Sullivan vs Harvard – and you thought campus recruiting was crazy in Blighty

Everyone seems to agree that this is the craziest, most stressful recruiting season the US has seen in recent memory (and that's saying something). More top law schools have moved what used to be autumn interview dates into late August. That has led to much debate over whether the entire recruiting season should be pushed back into the middle of the academic year. US law firms, concerned about the economy, are trying everything to manage the size of their 2010 summer class, from making all their job offers on a single day (Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom) to extending the offers on the spot at call back interviews.

"We are seeing a little bit of everything, which is understandable in this environment," says Susan Guindi, assistant dean for career services at The University of Michigan Law School. "We have had students receive offers right on the spot at callbacks, just like the old days. But there are also a lot of very fine firms that are waiting."

Perhaps nothing epitomises the anxiety of this recruiting season better than Sullivan & Cromwell's abandoned attempt to bypass a standard, set by the Association for Legal Career Professionals (NALP), that firms leave offers to students open for up to 45 days. In late July, Sullivan called several of America's top law schools and informed career services personnel at those schools that the firm would not be following the 45-day guideline, according to six sources with direct knowledge of the situation. All six spoke only on the condition that they not be identified publicly.

Instead, Sullivan told the career services personnel, the firm would require prospects to respond yes or no in two weeks.

Senior figures at law school had varying reactions to the move, but none reacted more strongly than Harvard, according to all six sources. Harvard informed Sullivan that, if it stuck with its plan to leave offers open for two weeks, the firm would not be invited to recruit on campus this year. Mark Weber, assistant dean for career services at Harvard, declined to comment. A Sullivan source familiar with the firm's recruiting strategy says the firm believed it could make more offers under the two-week rule because of the greater certainty it would provide. The source also points out that Sullivan was prepared to promise students that the firm would make offer decisions within two days of a second interview.

Weber also sent an email to several prominent law firms reminding them of the 45-day rule, according to a copy of the email obtained by The Am Law Daily. Other law schools, including New York University School of Law and Yale Law School, sent similar reminders.

Sullivan backed down quickly and promised to obey the 45-day standard, according to all six sources who spoke to us about the matter. But that doesn't mean the 45-day guideline is set in stone. James Leipold, executive director at NALP, says several firms have called the organisation asking if they could skip the 45-day rule in some way this season. Several have asked for permission to keep offers open for 45 days or until they collect as many acceptances as they want - whichever comes first. NALP has rejected this suggestion and told firms to abide by the 45-day standard, though, as Leipold says, "there is no NALP police" to enforce it. But firms are following the standard, Leipold says. "The fact that they even call us shows how seriously they take this," he says. "They do not want to get into a situation where a Harvard or Yale says your behaviour makes it so you cannot recruit here."

With offers and callbacks scarce, law schools are not encouraging students to use their full 45 days anyway, according to several career services officials. Jan Conroy, the director of public affairs at Yale, puts it this way: "People are encouraging students to make decisions more quickly, but there is no sense of pressure or coercion in any way." And, as we've previously reported, NALP itself has formed a commission to study the viability of the current recruiting model, which has been the focus of mounting criticism from US law firms who resent having to make recruitment decision so far ahead. So it's possible that this recruiting season will spur an even larger reform. "There has been anxiety from beginning to end about this recruiting season," Leipold says.

This article first appeared on The Am Law Daily blog on americanlawyer.com.

Click here to join the Legal Week Student Facebook group