave it in for other interviews, at least take it out for the person who is giving you a second shot. Not doing so makes you look stubborn and incapable of following instructions, not to mention bad with constructive criticism and feedback.

 

3. Speaking of following instructions... FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS. Check the website of the law firm. Read the instructions regarding the application carefully. Before I go through the applications my assistant divides them up. The easiest separation she does (beyond just checking for spelling and grammar in the cover letter. And I don't mean with a dictionary, I mean just on reading through it for command of the English language) is those who were able to follow instructions and provide a full application package and those who couldn't/didn't. If you're asked for a cover letter, resume, transcripts, and letters of reference (if any) then provide those. And I recommend doing it IN THAT ORDER (that being the order listed). I ask for them in that order because 1. that's usually how it's done, 2. that order makes a lot of sense if you think about it, and 3. that's the order in which I care about what you're submitting. Same thing with the writing sample (arguably I rank that one above the letters of reference).

 

4. By the way, with your letters of reference, I'm rarely reading them in full. Usually I skip to the bottom to see how they recommend you in the last line or two. Usually that indicates to me how strongly they felt about recommending you, and whether or not they did it because they felt obligated to or because they were legitimately happy to recommend you. Not that your letters of reference will make or break you (at least with me. I think I'd use them as a tie breaker usually), but I want you to know what I'm looking for, and how many shortcuts there are for your interviewers to read between the lines. I think I've only ever called on reference, and it was for the articling student I just hired. There was a lot in there that was great, but there were one or two things that weren't where we'd want it. It came down to him and one other applicant who didn't have any flags but also didn't have as many strong positives in their favour (in particular it was . I had my assistant call the reference and confirm what was in the letter and the nature of the experience that was listed in the resume. If it checked out and they were as excited about the applicant as they seemed in the letter then he'd get the job. If not, then I'd give it to the safer bet with less experience. Everything checked out, and the reference couldn't say enough good things about the applicant. So that's who we went with.

 

5. Oh, last point, but this related to the weird stuff in cover letters and resumes, because I don't care about your interests you shouldn't include weird stuff that makes me dwell on it. Usually it's guys who are guilty of this because they like to let me know that they enjoy deadlifting and the like. Just say "working out" or "going to the gym." It's an application, not a dating profile.

 

Interview

1. Don't just be on time, be early. I think 15 minutes is good. Half an hour is ridiculous and a bit weird. Just a few minutes is the same thing as being dead on time.

 

Reasons to be early:

a). It makes you seem interested and eager.

b). It makes you seem punctual, good at planning, responsible, and generally on the ball.

c). I may be able to see you earlier than we planned/booked because of any number of reasons, and it puts me in a better mood to remain productive and therefore have the option to see you a bit earlier. I've actually done this when applicants showed up early and the interview before them (or meeting, or phone call, or whatever) is cancelled.

d). If you're going to be late, or you think you'll be late, CALL US! Give us a heads up. Making your excuses once you arrive makes me think you were late and misjudged things and now you're lying to me with a fake excuse. Calling while you're on your way to say "I'm so sorry, but there's been an accident on the road and we're all just stuck and not moving" or "my cab got lost," or whatever, makes me believe you, see you as considerate with regards to the time of others, level headed, thinking clearly under pressure, and just generally on top of things. That said, it's always best to not be late, because it means you adequately evaluated how much time you'd need to accomplish the task of arriving.

 

2. During the interview, do not interrupt. Speak clearly. If you're offered water and you know you tend to get a bit dry mouth during these situations, ACCEPT THE WATER! Don't feel like you need to fill all moments of silence with noise. I'm not looking for noise, I'm looking for good answers. You don't have to "uuummm" and "aauuuuhhh" before you speak. Take a moment. Take a breath. Take a sip of water. Think about what you're going to say. People who seem calm, confident, collected, and like they're thinking things through go a LONG way in my books.

 

3. The first question you're asked is either going to be an ice breaker or, in the case of other firms, a standard "why do you want to work here" or something like that. For my ice breaker questions I will ask you something that stood out for me from your resume or transcripts. Did you list that you like to do spelunking? I'm going to ask you about cave diving (please don't make any sexual innuendos. Because we want everything to be above board we won't be making such jokes, we won't be responding, and that means your comment will just hang in the air awkwardly). Did you take weird sounding courses like "thinking about thought?" I will ask you what you learned in that. I generally don't care about the answer. I'm looking to make you feel more comfortable by giving you a genuine softball as the first pitch. I know these things are stressful (and some of you show up shaking like leaf), and my philosophy is that you will eventually become comfortable working here even if you're hella nervous and anxious most of the time, and that you will likely do better work when relaxed, and that the interview process is stressful, so if I can help you relax a bit then I'll get to know more about the real you and whether or not I want to work with you.

 

4. That said, no matter how comfortable we get during the interview, remember that it's still an interview. Sit up, don't lean back and to the side in the chair. Don't slouch. Don't get overly casual in your language. For the love of god, don't start talking to me about family issues or mental health problems, because I promise you I'm a lawyer and not your therapist! There is a time and a place for that sort of discussion and it's NOT in the middle of your interview.

 

5. Oh, and you may be interested in work life balance, but please don't use the term "work life balance." You want to ask me about the hours? Fine. Do so. But when you tell me that you're concerned about work life balance then it really does conjure up this notion of fragility (rightly or wrongly). I know the big downtown firms talk about it on their websites and in seminars, but I promise you that they don't actually care. They're trying to attract top level candidates but they will chew you up and spit you out (I've known a few friends who went and then left the practice of law all together afterwards because of the stress). If you're concerned about work life balance then ask the questions around it, don't just ask me about work life balance. I'm usually in the office 7 days a week and 12 to 16 hour days are not uncommon for me at all. I don't expect you to do that (obviously. The burdens of a small business owner are not something I would shovel onto a student), but I don't want to hear about your need to ensure that you've got enough time to Netflix and chill. The reason I work those long days and hours now is because I'm still young enough to do so and I assume it will pay off for me with an easier time later. If you tell me that your priority is balance now then I assume you're not someone who thinks about short term sacrifice for long term gain. How does that help you?

 

6. When you come to the interview, bring additional copies of your application package (make sure you're using the right one for the right firm). I've never needed them, but you should have them in case. If I've lost your application then I probably won't waste time to go find it and will continue on without it. It sucks, but that means a worse interview for you. I prepare for the interviews I hold, but not everyone does, so come prepared.

 

7. Make sure what you're wearing looks good/appropriate. This is really more directed at the men, so I'm going to talk about this in terms of suits (I don't think there's ever been a problem with what women have worn to interviews at my office). Please make sure your suit fits. Some of you show up in suits that you look like you're swimming in, and they're almost always plain black (I assume it's for funerals). I assume it's your dad's suit and you're borrowing it. Do yourself a favour and go to Moores when there's a special on (like a two for one sale). You need a blue one (dark blue. It's not prom) and either charcoal or grey. Do NOT go plain black (that's for proms, weddings, and funerals). Get some shirts that fit properly. Look at tie combinations. Don't just go with a plain one, but don't go crazy with the patterning. It should look nice but not be something I keep staring at because I can't figure out what's going on with the pattern. With blue suits you should wear brown or burgundy shoes with a matching belt (for bonus points, if your watch has a leather strap, match the watch strap/watch). If you're wearing charcoal/black, then only black shoes and belt will do. If you're wearing grey, you can go with just about any set of shoes and matching belt, though I find burgundy doesn't look as good with grey, and I prefer black with it (in all cases, your socks should match your suit pants. Not exactly, obviously, but blue with blue, grey with grey, black with black).

