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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT