What not to do if you don't get the job...

OK. so you were turned down for a job. It happens. You write a brief letter to the person who turned you down, thanking them for their time, and asking if they'd be willing to share any specific reasons, so you can improve in the future.

You don't do this, as a one George Luce did. Because now, old George will never get hired anywhere

From: Chatman, Carliss

Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 11:42 AM

To: Rumbaugh, Holly; Dennis, Patrick; Lankau, Tim

Subject: FW: request to reconsider George Luce

This is a guy I interviewed last week. WTF?

-----Original Message-----

From: George_Luce@lamd.uscourts.gov [mailto:George_Luce@lamd.uscourts.gov]

Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 11:25 AM

To: Johnson, Loreatha

Cc: Schick, Robert M.; Davidow, Jennifer; Harvin, David; Pipkin, Emily; Kornegay, Nancy; Mehta, Persis; Murphy, George; Hodge, Justin; Reeder, James; Chatman, Carliss; Held, Kenneth; Lawson, Corey; Powers, Jason; Omar, Amin

Subject: request to reconsider George Luce

Dear Loreatha,

I received your letter dated May 11, and I am extremely disappointed that Vinson & Elkins has chosen not to extend me an offer. I remain convinced that V&E is the right firm for me. While it is hard to quibble with the verdict of a panel of 14 people, I believe that a real mistake was made, and I ask that my application be reconsidered.

I assume that V&E's chief objective in hiring new associates is to get the best people it can get. Please consider the fact that in law school, I earned the top score in my section on EVERY PAPER in both of my legal writing courses. (The grading was done anonymously.) My article was selected for publication in the Northwestern Law Review, which is one of the top law reviews in the country. Judge Amy St. Eve, a federal judge with whom I externed, will tell you that I was the best extern she ever had (and her externs were mostly cream-of-the-crop Northwestern students, many of whom went on to federal appellate clerkships). The Judge I work for now, as well as other people with whom I have worked, will tell you that I have unusual talent as a legal analyst. I suggest that before you conclude that I don't measure up to V&E's standards, you ask people with whom I have worked what they think about my work and my abilities. At risk of sounding arrogant, I submit that I would be a standout performer at V&E, even though V&E is an elite firm that can select from among the best candidates.

I sensed that some of my interviewers were uncomfortable with the fact that I am not committed to a specific substantive area of law. I would argue, however, that the tools that we bring to the table as lawyers are far more important than the direct, "relevant" experience we bring. "Practical" experience is no substitute for creative intelligence, intellectual sophistication, and pure tenacity. The career clerk in my judge's chambers has 20+ years of experience, so she knows a lot of things that I don't know. But she is not in my league as a legal analyst and writer. I have seen enough during my clerkship to say with confidence that I am capable of better work - far better work - than most of the "experienced" attorneys who practice before my judge.

As a judicial clerk, I have been deeply immersed in all sorts of cases at every phase of the litigation process. There are many procedural issues that are common across all different substantive areas of law. There are many connections and overlaps between the different substantive areas. Even within a given substantive area, every case is different, turning on its own facts. The relatively inexperienced associates who specialize in a particular area will have only seen a small part of the universe of possible issues that may arise in their area. Given these facts, I am highly skeptical that, say, a 3rd-year associate who has specialized in "oil and gas" is going to be light years ahead of me in that field. The hypothetical 3rd-year associate will certainly know a lot more than I know about the art and practice of lawyering. But it is highly doubtful that her substantive oil and gas knowledge (which of course exceeds mine) will give her a significant advantage over me when it comes time to analyze the next oil and gas case (which will no doubt involve issues that neither of us have seen before). I want to work on interesting, challenging cases, but I don't believe it would be rational for me to arbitrarily limit myself to a specific substantive area of law at this point in my career. I'll find my niche down the road. I would think that V&E would prefer that their new associates be open-minded enough to try different things.

I would also add that there are intangible factors to be considered. I left a lucrative job in my mid-thirties, working hard to score in the top 1% nationwide on the LSAT so I could go to an elite law school. (I was the oldest guy in my class.) When I was a computer programmer, I was a one-man consulting firm, saving my employer (the state of Louisiana) millions of dollars in costs and making the lives of thousands of people (the system's users) easier. Often, I would go to bed at night, half dreaming, half awake, obsessing over a thorny problem that I encountered. When the creative inspiration would come in the morning, those were the greatest thrills of my life. I know what its like to work 80-hour weeks for months on end. I know what's it like to be considered the expert of last resort - the guy they call in the middle of the night when the data gets corrupted and no one else can figure out what to do. I take my work SERIOUSLY and I take great pride in what I do. I would submit that these are the qualities that can make me a "franchise player" at V&E.

I recognize that the chance that you will reconsider and extend me an offer are very slim. (Lawyers tend to be extremely risk-averse and unwilling to do things differently than they've done before.) But please give this request some serious consideration. I suggest that you begin by talking with some of the folks who have worked with me.

Finally, if you are not willing to change your verdict on me, would you please do the favor of giving me some honest feedback about why you were not impressed enough with me to make an offer? Is it my age? (I'm 39, but I'm healthier than most 25-year-olds.) Is it that I'm losing my hair? (I am willing to undergo transplants!) Is it the fact that I wore a pink shirt to my interview? (My wife picked it out.) Is it the fact that I took the Louisiana bar exam before taking the Texas bar exam? (I took the Louisiana exam because I wanted to get licensed in my home state, and I wanted to get it out of the way first because I had to learn all that civil code stuff.) Is it because I have spent most of my life in Louisiana? (Houston is only a 3-hour car ride or a 40-minute plane ride from Baton Rouge.) Is it because I have a minor speech impediment (a "lacerated S")? Is it because I am introverted? Do I come across as arrogant? Too timid? Is it because I'm not committed to a specific substantive area of litigation?

You judged me as a qualified candidate based on my paper credentials, as evidenced by your willingness to expend the resources to bring me in for an interview. I assure you that I am a much better lawyer than even my paper credentials suggest! Please give me another look. It would be a shame if V&E and me are deprived of a mutually profitable relationship because I failed to present myself well in person on May 8.

Sincerely,

George Luce
.

Comments

[em]

that's just kinda sad. she should get in trouble for sending that around.

[brendan]

(Come on, in this economy I can't but feel bad for the guy. You have no idea how hard it is to find a job)

WTF? The economy is booming. Unemployment is at record low levels. Does your calendar say 1982 or something?

[Jess]

"At the risk of sounding arrogant?"

Oh my goodness, that is just the LEAST of his problems!!!

[preston]

Here's Carliss' bio on their site

http://velaw.com/lawyers/lawyer_detail.asp?h4attyid=322460101

[Texas Lawyer]

I agree that this letter, if real in any way, should not have been released. If I were "George Luce" and I found out, I'd be getting my OWN lawyer.

Whatever for? V&E had no legal obligation whatsoever to keep this communication confidential.

Note to non-lawyers, except in those cases where some legally recognized privilege applies, pretty much any email, voice mail, text message, letter or other communication you send can be released (absent some agreement to the contrary) at the discretion of its recipient. Once you send it, you no longer own it, the addressee does.

Tacky? Yes. Actionable? No.

On the other hand, V&E would be within its rights to fire the person who fowarded the email to recipients outside of the firm.

[Robin Kelly]

Carliss Chatman might have been gracious enough to simply do what George asked, and fill him in on why he wasn't hired; he has obviously gone to a lot of trouble AND put his dignity on the line. The least she could have done was be polite. Oh, perhaps they only hire discourteous smartasses these days. There's your answer, George. If you're that good, you'll find a better firm to work for.

[Simon]

[/b][/bold]I wandered along to this blog post after being forwarded the frankly hilarious J-Date entry and following a link...

It could just be that they weren't supposed to be read in the wrong order, but they're on such a different order of magnitude that I just feel sorty for poor old George Luce. He went to an interview, he did his best and when he was knocked back he wrote to the interviewers asking them to reconsider.

It's not what I'd do in the situation, but that doesn't make Ms. Chatman's mean spirited attempts to laugh at someone who's begging her for a second chance any more acceptable. She's the one in the wrong here, not Mr. Luce.

[.]

Regarding this exchange of comments:

"It would be a shame if V&E and me are deprived of a mutually profitable relationship because I failed to present myself well in person on May 8."

Damnit George, it's V&E and I.

Jesus.
------
Not sure you're right. "The deprivation happened to us, to you and me." Things happened to "me," the accusative, not "I."

I think he's correct, though the sentence structre inverts the action.

The first comment is correct. Although the "being deprived" is happening to them, "V&E and I" are still the subjects of the sentence. The simple "sounds-right" test I learned for this was to remove the other noun, leaving only the first person; you would say "I am being deprived," not "me is being deprived."

[Taffy]

I seriously doubt that the African American woman on that legal page is the same man who interviewed for the position. Someone help me out. Why did they say "my wife picked the shirt out" when they talked about wearing a pink shirt.

