Advice for the 2L job-hunt post OCI recruit; is it okay to change firms?

[goodisgood]

I've secured some in-firms with firms (thank you everyone for your advice last time when I was losing sleep over not getting any interviews, I reset, put my mind to working on my application package, and achieved results I'm happy with) that weren't officially part of the OCI process but follow that same hiring timeline. I assume they would make offers around the same time as the other firms participating in the OCI process. 

Right after the OCI process, other really good firms that I'd be interested in ask to submit applications. This might be a stupid question, but what happens if you've already accepted an offer from one of the firms you interviewed with at this point? Can I still apply to these other firms and rescind my previous acceptance if I am successful in the interview process? In my mind this seems to be in poor taste but I'm unsure if I'm overthinking things. This wasn't something that was terrible during my general job hunt but I know the legal profession tends to be smaller and more tight-knit. 

[Wolfe]

Law isn't slavery. You could renege on the offer and accept a new offer. You would likely piss off the firm you reneged on and your school's CDO office though. Law isn't a huge market and you should be mindful of your reputation. But if you really want the second firm and plan to stay at it for a while it might be worth it.  

[xdarkwhite]

Assuming this is related to the Toronto recruit, there are actually LSO rules about this which, if not complied with, could affect your good character requirement when you're being called to the bar. 

See Procedure B.9.: Students who accept an offer shall immediately notify firms from whom they have an outstanding offer or with whom they have scheduled interviews. Students who have already accepted an offer shall not thereafter participate in interviews with other firms or accept offers subsequently received.

https://www.lso.ca/Becoming-Licensed/Lawyer-Licensing-Process/Articling-Candidates/Finding-a-Placement/2022-Toronto-Summer-Student-Recruitment-Procedures

Great opportunities only come once in a while and I believe folks should do what they think is best for themselves (of course, while taking into account the consequences). Reputation is important, but most people are a lot more understanding than you might think. That being said, it's important to recognize when you might be doing something shady to skirt the rules. You're not even deciding whether you should renege for another offer here; you're considering keeping your accepted offer as a backup—taking none of the risks—while you go off to recruit at other places with the hope that you could get something better. If you don't think you'll be happy at the place with the offer you already have, renege it first and then go recruit elsewhere with the understanding that you might not get anything out of it. 

[goodisgood]

Just now, xdarkwhite said:

Assuming this is related to the Toronto recruit, there are actually LSO rules about this which, if not complied with, could affect your good character requirement when you're being called to the bar. 

See Procedure B.9.: Students who accept an offer shall immediately notify firms from whom they have an outstanding offer or with whom they have scheduled interviews. Students who have already accepted an offer shall not thereafter participate in interviews with other firms or accept offers subsequently received.

https://www.lso.ca/Becoming-Licensed/Lawyer-Licensing-Process/Articling-Candidates/Finding-a-Placement/2022-Toronto-Summer-Student-Recruitment-Procedures

Great opportunities only come once in a while and I believe folks should do what they think is best for themselves (of course, while taking into account the consequences). Reputation is important, but most people are a lot more understanding than you might think. That being said, it's important to recognize when you might be doing something shady to skirt the rules. You're not even deciding whether you should renege for another offer here; you're considering keeping your accepted offer as a backup—taking none of the risks—while you go off to recruit at other places with the hope that you could get something better. If you don't think you'll be happy at the place with the offer you already have, renege it first and then go recruit elsewhere with the understanding that you might not get anything out of it. 

Thank you for this detailed answer! I'll shy away from any subsequent interviews if I do accept an offer from any of the firms that I'm interviewing with. It makes sense that there'd be a rule like this. 

[QueensDenning]

On 11/2/2022 at 12:00 PM, xdarkwhite said:

Assuming this is related to the Toronto recruit, there are actually LSO rules about this which, if not complied with, could affect your good character requirement when you're being called to the bar. 

