clip
Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2011
- Messages
- 22
- Reaction score
- 0
I attended a very lengthy seminar about interviews at law firms at the Law Society, and this is what I gleaned:
I think you're mixing up two different worries.
The first would be whether or not you're going to be able to dress appropriately for a Summer Vac interview. If the suit is clean and conservative and fits "ok" then there won't be a problem. With any kind of professional environment, those would be the main concerns, although the more visual things would be making sure your tie and (if worn) cufflinks aren't outrageous. One partner said that he always looked to see if shoes were clean, and if they matched the socks (ie they weren't white) but in fairness, the rest of the panel of experts had other ideas about that*. As with anything, your dress is important - but they are ultimately only looking to see if you can be presented to a client in the first instance; and the other stuff like your spoken communication and attitude will be far more important.
The second, separate issue is whether or not you are dressed well enough to meet your own particular standards. It never hurts to be well-dressed, but there will come a point at which you'll stray into gilding the lily. There is a difference between being well-dressed and appropriately dressed, and a law firm may not be looking for the former, especially from students.
Good luck with that, though.
*The guy was a recruitment partner at a corporate firm and mentioned that he looked first at an interviewee to see if they were dressed properly (he didn't say "well") He said that if a candidate had obviously not polished his shoes, that was an "instant fail" in his book. There may have been some merit in his philosophy, but other interviewing partners and HR managers from other firms countered that their policy was that very few things should be an "instant fail", maybe a Nazi insignia or prison gang tattoo on your forehead. And that anything else should be redeemable with a strong showing elsewhere. Of course, the consensus was that clean shoes are better.
I think you're mixing up two different worries.
The first would be whether or not you're going to be able to dress appropriately for a Summer Vac interview. If the suit is clean and conservative and fits "ok" then there won't be a problem. With any kind of professional environment, those would be the main concerns, although the more visual things would be making sure your tie and (if worn) cufflinks aren't outrageous. One partner said that he always looked to see if shoes were clean, and if they matched the socks (ie they weren't white) but in fairness, the rest of the panel of experts had other ideas about that*. As with anything, your dress is important - but they are ultimately only looking to see if you can be presented to a client in the first instance; and the other stuff like your spoken communication and attitude will be far more important.
The second, separate issue is whether or not you are dressed well enough to meet your own particular standards. It never hurts to be well-dressed, but there will come a point at which you'll stray into gilding the lily. There is a difference between being well-dressed and appropriately dressed, and a law firm may not be looking for the former, especially from students.
Good luck with that, though.
*The guy was a recruitment partner at a corporate firm and mentioned that he looked first at an interviewee to see if they were dressed properly (he didn't say "well") He said that if a candidate had obviously not polished his shoes, that was an "instant fail" in his book. There may have been some merit in his philosophy, but other interviewing partners and HR managers from other firms countered that their policy was that very few things should be an "instant fail", maybe a Nazi insignia or prison gang tattoo on your forehead. And that anything else should be redeemable with a strong showing elsewhere. Of course, the consensus was that clean shoes are better.