Two weeks after a callback interview with a New York firm, the hiring partner called to tell me they could not extend me an offer for the summer. Everyone had liked me, he explained, it was just a numbers game because space for first year students was limited. The explanation seemed reasonable and I understood that most firms didn’t do much 1L hiring. But I also knew that he was feeding me bullshit a lie.

Since his speech was a lie, the words he used were not designed to convey what they actually meant. I was listening beyond the facial value of the words, and what I heard was a man who had sat around thinking about the message he needed to send, calculating what someone in my position would want to hear. He gave himself away in his delivery. I noticed that he was too comfortable with this speech. He had obviously given it before. He was also confident in his delivery; he must’ve thought it was working.

He needed to deny me for this job but keep me interested should his needs change for next year. To accomplish his goal (and not mine), he devised a story where it wasn’t my fault nor was it the firm’s fault that I wasn’t being hired. Numbers were to blame, which is convenient for him because I can’t actually blame an intangible object. He acted as though his firm was the hero, trying everything they could to bring me aboard. There was just “nothing he could do”. The message fit well with what I had heard during my round of interviewing. One partner had told me that getting a job first year depended on luck, and I shouldn’t worry if it doesn’t work out this year. Another had told me that his firm was one of the few that took a real interest in 1L hiring. Again, they were telling me it wasn’t anyone’s fault if I wasn’t hired, and that their firm was doing everything it could to help me out. It was the classic “it’s not you, it’s me”, with the only difference being that the firm wouldn’t accept the “it’s me” part. http://youtube.com/watch?v=U8TnhNxKNlU

Ordinarily I’d take this message at face value. I’d feel good about myself since it wasn’t my fault, and I’d trust that he wouldn’t lie to me because that’s not the right thing to do. I’m the guy who folds to a big bet at the poker table, because I think the bettor must have a good hand rather than a bluff. I admit that I can be too naïve and too trusting. But having talked to a few lawyers I’ve decided to approach firms with skepticism, and by now I should know better than to think they’d care about my interests unless it suited them.

I didn’t believe this story, and I was curious to find out what was really going on. I was also looking for a productive use of my time that didn’t involve Constitutional law. I turned to the Facebook and found that the firm’s 2008 summer associate class had a group of 28 students. All of these students were in their second year. I checked back periodically because I remained curious and I still didn’t want to study Constitutional law. The group has since grown to 31 members, still only second year students.

Of course, it’s entirely possible that the 1Ls they’ve hired haven’t joined the Facebook group. I went to the NALP’s directory to compare my unscientific data with their more accurate numbers, and found they had hired 27 summer associates last year. It’s unlikely they’ve significantly increased their class from 2007 to 2008, especially since the economy has worsened. I would expect to find few summer associates beyond the 31 listed on the Facebook, if any exist at all.

My skepticism was supported by further research into the firm. I found that the firm had laid off 10% of its partners within the past two years. They had done so because their $1 million profit per partner was inadequate compared with other firms, and they had slipped in the AmLaw? rankings. My guess is that a firm laying off partners is not looking to hire first year students; we’re more of a drain on profits than a good investment. Looking at the limited evidence available to me, I’m led to believe they had little if any interest in hiring 1Ls. Most likely the firm’s 1L interviews were designed to get its name out to students to boost its 2L hiring. The data from last year’s EIP shows that under 25% of their call-back invitations were accepted, a number lower than many other firms which certainly leaves room for improvement.

Admittedly, I can’t prove what the firm was doing, and I may be misinterpreting their honesty. But the fact is there’s a lot of smoke, and if I wait to find the fire I’ll have already wasted several years of my career. The hiring partner concluded his speech by assuring me that as it stands they do like me, and he doesn’t see anything changing between now and August when they begin hiring for the 2009 summer. In the same sentence in which he guaranteed me a job, he reserved an out for himself. A guarantee without a guarantee; again, he was keeping me interested so that they could decide later whether or not they wanted me. I thanked him for the consideration and told him I looked forward to joining them soon. If the partner was listening closely, he knew I was lying. The receptions, the lavish offices, the fancy clothes… they all send a powerful message to a young, insecure law student. But his outer positive message actually sent out negative information, and that was all I needed to know.