Anonymous wrote:He scoffed at this and told me he "has to be" in the top few candidates "just based on [his] experience".... Please have some humility, I am begging you.

OP some people won't believe anything until they experience it. If I were you, I would try not to spend too much time on explanations.

OP sounds like a mean girl to me seeking revenge on people who went to top schools.

If you cannot help him, just let him know OP so he can move on to someone who can. Try being decent during the holiday season.

I went to crappy state law school and have enough influence/power to help people regardless of where they went o school. I don't begrudge the Harvards of the world.

I am reluctant to hire 6th or 7th year associates from large law firms. I am not interested in hiring someone who wants to join my agency as their back up plan now that they realize they cannot make partner. You need to convince me that the reason you are applying is not just because you are about to be passed over for partnership. I look for 3rd to 5th year associates. They are more likely to be leaving on their own accord.

Anonymous wrote:OP had me until, "And that it takes them 5+ years in biglaw to get the same level of responsibility that we give to first year honors attorneys at my agency." I doubt that is true. It certainly is not at my agency. OP should also realize that what she does is not all that unique. In my experience, I know I can train anyone, so academic credentials are important to me.

It's true at my agency. Honors Attorneys in my component go straight into the courtroom. I first-chaired my second trial. And because we can't staff cases like Biglaw does, a couple of attorneys are doing everything -- drafting, discovery, appearing in court, etc. The only people who get hands-on experience that fast are JAG attorneys and public defenders.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I am guessing you went to a mid-tier law school and are now gleeful about telling the Duke guy to "take a number".

Maybe. But I've seen the same thing, and I went to a T14 and did my federal appellate clerkship. There are some (not all) Biglaw people who have bought into the idea that they are amazing just by virtue of working at a Biglaw firm, when the reality is that they often have less practical and relevant experience than someone from the JAG Corps or the public defender's office. I had more trial responsibilities my first year as an Honors Attorney than my Biglaw friends got in a decade. We routinely get hundreds of applications for lateral openings, including many highly qualified people. Thinking you're a shoe-in is pretty much always delusional.

Be nice, some of them have handled hearings over discovery motions. How much more experience could you need?

Sounds like one arrogant guy. Perhaps choose a thinner paint brush and lose the chip on your own shoulder?

Anonymous wrote:OP, I am guessing you went to a mid-tier law school and are now gleeful about telling the Duke guy to "take a number".

Maybe. But I've seen the same thing, and I went to a T14 and did my federal appellate clerkship. There are some (not all) Biglaw people who have bought into the idea that they are amazing just by virtue of working at a Biglaw firm, when the reality is that they often have less practical and relevant experience than someone from the JAG Corps or the public defender's office. I had more trial responsibilities my first year as an Honors Attorney than my Biglaw friends got in a decade. We routinely get hundreds of applications for lateral openings, including many highly qualified people. Thinking you're a shoe-in is pretty much always delusional.

OP had me until, "And that it takes them 5+ years in biglaw to get the same level of responsibility that we give to first year honors attorneys at my agency." I doubt that is true. It certainly is not at my agency. OP should also realize that what she does is not all that unique. In my experience, I know I can train anyone, so academic credentials are important to me.

Anonymous wrote:OP, I am guessing you went to a mid-tier law school and are now gleeful about telling the Duke guy to "take a number".

OP said top schools.

OP the truth is arrogant big law litigators are a dime a dozen. It's not specific to this guy, and if he's getting under your skin you can just stop being so gentle with his inquiries. "They know I referred you; if they reach out to me I'll let you know."

Anonymous wrote:OP, I am guessing you went to a mid-tier law school and are now gleeful about telling the Duke guy to "take a number".

No I went to a T6. I'm just a little appalled by his attitude, is all.

OP, I am guessing you went to a mid-tier law school and are now gleeful about telling the Duke guy to "take a number".

Anonymous wrote:Well I do now, after applying to dozens of fed jobs and only getting one interview, that did not lead to an offer.

Sorry, my rant wasn't directed at you specifically. Keep applying and I bet something will work out. Biglaw obviously is good legal experience in many ways and you just need to find a role that is the right fit.

I was mostly just annoyed by this guy's attitude. He seemed to think he was doing us a favor by deigning to apply.

You seem to have a bad case of schaudenfreud OP. Try not to gloat so much.

Well I do now, after applying to dozens of fed jobs and only getting one interview, that did not lead to an offer.

I am at a fed financial regulator that has a good QOL, high quality legal work, and pays well above GS. It's a very desirable legal job, as far as federal jobs go, and every time we hire we have an abundance of extraordinarily qualified candidates.

I have a professional contact who is a 6th or 7th year associate at a well-regarded biglaw firm He reached out to me a while ago about applying for a job in a different division of my agency and we chatted a little about the job.

He just reached out to me again, a few weeks after submitting his application, to ask about the timeline and I told him I didn't know where they were at in the process. He seemed pretty eager to get an interview so I also tried to gently tell him that they likely got 100s of qualified applicants and he shouldn't be too discouraged if he doesn't move forward this time.

He scoffed at this and told me he "has to be" in the top few candidates "just based on [his] experience". This guy has some generic biglaw litigation experience, a little bit of regulatory defense work in areas unrelated to my agency, and has worked on a few class action matters that tangentially relate to some of the laws my agency enforces. He's got a good academic record from top schools and he is at a big brand name firm, but that's virtually all he has going for him - which isn't nearly enough for the position he applied for. I tried (again, gently) to tell him that there are probably many applicants with appellate clerkships and direct experience working on the issues and cases my agency is responsible for. He was totally tilted, as if he never even considered that his generic biglaw resume wasn't an automatic ticket to any job he wants.

Do biglaw associates not realize that they are mostly interchangeable? And that it takes them 5+ years in biglaw to get the same level of responsibility that we give to first year honors attorneys at my agency? No one is impressed by your 6 years of doc review and 3rd chairing some depositions. Please have some humility, I am begging you.