In This Corner, AmLaw #16...

We have a dust-up between Fordham Law School, instigated or certainly escalated by its Dean, William Michael Treanor, and Reed Smith, which, a few days ago, canceled on-campus interviews scheduled for this week and next at Fordham. Unfortunately, students who had already signed up for those interviews are reported "to have lost a potentially valuable interview slot."  (Being unable to reschedule something worthwhile for those slots strikes me as the triumph of bureaucracy over common sense, but we'll let that pass for the moment.)

Dean Treanor didn't take this lying down, as first reported by Above the Law, and released a memo to the "Fordham Law School community" banning Reed Smith from participating in on-campus interviewing for the next five years.  The Dean explained:

Ethics and professionalism are at the heart of the legal profession. At Fordham Law, we strive to impart to our students the importance of these principles through our curriculum, clinics, and activities--and during the job search process. The importance of law schools instilling the tenets of professionalism in students is a theme we continually hear from legal employers.

[...]

While disappointing, Reed Smith's action is more disheartening because of the lack of professionalism it conveys. The firm could have made its decision earlier; in fact, it received its interview schedule prior to canceling its participation. In my seven years as Dean, no other firm has canceled its interviews after the schedule was released. [...]

At Fordham Law, we require our students to conduct themselves with the utmost professionalism, and we expect employers to demonstrate the same high standards.

Best,

Bill

Reed Smith's response today, also covered on ATL, reads in part:

Like every major law firm, Reed Smith is faced with a very difficult set of circumstances brought on by the global recession which has dramatically reduced the demand for legal services. This has resulted in layoffs, deferrals, fewer offers and now consideration about whether to have a 2010 Summer Program, and if so, at what size. Firms have taken a variety of approaches to handling the many issues raised by this environment. In all instances, Reed Smith has tried to make carefully considered business decisions and has communicated with the people affected by those decisions.

We have decided to maintain a 2010 Summer Program, although it will be a smaller program than in prior years [and therefore] we decided to reduce the number of schools we will visit for on-campus interviews. We immediately and directly discussed our decision with all the law schools affected, including Fordham. [W]hile we won't be coming on campus, we will still be considering students from their schools by reviewing resumes and conducting in-office interviews.

Fordham is an outstanding law school and we regret that our decision has caused problems for them. Reed Smith has many Fordham graduates in our lawyer ranks; all of them valued members of our team.

Michael Pollack, Reed Smith's Global Head of Strategy (and--disclosure--a friend, but I haven't spoken to him on this topic) also had this to say yesterday:

[T]his certainly isn't a situation the firm was looking for and he suspects the ban isn't a good situation for the firm or the students. He said he hopes Treanor would reconsider.

"We're trying to run a business just like he's trying to run a law school and I appreciate the pressures that he is under and I would hope he would appreciate the pressures we're under.  [...]  It's unfortunate that it didn't fit within Fordham's schedule and calendar, but we're trying to manage this thing as best we can.

"Does interviewing in August make sense when you're trying to project [what your needs will be] two years from now?" Pollack asked. "I suspect not."

Oh, and for the record, James Leipold, executive director of NALP, was contacted by the diligent Legal Intelligencer reporter and had this to say:

Leipold wouldn't comment on the specifics of the situation between Reed Smith and Fordham. Both are members of the NALP. But he did say there is nothing in NALP guidelines that would govern a situation like this. While the association has specifics on timing for when offers must be given or accepted, for example, it doesn't have anything regarding when firms can pull out of OCI.

"This particular fact pattern I've never seen before," he said. "It's new" like many things in this market.

Credit Leipold for candor:  Many things in this market are indeed, as he puts it with intentional or unintentional drollery, "new."

May we now review the bidding?

• We are in the midst of the most pounding and serious recession of the post-WWII era;
• 125 major law firms have announced or had confirmed layoffs (as of July) totaling 10,723 people, 4,015 attorneys and 6,708 staff;
• AmLaw Firm #16 (Reed Smith) decides that it probably can't, after all, realistically project its associate hiring needs two years hence;
• And faced with a decision (presumably) to go through with sham interviews or to honestly announce its intentions, it chooses B;
• Whereupon the Dean of US News law school #30, donning the robes of "ethics and professionalism," decides to deprive his students of on-campus interviewing opportunities with that firm for the next five years.

I readily admit that there are many dimensions of law firm management which baffle me, but I can usually understand the motivations and endorse the goodwill of those behind the decision-making.

But I confess, Dear Readers, I find myself utterly over-matched by how they make decisions in Academe.  It is a bridge too far for my brain.

Further affiant sayeth not.