« In praise of lectures | Main | Merits and mootness »

Sunday, October 18, 2015

Law School Hiring, 2015-2016, Thread Two

For the most recent comments, go here.

Please leave comments on this thread regarding whether you have received:

(a)  a callback from a law school and/or accepted it; or

(b) an offer from a law school and/or accepted it; feel free to also leave details about the offer, including teaching load, research leave, etc. A school listed as "offer accepted" may have made more than one offer and may still have some slots open.

Five miscellaneous things:

1. If you don't want your contact information displayed, enter [email protected] or something like that as an email address.

2. There is a  separate thread, "A Clearinghouse for Questions," for general questions or comments about the teaching market. Please do not use the thread below for general questions or comments. (Such comments will be deleted, not out of hostility or in a judgy way, just to keep this thread focused.)

3. There's quite a cache of materials relevant to the law job market under the archive categories Getting a Job on the Law Teaching Market and Entry Level Hiring Report.

4. The year's first hiring thread is here. Comments to that thread are now closed.

5. In each of the last five years, someone who is on the market has volunteered to aggregate the information on a spreadsheet. If you would like to volunteer, please contact me directly at slawsky *at* law *dot* uci *dot* edu, and I will get you set up.

Update: We once again have an aggregator! Below is the spreadsheet, which you can view and download here.

All information should come in through the comments. Our aggregator will use the spreadsheet to aggregate the information.  Only the aggregator will be able to edit the spreadsheet, but when the aggregator edits the spreadsheet, those changes will be reflected in the embedded, downloadable version below.

The aggregator will update the spreadsheet approximately once a week.

You can reach the aggregator at aalsaggregator (at) gmail (dot) com.

Originally posted October 18, 2015; edited October 22, 2015, to add aggregator information.

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on October 18, 2015 at 07:35 PM in Getting a Job on the Law Teaching Market | Permalink


Can folks share where they know business positions have been accepted? I know of Rutgers and Kelley School of Business. Have any of the offers at Notre Dame, Florida, Tennessee, Brooklyn, Richmond, Emory, Michigan and Wisconsin (am I missing any?) been accepted?

Posted by: anon | Dec 17, 2015 8:53:02 AM

There are about three business law candidates who are highly desirable and who have been getting all the offers. Outside of that small group, this is still a buyer's market.

Posted by: anon | Dec 16, 2015 8:06:00 PM

Most of the offers you're seeing are going to the same 3-5 people. Once they start accepting offers and turning the rest loose, those offers will flow to others.

Posted by: Chin Up | Dec 16, 2015 6:19:17 PM

I completely understand, but I do not think candidates would feel terrible in hearing back from a school they interviewed with at AALS. Maybe your school is their top choice for many reasons, and they would even turn down other offers to come to your school. My two cents.

Posted by: AnOn | Dec 16, 2015 6:14:45 PM

I'm pretty sure that any "still available" business candidates reading this blog and watching the dozen offers being reported here Already "feel terrible".....

Posted by: just saying | Dec 16, 2015 6:14:25 PM

Here's a safe bet: if you're a business candidate, contact any school that was hiring for business that 1) you're interested in and 2) regardless of whether they interviewed you in D.C. Simply let them know that you're still available and interested. That's it. Those of us hiring for business will totally understand, believe me.

Posted by: AnonProf | Dec 16, 2015 6:13:47 PM

But laterals don't know who you are!

Posted by: Huh? | Dec 16, 2015 6:09:37 PM

Putting aside my amazement that this requires further explanation, here goes: After D.C., we did contact everyone we weren't calling back with some version of "Enjoyed meeting you. We've invited back other people" To now post that we're still looking for someone (as our primary and secondary pools are exhausted) and are curious who is left would send this message: "Hey, enjoyed meeting you. We've now exhausted all options but we still aren't interested in you." Do you see the difference? I see the point in communicating the former, I see no point in the latter other than to make someone feel terrible.

And to answer the question, we are open to laterals.

Posted by: AnonProf | Dec 16, 2015 6:05:06 PM

"Yes, but it'll alert those business candidates who 1) we did interview and 2) who haven't accepted offers elsewhere that we have no interest in them (otherwise we'd call them back and not be asking "who is left?")."

