My One-L Life: The Looming Job Search
The planning for summer jobs—not just this coming summer, but the one after 2L year, which potentially leads to an offer of post-graduate employment—has begun in earnest, bringing with it a pressure to “network” that makes me cringe at the very word.
February 06, 2019 at 11:30 AM
6 minute read
|
It's my second semester at Michigan Law, and, yes, I've learned a few things. I've come to realize that a tough cold call will not kill me. The length of reading assignments is no longer surprising, and I know what a law school final exam looks like. Even better, I have blissful months ahead before I have to take another one.
But what would law school really be without a new challenge to induce widespread anxiety among 1Ls? Time to focus on the reason we sign up for all that student debt: Employment.
The planning for summer jobs—not just this coming summer, but the one after 2L year, which potentially leads to an offer of post-graduate employment—has begun in earnest, bringing with it a pressure to “network” that makes me cringe at the very word.
Michigan Law's “Meet the Employers” event, which is essentially a Big Law career fair at the stadium club in The Big House, was scheduled to take place last week. An ill-timed polar vortex forced its cancellation, but in the lead-up to the event, my classmates and I were bombarded with instructions about what to wear, what to say, how to shake a hand.
The answers to those questions: Do not wear anything interesting; dark suits only, with heels no higher than three inches. Chat about the weather, or sports! Shake hands firmly and smile; if your hand is clammy and wet, you will most likely be unemployed forever.
The fact that this advice was deemed necessary does not strike me as a vote of confidence. Though I suppose reminding us how to act like normal humans may have been a reasonable precaution, given the hysteria known to overtake 1Ls as a group, especially in situations that may or may not affect our future ability to pay back those student loans.
By now I have heard the word “networking” often enough that it has lost any real meaning. So for the purposes of this column—and because Con Law has already taught me the importance of defining innocent little words such as “necessary,” and “commerce,” and “and”—I looked it up. Dictionary.com defines the noun form as “a supportive system of sharing information and services among individuals and groups having a common interest.” How nice and friendly!
But the verb “networking”—a form beloved by career counselors—was given this definition: “To cultivate people who can be helpful to one professionally, especially in finding employment or moving to a higher position.” Ugh. This version is more clinical than collegial. Being cultivated does not sound particularly pleasant, and cultivating someone else sounds even worse.
My aversion to the word is probably due partly to its newness to me, at least in terms of applying it to my own career. In undergrad, I was an American Studies major with a concentration in print journalism, and not so shockingly, there was no real recruiting for jobs in that sector. (If such jobs exist. As you may have noticed, I'm in law school now.) Meanwhile, I watched my business school friends go to job fairs and attend dinners hosted by big banks and schedule daily calls with consultants at different firms, but the idea that such interactions could actually result in a lucrative job offer seemed strange to me.
Yet here I am, attending regular career information sessions and firm receptions, striving to present myself well while simultaneously trying to get some sense for what differentiates this Big Law firm from that Big Law firm. (Government and public-interest organizations, for obvious and unfortunate resource reasons, do not get the same prominence on campus when it comes to job opportunities.)
It's interesting to see what these firms choose to highlight about themselves, especially as they face a fresh onslaught of scrutiny about their lack of diversity. Panels of visiting Big Law attorneys are always asked about their firm's approach to increasing the representation of minority groups and women up and down the firm hierarchy. The responses are generally similar across firms: They recognize that diversity is an issue, and they're working on it.
Each Big Law firm also touts its global reach, its wide range of practice areas, its multitude of accolades and high-profile wins, and its commitment to pro bono work. Questions about “work-life balance” come up every time, too.
Sometimes parsing law firms' promotional materials seems more difficult than parsing the case from 1466 I just read for my Torts class. With this in mind, I understand the emphasis on networking and appreciate the goals behind it, despite my intense dislike for the word itself. It makes that parsing a bit easier by facilitating connections with people and providing a chance to learn about an office's culture, an organization's structure, an associate's day-to-day life, and so on. I also realize the privilege of attending a school such as Michigan Law, where law firms do much of the legwork of the recruiting and hiring process via on-campus interviews and visits from attorneys who tell us what we're getting ourselves into.
And of course, I see the value to firms in ensuring that prospective hires are genuinely interested in the firm's work, are capable of shaking hands correctly, and can competently converse with co-workers and clients alike when in settings less formal than an interview.
Ultimately, while I find the word “networking” to be off-putting—depending on which definition you want to give it—the word “employment” is pretty easy on the ear. So if you plan to come to a networking event at Michigan Law, rest assured that the heels will not be too high, the handshakes will be strong but not too strong, and the small talk will be top-notch.
Renee Griffin is a first-year student at University of Michigan Law School.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Innovation Over Regulation': Tech Litigators and Experts Share Insights on the Future of AI, Data Privacy and Cybersecurity Under Trump
Trending Stories
- 1Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 2Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 3Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 4Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 5The Law Firm Disrupted: Big Law Profits Vs. Political Values
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250