Interview questions that surprised you

[BlockedQuebecois]

10 minutes ago, pepesilvia said:

It is surprising how many people assume that these things just do not happen in the profession anymore, while at the student level it is more frequent than ever.

[Emphasis added.]

That seems… unlikely. 

It’s also a lot easier said than done for students to air such complaints publicly. Many students (rightly) want to maintain decent relationships with potential future employers, even if particular people at those employers were shitty.

Hell, most of the practicing lawyers on this site won’t talk negatively about any of the big firms here, despite the dual advantages of (1) already being employed and (2) pseudo anonymity. 

Edited October 18, 2021 by BlockedQuebecois

[Mountebank]

Even if I wholeheartedly agreed with what a student were saying about another firm, I wouldn't hire someone I'd heard airing dirty laundry.

I would advise students to keep their own counsel and quietly effect whatever internal change they can.

[WhoKnows]

12 minutes ago, Mountebank said:

Even if I wholeheartedly agreed with what a student were saying about another firm, I wouldn't hire someone I'd heard airing dirty laundry.

I would advise students to keep their own counsel and quietly effect whatever internal change they can.

If a student is airing dirty laundry to another firm's interviewers/lawyers they don't know - it shows such a supreme lack of tact and judgement that you would be right to not hire them. 

That being said, I'd tell that same student to air out that firm amongst their trusted peer group. The pace of change is slow, and sometimes the best you can do is give someone the information they need to keep themselves out of a bad situation. That happens frequently in other fields (politics, notably). 

Edited October 18, 2021 by WhoKnows

[epeeist]

On 10/8/2021 at 12:38 PM, chaboywb said:

I've never understood the double-blind process. Removing names doesn't affect the bias toward socioeconomically-priviliged experiences (prestigious unpaid foreign internships, interests like sailing and golf, etc) when reviewing resumes. In fact, it probably strengthens those biases, as the reviewer can't compensate in favour of marginalized candidates (whether it's right to do so on the basis of a name is another story).

Then, once they get to the interview stage, their name and demographic will become known anyway, allowing those biases to take place.

Maybe I'm missing something. 

[emphasis added]

Just on this tangent, yes there is that aspect, but work with it. People going to law school are going to a university. Meaning there's a wealth of free (included in student fees) or low-cost (supplementary fee) activities one can get into as part of the broader university community, and then genuinely list as a hobby, if one wants to. Take introductory sport courses and get exercise, join a winetasting group, cooking, whatever seems interesting to you, and you can then genuinely list it on your resume if you want and when asked talk about it.

I wasn't as keen as these guys below - I did a search because my own experience was years ago, there were 6 in my year who were varsity athletes plus many more doing more casual intramural sports, I wanted to double-check some law students still participated in varsity athletics - but I did take up fencing in law school and listed it on my resume, almost all interviewers asked me about it (thus it was not a surprise...). The cost for the introductory course was negligible, for the varsity team equipment was supplied to start with (I did buy my own later). Likewise for archery club, equipment supplied, winetasting negligible cost as part of a group, I golfed (for free) first few times in law school, etc.

"Law’22 students Nick Morrow and John Varriano have been named Varsity Academic All-Stars by Queen’s University. They both earned high academic standing while playing on varsity teams in 2019-20. 

Morrow, an aspiring litigation lawyer, competes in the men’s triathlon. Varriano, who is interested in environmental, employment, and intellectual property law, plays on the men’s rugby team. ..."

https://law.queensu.ca/news/Two-all-stars-score-top-points-in-sports-and-law-school

[pepesilvia]

On 10/18/2021 at 9:54 AM, BlockedQuebecois said:

[Emphasis added.]

That seems… unlikely. 

It’s also a lot easier said than done for students to air such complaints publicly. Many students (rightly) want to maintain decent relationships with potential future employers, even if particular people at those employers were shitty.

Hell, most of the practicing lawyers on this site won’t talk negatively about any of the big firms here, despite the dual advantages of (1) already being employed and (2) pseudo anonymity. 

You are right, it was hyperbole. It was likely worse in the past, but I think the rate of such incidences now is very shocking to people who are not on the front lines. At least in my experience, discussing it with more seasoned lawyers, they are always quite shocked at how bad things still are.  

I agree with your comments. Going public is not easy and it is not for everyone. However, one should not hesitate just because they think doing so will ruin their chances in the legal industry period, which is simply not true. Maybe I am optimistic but I do not believe these serious incidences (sexual harassment and beyond) are necessarily systemic anymore, I think that for the most part people in the industry and supportive and understanding and are actively trying to eliminate bad eggs.

Personally, I would not want to be hired by someone who, upon hearing that I was sexually harassed at another firm, would not want to hire me. There are plenty of firms that would and do, and that likely outweigh the people that think it would be inappropriate.  This profession takes a lot from you, so you might as well be giving it to a firm that will treat you with some basic level of human dignity and respect (if you have the choice).

[Turtles]

One of the sisters:

"To introduce myself, I have 2 kids, [other interviewer] has 3 kids, how many do you have?"

Another sister (but this might give away which):

"Tell me the worst thing you hated about [previous firm] -- they must have a lot of problems right?"

[I reiterate I enjoyed the experience, but am attracted to this firm's particular practice area and reputation.]

"Do you know how you can tell we are the best firm on Bay St... no, in Canada? We can get all the big name mandates without discounting, but all the other firms have to beg and discount to get that kind of work. We don't discount. We are the best. OK, so uh, I guess we don't have any more questions."

NYC firm in Toronto:

"It's Saturday night, we've been working way too much, which bar are we hitting? 

"I need you to order us dinner, which restaurant are you ordering from?"

Boutique:

"Final question - what is your race? I can't tell."

Edited November 2, 2022 by Turtles

[duck]

Random Toronto Firm

"How do you plan on balancing your work and life...in the future? I know family plans may be important so where do you see yourself in 5 years?" 

Random Toronto Firm

*scrolls on phone the entire duration of my interview until I mention I have a shiba* "Wait-what breed of dog did you say you have?"

Random Toronto Firm

"How did you find your experience working in Montreal?" (I have never worked in Montreal)

 

 

 

 

 

[helloall]

17 hours ago, Turtles said:

Another sister (but this might give away which):

"Do you know how you can tell we are the best firm on Bay St... no, in Canada? 

Lol is it Davies?

[Yogurt Baron]

1 hour ago, duck said:

Random Toronto Firm

*scrolls on phone the entire duration of my interview until I mention I have a shiba* "Wait-what breed of dog did you say you have?"

So what you're saying is, at least some places interview correctly.