Is That Legal?

And this is "unethical" how?

ELM: Wife, at firm two, knowing that I'd interviewed with her husband at firm one the day before, invited me to share my impressions of her husband and his firm without disclosing that he was her husband.

So you think there is some ethical obligation for interviewers to prevent interviewees from saying really, really stupid things?

How about if the interviewer says "Do you like to play golf?" and you respond "Golf is a game for retards" and then notice all of he golfing trophies and commemorative golf balls on display behind interviewer's desk. Was the interviewer unethical there for not disclosing their love of the game before asking you the question?

ELM: I think you may have misunderstood the story, t. The lawyer at the small firm knew that I'd interviewed with her husband the day before. Thus, when she asked me what I thought of "the lawyers I'd met the day before," she was asking me to share my impression of her husband. Yet I couldn't have known, and would have had no reason to suspect, that he was her husband; they had different last names, and the photograph in the background was a tiny little photo of some balding guy. Had she not said, "my husband interviewed you yesterday," I never would have known, and certainly would never have noticed the photograph.

She was just playing with me, t. She set me up.

I take it you found summer employment at Medium Firm Z?

ELM: Indeed I did.

"I found them a pretty boring crew" was going to be the wrong answer whether it was her husband or not.

ELM: I disagree, both because the small firm I was at made a big deal about their casual, "fun" atmosphere, and the big firm in question was widely regarded as a stultifying place. So in context, it was actually a reasonably safe answer.

Interesting. I agree you were "set up," but I am wondering why you think it was "unethical" or "slimey." In my area, one of the biggest distinguishing factors for new associates is judgment and situation sense. The legal world is often a small one and I think it's important to be careful what you say, since you don't know everything about the person you are talking to. Is it possible that the small firm interviewer was testing for that? If so, is that wrong? I often confer with other interviewers who were earlier in the day and ask similar questions to see if candidates give consistent answers (e.g., "I am sure I want to work in corporate" until talking to the litigation guy, "I love securities" but can't talk cogently about it). I am, quite consciously, "setting them up" to see what happens and how they handle it. Is that unethical?

ELM: She was inviting me to talk about my impressions of her husband. That's incredibly deceptive, and in my book, unethical. (For what it's worth, I mustn't have failed her test too badly, because I got an offer. Maybe she shared my impression that her husband was boring.)

Rule 1 of interviewing: never say anything bad about anything or anybody (including yourself).

Rule 2 of interviewing: show that you're willing to work. If you are interviewing for a brick-laying job, don't call any type of brick-laying boring.

ELM: She didn't ask me about the work. She asked me about the people.

"She was just playing with me, t. She set me up."

That is the whole purpose of the interview process - to see how people react to difficult questions and see what sort of judgment they display.

I'll stop beating this horse but I just can't imagine why you think this was unethical or slimey.

ELM: Because she was asking me to talk about her husband, for chrissake! What is so hard to understand about that?

she did set you up. because she was probably bored out of her skull from doing 2L interviews. but these interviews go both ways, and it told you not to go to either of those firms.

I don't see how its unethical for an interviewer to not disclose something that, if disclosed, would probably have led to a dishonest answer anyway. (I highly doubt you would've said the same thing had she said "what did you think of my husband, the guy who interviewed you yesterday?") And, if your original answer wasn't the truth anyway, as you were "[w]anting to make the point (which was true) that [you] preferred a smaller to a larger firm," I think your interview ethical standards are asymmetrically high.

I understand your point, and agree. That was mean, and totally different from requiring internal consistency (as the litigation/securities example above) from candidates.

Truth be told, lots of married couples I know work at different firms (and have different names) and are constantly hearing their spouse/spouse's firm slagged by someone who doesn't realize they are married. Thus I truly believes that "Watch what you say," is a good idea, but this lady asked for your opinion, knowing it was a trap. She knew that you would want to say something slightly negative about that other firm to show that you really wanted _this_ job, without looking like a jerk. I think your answer would have been perfect in any other situation.

You may have been "set up", but you stepped right into it. Shame on you for not having a good, pat answer to her inquiries about Big Firm. When she asked what you thought about the laywers there, you should have said they seemed like great people. Period. Never, ever, ever disparage another firm or another attorney in an interview. The legal world is a small world, even in a massive legal market like DC.

Instead of saying something negative about the old firm, you should have twisted it into saying lots of great things about her firm. Q: "What didn't you like about Big Firm?" A: "Well, they don't seem to offer the flexibility and hands-on opportunity that your firm seems to offer me". Q: "What did you think about the laywers you talked to?" A: "They seemed like great people, really smart, but I think a smaller firm like yours can offer me more of what I'm looking for."

I just came across your topic, and I wanted to relate my interviewing experience back in 1990 or so with Mega Chicago law firm. Mega Chicago law firm had been under fire the previous few years because of accusations from several law students that they had illegally discriminated during the interview process for summer associates. They were even being boycotted on several law school campuses, though not mine. Even though I am an Asian-American, I was still interested in their international practice, so I signed up for an on-campus interview. The interview was in a nearby hotel and was conducted by two lawyers, a male partner and young female associate. At least for that time, it was very unusual to have the on-campus interview conducted by more than one person, so it was quite apparent to me that the firm was covering all its bases by having a witness to all their interviews so they couldn't be "set up" by some attention-seeking law students. Strangely, though, the partner, kept on bringing the interview back toward race issues, I think, in an overly belabored attempt to show that the firm was not intimidated by the law school protests. He was tax lawyer and therefore had a blunt, crude way of speaking; he talked over the young associate several times and as a result she stopped trying. The kicker, though, came when the partner made his final pitch for the firm, and said that the international practice brought a lot of good "oriental" lawyers to the firm, and, as an example, with one young associate, "you could put your hands over your eyes" --and, here, he did exactly that--"and listen to her talk and you wouldn't know that she was oriental." Since I was in interview-mode, it took a moment for it to hit me what he had just uttered. I couldn't quite believe that someone would be so stupid to say that, given that Mega Chicago law firm had been under intense fire for just this type of interview tactic, and given that I was not some fresh off the boat coolie but was born in the U.S.. I looked to my left at the young associate for some confirmation. All I had to see was the young associate's ashen expression of both shock and panic, in equal measure, to know that I had heard what I had just heard. The interview ended pretty shortly after that, and I had not the courage to point out the offense that I had taken to his words. Because I had forgotten to bring my transcript they asked me to send the transcript and then they would make a decision upon their return to Chicago. Lo and behold, that very evening, before I could send off an indignant letter to the hiring committee, I had a letter from Mega Chicago law firm inviting me to an all expense paid trip for a call-back interview, hastily faxed from Chicago and put in an envelope and hand-delivered to my apartment. No need to see my transcript, I guess, when you're trying to save your hiring program from a world of trouble. I didn't take them up on the call-back interview, detailing in my letter exactly what the partner said to me, but that was as far as it went. I never heard back from them, and I let it drop.