Law students must be bolder this year than in the past. Or perhaps they're recognizing the job market is a bit looser generally than it has been in recent years, and taking advantage. After yesterday's e-mail from the 3L who wanted to know why he didn't get a callback, today I got an e-mail from someone who got a callback but no offer, wanting to know if it was how she looked. She said there's a reputation on campus that we're one of a few firms in the area that seem to actively prefer pretty people, all else being equal. I'm not sure she's wrong. There is a time, although it's not all that soon after someone starts, when associates will meet clients, and I'd rather clients not meet ugly attorneys. They're going to get ugly anyway after a few years without sleep and subsisting on fast food alternated with 3- and 4-course business lunches. But at least if they start out attractive, and I don't just mean the women, we don't collectively fall as far down that slope as we could. I think how our people look reflects on the firm. If they look bright and attractive and friendly, our clients will want to work with us. If they're short, fat, and homely, clients will look elsewhere. I could understand the concern if we were using "attractive" as a code word for something else, like "white," or "Christian," or "unencumbered by children," but I don't think we are. We're as diverse as our peers. But I wouldn't be hurt if someone accused us of having better-looking attorneys. Or at least more attractive paralegals and secretaries, because there's really no argument to cut against that. Besides, wouldn't you rather look at pretty people all else being equal, especially given the hours we're here?
Yorumlar
Yorum Gönder