Took nearly all day... met with the interviewer, and three others, one by teleconference. Each person I interviewed with took up 30 minutes of my time. Most seemed cool though. Also, I was given a skills test regarding contract review and revision. The good thing is that they provided lunch... the unusual thing about the lunch is that they, the interviewer and one other, took me out to a restaurant; meaning, a personality test ensued (i.e., not out of courtesy). Questions were not too difficult... revolving around my past experience; things I have done professionally. Red flags: 1) No questions were asked that indicated long-term consideration, such as future goals, where do you see yourself in five years, trying to get to know you as a person, and not much discussed as to long-term prospects about the company etc.--it seemed pretty clear to me, from this and other lines of questioning, that most everything about their priorities in filling this role was with regard to their immediate need; 2) One interviewer was weird... he would talk, and abruptly stop in the middle of what he was saying, and awkwardly stare into space; 3) The department I was interviewing for had recently been obliterated, yet for unknown reasons.. only two people remained and one just barely started; 4) The qualities they say they prioritized in a candidate seemed inconsistent. One thing emphasized on the phone, whereas another thing was emphasized in person. And this was the biggest problem about the interview / this company, to me... it indicated to me that this company is not too serious about hiring the right person not only long-term, but overall the best qualified person… it was based on something, but what?... I learned in my conversation over lunch with the interviewer what her actual priority was in hiring for the role... while experience is considered to some degree, I would assume, it became apparent that personality... how much she liked you... hanging out... chatting... etc., was the primary factor to her hiring decision (which is fine, because it is one of the primary factors on which I am basing my decision to go with an offer, if made). I had the major skills and experience that they prized and desired in a candidate that none of the other candidates had--I'm fairly confident because I got more information post-interview about it (which was nice of them to provide me) that indicated this, and my skillset is so unique that the odds any of the other three candidates had that exactly was incredibly unlikely. Moreover, in that post-interview follow-up, the interviewer provided some weird explanations about her decision--weird because she conveyed some offbase judgements about me that she just seemed to dream up--I never did or said anything in other words for her to judge me this way. Very bizzare and judgmental. Anyway... I wrote a lot because, as you may have surmised... I was at first upset about their decision... I thought it was unfair because, based on what they told me, I had exactly what they supposedly desired and valued in a candidate... but then I got some post-interview feedback, and reflected carefully about the whole process, and all this became apparent. It was just personality that the interviewer was prioritizing... which is fine, but very disingenuous. Just write back in your post-interview feedback saying (if you are reading this here's a pro tip for next time): "we found someone we thought who was a better fit with our culture."