There’s no doubt that the traditional rules of the legal industry are changing. One area of the most intense change will be legal recruitment. Some firms may expand their recruiting, while others restrict it. Some may do away with on-campus interviewing or hiring associates straight out of law school altogether. Some may interview at more prestigious schools because the students are open to them now and some may interview at less prestigious schools looking for better value.1
Reed Smith is clearly on the shrinking side of the fence. While they have not cancelled their summer program like some firms, they will be interviewing at fewer schools this year. One school that didn’t make the cut was Fordham, the alma mater of 20 Reed Smith lawyers. Fordham’s mature and reasonable response was to bar Reed Smith from interviewing on campus for five years:
“In my seven years as dean, no other firm has canceled its interviews after the schedule was released,” [Dean William] Treanor wrote. “At Fordham Law, we require our students to conduct themselves with the utmost professionalism, and we expect employers to demonstrate the same high standards.”
I would like to welcome Dean Treanor to 2009 and remind him that this is not the last seven years. The legal industry is changing, and if you’re not on board you’re going to get run over. That horse has left the barn, and obstinately standing your ground isn’t going to help anyone.
David Lat at Above the Law is taking a fairly measured but still seemingly pro-Fordham take on this:
Law firms are certainly entitled to pick which schools they want to interview at. But, as a matter of basic professional courtesy and respect, they should make those decisions as early in the process as possible. When a law firm withdraws from the fall recruiting process at a given school at the eleventh hour, it causes great inconvenience to law students and schools.
Everything Lat says is true. However, there’s no indication that Reed Smith dawdled with this decision. The firm is just finishing up its 2009 summer program. In an economic climate and changing industry where you won’t simply hire X associates every year, the decisions the firm makes on this year’s class could very well impact where they interview and how many people they hire next year.
Even if Reed Smith decided long ago not to interview at Fordham but forgot to let the school know, what is the alternative? Dean Treanor cannot force or demand a firm hire Fordham students. So at best, the firm will come in and jerk students around with pointless interviews. There’s always the chance that someone could wow an interviewer, but when the interviewer comes in thinking this is just for show, good luck with that.
I’ve talked about fake professionalism before and included the idea in my 10 commandments for law students. If Reed Smith delayed this decision or made it lightly, shame on them. But it would be even more unprofessional to put a bunch of law students through dog-and-pony show interviews,2 even if the dean actually had the clout to compel that course of action. Real professionalism includes standing up and being candid and honest with people, which is exactly what Reed Smith did in this situation.
- I’m not implying that law students at lower ranked schools will happily accept less money. I’m saying that law firms might believe that. ↩
- For example, see the Rooney Rule in the NFL, where teams have been accused of holding token interviews for black candidates just to comply with the rule. ↩
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
I’m wondering what two groups are thinking: (1) Fordham Law students, particularly 1Ls at they’re the ones who will be affected by the ban, and (2) those considering applying to Fordham. Should they be worried that their interviewing prospects could be cut even further by the dean again?
That’s an angle I didn’t even get into: the practical implications. If law schools start banning every firm that doesn’t play by their rules, look for potential students to start looking at schools that are a little more flexible with their policies even if it leads to a bit more confusion.