1L recruit question for Lawyers

[Heisenberg45]

How many students who get a 1L summer job stick with that firm and actually become a partner? (which is what all the firms say they're looking for in interviews in Edmonton.)

It just seems odd that they are "locking down" people with one semester of law school under their belt, who don't have any loyalty to you, don't know what they want, and most likely will move on because they want to maximize their salary and chances of making partner. 

Edited February 27 by Heisenberg45

[Dinsdale]

I agree that the entire model of Biglaw recruiting has lots of flaws, but it is the system we currently have. 

I don't have any hard statistics, but I would venture to guess that a large majority of 1L recruits stay on for 2L and articles (very few students will make the inherently risky choice of trying for a lateral move at this stage, since it can't really be done in confidence), most will also stay on as incoming associates (as large firms tend to hire back a strong majority of their articling classes), and then only one or two per year will someday become partners.  The attrition in large law firms skyrockets during the associate years, for all kinds of reasons.

Edited February 27 by Dinsdale

[Shaheer]

On 2/27/2024 at 5:41 PM, Dinsdale said:

but I would venture to guess that a large majority of 1L recruits stay on for 2L and articles (very few students will make the inherently risky choice of trying for a lateral move at this stage, since it can't really be done in confidence), 

Why is it a risky choice for 1L recruits specifically?

Edited March 1 by Shaheer

[HarryCrane]

23 hours ago, Shaheer said:

Why is it a risky choice for 1L recruits specifically?

The expectation for summer students is that unless you do something exceedingly bad (like drop kick the managing partners dog) you will be offered articles, and be hired as an associate (the associate hire back is less guaranteed, but my understanding is that if firms have hired you as a 1L summer student, the business case has been made for you to article and then join as an associate). So you would be turning down an almost guaranteed articles/associate position for an opportunity to be hired elsewhere as a summer student in 2L. 

On top of that, you'd likely be burning the bridge with the firm you are at. People do decline articles, but its usually because things changed and they want to move cities. The firm isn't thrilled, but they understand it. If you decline articles to try to go across the street to a different firm, thats a different story. 

So when the firm finds out you are interviewing (which they will because summer students/the recruit does not carry with it the same confidentiality as an associate lateraling as mentioned above), they aren't going to be happy and likely won't offer you articles. The firms you apply to will see you have "Firm X" on your resume and some will wonder why you aren't staying there and be a red flag for them and not interview you, assuming they are doing the 2L or articling recruit.

What you have done is declined an effectively guaranteed job for a chance to compete for another job from a smaller pool of firms, while also burning the bridge at the current firm you're at.

[Shaheer]

I get that. But as a silly 1L, I'm looking for some clarity. The recruitment process for first-year students is notably limited compared to that of second-year students. I'm trying to comprehend why first-year students who secured positions at small boutique firms face a significant disadvantage if they choose not to continue with the same firm in their second year. I'm referring exclusively to 1L students.

Your outlined concept makes sense in the case of 2L students but the idea seems unfair to me if a 1L student who wanted to get some legal experience at a small-size boutique firm is strongly discouraged in the market from exploring opportunities with larger firms (in the same practice areas) in their 2L.

[Dinsdale]

Exactly what Harry Crane said.  You're trading in pretty much guaranteed associateship ... for what?

I speak only from the perspective of a large Bay Street firm, where I spent most of my career (four iterations).

Might be different in the scenario you posit, i.e. trying to move from a boutique setting to BigLaw.  In that case it might be worth the inherent risk.  That's for the individual to weigh in their specific circumstances.

 

Edited March 3 by Dinsdale

[LMP]

1 hour ago, Shaheer said:

I get that. But as a silly 1L, I'm looking for some clarity. The recruitment process for first-year students is notably limited compared to that of second-year students. I'm trying to comprehend why first-year students who secured positions at small boutique firms face a significant disadvantage if they choose not to continue with the same firm in their second year. I'm referring exclusively to 1L students.

Your outlined concept makes sense in the case of 2L students but the idea seems unfair to me if a 1L student who wanted to get some legal experience at a small-size boutique firm is strongly discouraged in the market from exploring opportunities with larger firms (in the same practice areas) in their 2L.

The rule doesn't really apply to smaller places. No biglaw firm is going to be shocked you're trying to "move up". They think of it as natural. They'll ask you why you're leaving, but it isn't in a judgemental way. 

The post above is talking about moving from one biglaw firm to another (which you can still do, it's just a different conversation). 

[HarryCrane]

2 hours ago, Shaheer said:

I get that. But as a silly 1L, I'm looking for some clarity. The recruitment process for first-year students is notably limited compared to that of second-year students. I'm trying to comprehend why first-year students who secured positions at small boutique firms face a significant disadvantage if they choose not to continue with the same firm in their second year. I'm referring exclusively to 1L students.

Your outlined concept makes sense in the case of 2L students but the idea seems unfair to me if a 1L student who wanted to get some legal experience at a small-size boutique firm is strongly discouraged in the market from exploring opportunities with larger firms (in the same practice areas) in their 2L.

Its been a couple years since I was doing the recruit, but from memory it was not "notably limited" compared to 2L recruit. There were significantly more Edmonton firms doing the 1L recruit than the 2L recruit (and they weren't small firms, unless you want to call Duncan Craig or Brownlee "small". ), and outside of the Big Law firms in Calgary, the same was generally true. The big recruits in Alberta are the 1L recruit and articling, no as much 2L.

You are strongly discouraged because you are giving up a guarantee for a chance at an opportunity for a position that is much more competitive. You aren't inherently at a disadvantage, you are doing something inherently risky. Giving up a guarantee for something not guaranteed is risky. There are circumstances where it might be less risky, like if you interviewed with Bennett Jones at were number 7 on the list when they hired 6. Its sensible to think you have a decent shot at securing a 2L position because they obviously liked you. But if you didn't get any interviews, or didn't get past the first interview, thats a different story.

Again though, if you don't secure something in the 2L recruit, you gave up a guarantee and have to go find another job, and then work at that job while likely doing the articling recruit because the recruit happens in early May. Most firms are not going to offer articles day 5 of your summer position.

I would agree with you its not fair. Frankly, I hate the 1L recruit for this reason. 1Ls have no idea what is going on, let alone what they want to practice in or what type of firm they want to be in. But the fact is its the system that we have and the game that's played.

[Dinsdale]

Interesting.  System/timing is somewhat different in Ontario, but your overall point remains largely true.  In Ontario, 2L is the biggie.