|
Phil Moscowitz posted:I don't know who you are, but you sound like a douchebag. No, this solo is a douchebag, and I'm thinking of skipping the interview. She's literally asking me to do three hour thing including a grammar and spelling test. What the gently caress. I've encountered this before from solos, it's an ego thing, and it's obnoxious as gently caress. Last guy who pulled this was an LLB, or whatever that non-JD degree is called, and he was bragging to me for the longest time about how "dumb" the really high prestige degree holders were because they couldn't jump through his stupid hoops. I feel this coming on, and this time I'll be on the receiving end. I'm expecting questions designed to prove that a "REAL PRACTITIONER" schooled in REAL LAW is better than that theoretical BULLSHIT they teach you at those high ranked universities. Perhaps she'll ask me what goes on Schedule B of title insurance and how to get those exemptions removed, or some similarly arcane practice-specific poo poo. There's a ton of resentment against Yale/Harvard/NYU/Columbia/T15 people from folks who had to scrap their way through and become loving masters at some specialty or other, but who still don't get respect. The top rankers poo poo on the low rankers, the low rankers poo poo on the top rankers, this is all such bullshit, I am sick of it. Martin Random fucked around with this message at 07:53 on Jul 25, 2012 |
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 07:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 12:26 |
|
|
You're a lawyer. You're not supposed to get sick of it, you're supposed to fight your way to the top 
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 08:20
|
|
|
Waah, lawyers who might hire me don't lick my boots. Waah. Don't do the interview if you're too scared of being embarrassed. Nobody cares, especially not the solo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 08:40
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Waah, lawyers who might hire me don't lick my boots. Waah. Taking it a little too far to be a credible troll.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 09:43
|
|
|
Martin Random posted:Taking it a little too far to be a credible troll. to be fair youve made posts saying stuff like, 'how could i not have applied for jobs sooner? i didn't realise just how incredible my cv really is!' and then assumed that someone is going to be jealous of your 'high prestige' degree. you sound like a penis to me
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 11:20
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:Woot! It's looking good for passing, man. To fall into that 30%, you'd have to botch it up or feel like several essays missed the mark. There was some stuff I didn't know, but no question where I was totally blank and didn't know anything. Two of the sub-parts to the VA Civ Pro question I had never run across and the answer isn't in my outlines - if one defendant has a default judgment entered against him, (1) can he object at trial to entry of evidence by plaintiff, (2) can he enter his own evidence w/ regard to damages, (3) if plaintiff is ruled contributorily negligent, is he still entitled to judgment against defendant against whom default judgment was entered? I hedged my bets on 1 and 2 and said no to 1 and yes to 2. Said yes to 3. Who knows. Don't feel like looking it up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 11:25
|
|
|
dos4gw posted:to be fair youve made posts saying stuff like, 'how could i not have applied for jobs sooner? i didn't realise just how incredible my cv really is!' and then assumed that someone is going to be jealous of your 'high prestige' degree. I did not just post that to be a dick; I literally did not apply for jobs for like two years out of hopelessness. I remember reading this thread back in the day and going, "Oh gently caress," and looking into getting an engineering degree, actually signing up for classes because it's so dismal in here. The discovery that my law degree is actually worth something is a loving revelation. This thread has a lot of people talking about how hopeless poo poo is. Let's balance it out a bit. I got two interviews after a week of resume spamming, and I have a big loving three year gap in my work experience during which I just hosed around, and for all anyone knows, dealt meth or some poo poo. poo poo isn't hopeless.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 11:29
|
|
|
...and that interview with that woman is going to be a poo poo show. She's just too loving weird. After my phone conversation with her, googling her, and reading some of her poo poo, there are red flags all over. She wants to pull my DMV record to make sure I haven't killed anyone with my car, and wants to talk to my two "best friends" in addition to professional references. Her website was obviously made in 1998... it's got those javascript scrolling letters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 11:37
|
|
|
Martin Random posted:The discovery that my law degree is actually worth something is a loving revelation. You felt this despite going to Stanford? wow
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 13:02
|
|
|
Martin Random posted:
Where did I put my world's smallest violin
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 13:12
|
|
|
Martin Random posted:...and that interview with that woman is going to be a poo poo show. She's just too loving weird. After my phone conversation with her, googling her, and reading some of her poo poo, there are red flags all over. She wants to pull my DMV record to make sure I haven't killed anyone with my car, and wants to talk to my two "best friends" in addition to professional references. Her website was obviously made in 1998... it's got those javascript scrolling letters. I hope you do the interview because it sounds like it'll be a blast.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 13:18
|
|
|
CmdrSmirnoff posted:I hope you do the interview because it sounds like it'll be a blast. Seriously just go to the interview and treat it like some kind of crazy stage performance. Develop some kind of twisted character with a good narrative and get your best friends to play along when she calls. Dogen fucked around with this message at 14:34 on Jul 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 14:31
|
|
|
If you don't have a (legal) job and haven't had one for two years, I would take the interview 100% seriously. Who cares if she's batty, it's experience. Regardless of the school you went to, you're not all that marketable at the moment because you have no experience and you've been out of the loop for quite a while. The market is completely saturated with people much like you. Don't go into it thinking that you're too good for this job or with the preconceived notion that she's nuts, egotistical, overcompensating for going to a bad school, and all that other bullshit. Get yourself some sort of job, get some experience, and then look to lateral if she's batshit crazy. It's funny, but you go from "unmarketable" to "high in demand" in roughly 2 years of actual work. I have headhunters calling me at least once a week to change jobs and take some kind of crazy signing bonus, and if my managing partner wasn't absolutely the best boss I could possibly hope for, I'd probably consider it. That said, we take in (and typically throw out) resumes from people that are fresh out of school on a daily basis. Confidence is a great thing and you need it to interview well, but don't let pride and egotism stop you from taking a job.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 14:50
|
|
|
As someone who once had a very similar interview experience to Martin Random's, I'm on his side. Lawyers who give stupid poo poo skill tests in interviews are weirdo assholes that you don't want to work for. Here's a relevant story: One of my colleagues in my tax LL.M. program got an offer to work for a boutique trusts & estates practice. My colleague had done well in our program, and had a ton of coursework in all the relevant tax law. So of course her new boss tells her that she has to attend his estate & gift tax course that he teaches at the local law school, "because he wants to make sure she understands those taxes." I studied hard with her, she got an A on that material, and she knew that poo poo. Sure enough, she takes the job (nothing else came through), and the guy turns out to be a colossal rear end in a top hat in just about every way. So yeah, if someone wants you to do an on-the-spot skill test or has other weird "I don't actually respect you at all, in any way" behaviors, you should stand up, shake their hand, thank them for the interview, and walk out the loving door. Mind you, I'm not talking about the typical "you're a fresh JD who doesn't know anything" attitude - that's totally legit. But giving someone who has passed the bar a spelling and grammar test? Yeah, you can gently caress right off with that. Totally inappropriate. edit: Dogen posted:Seriously just go to the interview and treat it like some kind of crazy stage performance. Develop some kind of twisted character with a good narrative and get your best friends to play along when she calls. This would be awesome but you don't want her spreading the word that you're a lunatic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 14:54
|
|
|
entris posted:Mind you, I'm not talking about the typical "you're a fresh JD who doesn't know anything" attitude - that's totally legit. But giving someone who has passed the bar a spelling and grammar test? Yeah, you can gently caress right off with that. Totally inappropriate. Plenty of people in this thread talk about things like 'practicing' law. Likewise it's common to see lawyers using semi-colons where they shouldn't be used and other little things like that. Things like that are the reason I don't dictate documents at work because it ends up taking more time to check them for errors than it does to just type everything first time round. To suggest that passing the bar somehow makes you above needing your spelling and grammar checked is ridiculous. Maybe not everyone cares but if a person hiring for a job does then they're entitled to make sure employees meet certain standards.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 15:12
|
|
|
entris posted:As someone who once had a very similar interview experience to Martin Random's, I'm on his side. Lawyers who give stupid poo poo skill tests in interviews are weirdo assholes that you don't want to work for. This. The problem is that the need of this type of person to assert superiority and belittle others doesn't stop once the interview is over. I work with (fortunately not for) some people like this. For the people who work for them, every day is an unfortunate, miserable grind with these types of jackholes trying to assert some perverse dominance/subservience relationship into everything they do. SlyFrog fucked around with this message at 15:22 on Jul 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 15:19
|
|
|
dos4gw posted:Plenty of people in this thread talk about things like 'practicing' law.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 15:21
|
|
|
I'm going to disagree a bit. We frequently give people a contract assignment or two to work on when we're evaluating them. We've also had people do writing exercises during their interview. We don't call it a spelling and grammar test, but in addition to the substantive analysis, we're looking to see whether people make grammatical or other mistakes in their writing. In our practice, it's necessary that people use accurate, precise language (e.g., when drafting claims) and simple mistakes, or even the stray usage of a comma, can impact the merits of a particular case. If that offends people, so be it, but you might be surprised what we see from well-credentialed applicants. Edit to correct one of my own mistakes - thankfully I already got the job.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 15:23
|
|
|
If I ever hire someone, I'm going to make them assemble an IKEA desk. That way I can be sure they can follow directions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 15:26
|
|
|
All the examples mentioned would probably be terrible bosses for most of us. But I can see the method to their madness. I'm in the position of considering hiring a In many cases, the small firm wants a trained puppy to jump through hoops. They can't afford a failure, or to take a shot on a brilliant mind. They want a worker bee. So the asinine testing and ego trip is to cut out the people with independent thinking. Once the new guy spends a year absorbing the niche business, the small firm needs them to somehow stay and continue handing over 1/3 of their fees. If the person has any gumption, they'd just go out on their own or get a better job. I could picture the crazy testing lady setting out a series of progressively larger bugs, and hiring the person who ate the most. ^^ Or yeah what this guy said, perfect.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 15:29
