Well, I just had my talk with Attorney 2 about taking Attorney 4's position when she leaves. As I mentioned, his main concern about me is my "commitment to the firm." He and I both have good points, though I still think I should get the job. Here's a summary of the major arguments on both sides:
Me: I can give you as much, if not more, commitment than anyone else you can randomly hire.
A2: Let's be honest, I know you're going to leave if a better, more interesting, opportunity presents itself.
Me: That might be true, but so will anyone you hire. You just know me too well, so I can't lie to you and say that this is the kind of law I've been dying to practice since I was five. Also, even if I could lie to you about it, I think you know I wouldn't.
A2: I suppose that's all true. Point to you.
A2: I've never questioned your loyalty, but I need someone who can actually achieve what they want to achieve by working at this firm. You can't.
Me: Yes, I can. I need experience before I can go anywhere. So, for the next couple of years, I'm yours.
A2: Yeah, but you want to do health law. After a couple years, this firm does nothing for you. It's nothing but an experience builder for you.
N: Point to you.
Additionally, however, I think there's an overriding moral argument to be taken into consideration.
A2: I have my pick of any attorney I want, right now. Hell, I can get someone who was top 10% at University of Chicago, if I want.
Me: That's probably true. I have no bargaining chips and we both know it. But, I've been here for three years. You owe me this, asshole. Point to me.
I'll keep everyone posted on how this pans out. In the mean time, I'll be sitting at my desk, stuffing envelopes, filling in blanks, and building up additional bitterness and resentment towards my work situation. You know, the usual.