Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
iacoboujee

2L Summer (2019) Recruit PFOs/ITCs

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, pzabbythesecond said:

I would personally just say yes if top choice firm calls. But one option might be informing that firm before the blackout period that you're still really keen, but things have changed etc etc. You almost certainly won't get an offer if you do that but it's better than burning a bridge and hurting your rep.

This is really bad advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rashabon said:

This is really bad advice.

Which is why I had the caveat at the top; and mentioned the poster almost certainly won't be getting hired at firm A. Care to provide better advice? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, the naïveté here is astonishing. If a firm is pressuring you to say first choice, for the love of god just say it. 

You’re not taking a spot from your peers. You don’t owe these firms anything. Put yourself first.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, onepost said:

Seriously, the naïveté here is astonishing. If a firm is pressuring you to say first choice, for the love of god just say it. 

You’re not taking a spot from your peers. You don’t owe these firms anything. Put yourself first.

 

Reputation matters in law. I'd argue you are putting yourself first by acting honorably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, pzabbythesecond said:

Reputation matters in law. I'd argue you are putting yourself first by acting honorably.

This rhetoric, while true, really needs to be toned down for the recruit. It's gotten to such an extreme that students are prejudicing themselves for fear of ruining their reputation. This is one big negotiation and while you must always negotiate in good faith, you don't need to show all of your cards at once. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, pzabbythesecond said:

Which is why I had the caveat at the top; and mentioned the poster almost certainly won't be getting hired at firm A. Care to provide better advice? 

Yeah. Say whatever you think the firm wants to hear. If they call and say "but you told us you were our first choice!" you just say "yeah, you were. Then things changed". Hell, you don't even owe an explanation. So many students and people who don't work on Bay spouting off on reputation and what not. Nobody gossips about the people who said "first choice" the year before but didn't accept except for the juniors close to the process. The senior people don't have time to remember all the students who walked through the door let alone someone who didn't take the job. Who has mental capacity to remember that shit, especially two years later when they actually become lawyers?

You also think the firm that hired the student cares? They wanted the student! They're probably thrilled that student rejected the firm they told "first choice" to.

You've literally never done this process and aren't a lawyer. This process is well-honed and happens the same every single year. I don't think it needs layman perspectives on how it works and best practices. 

There's a candidate that told one of my colleagues that we were his first choice. We then spent the next few minutes discussing whether he'd actually take an offer with us or whether he'd go elsewhere. Everybody knows this is fluid. You're talking about partners on Bay who have been doing this for who knows how many years.

Edited by Rashabon
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, pzabbythesecond said:

Reputation matters in law. I'd argue you are putting yourself first by acting honorably.

This is pablum. There is literally no way to distinguish between a student who lies (note: I am not advising that) and a student who has a genuine change of heart. The point of the interview week is to allow firms and students to make an informed decision. 

If a firm is pressuring you to commit, you should feel absolutely no guilt if you later have to renege on what was not even a promise extracted from you in an incredibly precarious situation.

But regardless, put yourself first. The firms are going to be fine!!!!!!!

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, pzabbythesecond said:

Reputation matters in law. I'd argue you are putting yourself first by acting honorably.

I hope you can pay off your debt with honor bucks.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does Bay Street Reputation matter if you don't end up getting a job as a result of maintaining your "honour"?

A positive obligation to ruin your chances with a firm because of an honest change of heart is hardly similar to being a scumbag and telling 4/4 firms they are your number one. These are not the same thing, don't treat them the same.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Rashabon said:

Yeah. Say whatever you think the firm wants to hear.

So is your advice really to tell all the firms that they're your first choice? 

Just out of curiosity, obviously. Feel free to answer via PM if you prefer. 

Edited by BlockedQuebecois
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Rashabon said:

You've literally never done this process and aren't a lawyer. This process is well-honed and happens the same every single year. I don't think it needs layman perspectives on how it works and best practices. 

