Under-qualified but got an interview, now what?

[99problems]

I am in the middle of my articles in a boutique. I was browsing this other firm's website, and there was an ad for an associate with +2 years experience in the same practice area as I work in. Nevertheless, I reached out to the recruiter, he asked for my resume and said that he will pass it to the head of the practice group. The head of the group contacted me, inviting me to his office next week for an interview.

Given that I don't qualify for their ad, how do you suggest I can increase my chances?

Thanks in advance for your insight.

[CleanHands]

I would say prepare for it as you would any interview and don't worry about this discrepancy between your experience and the job posting.

Job postings are often employer "wish lists" rather than strict requirements, and employers are often more flexible than the postings suggest. They have invited you to an interview so they like you and are considering hiring you. Lawyers are busy people who don't like wasting time, and wouldn't interview a candidate that they had no intentions of giving serious consideration. Ultimately, if the ad said they were looking for a 2 year call, that's still a junior associate position and being a fresh call instead (with relevant experience) isn't terribly out of line with it.

The only wrinkle here is that you haven't completed articles and they are looking for an associate not an articling student, so just ensure that you are abundantly clear about the timeline for when you can complete articles, get called, and transition over to their firm if hired. 

Edited October 9, 2022 by CleanHands

[99problems]

16 hours ago, CleanHands said:

I would say prepare for it as you would any interview and don't worry about this discrepancy between your experience and the job posting.

Job postings are often employer "wish lists" rather than strict requirements, and employers are often more flexible than the postings suggest. They have invited you to an interview so they like you and are considering hiring you. Lawyers are busy people who don't like wasting time, and wouldn't interview a candidate that they had no intentions of giving serious consideration. Ultimately, if the ad said they were looking for a 2 year call, that's still a junior associate position and being a fresh call instead (with relevant experience) isn't terribly out of line with it.

The only wrinkle here is that you haven't completed articles and they are looking for an associate not an articling student, so just ensure that you are abundantly clear about the timeline for when you can complete articles, get called, and transition over to their firm if hired. 

Thanks for this.

In my situation, what would be a good answer to "why we should hire you instead of a 2 year call?"

[CleanHands]

55 minutes ago, 99problems said:

Thanks for this.

In my situation, what would be a good answer to "why we should hire you instead of a 2 year call?"

No worries.

And I would be very surprised if you were asked such a question, and honestly would view it as a minor red flag. Because they are the ones who know what they are looking for, they are the ones who chose to interview you, and they are the ones who already have an answer in their heads as to why they are considering that. Really it would be a dick move and unfair to you to put you in a position of trying to explain why you're a better candidate than every 2 year call out there.

But I would answer it along these lines (don't just copy me verbatim; tailor this to your personality and style): "You're looking for a junior associate. I am acutely aware of just how junior I am. But that means that I know how much I have to learn and I'm eager to learn as much as possible as quickly as possible. I haven't been doing this long enough to pick up a bunch of bad practices that you'll need to work to get me to unlearn so that I can do things your way. But at the same time, I do have directly relevant experience that will enable me to hit the ground running and quickly learn the things that you want me to learn." If you are asked a bad question like this, just answer in a way that emphasizes your positive attributes and alignment with what they are looking for, rather than puts down other candidates they are interviewing.

[Apple]

On 10/9/2022 at 6:05 PM, 99problems said:

Thanks for this.

In my situation, what would be a good answer to "why we should hire you instead of a 2 year call?"

If they ask you this, ask them what they're looking for from a 2 year call. If they're just looking for someone who has a few numbers behind them, then they shouldn't choose you over someone that has numbers. However, most firms/places are not looking for a 2 year call per say, they are looking for someone who has certain abilities, aptitudes and competencies (and they assume someone with 2 years experience has these). Your role is to identify that you have these competencies and to highlight evidence for the same in concrete tangible ways. 

So if you're asked this, flip the question on them and say something to the effect of, "You should hire me because I posses skills xyz. While a 2 year call may have worked for two years, this doesn't necessarily mean they posses the skills you are looking for. They, may, but at the end of the day I can demonstrate these skills in concreate ways". Then I'd probably highlight additional features of yourself. 

 

TLDR: Turn this question into an opportunity to demonstrate you know what they want (i.e., not just someone 2 years post call but someone with experience) and then highlight your skills and reasons why you want to work there. 

[CleanHands]

7 minutes ago, Apple said:

If they ask you this, ask them what they're looking for from a 2 year call.

 

7 minutes ago, Apple said:

Turn this question into an opportunity to demonstrate you know what they want

Don't these two sentences kind of contradict one another?

It may make sense to directly ask an interviewer what they're looking for if a role is highly specialized and while one knows a general area they want to ensure that their skillset is properly aligned with some very specific subspecialty the employer needs. But for a more general and broad position than that (e.g. junior associate lawyer in a not-so-niche practice area) I think asking what they are looking for is a really bad question and a qualified and confident candidate should be able to demonstrate that they know the answer to that and are able to able to articulate how they fulfill that without needing to ask such a thing.

[epeeist]

Since other recent replies I'll comment. WARNING: I only work PT law, so take with a grain of salt, but the broader principle is still applicable.

The recruiter provided your resume, didn't lie, they want to interview you. You're there to interview for a position at that firm generally, NOT to try to prove you match an ad that you don't match.

[My own (many years ago) experience, I saw an ad for a 5+ year associate at a boutique I was interested in. I had finished my articles and was not yet called. On the assumption that if looking for a 5+ associate they might also be looking for someone more junior, I sent a letter and resume, didn't reference the ad at all, just said I was looking for a position and why I was interested. Got an interview and a job there.]

[Apple]

5 hours ago, CleanHands said:

 

Don't these two sentences kind of contradict one another?

It may make sense to directly ask an interviewer what they're looking for if a role is highly specialized and while one knows a general area they want to ensure that their skillset is properly aligned with some very specific subspecialty the employer needs. But for a more general and broad position than that (e.g. junior associate lawyer in a not-so-niche practice area) I think asking what they are looking for is a really bad question and a qualified and confident candidate should be able to demonstrate that they know the answer to that and are able to able to articulate how they fulfill that without needing to ask such a thing.

If there are contradictions, they're remedied by looking at my ultimate conclusion of what this person should do. Also, showing them you have what they want does not (in my mind) preclude you from first asking what they want. In fact, asking may be the way to actually demonstrate as you'll know what you need to show. 

Ultimately, the conclusion is to demonstrate to them that you have the skills they're looking for as they are not looking for someone two years post call (they're looking for someone with experience and competency for the specific job). How you get to this result varies. You could (1) ask them point blank what they're actually looking for (i.e., what they're expecting a 2 year post-call lawyer to have) and then show them you have that (this helps them realize the 2 year requirements is less about time and more about skill and then you immediately have set yourself up to show and speak to your skills specific to their job) or (2) just demonstrate you know what they want and show them you have what they want (thus rendering the 2 year post call desire moot). 

Hopefully that helps clear things up!  

 

Edit: Something else to note. Don't treat this as loss time either. You may not get the job now, but they'll remember you if you stand out and if there is ever growth and a new position that comes - if you can show them your value now you'll likely get a call in the future. 

Edited November 1, 2022 by Apple