See Procedure B.9.: Students who accept an offer shall immediately notify firms from whom they have an outstanding offer or with whom they have scheduled interviews. Students who have already accepted an offer shall not thereafter participate in interviews with other firms or accept offers subsequently received.

https://www.lso.ca/Becoming-Licensed/Lawyer-Licensing-Process/Articling-Candidates/Finding-a-Placement/2022-Toronto-Summer-Student-Recruitment-Procedures

Great opportunities only come once in a while and I believe folks should do what they think is best for themselves (of course, while taking into account the consequences). Reputation is important, but most people are a lot more understanding than you might think. That being said, it's important to recognize when you might be doing something shady to skirt the rules. You're not even deciding whether you should renege for another offer here; you're considering keeping your accepted offer as a backup—taking none of the risks—while you go off to recruit at other places with the hope that you could get something better. If you don't think you'll be happy at the place with the offer you already have, renege it first and then go recruit elsewhere with the understanding that you might not get anything out of it. 

Pretty sure the LSO rules only apply to the OCI/"official" recruit process. 

On 11/2/2022 at 12:00 PM, xdarkwhite said:

If you don't think you'll be happy at the place with the offer you already have, renege it first and then go recruit elsewhere with the understanding that you might not get anything out of it. 

Now this is just straight up dumb. In no circumstance does this make sense. 

[BlockedQuebecois]

9 hours ago, QueensDenning said:

Pretty sure the LSO rules only apply to the OCI/"official" recruit process. 

No, the first provision of Part B of the rules states it applies to all Toronto firms: 

Quote

Any firm, either within or outside of Toronto, seeking to recruit a student who will spend a significant portion of the summer of 2022 with the Toronto office of the firm (whether remotely or in person) shall be governed by these Procedures with respect to the recruitment of that student.

Many of the rules wouldn’t make any sense if they only applied to the official recruit – in particular, why would students have to cancel upcoming interviews, given offers during the official recruit come after all the firms have conducted all their interviews. 

[QueensDenning]

1 hour ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

No, the first provision of Part B of the rules states it applies to all Toronto firms: 

Many of the rules wouldn’t make any sense if they only applied to the official recruit – in particular, why would students have to cancel upcoming interviews, given offers during the official recruit come after all the firms have conducted all their interviews. 

I stand corrected. 

Still think it's a horrible idea to renege on an offer you have in the hopes of finding something better for the summer. 

Edited November 4, 2022 by QueensDenning

[Rashabon]

There is a give and take in order to protect students. To prevent firms from becoming predatory and engaging in bad faith hiring practices, the LSO has requested that students do the same. If students could just continue to interview with a bird in the hand and then dump a firm a month or two later, firms would tell the LSO that the restrictions on them are untenable and they should be allowed to recruit when they want, how they want, and, as a corollary, dump students if they find better ones.

[Ben]

That's odd, because the New York recruit seems to work fine, and as far as I know has no regulatory intervention at all. 

[Rashabon]

Yes I'm aware that gets brought up every time and I feel like I should remind people that apples to oranges comparisons aren't a good idea. K&E alone hires more students than the entirety of the Canadian recruit. What works for New York doesn't necessarily work here, in a smaller market.

[BlockedQuebecois]

4 minutes ago, Ben said:

That's odd, because the New York recruit seems to work fine, and as far as I know has no regulatory intervention at all. 

Most New York law firms sign up to and  comply with the NALP guidelines, which broadly cover the same topics. 

I suppose it’s a pick your poison thing between whether you’d rather have a cartel of law firms set the rules, or the regulator of said cartel. 

[Ben]

10 minutes ago, Rashabon said:

Yes I'm aware that gets brought up every time and I feel like I should remind people that apples to oranges comparisons aren't a good idea. K&E alone hires more students than the entirety of the Canadian recruit. What works for New York doesn't necessarily work here, in a smaller market.

Fair enough, but differences in scale notwithstanding, I find it hard to believe that Toronto firms would be as cutthroat as you're suggesting if they weren't regulated. Especially to make marginal gains in the quality of their summer students. 

8 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

Most New York law firms sign up to and  comply with the NALP guidelines, which broadly cover the same topics. 

I suppose it’s a pick your poison thing between whether you’d rather have a cartel of law firms set the rules, or the regulator of said cartel. 

I didn't know that about NALP, that's interesting. But presumably those guidelines don't bind participating students, so the point about lack of regulatory intervention with respect to students stands, right?

[Rashabon]

17 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

Most New York law firms sign up to and  comply with the NALP guidelines, which broadly cover the same topics. 

I suppose it’s a pick your poison thing between whether you’d rather have a cartel of law firms set the rules, or the regulator of said cartel. 

Seems that a lot more authority/weight is given to individual schools as well (which in the US context makes a degree of sense):

https://www.nalp.org/fair_ethical_recruitment

To a Canadian coming from a Canadian school which probably doesn't have extensive US recruitment processes in place, the New York process seems freer than it probably is.

2 minutes ago, Ben said:

Fair enough, but differences in scale notwithstanding, I find it hard to believe that Toronto firms would be as cutthroat as you're suggesting if they weren't regulated. Especially to make marginal gains in the quality of their summer students. 

I didn't know that about NALP, that's interesting. But presumably those guidelines don't bind participating students, so the point about lack of regulatory intervention with respect to students stands, right?

See above. Candidates are encouraged to abide by them and the schools also enforce part of the career hiring process. They even have similar requirements relating to offers.

It's also not that they are cutthroat. The largest firms hire like 30 students. That's a fraction of what the largest New York firms hire. And it shrinks considerably from there. Each student has an outsized impact and there are larger expectations in Canada than in New York. In New York you are a faceless nobody. Not quite so in Canada. If students could waste a firm's time and then simply go and get hired elsewhere by a "superior" firm, I don't see why firms would not wish to do the same, particularly when they run the risk of bleeding students regularly in your scenario.

Edited November 4, 2022 by Rashabon

[QueensDenning]

A practical example: Let’s say a summer student strikes out on OCI’s, takes a job at a small firm shortly after that the student was willing to settle for, and that firm pays $1000/week and is opaque about whether articling is on the table. That’s a position that a lot of students find themselves in. 
 

Then, they interview at say Blaney’s or Minden, and get an offer. They have the opportunity to make 2X over the smaller firm, have basically guaranteed articling locked in, and it’s all around a better opportunity. 
 

In this circumstance, the steaks are just completely different for the firm vs the student. The firm can easily replace the student, and unless they’re assholes, theyd probably encourage the student to take that other offer. In that case it’s just a no brainer, LSO rules be damned. 
 

and it’s a joke to think that all firms abide by LSO rules, as I’ve said on this forum time and time again. Obviously one should take care not to fuck people over, but students have to look out for themselves first and foremost. 
 

on an aside, what are the penalties for violating LSO rules? Have they ever been levied on any firms or students? 

Edited November 5, 2022 by QueensDenning

[Rashabon]

In your scenario the student has already chosen to breach their obligations and LSO rules and managed to secure an interview with another firm. They shouldn't have settled for that small firm if they wanted to interview with those midsize firms. I don't really feel badly for the student in your scenario because if the small firm, which has limited resources and probably takes on a single student, can easily replace the candidate they spent time vetting and making an offer to, that particular student would by definition be mediocre.

[QueensDenning]

On 11/5/2022 at 3:35 PM, Rashabon said:

I don't really feel badly for the student in your scenario because if the small firm, which has limited resources and probably takes on a single student, can easily replace the candidate they spent time vetting and making an offer to, that particular student would by definition be mediocre.

Right, because everyone at Blakes et. al. are the clearly superior candidates, and no students fall through the cracks? It’s almost like there are way more suitable candidates that can do the job than jobs available… I guess that makes them all mediocre then. 
 

I know lots of objectively mediocre students at all the big firms. Being physically attractive and having played varsity level sports seems to go a very long way. 

[CleanHands]

1 hour ago, QueensDenning said:

Right, because everyone at Blakes et. al. are the clearly superior candidates, and no students fall through the cracks? It’s almost like there are way more suitable candidates that can do the job than jobs available… I guess that makes them all mediocre then. 
 

I know lots of objectively mediocre students at all the big firms. Being physically attractive and having played varsity level sports seems to go a very long way. 

Gotta have pretty faces on those websites. The brand name will keep the clients coming in even when the lawyers are too stupid to create a proper lease agreement.

[Mbu1]

2 hours ago, QueensDenning said:

Right, because everyone at Blakes et. al. are the clearly superior candidates, and no students fall through the cracks? It’s almost like there are way more suitable candidates that can do the job than jobs available… I guess that makes them all mediocre then. 
 

I know lots of objectively mediocre students at all the big firms. Being physically attractive and having played varsity level sports seems to go a very long way. 

I can understand why being "physically attractive" might get them a job, but I have never understood why some of these top law firms like/want former athletes or those who've played "varsity level sports". What's the rational? 

[BlockedQuebecois]

It’s interview week, so I’ll try not to be too glib, but people who play high level sports are: (1) usually pretty motivated and disciplined individuals; (2) usually capable of working in a team environment; and (3) significantly less likely to be the kind of person that makes me fantasize about quitting my job when I’m stuck working with them late on Friday night. 

Assuming you’re smart enough to do the job (and my firm doesn’t really interview people who aren’t), those factors are pretty important. Although there are obviously other ways to demonstrate those abilities. 

[QueensDenning]

2 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

It’s interview week, so I’ll try not to be too glib, but people who play high level sports are: (1) usually pretty motivated and disciplined individuals; (2) usually capable of working in a team environment; and (3) significantly less likely to be the kind of person that makes me fantasize about quitting my job when I’m stuck working with them late on Friday night. 

Assuming you’re smart enough to do the job (and my firm doesn’t really interview people who aren’t), those factors are pretty important. Although there are obviously other ways to demonstrate those abilities. 

I agree with the above, and I actually think it makes good business sense to hire good looking/athletic people. Private businesses should be able to hire who they want. I'm a capitalist - I don't have a problem with that.

I just think it's a big stretch to say everyone else is "mediocre". 

[Pecan Boy]

8 minutes ago, QueensDenning said:

I just think it's a big stretch to say everyone else is "mediocre". 

I don't think BQ was defending Rashabon's point about mediocre students. He was just replying to the commenter who asked why firms like hiring athletes. 

[QueensDenning]

34 minutes ago, Pecan Boy said:

I don't think BQ was defending Rashabon's point about mediocre students. He was just replying to the commenter who asked why firms like hiring athletes. 

Oh my bad, didn't read up and thought he was the one who made that point. 

[CleanHands]

58 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

Assuming you’re smart enough to do the job (and my firm doesn’t really interview people who aren’t)

Outing that you don't work at Blakes.

[Mbu1]

4 hours ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

It’s interview week, so I’ll try not to be too glib, but people who play high level sports are: (1) usually pretty motivated and disciplined individuals; (2) usually capable of working in a team environment; and (3) significantly less likely to be the kind of person that makes me fantasize about quitting my job when I’m stuck working with them late on Friday night. 

Assuming you’re smart enough to do the job (and my firm doesn’t really interview people who aren’t), those factors are pretty important. Although there are obviously other ways to demonstrate those abilities. 

Makes sense. Cheers 

[Garfield]

6 hours ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

It’s interview week, so I’ll try not to be too glib, but people who play high level sports are: (1) usually pretty motivated and disciplined individuals; (2) usually capable of working in a team environment; and (3) significantly less likely to be the kind of person that makes me fantasize about quitting my job when I’m stuck working with them late on Friday night. 

Lmao. This is why Bay Street is going to be as white as John Tory’s ass for decades to come. They love people who play high level sports because such people are: (1) similar to and just as privileged as the people hiring them.