What is the general consensus around reference letters (2L OCI)?

[Constantine]

My schools CSO says to not include them if firms specifically don't mention them, or if they list them as optional. However, I have been told by multiple people to include them in my applications if they are optional. There are even a couple of posts and comments here that have people saying they included them for most of their OCI applications. 

For what it's worth, I already reached out to profs and former employers to be my references / draft reference letters for me. I figured it's better to have them and not need them, rather than need them and not have them. 

 

Edited June 25, 2023 by Constantine

[HarryCrane]

From talking to lawyers who have done hiring (both at my firm and at previous firms) my understanding is this. 

 

If a firm requires letters, include them (obviously).  

 

If a firm does not require them, and your letters are average- meaning they are good but don’t go much beyond “HarryCrane was in my class and they got an A, and they were productive in class discussions”- do not include them. 
 

If a firm does not require them, but your letters are strong- meaning they go beyond grades and the prof or whomever can speak directly to your work product (you are a TA/RA for example), include them. 
 

Firms get a lot of applications and reading a letter that simply says you were good in class and got an A doesn’t really tell them anything they can’t learn from your transcript. 

[Hayesy-B]

9 hours ago, HarryCrane said:

 

If a firm does not require them, but your letters are strong- meaning they go beyond grades and the prof or whomever can speak directly to your work product (you are a TA/RA for example), include them. 
 

I’d disagree with this. If a firm doesn’t ask for reference letters, they probably don’t care all that much about what a letter says, even if it is very strong. Id say it’s much more likely to give those involved in hiring the impression that you didn’t read the posting and therefore don’t really care all that much if you get an interview/offer from that firm, or that you just didn’t pay attention to what they asked/what you submitted.

edit: I guess what you’re saying could be interpreted a couple different ways.  To clarify what I mean - if they don’t ask for them, then I wouldn’t include them for the reasons above. If the firm says letters are option, I’d say HarryCane’s advice is good. 

Edited June 26, 2023 by Hayesy-B

[LMP]

I think you really need to weigh the relevance of the reference letter, something most applicants suck at. 

There is a marked difference between a letter written by someone unknown to the reader and a letter written by someone who is a known quantity in a  given legal community. 

If the firm doesn't ask for a letter I wouldn't just spam them with whatever I had on hand. But if I knew that I had a letter from someone who they would actually recognize, I'd send it in. 

[Dnian]

My thinking:

If required: yes, obviously.

If optional: yes, so long as the letter is actually good. If it just makes you look like you could only barely manage to obtain one and it's "meh", probably not worth it. 

If not mentioned: unless your letter is pivotal to the strength of your application, don't do it. Otherwise, even the slightest chance that they hold it against you for 'not having read the application' outweighs the marginal benefits the letter might get you.

Also, if you do really really want to submit it, I don't think the recruiters will hold it against you if you reach out to them and politely ask. 

However, pay attention to the exact wording of the applications. Many say something like, "please submit only the following documents: (list)". The "only" is important there - if you reach out and ask or submit one, then that shows you didn't competently read the application.

[Dnian]

17 minutes ago, LMP said:

I think you really need to weigh the relevance of the reference letter, something most applicants suck at. 

There is a marked difference between a letter written by someone unknown to the reader and a letter written by someone who is a known quantity in a  given legal community. 

If the firm doesn't ask for a letter I wouldn't just spam them with whatever I had on hand. But if I knew that I had a letter from someone who they would actually recognize, I'd send it in. 

Just a question - if one has a glowing reference letter from a first year professor at a local law school (not just an average, "they were good and got an A-" type letter, but really singing your praises), do you think this qualifies as sufficiently "worth it"?

In the alternative, I (and I suspect most people) could go back to an undergrad professor and get a really strong reference from someone who supervised more closely for paid research or for a thesis. However, I don't really see how that is strictly relevant to one's legal skills and knowledge/passion etc - it will always be a stretch unless you have a Masters in Legal Studies or something.

I think a lot of folks struggle with it because as a first year law student who probably hasn't been closely supervised by a law professor yet, it can be confusing who exactly the firm is looking to hear from.

[FellowTraveler]

This is what was meant by "most people don't know how to evaluate the strength of a letter", above.

Of course the prof is singing your praises: that's the baseline expectation of a reference letter. (Otherwise, why did you include it?)

They're going to look at your transcript, so they know you did well in that class and that the prof thinks highly of your work.

What else is that letter saying? For example: if you RAed for them, they not only have the ability to talk about your academic performance, but also about working with you in a research/deadline/process-focused environment. That's something that your transcript doesn't speak to! But if all they're saying is "Dnian was a pleasure to be around, had a strong grasp of the material, and was engaged in class, etc.", then... those are all great things to hear, but they don't provide meaningfully novel input.

Edit: typo

Edited June 26, 2023 by FellowTraveler

[LMP]

29 minutes ago, Dnian said:

Just a question - if one has a glowing reference letter from a first year professor at a local law school (not just an average, "they were good and got an A-" type letter, but really singing your praises), do you think this qualifies as sufficiently "worth it"?

In the alternative, I (and I suspect most people) could go back to an undergrad professor and get a really strong reference from someone who supervised more closely for paid research or for a thesis. However, I don't really see how that is strictly relevant to one's legal skills and knowledge/passion etc - it will always be a stretch unless you have a Masters in Legal Studies or something.

I think a lot of folks struggle with it because as a first year law student who probably hasn't been closely supervised by a law professor yet, it can be confusing who exactly the firm is looking to hear from.

I wouldn't use a truly academic letter for an application. That might be bad advice and it is probably contextual, but it is what I followed. 

I only used prof letters if they were adjuncts. People who were lawyers first and instructors second. And even then I made sure the letters spoke about how I'd be good at the role, not so much about how I did on an exam. 

Which is what I'm getting at, the most compelling letters, in my view, are those written by someone the firm knows. Remember, we are talking about unsocilited letters of reference. So if you're tossing one in, make it matter. Especially if applying to certian botique or mid sized firms that have a tighter knit bar. If the person you've worked with/against for 30 years is suggesting you give someone an interview, you may well be more inclined to do it. 

[Dnian]

1 hour ago, FellowTraveler said:

Of course the prof is singing your praises: that's the baseline expectation of a reference letter. (Otherwise, why did you include it?)

There is a scale.

A professor who says in very short terms, "this student was a pleasure to be around in class and I highly recommend them for any position" versus "this student has one of the brightest legal minds I have ever seen in my entire teaching career" and gives an anecdote explaining why the student impressed them so much, in my mind, are miles different. One is clearly worth including whereas the other is, as you say, not particularly insightful.

On your logic, I also don't understand why you think the RA thing is any different. You say that any reference letter which re-states something that is already evident from your transcript or CV is not worth including. If you have the RA position on your CV, then the interviewer would know at face value that you were capable of doing legal research and worked with a professor. 

So why does the professor writing a letter saying you know how to do legal research and worked with them change anything? It is in that case too, purely a matter of how much they sing your praises: "they met deadlines and did meaningful research" (duh) versus "they were pivotal in the success of this research project, showed incredible passion and drive, etc etc". 

Any reference letter you produce will, to some degree, restate something the person already can see on the CV or transcript. So, I would think at an instinctive level that how personalized and forceful/passionate the letter is will matter most, not what exact role the person had (professor, supervisor, etc). But I guess that was the gist of your point too.

Edited June 26, 2023 by Dnian

[MissRepresented]

I'm often involved in the student hiring process and there are generally only two times I find academic references useful:

1. Where the professor has experience with the student beyond just class and assignments and can speak to other qualities such as resourcefulness, judgement and interpersonal skills.

2. Where the student didn't perform well on an exam and the professor is able to speak to how this is incongruent with their experience with the student in class (i.e. the student did well on the midterm, asked insightful and meaningful questions, attended office hours and showed a clear grasp of the subject matter etc.), such that the mark on the transcript might not be reflective of actual capacity.

[HarryCrane]

14 hours ago, Hayesy-B said:

I’d disagree with this. If a firm doesn’t ask for reference letters, they probably don’t care all that much about what a letter says, even if it is very strong. Id say it’s much more likely to give those involved in hiring the impression that you didn’t read the posting and therefore don’t really care all that much if you get an interview/offer from that firm, or that you just didn’t pay attention to what they asked/what you submitted.

edit: I guess what you’re saying could be interpreted a couple different ways.  To clarify what I mean - if they don’t ask for them, then I wouldn’t include them for the reasons above. If the firm says letters are option, I’d say HarryCane’s advice is good. 