AnonProf, could you walk me through your reasoning a bit more clearly? Your position is that you don't want to announce you're still looking because it will inform candidates whom you have no interest in—candidates who, by best practices, you should have rejected two months ago—that you do, in fact, have no interest in them. That is, you don't want to do this because it would rob those candidates of their delusions that you might hire them. That strikes me as a feature, not a bug, of the proposal. What on earth is your rationale for refusing to tell those candidates the truth? Sheer malice?

Posted by: anon | Dec 16, 2015 5:47:31 PM

AnonProf - is your school open to visitors or laterals to fill its business needs or is it wedded to entry level?

Posted by: AnonAnon | Dec 16, 2015 5:42:35 PM

Depends how they go about it, AnOn | Dec 16, 2015 5:23:54 PM.

If a candidate says, "I'm having a rough stretch trying to keep my chin up, and wanted to just let you know I'm still available," they'll sound desperate. But if a candidate says, "Hi I've got some news, (I'm half way done with an exciting new article), (J. Doe contacted me to work on some project), (things went really well with my VAP year, and I wanted to let you know), and by the way I continue to be very interested in working at your law school," I don't think there would be a sense of desperation. How about, "Happy Holidays. Wish your family the best. I continue to be interested in your law school," that too would seem a good approach.

But perhaps I'm wrong. What do other professors think?

Posted by: AnonProf | Dec 16, 2015 5:35:37 PM

AnonProf - don't you think that those candidates would sound "desperate" to a hiring committee?

Posted by: AnOn | Dec 16, 2015 5:23:54 PM

Here's my recommendation: If you're a business law candidate and are still available, contact all schools you interviewed with at AALS but have yet to hear from, and ask whether the position remains open. Problem solved.

Posted by: AnonProf | Dec 16, 2015 5:17:21 PM

AnonProf - don't you think those candidates whom you met but haven't called have probably figured out all of that at this point?

Posted by: Anon3 | Dec 16, 2015 5:16:59 PM

AnonProf - I'm a business law candidate

Posted by: anon | Dec 16, 2015 5:10:04 PM


Couldn't you use the hiring committee thread from earlier in the process to identify the other committees hiring in Business, and then contact peer schools to see who their second choice pick was? You could then reach out to those folks. Just a thought.

Posted by: anon | Dec 16, 2015 5:06:22 PM

Yes, but it'll alert those business candidates who 1) we did interview and 2) who haven't accepted offers elsewhere that we have no interest in them (otherwise we'd call them back and not be asking "who is left?").

Posted by: AnonProf | Dec 16, 2015 4:56:04 PM

I'd add to 3:45's comment that announcing an incomplete search will also probably generate a number of responses from lateral candidates if you make clear that you're open to them. You'll find your pool well-stocked fairly quickly, I'd guess.

Posted by: Anon3 | Dec 16, 2015 4:09:31 PM


Or you could just start making calls. Don't you think you identified the candidates who made your first cut and met them at AALS? Most would still be happy to hear from you.

Posted by: where there's a will | Dec 16, 2015 3:51:23 PM

BYU hired a tax person.

Posted by: Second Hand | Dec 16, 2015 3:46:10 PM


There is a quite easy way for you to do that: simply name what school you work for, and candidates will contact you directly letting you know of their availability. I'm not sure I see the need for secrecy on your end.

Posted by: anon | Dec 16, 2015 3:45:32 PM

It would be great if there were a way for all remaining Business folks to be identified. We find ourselves needing to go back to the pool as all our primary and alternate folks are gone, thus it'd be helpful to know who is left.

Posted by: AnonProf | Dec 16, 2015 3:13:44 PM

I agree that some of the comments above are pretty harsh and that it's a huge decision for the candidate. Holding on to multiple offers for a long time, though, might impact other candidates in addition to annoying schools. I'm not in business law, but almost every school I interviewed with had business law as the top priority. If the whole pool has really run dry in business, then maybe some of the love can trickle down to other fields.

Posted by: Not in Biz | Dec 16, 2015 1:07:11 PM

Before being so hard on those waiting with multiple offers, consider their perspective as well. It's not always the case that doing so is for strategic reasons. Accepting a job somewhere often means huge life decisions, not to mention attempting to find jobs if there are spouses involved. All of that takes time -- time that is quite frequently taken in good faith and with the best of intentions.

Posted by: anon | Dec 16, 2015 12:50:41 PM

The Notre Dame offer was business too.

