Defender Dipshittery

Today I interviewed with a PD which prides itself on the high quality of its work and I was completely annoyed and disappointed.  The interview went something like this:

Q: So, it looks like you’re in the Georgetown Criminal Justice Clinic.  That means you didn’t go to Harvard or Yale.

A: Um.  Yes.

Q: I see a lot of recent environmental interest on your resume.  You’re obviously not interested in Criminal Law.

A: Nonwithstanding the fact that the environmental “interest” as indicated by my “resume” is a) longstanding by any measure and b) shouldn’t be used to draw broad inferences about me, I was wondering if you’d consider that over half of my elective credits have a direct bearing on Criminal Law could –possibly- indicate some interest?

Q: No.

Q: You don’t have a lot of volunteer activities and I see you’ve taken a string of paying jobs in depressed areas of the country.  Exactly how large is your trust fund?

A: Mea Culpa.  I have indeed soiled my hands with labor to feed myself and those whom I care for.  And I can’t even play squash.

Q: So you have clients – what are they charged with?

A: I have one client at this time, and the charge is X.

Q: (interest sharpens) So you’ll press for a jury trial?

A: The decision is ultimately my client’s and I’d like to give him more than one option.

Q: You’re afraid!  I knew it, you’re afraid to go to trial!

A:  Um.  No. 

So on. So forth.  There were some particularly cute moments.  I said I was interested in the intersection between local legal culture and legal decisions (meaning that just because you *can* do something procedurally does not mean that it’s *wise* to do it procedurally given factors like the judge’s personality, the prosecutor’s approach, etc.), particularly in that we’d have to rely on the opinions of other attorneys to make that kind of analysis, and not on our own experiences.  To me that’s intriguing, potentially problematic.  To them, a sign I should get a job doing statistical analysis of court decisions instead of defending. 

**
Now, one would think there’s a way to demarcate “probing” questions from “stupid and pointless” questions.  Which there is.  And since I’m not really of the opinion that a trust fund or Ivy education lowers the IQ automatically, there’s probably a considered reason why PD offices try the swinging dick approach to interviewing candidates they know little or nothing about.  Perhaps it makes them feel like prosecutors and/or they get to externalize and thus “win” conversations they’ve previously “lost” with family, friends, and the ghost of Bill O’Reily.   Or it’s professional hazing.

Oh wait – there’s another reason.  In reality this is a clever tactic (one that really isn’t at all absolutely immediately transparent in the moment, really) designed to frustrate the usual conventions of polite discourse and elicit a response that indicates. . .that indicates. . .that indicates. . .

Yes – that’s where it breaks down.  That indicates what exactly?  It’s a selector – but what it is selecting for?   And does it actually do what it’s designed to do?

I doubt it.  Even not knowing the goal, I doubt it highly.  In reality the “conversation” isn’t about an exchange of factual information or an exploration of personhood so much as it just shows up the interview/interviewee power structure which is a mirror of the sadistic “Socratic method.”  You simply turn the conversation again and again from an insulated position of power, not for edification, but out of laziness.  You coerce the other participant into adopting a tone of emotional reaction that you, as the interviewer, think is appropriate.  All in all it’s pretty disgusting, lazy, demeaning to both parties, and embodies everything I hate about law school. 

The best part is imagining these people, who so obviously ate up the process with a spoon, as having the integrity to defend the very poor.  Which I've certainly been at points in my life.  Seriously.

**

Addendum - within the past 8 hours, I've been told 3 similar stories concerning this and other years.  Apparently this is part for the course there and generates a lot of resentment and bewilderment.

Comments

[blm]

As to what your "it" is selecting for: I get the impression the expected result is that an "ideal" interviewee will jump out of her seat, raise her voice, and zealously defend her resume, her committedness, her charmingly naive disregard of the financial sacrifice made obvious by the looming shadow of Big Firm salaries.

Perhaps this is intended to test for whether a potential defender will actually _defend_, but it seems to functionally result in selection of PD candidates who are easily manipulated.

Because independent thought is, as always, dangerous. Duh.

[theimbroglio]

Yeah, I had a somewhat similar experience interviewing w/a "reknowned" PD office. I like how you put it -- the swinging dick approach is just about right. I obviously didn't give them whatever reaction they were hoping for, and I came out of the interview having lost all desire to work for that office, so I guess the process worked -- it showed both of us that we didn't like each other at all.

Thus far I'm really appreciating working in an office that's not exactly known for the high quality of its work. On the downside it's maybe not as easy to learn from "the best," but on the good side it allows a new attorney to start making significant contributions right away and it is also allowing me to work closely with attorneys with a lot of experience. That may happen in bigger, more well-known offices, as well, but my impression was always that the bigger offices would put you on more of an "associate" path where you spend your first few years doing small misdemeanors and slowly work up to more serious offenses. That may be a great way to learn, but it's also nice to just get thrown right in and start mixing it up at all levels. I think. We'll see...

[Scoplaw]

Snort. Yeah, I'm completely with you on the easily manipulated bit.

As to selecting for people who will "spontaneous defend" - are you "your client," or are you your invisible client's "lawyer?" Are the interviewers supposed to be the prosecutors or are they supposed to be the judges? Should you be zealous or teflon-like? Outraged or respectfully correcting a mis-impression? Is this more like a negotiation session or a closing? (And, most crucially, should you refer to yourself in the third person or not?)

If the test is really for "defense" why not do what everyone else does, which is shoot out a series of questions actually designed to test for skill*s* in various situation*s*? That is - pose a hypo and have the interviewed play a role within in.

[Scoplaw]

Hey Imbroglio,

You posted when I was typing. I'll add you as story #4, because we're probably talking about the same place.

In some ways I think it's similiar to abusive behaviors designed to "toughen up" people who are dependent on you, and I imagine the rationales would be exactly the same. I think it's interesting that you didn't want to work for them after going through the process. ("Actually, your interviewing style made me realize I'm more comfortable with prosecutors.")

Ultimately, it really is just you and your client, but do you want to work in an environment where that idea results in disrespectful behavior that, considerd on its own, is independently sketchy and appears to embrace one of the most problematic mentalities that you're actually there to fight?

I mean, we both know a head PD who is uncompromising, smart, and radiates respect for everyone's fundamental humanity; her outrage is not personal, it's actually moral. It's a far better model for how to go about things I think.

[theimbroglio]

Yeah, we've been really spoiled by our good experience w/that head PD you mentioned. I appreciate her more every day! But if we're talking about the same "swinging dick" office, I believe they do have a lot of moral outrage and probably working there would be pretty cool because once you're "in," their whole attitude toward you changes. That was my impression from talking with people who worked there, anyway. It's just that they make you earn their trust/respect, and the way they do it is via that snotty/aggressive manipulation. I got the impression they were trying to make sure the people they hire are "true-believers" whose belief is based on experience rather than idealistic naivete. I understand why they'd want to do that, but I think they could go about it a better way.

Giving them a little benefit of the doubt though: Let's say I know a guy who works in an office where there are a bunch of people who *aren't* true-beleivers. This office does not use the swinging dick approach to interviews, and, well, it kind of shows in the people they hire. However, I can think of several good questions/scenarios that could select for eyes-open true-believers w/out playing the games you and I experienced.

Finally: You've probably seen this, but Skelly offers some good thoughts on the interviewing topic.

[Scoplaw]

I'm sure that's the "strategy" behind the dipshittery, but as Skelly points out, people *do* remember these kind of things, and therefore it makes little difference if the people who do make the mysterious cut *are* treated nicely. I have some vague structural ties with the people who interviewed me, so I'll be nice enough if I ever come across them, but going the extra mile, extending something beyond the plainest professional courtesy to them? I'd have to think about that.

If the "just doing what their bosses told them in the context of their job" argument does not cut it for police and prosecutors, why should it hold true for PDs in what ought to be a professional interaction?

**

By contrast I had a PD interview today (another well known city down south). The attorneys were friendly and interested and had me do a cross, impeaching by omission (go clinic!!) and a closing that summed up that cross. It was a little meandering, but with a few seconds preparation, what can you do? I thought that offered a good compromise between a non-hostile assessment of what a candidate wants and an appraisal (for what it's worth) of their ability to argue something on the fly.

I still think the office asked some questions that leaned toward an essentialist kind of approach. The interviewer initially said he wanted to see some passion from me and that I had an "FM Radio" voice (whatever that means - I hear myself as more of an AM guy). This is within 5 seconds of the interview starting. I don't think he meant much by it, but I couldn't help but wondering if I should bounce into the next interview, hyper on sugar and say in my best gameshow host voice "Howdy! I'm the Scoplaw! Gosh, isn't it great to be here with all you wonderful people!" While I don't think I have an over-developed sense of dignity. . .I mean, be fucking serious. These interviewers aren't "passionate" and it's pretty silly to expect interviewees to be in the context of just meeting someone. Present me with a jury, a judge, a client and then you'll see some passion. Outside of that content it's just play-acting on short notice.

[Scoplaw]

Now that you've had some time, would you be able to share your thoughts on the PD interview process in general?

[C.Ann]

I suspect it's simply to see how well one thinks on their feet. Perhaps one can get sidetracked, "personally", in tangential issues that aren't rellevant to the interview, esp. when the interviewer is at liberty to assert their bias, and basically attack you, but, yeah, essentially what the first comment says holds. Do you defend your position, or do you take offense at the secondary/tertiary implications of the questions?

Not that I want to work for those people, either, granted. The "local legal" concerns are enough to keep me well away from law school, and lawyers in general... I hope several of you manage to change that. Best.

[C.Ann]

I wanted to add that the intention I described above by no means reflects anyone's actual ability to access those interviewed. People who employ these tactics are seldom aware of possibilities they haven't considered and not receptive to being bested at their games. The process is built to fail, when it functions at all. Anyway.

[XR]

From my experience, the interviewing tactic is designed to identify candidates who, when their position is under attack, instinctually fight back and defend that position. The tactic selects for natural fighters at the expense of candidates whose reflexive response is to become stunned and bewildered.

Almost every facet of the criminal justice system -- not just prosecutors but judges, probation officers, police interrogation techniques, charging decisions, jail conditions, underfunding of PD offices, etc. -- works to push defendants into pleading guilty without any sort of resistance. It's a well-oiled machine, and defense attorneys can easily just go along with it. Bail set unreasonably high? Well, no point in fighting because the client couldn't make even a reasonable bail. The DA threw every possible bullshit charge into the complaint? Well, the case will probably plead out, anyway. The DA turned over discovery shockingly late? Well, it's not like it will make much difference at trial. The judge doesn't want to hear the details of your argument to suppress? Well, no point in giving it because he obviously won't grant the motion in any case. The judge's ruling is clearly wrong on the law? Well, no point in appealing because the appeals court almost never reverses, and I need to spend time on my other cases.

Every time a PD asserts the rights of his client, he is likely to encounter resistance from somewhere. Good PDs are the ones that don't go along. Who cause trouble. Who aren't afraid to make waves, even though it will piss off people in power -- people with a great deal of influence over your daily life. If you can walk into an interview for a PD job you covet and, when blinsided, tell the interviewer, "Actually no, you're wrong; I'm qualified for this job because X, Y, and Z, and it's naive for you to imply that no one from my school could ever be a good public defender" -- if you can do that, then you are probably the person they're looking for.

[Scoplaw]

I really appreciate the thoughts and your time XR.

Unfortunately, PDs also need patience when dealing with both their clients and the minions of evil.

Explaining things to the client in a calm and reasoned tone is part of empowering the client to make informed decisions; it also allows the client to trust the PD and perhaps be more forthcoming with information that can help the case. Often clients will have a strained understanding of the law and will ask you to do things that are outside the scope of your ability - patiently rolling with that can pay real dividends for your client. (This just happened to me this morning - explaining a tangential matter got the client's mental wheels turning.)

Explaining things to and working with petty bureaucrats (no matter how obtuse they may seem) and not flying off the handle as a *fighter* (“grr. grr. I’ll make you give me that document!”) can also be crucial. Yesterday I went to get some information from an entity which has recently changed some procedures. I patiently explained who I was, provided ID unprompted, explained why I was entitled to the information, and why they should give it to me via analogous reasoning. I also smiled a whole fucking lot. And I got what I needed for my client.

Now if you give me a *real* client, where I’m faced with those situations you mentioned, you can be sure I’d be pretty pissed off, but I would react *accordingly* - with the long term view of my client’s best interests in mind. Sometimes you should make a stink, sometimes you should let it go. It’s just like impeaching witnesses – sometimes people make stupid mistakes and you don’t want to throw them under the bus right away (no matter *how* much that might piss you off, or how much you’d want to) because of how that would look to the fact-finder. So you impeach accordingly. Sometimes, depending on your case theory, you need to hammer someone who probably does not fully deserve it. So you do that also.

Having one emotional and strategic reaction to all roadblocks, incompetence, and shenanigans is just plain stupid.

It’s also *easy.* How very much more difficult to reason/shame an opponent into doing something of their own free will than to “fight” them. But how very much more effective. An explosive burst of “That’s Outrageous!” might be less effective over time than a raised eyebrow and a “You’re joking, yes? I know you can do better than that.” Depends. But that’s the very point – it Depends.

I’m a guy who has a long history of causing trouble and sniffing (before deciding to nip or take off) the hand that feeds me. I dislike authority and like to think I have some integrity about that. I’ve also learned patience and my personal ego isn’t all that easily threatened.

The cynical view: if PDs does not want to get to know me as a person (insofar as one can in an interview) and instead wants to test my *play-acting techniques,* I suppose I’ll do my best to, in essence, lie to them by manifesting false passion toward a meaningless fact pattern, or getting worked up over somebody’s opinion of my resume. While such an action is a compromise of my integrity, it’s also in response to a pretty damn stupid way to assess people, and, per my thoughts about strategic behavior towards the *enemy,* I may as well play along with those who profess to be on my ideological side.

Hence my comments on demeaning emotional coercion for both parties.
They manifest their contempt with a lazy proxy strategy, I manifest mine by playing along. Unfortunately they are in the position of power, holding the keys to employment, so my playing along must conform to whatever expectations they have, even if it invovles self-mis-representation. Do they know this dynamic exists? Probably. Do many PD offices do this anyway? Yes. That's why it's lazy.

[Scoplaw]

C.Ann-

I hope you're not going to stay away from *me.*

[XR]

I think we're on the same page, Scoplaw. By "fight," I did not mean to suggest that candidates should fly off the handle, frothing at the mouth in their passion. Polite, calm, but firm resistance works best in court, and IMO it tends to work best in an interview. A PD who gets carried away, even in the service of a client, is not one who will be effective. If there's one thing every public defender needs, it's patience, and a lot of it. And as you point out, you often can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Still, there's a difference between a candidate who calmly and with reason defends him/herself, and one who lets challenges pass on by. I'm guessing we would agree on this distinction.

I take issue, however, with your characterization of the interview tactic as "lazy." It's not perfect -- by any means -- but I think it's born of necessity. Interviewers have a limited amount of time and techniques to assess your ability to succeed as a public defender. They already have a pretty good idea of how smart and hardworking you are -- that's in your transcript, resume, and letters of reference. The important but unknown variable is how you will perform in court -- a high-pressure, high-stakes situation in which you often have to think on your feet with less-than-ideal preparation. The closest proxy for such a situation is the formal interview.

Sure, interviewers could spend dozens of hours "getting to know you" -- and come to know you as a wonderful person -- but still not be sure how you'll perform in a court-like situation. They also could (and some do) make you undergo a mock proceeding, but that, to me is, is the real coercion -- most students have had trial practice and watched court proceedings and thus have a decent idea of how they should act in such a situation.

A curveball thrown in an interview, IMO, tends to better reveal a person's true instincts and manners. If you can come up with a better proxy, let me know.

[Scoplaw]

XR-

Yeah, while I suspect we’re pretty close and find your arguments reasonable, the devil’s in the details. And what’s the point of living in any system unless you critique it? Unless you try to make it better by reacting, analyzing, and speculating? Again, I'd like to thank you for giving me a conversation to speculate in.

The analysis in this thread (such as it is) focuses on the perspective of the PDs; how can they assess, in 20 minutes, the skill set they’re looking for? (Granted, there is usually a second, longer, interview at the candidate’s expense, but let’s pretend that first interview is very important.)

Ideally interviewers would probably want to see a strong showing in the passion department, whether or not the candidate can “sell” the better points a defendant to a jury/judge/parole officer, some indication of the candidate’s dedication, motivation, long term commitment to the job or a geographic area, basic thoughtfulness and legal competence, and personability (do you want this guy/gal having lunch with you on a regular basis?)

That’s a challenge for a 20 minute interview, but I can’t help but think of all those hurried interviews that a PD (a competent PD) must conduct on a daily basis. Usually our audience is not so captive/helpful as a job candidate must be.

Let’s suppose I’m representative of a homogeneous group, say: unmarried, age 25-6, Ivy Undergrad Liberal Arts major, “year off” spent in a structured community/charity/public interest work, Law School, at least one summer at some kind of PD, looking to land with a PD in a) hometown, b) major seaboard city, c) ex-college town. Those stories will sound similar. I don’t mean to suggest for a second that they’re not worthy, compelling, important human stories, but one could easily see why the standard tack of “So where did you go to undergrad?” falls a bit flat. The interviewer wants to draw interesting distinctions between the candidates.

But let’s suppose I’m not a member of that group (which I’m *so* not). Consider the interview from the perspective of the interviewee. I’m there to shovel as much information to the interviewer as they can handle. Wouldn’t the interviewer want to know *why* I chose to go back to law school? Why I chose to be a PD? What kind of skill set my break from the “average interviewee” gives me?

I mean, come on. As an interviewer you should be getting *some* information like that out of *all* your candidates (no matter how much you think they’re representative of a type).

Thus, I’d recommend a 5-7 minute interview in the classic vein – asking after things like experience, dedication, motivation, etc. Then follow that up with one or more of the following: “Now pretend we’re not colleagues – I’m an ADA, we’re negotiating a plea, and I’ve changed my mind about X” or “Now pretend I’m the judge and your client is accused of X” or “Now pretend I’m a police officer who has just lied to you on the stand.” That’s always going to be a “curveball.” The candidates (still in law school) are *not* going to have any of those scenarios so internalized that it would result in a by the numbers approach. They’re going to have to think on their feet in front of you.

And what’s so hard about structuring interviews in that way? Well – you have to put in some work for that traditional interview since your time is short and you want to get some bearing on those issues that won’t be addressed by mock scenarios. You also have to come up with mock scenarios which are going to bring out those qualities in your candidates that you want to see, while accounting for their developing skills.

Or you can just be a lazy Socratic asshole and relentlessly push people on their personal “weaknesses.” You want to test for reactions in a “tough” legal environment, so you put the candidate in a one-size-fits-all “tough” interview environment, while conveniently ignoring that the players and social dynamics being marshaled are radically different. (As an aside, it’s easy to view this as a variant of the affective fallacy.)

It may give you fine candidates in the end but there are hidden costs to Socratic pushing. To begin with, I’m not sure I agree with your coercion distinction. One way or another, to get the job you must respond favorably to the interviewer, so yes, these situations do have a power imbalance. But to me the question becomes how you choose to structure that imbalance. On one hand you’re being personally and relentlessly badgered by a person who (presumably) wants to hire you and foster your growth as an attorney. On the other, that person says, “I’m glad I know something about you; now let’s see how you react to the assholes you’re going to run into.”

It may seem an unimportant difference. It may seem that the system dictates *so* many of our responses that a PD interviewer chafes at yet another restriction in the form of questioning. However, the Socratic inquiry has an emotional element to it; you’re always going to remember your first encounter with your employer as their a) being a complete asshole, and b) being prepared to throw you under the bus to serve their ends. I’d argue it also fosters a closed mindset. Assuming Joe PD hires you after two rounds of brutal interviews; now you’re one of the gang. You’ve passed the interview bootcamp, and you’re off to PD training. So – how do you approach that office? Open hearted? Excited? Or wary – knowing that these are the *kind* of people who can/will/*have* grilled you if it serves their ends? I mean, sure, you’re thrilled to be there, you’re riveted by all the action, but do you really think that Joe PD has your back, is interested in you as a person? Or does Joe PD see you as a useful cog for the office – a cog that has passed stress testing? What’s the burnout rate for those offices?

You see, I think there’s something fundamentally incompatible with that exercise of power in the interviewing situation and some of the animating principles of Public Defending. While I try to be compassionate towards people, try to understand the pressures that make them do stupid things, like breaking the law, lying, treating other people like things, not listening, and failing to evidence a basic showing of human respect (insert your favorite “that’s why I’m cordial to prosecutors/cops” punchline here), there *is* a point at which you have to affirm your core values in daily life.

If you think people ought to be treated with fairness and respect by the system, you ought to treat them so within your own systems. If you think that subjective human motivation matters and that a sense of justice broadens the law’s narrow vision of actions, then you must account for human motivations in your dealings with people and not hold them to the narrowest standard. If you think that people ought to be heard, then listen. If you think that the adversarial system is often out of whack in practice and that the government blindly gloms on to whatever fault they can find in your clients, then it behooves you to have a little human warmth and decency of your own.

And not just with your clients.

[womanofthelaw]

I interviewed with pretty much every public defender that posts job listings, including the top ones, and let me tell you, there were definitely a few offices that were like that. Some of my interviews went ok, although I didn't get into the final rounds, and some went so terribly that I actually considered giving up the PD route all together, despite several internships and $150k sunk into a law degree focused, to the extent possible, on criminal law. It got pretty bad.

Here's the deal - it's ok to feel shitty about interviews, and it's ok to hate the people who believe that they can sniff out the 'best' public defenders - which may be based exclusively on law school or other equally stupid factors. And you know what? I still look back today and mock them for being such jerks, because I certainly would not like to practice in an environment that is so clearly harsh, unforgiving, and competitive. There's enough bullshit from DAs, judges, cops, clients... do we need it from our own coworkers?

If you have interviews with more offices lined up, feel free to email me and I'll let you know what I remember from my interviews.

[Scoplaw]

WotL -

Thanks. Time being what it is, that's a generous offer on your part. I'm pretty much in the boat you were in - and yes, I'm wondering if it just won't sink at some point. Somedays it seems that way.

But I don't mean to complain too much. The blog is kind of a spontaneous ramble which helps me to get different perspectives on things. Thus it's not entirely reflective of "reality."

Best,

Scoplaw

[C.Ann]

Not unless your ability to make eloquent arguements for a more humanitarian form of law are overtaken by a desire to justify your actions in a far more expidential $en$e... I just bomb at long-term planning.

[C.Ann]

(...and spelling.)