Thanks Rashaban. I'm literally going through the process right now but I'm glad you think I'm some layman. I've spoken to numerous practitioners about this very thing - on and off bay - and the advice about reputation is a constant. You have your own view point as one lawyer. I'm saying mine based off the numerous I've spoken to. The poster is obviously free to do whatever the hell they want since this is an anonymous forum. But I must say I don't appreciate your tone one bit and couldn't care less who you are.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add to this conversation about other markets if any future 2Ls are lurking.. at least in the Vancouver market, it is arguably more reasonable to follow pzabbythesecond's advice. In fact, I have heard of students in Vancouver following this advice and still obtaining offers from the first firm. In terms of how it may affect your reputation, it might be the result of it being a much smaller market vs. Bay, but I have talked to many lawyers/partners who indicate remembering the names and faces of students that told them first choice but didn't accept when they called. To that extent, it may potentially damage your reputation. To the extent that this will affect your legal career in any way, who knows. 

Another difference, however, is that I hear less about "horror stories" of firms leading students on in Vancouver than in Toronto or firms explicitly pressuring you to drop first choice (although many firms will not call you if you do not tell them first choice). From what I have heard/experienced, students have a pretty accurate sense of what to expect on call day - which makes it less of a risk to do something like telling a firm they are not your first choice anymore if you are confident your real top choice will call you. This is anecdotal, however, so if anyone else has heard/experienced otherwise, please feel free to chime in. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

So is your advice really to tell all the firms that they're your first choice? 

Just out of curiosity, obviously. Feel free to answer via PM if you prefer. 

Do you honestly think a firm is going to interrogate you on the Wednesday evening if you told them they were your top choice on the Tuesday? There's a cooling off period for a reason. Plans change. Perceptions change. I don't advocate being a bald-faced liar, but if someone says "so where do we rank, are we your top choice", you really can just say "yeah I think you're my top choice right now". As I said before, the simple act of asking that question might very well change the answer since now you prefer another firm that didn't bug you that way, but it's not your responsibility to tell someone that. Firm's will read into how strong you are or not, but that's the process.

I got by being honest with what I wanted and where I wanted to be and the firm I'm hired at was forthright about it back. Not every firm is and not every person is. And that's okay. Every year there's a few people who everyone thought was a lock and ended up making a different decision. It literally happens all the time and the firm can't really question it. Maybe you called up your parents during the cooling off period and they said "Blakes and Torys sound too hoity-toity, go to Faskens" and you seriously took that to heart and changed your mind. That shit just happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, pzabbythesecond said:

Thanks Rashaban. I'm literally going through the process right now but I'm glad you think I'm some layman. I've spoken to numerous practitioners about this very thing - on and off bay - and the advice about reputation is a constant. You have your own view point as one lawyer. I'm saying mine based off the numerous I've spoken to. The poster is obviously free to do whatever the hell they want since this is an anonymous forum. But I must say I don't appreciate your tone one bit and couldn't care less who you are.

No offense but you're the definition of a layman. You're in the middle of the process and haven't completed it. I've been on the other side for years.

I would be shocked and frankly more offended by a lawyer that recalled and was miffed years later about a candidate that told the lawyer's firm that it was their top choice and rejected their offer, than by a candidate actually doing so. The former shows a fucked up sense of priorities. The latter is normal course and perfectly explicable and rational.

When people talk about reputation, they're talking about in practice and in personal conduct. Not whether you were somewhat sharp during recruitment. That's ludicrous.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Rashabon said:

No offense but you're the definition of a layman. You're in the middle of the process and haven't completed it. I've been on the other side for years.

I would be shocked and frankly more offended by a lawyer that recalled and was miffed years later about a candidate that told the lawyer's firm that it was their top choice and rejected their offer, than by a candidate actually doing so. The former shows a fucked up sense of priorities. The latter is normal course and perfectly explicable and rational.

