I was asked to call the company for a phone interview. I spent most of the interview asking the interviewer questions. She did not have nearly as many questions for me. I was interested in the unique problems the company faces, what types of people I would be working with (Lawyers/paralegals/etc), how the interviewer enjoyed her employment, how the company defines success, if there were opportunities for continuing training and education, and if they offered benefits. I asked if any of the contract was negotiable or was the offer firm. She said negotiable. I asked her about pay rate. She stated that the actual pay was lower than the job posting (the number she floated was lower than the posting). At the end of the interview she said I was highly favorable. We said our thank you's and politely ended the conversation. The job recruiter called me to say that the interview went poorly because I asked to discuss the pay rate and that I stated my long term goal was to practice law. I am a law school graduate and my legal experience is what qualifies me for the job. Furthermore, the position was "at will" for a period no longer than 12 months and no benefits. My points being that the long term goal of practicing law by a law graduate should not be a red flag for a temporary position in legal research (encumbrance research(liens, etc.)), and employers offering no benefits to a full-time at-will employment who baulk at any mention of negotiating pate rate after stating that there is a negotiable range is, in my opinion, a red flag on their part signaling them as a company who has no respect for their talent. It seems like a bullying tactic. The interview was a waste of time and if that is the only experience I ever have with the company then I will not have a positive opinion of them. It was very disappointing because the position described in the job posting seemed interesting and fun.