« Rule of BadLaw | Main | Asylum for Domestic Violence »
1L Summer Dilemma -- Help?
I expected and feared that the 1L summer job hunt would be long and arduous. Instead, it's looking like it might be short and sticky. Here's the deal:
I've been offered a great summer position w/a nearby public defender's office. This job would give me time watching trials, interviewing clients, collecting evidence, helping to write memos, and even conducting mock trials w/my fellow summer interns. In short, it would give me incredible experience and I'm excited by the opportunity. They've offered me the job and they want to know within a week or so whether I'm going to accept.
However, I was also lucky enough to get an interview with a major labor union offering a summer fellowship through the Peggy Browning Fund. This would also be an incredible, but very different experience. The big trouble is, the interview isn't for 2 more weeks and then I'm sure they won't pick a candidate for at least a few days after that. That means I won't know if my interview could really be a job for possibly three more weeks.
So the question is: What should I do? My options appear to be roughly:
- Take the public defender job I know I've got and just plan to say "no" to the union if they offer me a job. (I think I should go to the union interview either way for the experience and the "networking.")
- Try to stall the public defender job for 2-3 weeks until I know whether I'll get an offer from the union, then choose.
- Say "no" to the public defender job I know I've got in the hope that I'll get an offer from the union.
The pros of the union job are that it would be a big step toward a career as a labor lawyer, which really sounds great to me. While I remain unsure about being a public defender, I'm nearly certain I'd be a great labor lawyer and that I'd love doing that. Another "pro" is that the union job comes with money and whatever "prestige" a Peggy Browning Summer Fellowship would grant. Finally, the union is very nearby; I could bike to work in about 5-10 minutes every day. The big cons of the union job: I don't have it yet. I only have an interview, and that's still a long way from a job offer.
So what should I do? Any thoughts or suggestions would be appreciated.
Posted February 20, 2004 08:19 AM | law school
Talk to the hiring people at the public defender's office, explain your situation and ask if they can hold out for a couple weeks. If they do, explain your situation to the union when you interview, in hopes that they will be able to make a decision sooner.
DON'T take the interview with the union if you've already accepted at the public defenders. It's a waste of their time, the interviewers will be able to tell, and, if the union people found out it would damage your reputation. News travels fast in the legal community. You don't want someone who knows a guy who knows a guy knowing that you cheated someone else out of an interivew and didn't take the union interviewers time very seriously.
I'd bet money that you'd get better experience as a summer at the public defender's officer than you would at the union. You'll see more cases go through the PD's office and get to see them from beginning to end. You'll probably just get a piece of a case at the union, and they may have you spend a lot of time doing research projects.
Posted by: M at February 20, 2004 09:05 AM
I agree with M, especially the part about not going on the union interview if you've accepted the PD position.
Posted by: Tung Yin at February 20, 2004 07:27 PM
Yes, I will echo the other posters' comments. Don't accept the interview if you have accepted the PD position. It is not good karma.
I would call of the defender's office, ask them for a few weeks to decide, and just be honest. You don't have to go into the relative merits of the jobs: I think the explanation that the union job might be paid, thus triggering less financial obligation on your part, and the lack of transportation are probably reasonable enough reasons.
All that having been said, I think a job at the PD's office would be an excellent way to learn a lot about issues that you care about. It sounds like you've got some fantastic options either way -- congratulations!
Posted by: transmogriflaw at February 20, 2004 09:04 PM
Bird in the hand.... (Besides, echoing Transmogriflaw, the public defender's office does sound like great experience.)
I wouldn't stress about the driving distance. Traffic is usually better in the summer and, having made the switch from walking to work daily to driving to school, it's not really all that bad.
Posted by: Matthew at February 21, 2004 11:07 AM
Go with the Devil you know...the labor movement isn't going anywhere. Plus, no job and/or internship you get now is going to make a career for you. The kind of practical experience you'd get with PD's would undoubtedly serve you better in the long run in as far as it would be the sort of practical experience that so many people lack now days. And yeah, I think it would be risking bigger problems to take an interview if you've accepted the PD job. There are lots of other ways that you could go about networking and such. Love to L.
Oh, yeah, Mike and Anne O. had a baby boy yesterday at 3 PM. Eight punds and some odd ounces as I remember.
Peace.
Posted by: Famous P at February 21, 2004 02:45 PM
One thing to consider when thinking of the union interview is whether or not you want to practice union-side labor law forever as a labor lawyer. Generally, I'd say 98% of the time, working for one side ensures that you'll never be able to switch to the other side in your career.
Just a thought...the rest of the commenters have pretty much hit everything else.
Posted by: mediocre law student at February 21, 2004 10:02 PM
Thank you all for your great advice. The consensus is clearly that the PD job would be the better experience, and the whole "bird in hand" thing is about as persuasive as anything. I didn't realize it was such bad form to go on an interview if you were sure (or fairly so) that you weren't going to accept the job. I mean, it's not as if employers don't often conduct interviews knowing full well they have no intention of hiring the interviewee. This is espeically true with public jobs where laws require an opening be advertised and interviews held to prevent cronyism or whatever. But I guess such situations are less common in the legal world so I'll keep that in mind.
Oh, and about working as a labor lawyer and the chance that working on one side might make it hard to work on the other side in the future. What "other side"? If you're representing the interests of an employer, you're not a labor lawyer, you're an anti-labor lawyer, right?
Posted by: ambimb at February 22, 2004 09:54 AM
I was referring to the difference between union-side labor law and management-side labor law.
Posted by: mediocre law student at February 22, 2004 06:11 PM
I was referring to the difference between union-side labor law and management-side labor law. Labor law applies equally to both sides.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 22, 2004 06:12 PM
Ambib writes:
"If you're representing the interests of an employer, you're not a labor lawyer, you're an anti-labor lawyer, right?"
Actually, I think it's literally more accurate to say that you're a pro-labor lawyer.
Posted by: been there, done that at February 22, 2004 09:06 PM
Sorry, I guess I was being a little snarky with that management-side is anti-labor comment.
Posted by: ambimb at February 23, 2004 05:54 AM
With regards to interviewers not intending to give out the job at all and faking an interview: I have never seen that happen once in all my years of work in the private sector, and I have seen many hirings. It may happen in the public sector; I don't know anything about that.
The presumption in the private sector seems to be that there is good faith on both sides: the employee truly wishes to work there, and the employer is truly looking for a new hire.
Sometimes, even if both parties have good faith and the match is good, something doesn't work. Maybe there is an on-high corporate freeze on hiring that the interviewer doesn't know about, maybe the applicant's wife gets transferred across the country, maybe the applicant gets a better offer elsewhere. In those cases, both parties generally leave on good terms.
However, if one party has no real intent to hire or be hired, it's rude. When you, as either interviewer or interviewee, simply want to waste the time of the other party, you don't know who is going to remember that action. I think it's just bad karma.
(This doesn't apply to cases where you don't think you'll take it, but you want to learn more. I think that qualifies as good faith. I'm talking more about the cases where you've already accepted somewhere else, there's no chance you'll take the offer, but you go anyhow.)
Posted by: transmogriflaw at February 23, 2004 02:26 PM