The standard is a white shirt, but you can go with colour just don't go overboard. Subtlety is good. If you're going to do colour, then I recommend a tie that has colours of the shirt and the suit in it (or at least of the shirt). If you talk to someone at Moores they can help you out. French cuffs are a bit much, so I don't care how much you like your cuff links you should leave it at home. Don't wear lapel pins (unless it's remembrance day, then the poppy is fine), and pocket squares are unnecessary (but if it's part of your style, then sure. Just keep in mind we can often tell when you're not comfortable with what you're wearing and that it's just not your style). Tie clips are fine (I wear them), but please wear them properly. If you wear them right at the top then I assume you figured you should "bling" up and add flair, but you have no idea what it's actually for and so you just look ridiculous. Wear the tie clip about 1/3rd to half way down. I usually put mine towards the bottom of where the skinny part of the tie is behind the main tie. Also, make sure the tie clip matches with what your wearing. I take into account the finish on my watch and the buckle on my belt, as well as the colour of the tie. You want to look put together. Oh, but don't bother with a three piece suit. You will just look uncomfortable. Those things are better when you're going to be taking your jacket off, and you shouldn't take it off during the interview. Also, this isn't 'Suits', it's real life. Speaking of Suits, don't buy high peak lapel suits. That's a Harvey Spektor thing, but no one actually does that unless it's on a Tuxedo or you're running a game show or hosting an auction (something like that). Go regular notched lapel. And while having your pants tapered can look nice, I recommend doing it as a slight taper from the knee down. Doing it higher up makes them look like you're trying to recreate skinny jeans. If you can't afford a lot of tailoring then that's fine, but at least get what you buy off the rack fitted to you. There's plenty of places you can go to get that done cheap (often most small shops that do dry cleaning services will do it). Best bet is to go shopping with a friend who knows something about this stuff and go to a place like Moores and they'll help you out.

 

8. You will see me taking notes. Don't get flustered about me writing stuff down. I may not be writing down anything related to what you're talking about in the moment. It may not even be about you if I've just had a thought about something else. Sometimes I'm writing down exactly what you said because I like the way it sounds and I may want to quote it later. Sometimes I'm taking notes like "good posture," or "answered directly," or other things like that. Don't get nervous, just keep talking to me. Even if I'm not making eye contact while doing it, you should still be looking towards me (or my assistant, who sits in on interviews) ready to make eye contact.

 

9. If you've prepared an "elevator answer," try not to stick to the script too hard. In fact, scripts are lame. I want to see how you do as just you. On the subject of yourself, you shouldn't need much preparation.

 

10. Have questions prepared to ask me about the firm, or your duties, or anything like that. It's okay if I end up answering the question before you get to ask it when I give you a spiel about us. You can say so, I won't hold it against you. But you should seem like you at least thought about it.

 

11. While my assistant sits in on the interviews, don't read too much into it if she has to leave in the middle. Assistants handle all the things that keep the firm running so that lawyers just have to sit down and do the work they can bill for and then pay the assistants. While big firms might do this, I don't like to charge for check-up phone calls or drafting confirmation letters, or doing anything that isn't legal work. My opinion is everything else required to do the legal work should be built into the price. In order to do that, assistants have to carry a lot of the burden and sometimes that means she doesn't have a solid half an hour to an hour to sit there. Usually I'll warn interviewees as we get started, but just in case, don't read too much into it (unless it's right after you said something that caused my facial expression to change and you weren't sure if you should have said it but decided to anyway. Then it might be an indication of what you just said... so, you know, don't say inappropriate stuff!)

 

12. Likewise, don't get too nervous if the interview gets a bit shorter than you expected. The articling student we hired was one of our shorter interviews. The interview length tends to be determined by a few things, including when I feel like I've got the information I need, how quickly you answer questions, how quickly I remember the questions and think of follow ups (which sometimes can take me a couple tries to frame and phrase properly. I'm only human), and whether or not I start droning on in answer to a question of yours. Don't feel bad about it. It often doesn't mean too much (unless I just feel like I'm getting nowhere with you and your answers aren't addressing the questions). Sometimes the length of the interview will be affected by things that have NOTHING to do with you. As the day wears on, I get more efficient at asking questions and drawing out answers, so that cuts down on the time too.

 

13. Your handshake should not be weak. Don't squeeze off my hand, but I shouldn't be shaking a wet noodle. Have direction behind it. Don't just put your hand in my hand.

 

14. If you've got an interview, odds are that you're going to look, on paper, pretty similar to the others, and that likely means you have similar ideas about work and the like. Many of you interview quite similar (so my notes often say things like "confident" or "well spoken). Interviews are more of an elimination round than anything. You don't win much, though you CAN if you blow us away (we like confidence, good command of language, direct in speech, and good at talking about what you can do and what you've overcome).

