NALP Loosens the Reins on Summer Associate Recruiting
NALP has ditched a guideline that firms give law students 28 days to accept a summer associate offer, as well as one prohibiting law firms from recruiting law students in their first semester. The overhaul is intended to spur innovation in entry-level legal recruiting.
December 13, 2018 at 12:24 PM
5 minute read
The law firm summer associate recruiting system got a big shake-up Wednesday when the National Association of Law Placement announced a major overhaul of its guidelines for on-campus recruiting.
Gone are the recommendations that firms give students 28 days to decide whether to accept a summer associate offer and that they wait until December of the 1L year to begin recruiting law students. In their place are a broader, more flexible set of guidelines that emphasize fairness and transparency without proscribing specific dates or timelines.
The change is intended to prompt more experimentation and innovation in entry-level recruiting, and give firms and schools leeway to decide which practices work best for them, said NALP Executive Director James Leipold.
“This has been a long time coming,” he said. “The market has become so much more diverse. This one-size-fits-all set of standards doesn't work. Law school graduates are being hired by a much broader range of organizations. Schools have very different employment profiles for their classes. Schools have very different academic calendars.”
Leipold acknowledged that the new standards look like a dramatic change on their face, but cautioned that summer associate recruiting in practice may not actually change that much. First, NALP's guidelines have never been mandatory, and firms and law schools have always had the ability to deviate if they wanted—though most adhered. And law schools still have the ability to impose their own rules on the employers who recruit on campus, he added. Moreover, law firms tend to follow the market and each other.
“People can continue to do what they've always done,” Leipold said. “If a school wants to say, 'If you're going to interview on our campus, you still have to leave offers open for 28 days,' or, 'We don't want you to contact our students until Dec. 1 of the 1L year,' they can still say those things. We're just saying, 'Not everyone has to do the same thing.'”
It remains to be seen what law school career services offices think of the change. Several careers services deans contacted immediately after the NALP announcement declined to comment, saying they hadn't had time to digest what the new guidelines will mean for their schools.
But NALP's board of directors, composed of representatives from both law schools and law firms, felt strongly that a major change was overdue, Leipold said. NALP has had a set of recruiting guidelines in place since 1978 and has frequently modified them over the years.
“The market is changing in every way so quickly that we need a set of standards that will work over a much longer period of time, that will work for a broader group of institutions, that provides real ethical guidance for all the players,” Leipold said.
Among the new guidelines:
- Employers should be mindful of students' schedules, particularly during their first semester of law school.
- Firms should establish “reasonable response deadlines and giving candidates a reasonable period of time to consider offers of employment.”
- They should avoid “undue pressure” on candidates to accept or decline employment offers.
Under the new guidelines, so called “exploding offers”—in which firms give students less than 28 days to accept—are allowed. However, individual schools may prohibit the practice, Leipold said.
Leipold said he doesn't anticipate a Wild West atmosphere this on-campus recruiting cycle, which officially gets underway in August. Rather, he expects different segments of firms and law schools to settle into a few sets of common practices, particularly because law firms are loathe to stray from their competitors.
“I don't think it will be 15 sets of rules,” he said. “I think the market will quickly settle again. Groups of school will coalesce around common regimes. But there might be two or three regimes. Every school is not going to have something different. The common practices might be very similar to the practices we've always had in place.”
NALP's former set of recruiting guidelines was already showing signs of erosion. Large firms were increasingly hiring summer associates in June and July after their 1L year—several months before official on-campus recruiting started. And firm offices that hire small summer associate classes were increasingly frustrated with the 28-day offer holding period, which made it very difficult to fill out their class, Leipold said.
The NALP board also worried that the previous rules coddled law students and didn't help them develop the professional skills needed to navigate a competitive hiring market, Leipold added.
“Never again in their lives will they have an offer that stays open for 28 days, or has all these guarantees,” he said. “None of their peers who went to businesses school have that sort of protected job market. It's an important set of skills to look for a job, receive job offers, and communicate with employers.”
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'Everything From A to Z': University GCs Tested by Legal, Financial, Societal Challenges
6 minute read'A Horrible Reputation for Bad Verdicts': Plaintiffs Attorney Breaks Down $129M Wrongful-Death Verdict From Conservative Venue
How Uncertainty in College Athletics Compensation Could Drive Lawsuits in 2025
'Basic Arithmetic': Court Rules in Favor of LA Charter School Denied Funding by California Education Department
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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