No big recruiting changes

March 1, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Back in January, the National Association for Law Placement issued a report that proposed significant changes to how law firms recruit, including doing away with rolling-offer deadlines. But NALP has backed off the controversial changes and announced Friday its provisional timing guidelines for 2010.

After announcing its proposed changes, NALP got a lot of feedback, which led to the changes. For this recruiting cycle, the timing guidelines will remain largely unchanged, except for two modifications. Beginning in August, students will have 28 days to respond to an offer from an employer where the student hasn’t worked. For offers to candidates who have been previously employed, the response deadline goes to November 1 instead of Nov. 15.

You can read more about the proposed changes from the January report here.

NALP’s Board of Directors adopted the changes on a one-year provisional basis, and the association’s membership will have a chance to ratify the changes at the end of the provision year. Granted, the organization’s guidelines aren’t required, and it’s up to each law school and legal employer to agree to the terms and conditions for recruiting on campus.
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. Contact Lea Shelemey attorney in porter county Indiana. She just helped us win our case...she is awesome...

  2. We won!!!! It was a long expensive battle but we did it. I just wanted people to know it is possible. And if someone can point me I. The right direction to help change the way the courts look as grandparents as only grandparents. The courts assume the parent does what is in the best interest of the child...and the court is wrong. A lot of the time it is spite and vindictiveness that separates grandparents and grandchildren. It should not have been this long and hard and expensive...Something needs to change...

  3. Typo on # of Indiana counties

  4. The Supreme Court is very proud that they are Giving a billion dollar public company from Texas who owns Odyssey a statewide monopoly which consultants have said is not unnecessary but worse they have already cost Hoosiers well over $100 MILLION, costing tens of millions every year and Odyssey is still not connected statewide which is in violation of state law. The Supreme Court is using taxpayer money and Odyssey to compete against a Hoosier company who has the only system in Indiana that is connected statewide and still has 40 of the 82 counties despite the massive spending and unnecessary attacks

  5. Here's a recent resource regarding steps that should be taken for removal from the IN sex offender registry. I haven't found anything as comprehensive as of yet. Hopefully this is helpful - http://www.chjrlaw.com/removal-indiana-sex-offender-registry/

ADVERTISEMENT