 

Application Procedure

1. When you receive notice about the interview, it's a good idea to follow up and confirm the date and time. It makes you look organized. Feel free to ask if you should bring anything additional or if we want additional information. People who look eager are great!

 

2. If you email or call in, we do make note of that. One application that made it into our top picks was only selected because the individual called back to confirm everything and was well spoken on the phone. I didn't even speak to him. My assistant liked how confident he sounded.

 

3. Be nice and respectful to everyone at the firm, not just the lawyer interviewing you. The assistant you might not think much of? She's more helpful to me than any 10 of you. Good assistants keep a firm running. Great assistants basically run the firm and just give the lawyers law stuff to do. I have a great assistant. I can't do without her, meanwhile I don't even know your name. If you're rude to her, take a guess at how that will play for you. Also, who do you think controls the order in which I look at these applications? Whose opinion do you think I will listen to about them? If you can't get along with my assistant then you can't work here, because I need her and she's amazing at her job. And if she's not happy, that's going to effect me and my practice. When you're rude to my assistant, she will tell me. She will mark it down on your application and make sure I know about it, because she knows I will back her up (if only because she backs me up). So do yourself a favour and don't be an ass.

 

4. After the interview, do a thank you email. I always thought these were stupid, but once you're on the other side you like to know that it's appreciated that your time was taken up. Actually, I don't even care about that so much, but it's more that it starts to stick out when someone DOESN'T do it vs. doing it. Also, my assistant likes it and, well... see above.

 

5. If you don't get the job, it's okay to follow up and ask what you could have done better. Generally, people don't mind that. But don't be surprised when sometimes it's ineffable. Often there isn't one mistake I can attribute it to. Sometimes it's just that another person had more experience in an area I need someone with experience. Sometimes it's demeanor/attitude, and sometimes it's confidence, and sometimes it's that you made an inappropriate comment or seemed to not know about the firm at all. But often it's that you were just edged out based on something else (not always, though. At bigger firms it's different. But here, I don't have the time to interview a hundred people, so it's a pretty hard selection process to get to the interview stage).

 

6. When communicating with the firm, I should not suddenly be receiving lots of emails from you. One to confirm the interview and follow up with questions if any, and a thank you afterwards. We're not pen pals (also, you'll probably be dealing with my assistant).

 

7. DO NOT try to add me on LinkedIn or other social media at any point during the course of the application process. It's seriously weird to me. I don't know if that's a younger person thing (not that I'm that old, I'm only at the old end of millennials so there shouldn't be THAT much difference in our thinking) but it's strange. We're not buddies. If you get the job, I guess you can add me on LinkedIn (not that I use it), but generally you should wait until you've started the job.

 

Concluding Thoughts

There is a standard way of doing the interview process that you shouldn't deviate from. Most of the decision process is made by eliminating people who make mistakes (incomplete package, bad formatting, poor grammar and spelling/command of the English language, poor communication skills in the interview, not following standard procedures). If your application is just plain weak, then you've got problems. Poor grades, going abroad to a last-chance-law-school, and no work experience will simply not bode well for you. I guess you can do the LPP, but you'll still have to pass the NCA's and Bar exams. After that you need to either start your own firm or adjust your expectations severely in terms of what your work will look like. A lot of places you want to work won't hire you, and the places that will hire you will have lousy pay structures. You've got to think about that stuff carefully when doing this. If you haven't gone to law school yet but are considering it and you can foresee these problems. then maybe think hard before committing to this career path (it could be an expensive mistake).

 

Also, if you get hired, that isn't the end of things. I have been deeply impressed by my recent hire who asked if there was legislation or acts he should be reading before starting so that he's up to date on areas of particular concern to me, and offered to assist with some things. That's one hell of a way to impress, which is especially important in firms where you want to be hired back or get a really strong letter of reference.

 

Frankly, I think all of this can be summed up by effort. Some people are prepared to put in the effort, and other people aren't. If you're ready to make the effort to do things properly, you'll do fine. If you aren't, then you won't.

 

Good luck out there.

[cluj 73]

On 8/2/2018 at 2:06 PM, QueensGrad said:

.... What follows is my advice to students on what to and not to do in the course of securing an articling spot....

 

I think the OP's post contains so many tidbits of good advice and insight, that it would be a pity to have it "age out" so quickly.

