Free Newsletter sign-up
Michael Wolff: Everyone is lying

 

Search Justinian
Justinian's news stories

Executive shuffles at the feds ... CEO of Vic Supremes being lured back to the federal courts ... Fight on to keep Family Court CEO ... Blasphemy expert sits tight at FCC ... No money in the till for a better offer ... Read more ... 


Justinian Columnists

The unravelling of Trump's America ... Tax cuts ... Russia's election in America ... Unqualified judicial appointments ... Contempt at Guantánamo ... Degenerate art ... Our Man in Washington reports ... Read more ... 


This form does not yet contain any fields.

    "They are whining about the amount of money they are going to have to give me, and trying to get it reduced, which is really gross given I am giving all the money to charity." 

    Film celebrity Rebel Wilson, indicating she doesn't need $4.5 million worth of damages, even though she claimed she had lost work and her professional life was harmed because of defamatory articles by Bauer Media magazines. November 26, 2017  ... Read more ... 


    Justinian Featurettes

    Concerning Champagne ... Champagne - a product as much driven by marketing and legend as by the content of the bottle ... Ten myths exploded in a new critique of the bubbly libation ... Justinian's wine man G.D. Wendler explains - just in time for Christmas ... Read more ... 


    Justinian's archive

    The // universe with Evan Whitton ... Lord Robbo on justice for Radovan ... Organised crims love libel law, because they invented it ... It's time Bob French spoke up about the law against muttering ... Questions for Robert Richter ... Rugby quiz ... From Justinian's archive, August 6, 2008 ... Read more ... 


     

    « Horse talk | Main | Competitive advantage is an illusion »
    Monday
    Jul172017

    Moulds remain unbroken

    The diversity mirage for clerkship applicants ... The second round interview is more akin to social vetting ... An applicant's "likeability" is the key ... Our Student-at-Large complains about the charisma quotient 

    AS the clerkship application deadline looms for the year, students across the state scramble to cobble together over-achieving CVs and responses to the world's big questions - "what inspired you to study law?" 

    The hope, the expectation is that years of law revue dance rehearsals, student law society committee meetings and late nights in the law library will land them the key to that soon-to-be six figure salary at one of Sydney's top commercial law firms.

    With an increasing number of graduates churned out of law schools each year, and a dwindling number of jobs (don't forget to mention artificial intelligence in your cover letter!), the competition - or "Hunger Games", as The Australian Financial Review aptly called it last year - is getting hotter. 

    Yet, there has been a change in the tide - law firms have become more concerned with "diversity", assuring applicants that their firm is the paragon of meritocracy in a once nepotistic profession. 

    Long gone are the days when inequity was an accepted part of the game, to be replaced with all manner of new-age recruitment methods, with firms now "reaching out to candidates who don't fit the mould". 

    King & Wood Mallesons boasts a process that blocks out information including a candidates name, gender, address and high school. Instead, there's a "contextual" recruitment system that takes into account whether candidates come from a disadvantaged family, or rural or isolated area.

    They are not the only ones "reaching out". With firms holding practice interviewing sessions, hackathons, cover letter writing sessions and practice group presentations in the lead-up to applications, the old barriers to entry appear to have crumbled.  

    There's one key holdout from the glory days, though: the first and second round interview process for applicants. 

    Once a candidate has passed the first round, the remaining path to securing the coveted elevator pass is a contest of who's most well versed in the middle class art of managing small talk with a canapé in one hand and a drink in the other. 

    While wannabe management consultants are given problems to solve, and the public sector drills its graduate hopefuls with assessment centres and all manner of logical, numerical and verbal reasoning tests, many law firms still adopt an interview process that is more like a dinner date.

    Substantive legal questions are generally unheard of. Instead, an interviewer will throw in a behavioural question or two, but the biggest test is simply likeability. 

    Since the partner interviewing you is more likely to be a theatre going, marathon running, ex-GPS boy, than someone who went to a public school in rural NSW, the deck is stacked in your favour if you meet that descriptor too. 

    It's tough: firms want to find people who fit their "culture" and who will one day be able to schmooze satisfactorily with their private equity clients, and at the same time they want to give all applicants a fair go.   

    One's ability to charm is no doubt relevant to assessing suitability in a services industry, but industries with similar needs currently assess this as part of structured interviews that evaluate attributes more relevant to the role at hand.  

    If firms are truly interested in breaking the mould, it will take more than de-identified recruitment processes and presentations at universities. 

    The real solution is a more a meritocratic interviewing process that is not largely related to charisma, but which aims specifically to assess, as other industries do, people's aptitude for the day-to-day minutiae of the job. 

    Reader Comments

    There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.
    Member Account Required
    You must have a member account on this website in order to post comments. Log in to your account to enable posting.