When people talk about reputation, they're talking about in practice and in personal conduct. Not whether you were somewhat sharp during recruitment. That's ludicrous.

You can have that view. I'm just reporting back to the poster what I've heard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 1234lawstudent said:

Has anyone heard from McMillan about tomorrow?

Yes, a lunch for tomorrow!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rashabon said:

No offense but you're the definition of a layman. You're in the middle of the process and haven't completed it. I've been on the other side for years.

I would be shocked and frankly more offended by a lawyer that recalled and was miffed years later about a candidate that told the lawyer's firm that it was their top choice and rejected their offer, than by a candidate actually doing so. The former shows a fucked up sense of priorities. The latter is normal course and perfectly explicable and rational.

When people talk about reputation, they're talking about in practice and in personal conduct. Not whether you were somewhat sharp during recruitment. That's ludicrous.

Some lawyers involved in Bay Street hiring appear to disagree with you and say that it is remembered when students lie to firms....

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Recent Posts

    • An increase in applications does not necessarily mean a more competitive cycle. People could just be applying more broadly this cycle. Most people do not apply to law school on a whim because the LSAT and application costs are a barrier.  However, if there was fear that this cycle was going to be competitive (and I think there was) it would make sense for people to apply to more schools than they had initially planned to increase their chance of getting a offer.   Alternatively, if COVID scared people away from the labour market, and there were more impromptu law school applications this year, applications may be up significantly more than number of applicants. If I was applying to law school without having written the LSAT, I would apply to schools broadly in case I got a bad LSAT score. I have no idea if there is actually data to support that people who submit law schools applications without having written the LSAT apply to more schools than people who submit law school applications who already have an LSAT score though.
    • Maybe! It gives them more pathos, that's for sure. But I don't think that they'd be doing it solely for reputation or numbers. They already had plenty of numbers. I do think that they mostly did it to draw in more applicants with lower stats but great experiences who wouldn't otherwise apply. After all, their greatest asset as a business is sending out lots of successful lawyers. I've referenced this once before, but in an earlier thread I heard about someone with a 93+ index getting rejected due to a bad statement. And in last year's acceptance threads I saw one person waitlisted while someone with the same stats got accepted. So there's evidence that they're following through with their criteria to an extent.
    • If you don’t get in this cycle, you could wait a couple of years and apply as a mature student. A few schools have that category (I can’t remember which I applied as mature, and which as ‘discretionary’ because I’m over 30). Usually defined as someone who’s been out of school for 5+ years. Anyways, apparently they are more forgiving or GPA and look to your resume (and LSAT, which you’d have time to work on). Just a thought! 
    • Hey all, U of T is the dream, and I know 162 is low for them-- though not unheard of, according to past acceptance threads. My other stats are: OLSAS cGPA/B3 3.89 and L2: 3.91 (at U of T... don't think that matters, though). Also have a college diploma (4.0), worked at a non-profit for a while post-diploma and have worked extensively on research/book projects with several professors. A few other work experiences/volunteer works scattered throughout the years. I know that I probably should retake the LSAT, but I've also heard that normally people don't improve much once they hit the 160s. I have a lot of personal/family obligations, go to school full time and work two part time research jobs, so I'm really trying to weigh the pros/cons before splitting my time up even more. PT consistently around 165-167 but when it comes to the actual test I tend to freeze up, I guess (first LSAT I  cancelled score of 157). Any recommendations or opinions on whether I have even a bit of a shot without retaking or if I absolutely should are really appreciated, since I'm just torn!  Thank you!! PS. I also applied to Oz and Ryerson, which I'd be happy to get into. Just had my sights set on U of T for so long I guess it's hard to let go of hope, lol. 
    • Now that some have mentioned that universities are businesses after all, I can’t help but wonder if the UBC’s new “holistic” admissions criteria is in part a business move just to gain more applicants...

×
×
  • Create New...