While I don't necessarily agree with some of the (implicitly subjective) points, having reviewed applications myself I would say that the "opus" overall is definitely eye-opening for anyone who is considering how their application could be looked at/perceived by smaller legal employers (and not only).

[QueensGrad 59]

On 8/11/2018 at 12:41 PM, cluj said:

I think the OP's post contains so many tidbits of good advice and insight, that it would be a pity to have it "age out" so quickly.

While I don't necessarily agree with some of the (implicitly subjective) points, having reviewed applications myself I would say that the "opus" overall is definitely eye-opening for anyone who is considering how their application could be looked at/perceived by smaller legal employers (and not only).

Thanks

 

Hopefully it will be of use to people during the next set of articling rounds. I know it wasn't well timed, but I'd just finished up dealing with applications to my firm so it was on my mind.

[bananasamana 30]

Hey a lot of this is very good advice but some of it is very subjective and goes against what I experienced on the official articling recruit.

Three things that stuck out to me were:

1) Mentioning your dislike of the interests section. Many LCOs are recommending putting things here that make you unique (but not too unique) and it gives the firm something to discuss to determine fit. You might not like it, but I noticed that in my big law firm interviews, I was often paired up with a lawyer with similar interests. I used my interest section to promote some non-law or employment related achievements that didn’t fit elsewhere on my resume.

2) Bringing in application materials. I was told by my LCO not to do this as firms will always have it. This may be a large/medium firm thing though.

3) Addressing bad grades. I have a bad semester on my transcript. Typically I’m a b+ student in law school but I was a c+ student one semester due to a health issue. I was told never to bring it up or draw attention to it unless the interviewer asked. 

I think what you posted is very valuable. Especially for a small firm or sole practitioner. 

I am happy to say I was successful in the articling recruit (despite lower than average grades). I think my interest section was really important to be honest. 

Weirdly, only 1 firm asked about my bad grades. 

[QueensGrad 59]

10 minutes ago, bananasamana said:

Hey a lot of this is very good advice but some of it is very subjective and goes against what I experienced on the official articling recruit.

Three things that stuck out to me were:

1) Mentioning your dislike of the interests section. Many LCOs are recommending putting things here that make you unique (but not too unique) and it gives the firm something to discuss to determine fit. You might not like it, but I noticed that in my big law firm interviews, I was often paired up with a lawyer with similar interests. I used my interest section to promote some non-law or employment related achievements that didn’t fit elsewhere on my resume.

2) Bringing in application materials. I was told by my LCO not to do this as firms will always have it. This may be a large/medium firm thing though.

3) Addressing bad grades. I have a bad semester on my transcript. Typically I’m a b+ student in law school but I was a c+ student one semester due to a health issue. I was told never to bring it up or draw attention to it unless the interviewer asked. 

I think what you posted is very valuable. Especially for a small firm or sole practitioner. 

I am happy to say I was successful in the articling recruit (despite lower than average grades). I think my interest section was really important to be honest. 

Weirdly, only 1 firm asked about my bad grades. 

1. I agree that some sort of interest section (a small one) is fine, though I've always felt I could live with out it. I think you're right that bigger firms would want to see something because they care about well rounded individuals and they may get enough applications to warrant thinking on that section. Despite the number of applications I received, I don't think I got enough competitive ones to make that section mean much at all to me. But, my apologies if I made it sound like it should be ditched. Really, you're right, it should be there (because I guess you don't know when a firm will care about it, and the ones that don't won't hold it against you because we know it's standard), but there shouldn't be any weird things on it. I think my aversion to this area is because it's so easy for people to stand out in a negative way. I think it's rare that someone stands out in a positive way there (usually it does nothing for me) unless it's something like fencing, or archery, or scuba diving, or something else that seems interesting.