Yeah I was not clear in my comment. If the firm explicitly says “do not include letters” do not include letters. But if they’re silent on them and they’re strong, from what I’ve been told at least (and to which I found successful in my experience) include the letters. 
 

The difficulty of course as @LMPpointed out, is that people are not amazing at evaluating the relevance of reference letters (or maybe even the ultimate strength of the reference)  

 

[123]

On 6/26/2023 at 9:49 AM, Dnian said:

Otherwise, even the slightest chance that they hold it against you for 'not having read the application' outweighs the marginal benefits the letter might get you.

I'll say that I think this is a real consideration. Many applications are not tailored to what I asked for and sometimes do ignore specific instructions. If I'm reading dozens or hundreds of these things, each new failure to follow instructions is an irritant. It's not necessarily determinative. I'd probably interview someone with an otherwise strong CV and transcript, who threw in an unsolicited reference letter. But following application instructions is more important than many students seem to think.

(As a caveat, I'm not an OCI employer, so maybe it is different there)

[Dnian]

2 hours ago, realpseudonym said:

I'll say that I think this is a real consideration. Many applications are not tailored to what I asked for and sometimes do ignore specific instructions. If I'm reading dozens or hundreds of these things, each new failure to follow instructions is an irritant. It's not necessarily determinative. I'd probably interview someone with an otherwise strong CV and transcript, who threw in an unsolicited reference letter. But following application instructions is more important than many students seem to think.

(As a caveat, I'm not an OCI employer, so maybe it is different there)

If anything, I think that it is probably even more important to follow the instructions to a T with the OCI recruit.

They standardize everything very particularly through ViLawportal and so I would imagine deviation is more likely to disrupt their process, relative to if it was just a smaller firm reviewing email by email, as applications come in. 

[FellowTraveler]

On 6/26/2023 at 11:47 AM, Dnian said:

There is a scale.

A professor who says in very short terms, "this student was a pleasure to be around in class and I highly recommend them for any position" versus "this student has one of the brightest legal minds I have ever seen in my entire teaching career" and gives an anecdote explaining why the student impressed them so much, in my mind, are miles different. One is clearly worth including whereas the other is, as you say, not particularly insightful.

On your logic, I also don't understand why you think the RA thing is any different. You say that any reference letter which re-states something that is already evident from your transcript or CV is not worth including. If you have the RA position on your CV, then the interviewer would know at face value that you were capable of doing legal research and worked with a professor. 

So why does the professor writing a letter saying you know how to do legal research and worked with them change anything? It is in that case too, purely a matter of how much they sing your praises: "they met deadlines and did meaningful research" (duh) versus "they were pivotal in the success of this research project, showed incredible passion and drive, etc etc". 

Any reference letter you produce will, to some degree, restate something the person already can see on the CV or transcript. So, I would think at an instinctive level that how personalized and forceful/passionate the letter is will matter most, not what exact role the person had (professor, supervisor, etc). But I guess that was the gist of your point too.

There is a scale. Statistically, you are going to be very bad at determining where your letter falls on that scale. I have reviewed hundreds of letters of reference, academic and professional: the overwhelming majority of them have been effusive. All I'm saying is: don't assume your letter is amazing because a prof is saying you're amazing. It's probably right about average.

As for my example, I see what you're saying and I should have given more clarification. It's not that being an RA for a prof is different because it's not also somewhere else on your application. It's different because it speaks to a skill-set that can be compared to the work you're likely to be doing for your employer: research, goal-oriented writing, being accountable and organized and consistent. A prof who can speak to those things is telling the employer something they want to hear, because they want a future lawyer who can do those things. "One of the brightest legal mind I have ever seen" is a lot less relevant than you might think, as fun as it is to hear. I received a similar statement in one of my reference letters, and it's by far my weakest.

[chilly]

Based purely on personal experience, I recommend including a reference letter if it's from someone who actually knows you well and can attest to your professional abilities.

In following the advice of an upper-year friend who did well in both Vancouver and Toronto recruits, I included a reference letter from a former supervisor (at a non-law, national company) in all applications, except where a firm specifically said that they didn't accept them. It was brought up in a few OCIs and in-firms, and always positively.

Going to echo what was said above about just asking if you're really not sure. Prior to submitting my applications, I asked the recruiter of a firm that didn't address cover letters on their website how the firm views reference letters. She said reference letters obviously wouldn't make or break an application and she generally doesn't pay them much attention, but they could be helpful, especially if the firm had to choose between two similar candidates.