It has unbelievably been months since we have published anything substantial on embattled national law firm Clayton Utz. So it was with arms wide open (like embracing a forgotten mate) that we welcomed the following comments emailed to us over the weekend from an eagle-eyed, anonymous Clayton Utz spy:
Since when did it become appropriate for HR staff to caution aspiring graduates against using words like “mate” in clerkship/graduate interviews? I have just finished reading the Melbourne University Careers Guide 2010 and thought Firm Spy would be interested to hear that Clayton Utz is currently offering the following interview advice to grads:
“avoid umms/errs, buzz words, colloquialisms/slang (such as mate, right, ok, yeah).”
Indeed the firm is giving such advice (page 43 of this link). Can you believe this outrage, mate?
For those querying the inherent mischief in the term “mate”, we offer the following characterisation given to the word by former PM John Howard (10/11/2003):
The two world wars exacted a terrible price from us – the full magnitude of that lost potential, of those unlived lives can never be measured. And yet, some of the most admirable aspects of Australia’s national character were, if not conceived, then more fully ingrained within us by the searing experiences of those conflicts. None more so than the concept of mateship – regarded as a particularly Australian virtue – a concept that encompasses unconditional acceptance, mutual and self respect, sharing whatever is available no matter how meagre, a concept based on trust and selflessness and absolute interdependence. In combat, men did live and die by its creed. ‘Sticking by your mates’ was sometimes the only reason for continuing on when all seemed hopeless. I was moved by an account written by Hugh Clarke, who, like thousands of other Australian and British servicemen, endured years of senseless cruelty as a prisoner of the Japanese after the fall of Singapore. He couldn’t recall a single Australian dying alone without someone being there to look after him in some way. That’s mateship.
But the helpful interview tips offered by the Clayton Utz run much deeper than its counsel to avoid apparently ockerish Australian parlance. The firm suggests (also on page 43 of this link) that interviewees:
- Dress smartly and cleanly. Wear something that makes you feel comfortable.
- Arrive early, but not so early that you build up excess nerves.
- Give a firm, not crushing handshake.
- Provide small talk which is interesting and warm/friendly.
- Be yourself, don’t role play someone else. Be enthusiastic thoughtful and confident.
- Be energetic, interesting and impressive.
- Avoid known distracting mannerisms. Don’t forget to smile.
- Involve (with eye contact) all of those interviewing you – each person’s opinion matters.
- Be thoughtful, honest and concise. Don’t ramble- be comfortable with brief silences.
- Use real life examples – bring concepts/issues to life.
- Ask questions if you have them, but don’t feel obliged to invent them to ‘appear’ interested.
A firm, not crushing handshake: is HR talking about the fabled seal paw?
We particularly liked the advice to “avoid buzz words”. However, Clutz Managing Partner Stuart Clark appears to have missed the memo on this one; on the firm’s rotating homepage banner he buzzes observes:
Global business demands global solutions.
Of course, we agreed with the advice that aspiring Clutz clerks should familiarise themselves with the firm. We’ve actually done the hard work for all clerks/grads wishing to learn a little bit more about the firm by compiling a short list of significant events in the firm’s 2010 calendar:
- 14 very profitable, well respected partners defected from Clayton Utz to build two Australian offices of Magic Circle firm Allen & Overy;
- Clayton Utz sacked over 30% of its Melbourne graduates;
- a former employee was given leave to pursue further claims against the Clutz for alleged sexual harassment and bullying;
- the firm was stripped of its credentials as an employer of choice for women by the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency;
- a librarian has created considerable controversy by hording an inordinate amount of firm fruit;
- a Clutz lawyer appearing on a reality TV show revealed her homewrecking past, cooking up a dish of office romance with a side of “single-mother-left-with-three-young-kids”;
- it emerged that another former lawyer is alleging the firm defamed her;
- renewed allegations were directed at the firm that it had orchestarted a calculated redundancy scheme during the GFC; and
- 10% of the firm’s partnership is calling for smoko after the largest IPO deal of 2010 was thrown on the backburner.
Perhaps the numerous partners to have defected from Clayton Utz in 2010 forgot about the concept of “sticking by your mates”? Share your views with our new poll to the right of screen.
Send the Firm Spy your news and views!
Loading...
Clutching at straws.
I once had a client telephone me specifically to advise me to instruct my clerk to refrain from referring to him as “mate”. Good times.
A criticism that gets thrown around far too commonly these days is that someone is “Un-Australian”. In this instance that criticism is well warranted.
Clayton Utz needs to get over themselves.
Meanwhile, I notice that no where on the list does it say not to use profanities, so I guess “How the f*ck are you?” is acceptable, as long as you don’t say “How the f*ck are you, mate?”.
Stay classy Clutz.
hahahahahahaha, f*cking Gold!!!
this is a bit of a non-story, isn’t it? do you seriously think any candidate interviewing at a big, evil, top tier law firm should be using the term ‘mate’ with their interviewers?
^ either works at Utz or suffers from a giant stick up their arse.
^ is still bitter about being rejected by top tier firms, mate.
Clearly!
To be honest, I’m not sure I’d be impressed if a prospective seasonal clerk called me “mate” during an interview. I’m not a huge fan of formality, but I think CU might have a point here.
I’m more interested in the fact that CU says: “Be yourself, don’t role play someone else.” Provided of course that yourself is”interesting and warm/friendly”, “enthusiastic thoughtful and confident”, “energetic, interesting and impressive” and “thoughtful, honest and concise”.
Rob = HR or partner at Clutz
who else would defend them??