[Roonie]

I admire his audacity.

[Choco]

What not to do if you don't get the job?
This is EXACTLY what you should do if you don't get the job, just not in such a long-winded way. A few people have already pointed out the plain facts: He went to an interview, he got turned down, he asked for an explanation. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
The fact that the apparently half-witted, malicious, and incredibly shallow interviewer passed on this email from him is unforgivable, and I'm amazed that people are still laughing at this guy for perhaps being a bit of a bore. Nobody has pointed out that a lawyer's job is to argue, and this guy is REALLY good at arguing. I'd hire him way before hiring the morons who sent his email around.

[Anonymous]

I happen to know that the few people Ms. Chatman sent the email to were also on the recruiting committee. Additionally, it is highly inappropriate to tell lawyers that you are better than most attorneys who have been practicing for 20 years. It was proper for that to be sent to members of the recruiting committee.

[Fellow Northwestern Law Grad]

i'll post what i posted on the jackhole website:

i graduated from northwestern law with george. i have to say that even after reading his request for reconsideration, which many people will have you believe was written by a self-important, arrogant SOB, i still think he's a stand up guy. he's not arrogant, nor even egotistical. he just simply wanted to know why the firm didn't hire him, because in his mind, he WAS qualified. i'm sure he's not the only associate who has ever questioned the hiring decision of a prospective employer. he just had the guts to say so. the real asshole is the bitch associate who leaked the email for the whole world to see. who does that? can we say "discretion," anyone?

[Darren Sherman]

I wonder if Carliss Chatman will go out to dinner with me. My treat.

Love,
Darren Sherman

[Former co-worker]

I worked w/ George in Louisiana. I'm surprised it took this long for one of his long-winded letters to be posted for the world to see. I see that according to him the definition of 'franchise player' is taking sole credit for other people's work. My coworkers and I have fixed quite a few of his middle-of-the-night 'insights'. NONE of us on the TEAM (NOT 'one-man-consulting firm') worked 80 hours a week.

Note - if you're going to be arrogant, at least be truthful about it.

[Reader]

Some observations:

--No law firm is going to formally comment on why a candidate was turned down, especially not in writing. The risk of litigation is too great. If you had an exceptional -- nay, absolutely amazing -- rapport with someone in an interview you might possibly be able to get her to give you some idea why the decision was made, but orally, and strictly off the record. Understand that she might be risking her own employment in helping you.

--I'm amused that so many people think that there's a connection between ostensibly having qualities that would make a person a good lawyer and that person being considered a good associate hire by a large law firm. This is hard to accept, but they really don't care how well you argue, or how aggressive you are; what they do care about is whether you will get along with others and do what you're told until if and when they need you to represent them in public, which doesn't happen that often in the early years. They have plenty of senior people who can make presentations and arguments; that's the relatively fun work; it's warm junior associates' bodies that they can make money off of by having them do labor-intensive drone work that they have a need for. If a person who has slaved for years doesn't make partner, the stated reason will never be firm economics of that particular year; it's always going to be because the person did not measure up in some way.

--No large law firm would ever admit to the truth of the above statements.

--Ageism could have been a factor, even though 39 is not that old in our culture. Most large law firms, however, have an "up and out" structure -- you leave within a certain number of years if you don't make partner. Perhaps they didn't want to be in the position of showing a 49-year-old the door in 10 years. And although there's no sin in not wanting to specialize too soon, they might have held against him his lack of commitment to a speciality in view of his age. Some older associates do well when they build on expertise they developed in a previous career.

--Personal presentation also may have been an issue. They like polished people, even if most of them are limited to showing off their polish to other associates doing drudge work. I had an older friend at a law firm who thought being bald hurt him. At least he was tall; being short could hurt you, too. So could being unattractive. The Harvard Law School student who wrote a blog called "Anonymous Lawyer" covered this subject in great depth.

--In just about any other field if you are smart, well-educated, fiendishly hard-working and reasonably presentable you will have a strong shot at success. Large law firms do not operate by the same rules.

--The legal market in New York has been very unpredictable for years.

--In sum, I understand his frustration, but anyone familiar with that kind of law firm would have counseled him against sending such an email.

--The leak of such an email by a law firm shows piss-poor judgment, a fact of which they are no doubt aware. Privilege aside, law firms are supposed to act professionally and with a measure of discretion.

--Many lawyers in New York are aspiring ex-lawyers. There's a reason for that.