 

2. Whenever I went to interviews I had packages with me in my padfolio, which I brought to every interview. I wouldn't offer it off the bat (unless it was an occasion where I had something change, such as interviewing after I'd found out I passed the bar but had had to send out the application before I got that news), but it's a good idea to bring it with just in case. Of the 15 or 16 interviews at large firms that I did while still a law student, I'd say at 3 of them I handed over my application package for one reason or another. I think on two occasions they had more people sitting in the interview than they had copies so I was able to just provide them with one on the fly, and in the other one the lawyer interviewing me showed up quite late (about 20 to 30 minutes) and couldn't find the applications he was supposed to be going through, so if I hadn't had copies with me he wouldn't have had one to look at in the time we had left (this was at Beard Winter, by the way). Actually, this leads me to a bit of interview advice I forgot, don't book your interview for first thing in the morning. I did 3 or 4 9am interviews and for two of them the lawyer was late (20 to 30 minutes on both occasions). They feel embarrassed and I think it kills your chances because they don't want to have to see you again due to the embarrassment. It may not be what sinks you, but it can't help. Anyway, that's my reasoning for why you should bring copies. Maybe simply not offering them is the middle ground, but just having them in case? Different experiences, I guess. I wasn't aware people were being told not to bring them anymore.

 

3. Your example is correct, and clearly I wasn't clear enough (my bad). If you have one term of bad grades, don't mention it. Absolutely. I think it will stand out as an outlier. I meant more for people who have chronic bad grades. If I see a dip in one semester, I'll assume something went wrong. I don't worry about that, we all have bad times. I meant if someone was overall a poor student.

Thank you for the comments/feedback. I want to put together an advice booklet for future students, I think. I've got a number of projects like that which I'd like to do, so I'm happy for any input!

[Stark 955]

@QueensGrad, just wanted to say that this was one of the best threads I've come across on this site in recent memory.  I hope it gets pinned like Pyke's OCI one from 2012.  There is so much good information there that I think could be of assistance to any student looking for a job and most of your points in my opinion are applicable for any sort of articling job one is looking for.  Nice job with the headings and organization as well.

One comment that jumped out at me was your comment re the handshake which is pretty spot on.  When I was in law school, I interviewed for a job where the interviewer placed a lot of importance on the handshake.  She later showed me her notes and for every interview, the first thing she wrote down was what their handshake was like ie. limp, strong, firm etc.  Now I don't know if she was an anomaly or that a limp handshake was a deal breaker if everything else was good, but she certainly gave it a lot of weight as she believed that a handshake revealed a lot about who you were. 

[richelieu 56]

I'm just going to bookmark this for the future. Thanks, @QueensGrad

[FineCanadianFXs 857]

On 8/2/2018 at 2:06 PM, QueensGrad said:

7. DO NOT try to add me on LinkedIn or other social media at any point during the course of the application process. It's seriously weird to me. I don't know if that's a younger person thing (not that I'm that old, I'm only at the old end of millennials so there shouldn't be THAT much difference in our thinking) but it's strange. We're not buddies. If you get the job, I guess you can add me on LinkedIn (not that I use it), but generally you should wait until you've started the job.

1

Just as a caveat, I agree with most of your advice--it's great and such a welcome contribution to this site. I only have one quibble. 

While I wouldn't say an applicant should connect on LinkedIn, I actually don't see any harm or weirdness in it. LinkedIn isn't a social media buddy network. It isn't strictly for coworkers either. So I don't know why a candidate has to wait and see if they get hired to make the connection. It's a networking tool. Candidates probably use it to creep you as much as you do them. By the interview stage, you probably know each other as well or better than a good chunk of people who've just randomly added me to their network. Who cares?

Also, as opposed to pretty much every other social tool, LinkedIn seems to be one where being freewheeling with accepting connections has little detrimental effect (except of course when you're a woman and the people you accept are ill-behaved types that solicit dates over LinkedIn--though this has happened to me too and I'm a dude. Some people are just unwise). Besides, you can always remove and/or block people who misuse the app. It is really a trivial matter to allow the connection.

Frankly, you could see it as eagerness; your interviewee is probably just trying to get intel about your practice, where you went to school, and maybe anything else you might have in common before the interview. Your privacy settings might make it difficult for them, so actually connecting as opposed to mere browsing could be the only way they can access that information.

Connecting with a prospective employer on any other social media, however, is pretty weird. Definitely, nobody should ever do that barring some good reason to.

Edited August 17, 2018 by FineCanadianFXs

[erinl2 4568]

I agree that the cover letter is very important but will add that employers may want to add a writing sample to the application requirements. Our firm, and I know of a few others, have done this for several years now. It can be quite telling what some people will submit.

[Genericname101 9]

There is no one size that fits all. Some may find it weird, some may not. If something can be perceived/cause problems and does not benefit you too much, I recommend just not doing it. A good example I like to use is perfume/cologne. Some may like it, but I don't think it will benefit you too much. However, some people may be allergic and you just screwed yourself. The Linked in example can fit in too; I don't think it helps you in anyway, but it has the potential to be found weird by some. So, why do it? (Do it after you land something and for linkedin specifically, I guess you can add people you like and have decided you do not want to go to their firm if given the option).

[FineCanadianFXs 857]

8 minutes ago, Genericname101 said:

The Linked in example can fit in too; I don't think it helps you in anyway, but it has the potential to be found weird by some. So, why do it? (Do it after you land something and for linkedin specifically, I guess you can add people you like and have decided you do not want to go to their firm if given the option).

3

I don't really disagree, and stated that I don't encourage anyone to do it. My quibble was more with OP's position of drawing an adverse inference from it. As opposed to cologne/perfume, where an actual physical reaction results from the candidate's decision to wear it, there is literally zero harm to the employer by hitting "connect". Don't wanna connect with 'em on LinkedIn? Don't connect. There's no real reason to also believe that person is a weirdo for making the request. 

[epeeist 4371]

37 minutes ago, FineCanadianFXs said:

I don't really disagree, and stated that I don't encourage anyone to do it. My quibble was more with OP's position of drawing an adverse inference from it. As opposed to cologne/perfume, where an actual physical reaction results from the candidate's decision to wear it, there is literally zero harm to the employer by hitting "connect". Don't wanna connect with 'em on LinkedIn? Don't connect. There's no real reason to also believe that person is a weirdo for making the request. 

But it is an annoyance, even the request and notification then login to LinkedIn and check and have to decide whether to accept or not. There is harm, because it's an annoyance and may seem presumptuous. A thank-you for the interview email, by contrast, may be an interruption but if you put e.g. "Thank you for the interview" in the subject line, it can be safely ignored or read by the recipient and is unobtrusive.

I'm not hiring, interviewing, working FT as a lawyer, etc., but I still get annoyed by e.g. a potential vendor trying to connect to me on LinkedIn and so am analogizing to that.

[FineCanadianFXs 857]

1 hour ago, epeeist said:

But it is an annoyance, even the request and notification then login to LinkedIn and check and have to decide whether to accept or not. There is harm, because it's an annoyance and may seem presumptuous.

That's some real first-world "harm" right there. Egad, receiving and having to respond to a push notification! I'm not particularly sympathetic about that as an annoyance. I get far more annoying spam from people I've already invited into my circles (and yes, I do draw adverse inferences from those, but a simple "add me" request is really not a big deal and I typically don't give it a second thought).

I'm still so confused about this position though. Would you be even more annoyed if the candidate included that exact same thank you message in the content of the add-me-on-LinkedIn request as opposed to the email? What exactly is the difference? Clearly, you'll get a push notification for both the request and the standalone thank you email. Is it just that you don't like some lesser person intruding on your "professional network"? Are you entitled to some unspoken cone of privacy from mere candidates? I'm struggling to find a legitimate reason that an adverse inference should be drawn besides that some people "think it is weird". What exactly is the presumption you think they are making? That they are deserving of your connection? And if they aren't, is it such a strain on your lifeblood to simply reject the request? 

Also, it isn't a random vendor we're talking about, it's a prospective candidate who you contacted to interview for a position. I admit I'm also never jazzed about a stranger who works in a not-at-all peripheral trade spamming me to add them so they can sell me their services, but you can't really draw an analogy there. You and the candidate are clearly not strangers, and the candidate and your relationship is presumably related to your interviewing them. As in, there's no real threat of future spam from them, as there might be from a potential vendor.

Edited August 17, 2018 by FineCanadianFXs

[Xer 132]

Some stuff just comes down to personal and idiosyncratic preferences on the part of the interviewer, I guess. Which is kind of scary to think about from the side of the interviewee, but I guess that's life.

[epeeist 4371]

16 minutes ago, FineCanadianFXs said:

That's some real first-world "harm" right there. Egad, receiving and having to respond to a push notification! I'm not particularly sympathetic about that as an annoyance. I get far more annoying spam from people I've already invited into my circles (and yes, I do draw adverse inferences from those, but a simple "add me" request is really not a big deal and I typically don't give it a second thought).

I'm still so confused about this position though. Would you be even more annoyed if the candidate included that exact same thank you message in the content of the add-me-on-LinkedIn request as opposed to the email? What exactly is the difference? Is it just that you don't like some lesser person intruding on your "professional network"? Are you entitled to some unspoken cone of privacy from mere candidates? I'm struggling to find a legitimate reason that an adverse inference should be drawn besides that some people "think it is weird". What exactly is the presumption you think they are making? That they are deserving of your connection? And if they aren't, is it such a strain on your lifeblood to simply reject the request? 

Also, it isn't a random vendor we're talking about, it's a prospective candidate who you contacted to interview for a position. I admit I'm also never jazzed about a stranger who works in a not-at-all peripheral trade spamming me to add them so they can sell me their services, but you can't really draw an analogy there. You and the candidate are clearly not strangers, and the candidate and your relationship is presumably related to your interviewing them. As in, there's no real threat of future spam from them, as there might be from a potential vendor.

Let me guess, you're a millennial... 

It's really fucking stupid for a job candidate to annoy prospective employers (not that I am one, but OP is, and do a Google search re advice on connecting) by doing something that they've been told is stupid or annoying or weird unless there's a really good reason. Do you disagree?

The presumption is that anyone would be interested in connecting with a job applicant before it's known whether they even got the job. If one wants to connect, and thinks it's important, ask during the interview, and it will still sound presumptuous and weird. Unless someone is so genuinely impressive that one would want to connect to them regardless.

Now, sometimes there's a good reason to risk being annoying. What's the good reason you're asserting? None. You're saying you don't see the harm, but you're not saying what the benefit is. Instead, you're insultingly doubling-down on something you said yourself isn't important. Why?

[pzabbythesecond 4448]

I find it weird for someone to do that before knowing if they've gotten the job or not. If they get it, or even are rejected (but told they did well regardless) then it certainly doesn't seem as odd.

[Hegdis 17979]

I would find it awkward if a student I had interviewed tried to add me on any social networking site. The person I hire, sure. The people I call to say no, but it was really close - maybe.

I think there is a generational gap here. I have noticed that my reaction to online etiquette is quite different from people who are fifteen years my junior.  

[FineCanadianFXs 857]

25 minutes ago, epeeist said:

It's really fucking stupid for a job candidate to annoy prospective employers (not that I am one, but OP is, and do a Google search re advice on connecting) by doing something that they've been told is stupid or annoying or weird unless there's a really good reason. Do you disagree?

I've written multiple times now that candidates shouldn't do this. There's no point in focusing on the thing we agree on. We agree, because I agree that there are people out there who have sticks up their butts, all day long, every single day.

The point I was making is that the people who are annoyed have sticks up their butts. 

Edited August 17, 2018 by FineCanadianFXs

[FineCanadianFXs 857]

41 minutes ago, pzabbythesecond said:

I find it weird for someone to do that before knowing if they've gotten the job or not. If they get it, or even are rejected (but told they did well regardless) then it certainly doesn't seem as odd.

But what relevance does getting a job have to do with making a professional connection? Again: LinkedIn is not a tool whose use is reserved solely for people who work or have worked together. It is also not solely for personal, close relationships. It is essentially a digital rolodex with social networking features. By rejecting the apparently scandalous idea of accepting a connection from a candidate you may or may not hire, you're basically saying "I don't want this prospective person's professional resume in front of me, and I certainly don't want them to be able to contact me." Meanwhile, you're interviewing them for a position where you most definitely have their resume in front of you and where they most definitely can already contact you. Again: who cares? Why is that weird?

I'd also add the forest-for-the-trees short-sightedness of refusing a candidate's request to connect when so much valuable additional information about their online behaviours and other connections can be gleaned from it.

Edited August 17, 2018 by FineCanadianFXs

[Trew 473]

So you guys are saying I shouldn't endorse your data management skills?