Quote:
Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer
I try to put the candidate at ease as soon as possible. I want his/her guard down so I can get a better evaluation. And if they can't relax a bit, that also tells me something.
I like to let them start with questions. The questions they choose to ask often tell you a lot about their work ethic and judgment. I find it useful to ask about the most interesting matter they worked on/issue they had to address/class they took -- and why they chose that one. Usually gives some insight into analytical skills.
I don't use a grading system. I principally attempt to determine analytical skills, attention to detail, writing ability, judgment, accountability and work ethic.
A lot, but not the way you might think. If someone has a typo or other error on their resume, they are done. If they can't proofread and perfect a resume, which is an incredibly important document for someone seeking a job, they're not going to be able to meet my expectations. I also think you can glean a lot from the way people describe their background, like whether they can write precisely and whether they understand the legal business or not.
As for the substance, I generally won't even interview anyone who has had multiple jobs in a short time frame (which suggests they won't last here either) or who can't seem to make a decision about what they want to do with their career. Pedigree is nice to have, although we have soured on hiring from certain "elite" firms because lawyers tend to get no experience there. We increasingly want to hire scrappy candidates who are trying to climb the social ladder because of this generation's acceptance of mediocrity and complete lack of shame.
I always want two writing samples that have not been edited by anyone other than the candidate. I give more weight to the writing samples than anything else.
|
RL, we think alike. IMHO, your suggestions are spot on. When I find a typo or spelling/grammar error on the resume, I'm done. They don't even get an interview.