|
|
|
Ani posted:Maybe I'm one of the lawyers who would be weeded out by a spelling and grammar test, but what is wrong with 'practicing'? OK it turns out that in American usage there is no distinction between the noun and the verb like there is in the UK so sorry - I take that bit back. http://www.dailywritingtips.com/practice-or-practise/
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 15:29
|
|
|
dos4gw posted:Plenty of people in this thread talk about things like 'practicing' law. Likewise it's common to see lawyers using semi-colons where they shouldn't be used and other little things like that. Things like that are the reason I don't dictate documents at work because it ends up taking more time to check them for errors than it does to just type everything first time round. Please; don't critizes; the way I practicing my law;.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 16:10
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:If I ever hire someone, I'm going to make them assemble an IKEA desk. That way I can be sure they can follow directions. Have you tried to assemble an IKEA desk? It's more likely to test creative thinking skills and adaptability.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 16:14
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:If I ever hire someone, I'm going to make them assemble an IKEA desk. That way I can be sure they can follow directions. I had to edit the office wiki to show a willingness to contribute 
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 16:51
|
|
|
I missed you Martin
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 17:04
|
|
|
sooo do i get the job
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 18:23
|
|
|
The last non-lateral lawyer we hired did a six-week clerkship before we offered them a full-time job. It was paid, of course, so I'm not implying that it's the same as the crazy lady who gives you a test during the interview or whatever (though I don't see what's wrong with asking you if you know a few basic concepts about their practice area, especially a solo who doesn't have time to hold your soft little hand). But some firms expect a little more than just showing up with a sparkly resume and a chip on your shoulder.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 18:35
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:The last non-lateral lawyer we hired did a six-week clerkship before we offered them a full-time job. It was paid, of course, so I'm not implying that it's the same as the crazy lady who gives you a test during the interview or whatever (though I don't see what's wrong with asking you if you know a few basic concepts about their practice area, especially a solo who doesn't have time to hold your soft little hand). A try-out period makes total sense. Asking targeted questions during the interview makes total sense, especially for a solo. Telling someone that they have to do an on-the-spot three-hour exam, with a grammar and spelling portion, is pretty ridiculous. Another LL.M. colleague of mine went in to a BigLaw interview for a partnership tax position. One of the partners spent twenty minutes grilling him on the various code sections for partnership taxation - "What's the section number for this? For that? What does "_____" mean?" My friend said it was fairly intense. That sort of questioning I can understand, because it's on-point and relevant, but grammar? Spelling? That would piss me off and I was a spelling bee champion as a grade schooler. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 18:42
|
|
|
Let's just say I take whatever that guy is saying with a grain of salt. Grammar and spelling should be taken care of with a writing sample.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 19:16
|
|
|
What if the firm is doing criminal/bankruptcy, and the spelling test is really to make sure the applicant's writing level is bad enough to be understood by the clientele? I'd give applicants a reverse grammar test.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 19:43
|
|
|
is atlas of bugs still alive?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 20:25
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:is atlas of bugs still alive? I would think so - didn't he get a financial job in NYC or something?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 20:42
|
|
|
entris posted:I would think so - didn't he get a financial job in NYC or something? Something like that, and he's the NYC thread's best poster now too. Litany fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Jul 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 21:42
|
|
|
what was the answer to that mbe question about the bomb planted in the plane that kills 3 people?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 23:33
|
|
|
Tetrix posted:what was the answer to that mbe question about the bomb planted in the plane that kills 3 people? C. It's always C.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 23:36
|
|
|
Tetrix posted:what was the answer to that mbe question about the bomb planted in the plane that kills 3 people? Palsgraf
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 00:11
|
|
|
force majeure
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 00:37
|
|
|
No charge for the passenger cuz hey who knew?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 00:49
|
|
|
Martin Random posted:No, this solo is a douchebag, and I'm thinking of skipping the interview. She's literally asking me to do three hour thing including a grammar and spelling test. What the gently caress. Lots of people are calling Martin Random out for bitching about taking this test. I'm curious, are these types of tests common? What purpose do they serve that the bar doesn't?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 00:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 12:26 |
|
|
insanityv2 posted:Lots of people are calling Martin Random out for bitching about taking this test. I'm curious, are these types of tests common? What purpose do they serve that the bar doesn't? I think they're more calling him out for the breathtaking self importance in his last 20 posts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 01:18
|
|