Posted by: Anon | Dec 16, 2015 12:13:39 PM

Did American interview at AALS?

Posted by: anon | Dec 16, 2015 11:21:10 AM

Michigan has also made an offer, also in business.

Posted by: anon | Dec 16, 2015 11:09:30 AM

Any news from Ohio State or American?

Posted by: AnonT | Dec 16, 2015 9:11:03 AM

Once every five or so years, there's a great crop of business law candidates. This was one of those years.

Also, classes taught by business law people have gotten very large in the law few years (BA, M&A, Sec Reg, even Contracts), so there's a real need to hire.

Posted by: Losing the Whole Pool | Dec 15, 2015 10:56:44 PM

Yeah, this was the year for the business candidate!

Posted by: Anon | Dec 15, 2015 10:02:07 PM

What's up with business? That was Brooklyn's offer, too -

Posted by: Anon | Dec 15, 2015 9:25:32 PM

Emory and Wisconsin have made offers in business.

Posted by: anon | Dec 15, 2015 5:29:41 PM

No need to be snarky, 8:49. And really, what is the difference between what you wrote and declaring a failed search? No call-back candidates left, no one else in DC who fits your criteria. What's the plan now, short of declaring a failed search?

Posted by: Anon | Dec 15, 2015 12:41:46 PM

any movement in tax law positions? offers extended? accepted?

Posted by: limbo | Dec 15, 2015 11:41:28 AM

Brooklyn has made an offer

Posted by: anon | Dec 15, 2015 11:12:42 AM

Notre Dame has made an offer.

Posted by: Anon | Dec 15, 2015 10:03:15 AM

Or Emory or Wisconsin?

Posted by: Oh and... | Dec 15, 2015 9:50:32 AM

Any news on Brooklyn?

Posted by: Nona | Dec 15, 2015 9:47:28 AM

These conversations are very useful. But for candidates who are in play for an offer at schools - especially those that have recently voted - it's frustrating seeing posts on this thread that are not about whether offers have been accepted at particular schools or extended at others that might be making hires in similar fields. Can we move this to the clearinghouse or something?

Posted by: anon | Dec 14, 2015 10:08:22 PM

Losing the Whole Pool,

I'm of a similar mind as Dec 14, 2015 8:49:57 AM because I've seen the same happen at our law school. We often wait it out with a candidate, and the rest of the pool dwindles away to other schools, and then we declare a failed search. We've never brought back a junior lateral who has chosen a different school. Although over the years I've admired many of their achievements at a distance, once a person has been out of our pool we have never dipped back in the same waters. Of course there's no institutional rule that says we can't, but we simply move on as a group--in large part I think this is because the composition of our hiring committee changes, so the initial screening group's interests differ year by year; our topic search changes from year to year; we overlook even contacting the people, expecting the junior hire will want to stick at the new shop for a while before bailing; and heaven knows what other reasons. But I think you're mistaken to be so dismissive.

Moreover, you haven't addressed the fundamental problem for candidates with people holding onto offers that they are only using for leverage. And that, I think, is of greater ethical consequence than the effect of such gamesmanship on law schools. The cost for candidates waiting with bated breath are psychological and, far worse, by the time the Dean can finally make an offer, after the person uninterested from the beginning finally decides to stop playing games, the candidate might have already accepted a less desirable offer.

In some law schools, once the game is discovered, there is a long term institutional memory that doesn't sit well when requests for tenure or conference recommendations come around.

Posted by: AnonProf | Dec 14, 2015 9:45:35 PM

@anon 8:49:57 AM:

This is silly. It would not kill the appointments committees if they, for once, looked beyond strategic games they play with entry levels.

You say that alternates accepted other offers. Well, those offers were either at places better suited for the candidate than your school. In that case, you weren't going to "get" that candidate anyway. Or, you can reach out, express an interest and say you are interested and then interview the prospective candidate as a junior lateral during the 2016-17 cycle. Candidates who accepted other offers are not "lost" in any meaningful way.

I see no reason to favor entry level candidates over junior laterals (all else being equal). None.

