Firm recruiting changes

January 19, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
If the National Association for Law Placement has its way, January and November are going to become very important months to many law students.

NALP released a report this month detailing significant changes to the recruiting process. The biggest one: Goodbye rolling-offer deadlines, hello offer kick-off days.

The changes stem from member feedback that the status quo isn’t working in the current state of the economy and legal profession, and significant change is required to help members meet current and future challenges.

The NALP Commission on Recruiting in the Legal Profession wants to do away with the current system in which law schools schedule on-campus interviews as early as possible before the first semester to give students a better chance at having an offer extended. Law firms are hopping from school to school trying to interview as many students during this time period as possible so as not to miss out on top-notch candidates for summer associates and new hires.

Instead, a date in January would be designated for 2L recruiting before which no offers could be extended, but may be extended any time after that date. The rolling period of time during which offers can remain open would shrink from 45 to 14 days. If the 2L had previously been employed at the firm, their offer could be extended at any time but would need to remain open until the kick-off date.

The 3L process remains mostly intact, but the report suggests the deadline in November for responding to offers extended to previous summer associates needs to correlate closely with the deadline for full-time offers to those who weren’t previously employed at the firm as a summer associate.

The commission believes adopting these changes will achieve a balance between giving employers additional time to process their hiring needs after looking at year-end financial data and giving law schools enough time to work with their students. You can read the full report on the NALP Web site, http://www.nalp.org/commissiononrecruiting.

There are some firms that aren’t fans of the proposed changes, which isn’t surprising given the legal community’s tendency to resist change and favor the status quo. But the changes aren’t perfect because law firms aren’t required to extended offers on the offer kick-off day, but are prevented from doing so any earlier. Students may receive offers from firms at different times and would face a shorter period in which to consider the offers. Firms that aren’t members of NALP may extend offers earlier, which could really throw a wrench in the process. Indiana has 14 firms – some with various offices – listed in NALP’s 2009-2010 member directory.

NALP is taking comments about the proposed changes through Jan. 29. You can send your feedback to suggestioninbox@nalp.org.

Law firms, students: What do you think about the proposed changes? Will it level the playing field or create different kinds of inequity and challenges for firms and schools?
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT