Toxic interviews from your employees must stop now
By Chere B. Estrin
There are times when law firms create hiring suicides. Yes, hiring suicides. This should be a new term coined for a situation that has existed forever.
A few months ago, we received a job search for an experienced IP Paralegal from an AmLaw firm we have worked with and enjoyed for years. The candidate we sent was far beyond the average: Master’s degree in IP from Turin University in Italy, where they spent a year abroad studying; a BA degree in Political Science, pre-law; Graduated 3.9 GPA/Summa Cum Laude and was on the Dean’s List; and more than 7+ years Trademark and Patent Prosecution experience at a well-known, prestigious firm. Additionally, this candidate has a personality and demeanor that is close to perfect, not to mention their professionalism. There, did I set the stage for you? I was in love with this candidate.
We arranged an interview for the candidate. Sure, at times, the firm was hard to work with in that they occasionally had the “We are BigLaw and can get anyone we want” attitude, meaning we will take our time – sometimes a long time. Perhaps they could. But really, folks, not each and every time. (I once had a firm that told me and I quote, “If we lose ‘em, we lose ‘em.” We stopped working with that firm.)
The interviews went well. There were no fewer than seven interviews, including phone screening, Zoom with the Paralegal Manager, Zoom with the team, Zoom with attorneys, Zoom with the HR Manager, Round Robins with attorneys that lasted 3 hours, and a final 4-hour interview that included the head of the department. Boy, they really wanted the perfect candidate – not that I blame them. In any event, they refused to get back to the candidate in anything that resembled a timely manner and wanted us, as firms say, to “keep the candidate warm”. In our business, it happens, but that is never an encouraging sign for the candidate. They cannot be expected to put their job search on hold while they wait for a firm – and there are no guarantees of an offer.
I never know how firms expect that in a tight candidate market where candidates receive 2-3 offers and counteroffers and are generally off the market in 10 days. Do they think that these candidates will sit around while the firm moves as slowly as a glacier? Not today.
The firm kept the candidate waiting for six weeks. Now, this candidate really wanted this job for a whole host of reasons: major move up, increase in salary, bonus and better benefits, opportunity to work with Fortune 10 corporations, new and challenging work. To only say it was their dream job, mitigates the high excitement also involved. They actually turned down several job offers while waiting. Was that taking a chance? You betcha.
Finally, we hear back. The firm was passing. Passing???? OK. It happens. Let’s find out why. Radio silence. Many firms will never tell you why, as they are too afraid of getting sued. Sometimes you get “not a culture fit’ but dang, if anyone can describe precisely what that is. Do they mean team player, hard worker, takes the initiative, high biller, passionate? What firm will say, “You know, our firm is looking for people who fit: people who don’t like others; hate what they do; want to work on their own with no interference; hate to bill hours, and oh, yes, waits for the work to come to them?” Hmmm…….
Ok. Onward. A week later, we get a call. The firm wants to consider this candidate for a different office! Holy, moly. Is he still available? Will he be interested? Yes, to both. So, the firm arranges for the candidate to go onsite for a 3-hour interview with the team, including the lead IP partner. I should have known. After all these years, I should have known. After what we hear is a successful interview, the firm dilly dallies. Yes, dilly dallies. I don’t know what else to call it. Finally, they tell us they want to offer the candidate a temp job to “try him out”. OK. Something is holding them back. We need to find out what the doubts might be. But then, we get the letter from the candidate who is withdrawing their application. Here is partially what the letter said (modified so the firm and candidate have the confidentiality they deserve.)
Letter from candidate:
“After my in-person interview and extensive reflection on that experience, I have decided to withdraw my application for the Trademark & Patent Prosecution Paralegal position.
The four-hour interview with [Annabelle] was intense, to say the least. While I can understand the need for thoroughness during interviews, the experience crossed into uncomfortable territory for me. At one point, the partner explicitly told me to “stop talking and listen,” as if I were a child, which felt highly disrespectful. Her interview approach came across more as an interrogation than a constructive discussion, leaving me feeling professionally diminished.
Following the interview, I had a candid conversation with the Manager, who indicated that I had performed well. However, even they described Anabelle as “intense” and “extreme,” repeatedly using a clawing gesture to emphasize her demanding nature, portraying her as an unrelenting and aggressive presence. While I understand the intensity of a corporate legal environment—especially after the repeated reminders throughout the interview: “We are Big Law… This is Big Law”—I did not see the important mentorship qualities I seek in the next attorney I work for.
It is true that the interview began amicably, with my accomplishments being acknowledged, including being a first-generation American and the first in my family to attend college. However, it soon shifted into a critique-heavy discussion, even challenging marginal details like my use of terms such as “being proactive” and “taking initiative” when describing my approach to the role. The constant critiques felt more like a reprimand than constructive feedback, further highlighting the disconnect between my expectations and the negative reality of working at this firm.
The Manager confirmed my negative impression by acknowledging Annabelle’s intense approach and explaining that she often overlooks the weight of her position and status as a renowned IP expert when addressing younger legal professionals. This and other instances during the interview left me with the impression that she is neither personable nor approachable.
Finally, throughout the interview, the partner mentioned the firm’s history of hiring missteps, perhaps to justify the intensity of the interview. While I understand the need for comprehensive screening, projecting past hiring mistakes onto a new candidate does not foster an encouraging or positive atmosphere. I want to emphasize that my overall interactions with the rest of the IP team throughout this process were positive, which is why I continued to make myself available, even when the firm did not reciprocate in a considerate manner over the past month. However, this final in-person interview raised too many red flags and left me deeply disappointed. While I understand the stakes for a candidate are high, I believe the interview process should reflect mutual respect and professionalism, demonstrating genuine interest in onboarding a new team member—not intimidating them from a position of power.
I approached this entire process with patience, professionalism, and respect, and I expected the same in return. Given all these negative factors, I have decided that this position does not meet my expectations. I can handle intensity, but I will not accept disrespect.
Therefore, I respectfully request that you withdraw my application immediately.”
Kudos to this candidate for stepping up. Now, let’s address the issues:
We have a policy at Estrin. We do not knowingly put candidates in toxic situations. We simply do not work with a particular department, attorney, supervisor or the firm itself. Having been in toxic situations in a previous life, I have seen that movie, and I know how it ends. Not well. Not ever.
Here are some key actions firms can take to prevent hiring suicide from happening again:
1. Understand Candidate Concerns: Was This “Cultural Fit” or Mistreatment?
It’s easy to ask if the candidate simply wasn’t a “cultural fit” or if they should have been more resilient. However, given the harsh language, hostile attitude, and negative comments in a three-what-turned-out-to-be four-hour interview, this firm and other firms must recognize that some behavior crosses a line. It’s essential that firms know what their partners, attorneys, and staff are saying in interviews. Unfortunately, many firms aren’t aware. How would HR know if staff members are actively warning candidates away? Employees don’t report it—they don’t walk into HR and say, “I just told a top candidate they shouldn’t work here.”
2. Address Bad Reputations Internally
Abrasive behavior from key staff damages a firm’s reputation. How many people in HR are aware of this, and what are they doing to address it? Here’s how the issue is often rationalized: “Attorney Jones is a major revenue generator; we can’t tell him what to say.” Or, “Candidates need to be strong enough to handle tough personalities,” or worse, “The agency is sending us poor candidates.” This is inexcusable. No firm should accept or condone disrespectful treatment of candidates (or employees) simply because of someone’s role or revenue impact.
3. Understand the Cost of Extended Recruiting Timelines
The inappropriate conduct of certain attorneys and staff members is causing firms to extend their recruitment process unnecessarily. “Difficult” personalities are delaying hiring, as HR is forced to re-engage in searches for candidates who may ultimately be deterred by insider warnings. Time spent by team members interviewing over and over leads to depressed revenue for the firm and overwork by other employees. With each delay, the firm loses revenue while the role remains unfilled. This is not just a hypothetical—it’s a direct result of the behavior that’s preventing qualified candidates from wanting to join.
4. Recognize How Firm Reputation Impacts Recruitment
If candidates are consistently deterred by negative experiences, the firm’s reputation suffers. Should the firm reprimand high-revenue-producing attorneys who contribute to this problem? Yes. The damage caused by these individuals is often more harmful in the long term than a poor overall firm performance review on Google Business Reviews. Word spreads quickly within the legal field, which thrives on reputation and community insight. Candidates talk, and many have shared with us that they avoid certain firms based on stories they’ve heard about disrespectful interview experiences or toxic work environments. High turnover rates and candid reviews on sites like Glassdoor speak volumes. Don’t keep using the excuse, “Only disgruntled employees review firms on Glassdoor.” Not so. The employee is not always at fault.
How to Fix the Problem
- Consider Programs for Negative Behavior Management
Years ago, anger management programs became a valuable tool for addressing excessive, unchecked anger in the workplace. A similar approach could be applied here to deal with employees whose negativity damages the firm’s reputation. Why aren’t firms firing problematic staff or leaders? Often, it’s out of fear of losing revenue. But firms should make clear, from the top down, that disrespectful behavior will not be tolerated. - Make Expectations Public and Train Interviewers
Most employees aren’t trained in effective interviewing, and while most wouldn’t disparage their firm, a few can ruin recruiting efforts. Firms should avoid “stress interviews” designed to test candidates’ reactions under pressure. The interviewer is not a psychologist able to interpret reactions properly. These methods leave candidates feeling resentful and mistreated, which they may share with others—both in person and online. - Differentiate Between “Tough” and Disrespectful Interviews
A challenging interview that tests skills and critical thinking can be effective, but disrespectful comments and anger cross a line. Unchecked rude behavior, illegal questions, and negative commentary damage the firm’s reputation and needlessly prolong recruitment. - Implement a Clear, Respectful Interview Process
Firms should establish a clear, respectful interview process for every employee involved in recruiting. A well-defined process helps set realistic expectations, allows both parties to learn about each other, and enables the firm to evaluate how a candidate’s strengths could benefit its goals. Proper interview training can make a difference.
Once, in my own role as President of the Legal Staffing Division of a $100 million + litigation support company I was dismissed as “the girl who runs the temp division.” (I ran a division generating millions of dollars). I took the matter to HR, and the entire executive team was required to undergo sensitivity training. It sure didn’t make me very popular; I’ll tell you that! While it didn’t change every individual’s perspective, it brought much-needed awareness to the problem.
Implementing these changes will build a positive culture where candidates feel valued, employees are held accountable, and the firm’s reputation is preserved in the legal community. If you or your firm is experiencing toxic or suicidal hiring, now is the time to stop. Please reach out if we can help. It’s the least you can do for your employees and candidates. They deserve the best. They really do.
P.S. Update: The HR Manager at the Firm was very concerned and has taken steps to correct any misconceptions about how to interview candidates. The candidate has already been interviewed for in-house legal departments and will soon get an offer. To be continued………
About the Author
Chere Estrin has over 20 years of experience in the staffing arena, including executive positions in law firms, litigation support companies, and the legal staffing divisions of a $5billion publicly held corporation. She is CEO of Estrin Legal Staffing, a nationwide staffing organization. Ms. Estrin was founder of the Paralegal Knowledge Institute, an online CLE organization. She publishes the prestigious digital magazine, KNOW, the Magazine for Paralegals, and is the former Editor-in-Chief of Sue, the Magazine for Women Litigators. She is also the author of 10 books about legal careers for attorneys and legal professionals.
Ms. Estrin’s contributions to the legal industry have been significant, and she continues to play an active role in shaping the future of legal staffing and training. She writes the popular,
award-winning blog, The Estrin Report, and has been interviewed by CBS News along with many top publications, such as The Wall Street Journal, Fortune Magazine, Forbes.com, Los Angeles Times, Entrepreneur Magazine, Newsweek, The Chicago Tribune, The Daily Journal, ABA Journal, Above the Law, ALM, Law360 and many others. She has also been a speaker for many prestigious organizations and written hundreds of articles.
As the Co-Founding Member and President of the Organization of Legal Professionals (OLP), Ms. Estrin has guided the association’s development and implementation of the eDiscovery and Litigation Support certification exams (first in the country) along with Pearson Publications, a $7 billion corporation specializing in certification exams and educational publishing. She was also the Education Director designing, creating and executing online, live training programs with an on-call roster of over 500 instructors throughout the world. Currently, she provides webinars on legal career matters for LawPractice and Lawline, two of the largest attorney CLE online training organizations.
Ms. Estrin is a co-founding member of the International Practice Management Association (IPMA) and the Organization of Legal Professionals, composed of a prestigious Board of Governors inclusive of judges, an ABA President, and well-known attorneys. She is the recipient of the Los Angeles/Century City “Women of Achievement” award and recognized as One of the Top 50 Women in Los Angeles. Ms. Estrin has been writing The Estrin Report since 2005 and most recently launched her podcast, “Lawfully Employed”.
Reach out at: chere@estrinlegalstaffing.com or visit her website at www.EstrinLegalStaffing.com.