Posted by: Losing the Whole Pool | Dec 14, 2015 8:21:07 PM

anon 8:49

if you are looking for someone in business law - I'm here :)

Posted by: anon | Dec 14, 2015 4:56:31 PM

I seriously question the reading comprehension skills of most commenters on this blog. Did I say we are declaring a failed search? No. I said "we've likely lost the whole pool." And, indeed, we did. The area is business and one candidate sat on the offer, despite telling us she was likely going to accept another offer. By the time she finally officially declined, everyone else who remained in our callback pool had accepted an offer. We then started contacting folks in our back-up pool, and they too have accepted offers. All that remains are people we interviewed in D.C. who do not satisfy our criteria. And we are a top 50 school.

Posted by: anon | Dec 14, 2015 8:49:57 AM

Anon 9:05, it's December 10 and you are declaring a failed search? Wow. Either you are hiring in an extremely esoteric area or else your school is lower tier and was attempting to hire out of its range. In all of the major teaching areas, there are still excellent candidates without offers.

Posted by: anon | Dec 14, 2015 8:05:54 AM

I think 3:06 was referring to the clinical conlaw position in newark, which I'm told is still before the faculty.

Posted by: anon | Dec 12, 2015 9:28:33 PM

Rutgers only made one hire this year. We are done.

Posted by: AnonProf | Dec 12, 2015 9:57:56 AM

any news on the Con law position at Rutgers?

Posted by: Anon | Dec 11, 2015 3:06:45 PM


Posted by: anon | Dec 11, 2015 2:05:39 PM

What field Rutgers?

Posted by: Anon | Dec 11, 2015 1:12:06 PM

Offer accepted at Rutgers.

Posted by: anon | Dec 11, 2015 11:58:09 AM

Detroit Mercy is done.

Posted by: anon | Dec 10, 2015 5:44:33 PM

Anon 2:15, I'd think that if you had some inside information that a search didn't pan out and you fit the bill, it might not hurt. But I would want to be quite sure of my information. It's hard to predict how a school that isn't feeling desperate (or at least particularly receptive) might react to an entry-level candidate who is attempting to work around the FRC system. As we're finding out the market is, or feels like, a very small pond and the risk of creating unfavorable impressions may be real. But perhaps actual hiring committee members will think differently.

Posted by: So&So | Dec 10, 2015 4:00:19 PM

Has anyone heard of offers from Ohio State?

Posted by: anoncan | Dec 10, 2015 3:33:48 PM

Question: if you didn't go on the market in August but have all your materials together, would it make sense to do a targeted mailing to schools that were looking but have not hired (assuming you could identify them)?

Presumably not, but I'm curious if anyone thinks otherwise.

Posted by: anon | Dec 10, 2015 2:15:39 PM

For most (if not all?) areas it's wrong to think you lost the whole candidate pool by now. First-tier schools (like Alabama) and second-tier schools (see above) and fourth-tier schools not mentioned have just this week made their first-round offers. And tons of really awesome people are left, both with and without offers. In fact, the biggest "stars" I know are still available, as are the biggest should-be-stars-but-are-undervalued-for-unfathomable-reasons.

Posted by: candidate | Dec 10, 2015 1:32:41 PM

Offer from Alabama in business.

Posted by: Anon | Dec 10, 2015 11:50:03 AM

Let's hope that, for the sake of consistency, any prof casting aspersions on (the very small number of) candidates who take some time to negotiate using multiple offers works at a school that is 100% transparent about where all applicants stand and keeps no candidate in limbo a single day longer than necessary.

Posted by: Limbo | Dec 10, 2015 11:40:00 AM

I so agree with AnonProf. We had a candidate who had already made clear that she had multiple offers and she preferred other offers to ours finally officially reject our offer yesterday. But given the amount of time that elapsed, we've likely lost the whole pool. So frustrating.

Posted by: anon | Dec 10, 2015 9:05:30 AM

Offer from Richmond in business.

Posted by: Anon | Dec 9, 2015 5:46:40 PM

I'd use stronger language than you. I think holding onto offers a candidate knows s/he won't accept is a harmful to law schools and candidates. To law schools because they can't move onto the next candidate, at least before the term of the initial or secondary offer expires, by which point their second and perhaps even third choices might no longer be available. Harmful to at least those candidates with less desirable exploding offers, which might expire before the uninterested candidate holding onto an offer solely for gamesmanship, finds it no longer strategically necessary to hold onto it. Therefore, I think the candidate should only hold onto offers that s/he is truly considering accepting.

Posted by: AnonProf | Dec 9, 2015 5:21:05 PM

Post a comment