The interview was friendly and casual, but also somewhat anemic and low energy (initially, I assumed this was a side-effect of the COVID phone-only approach). The interviewers were very proud of their organization, which is always nice, but there was little substantive basis for their feelings offered in any tangible way. More specifically, I was curious why their relatively modest and somewhat recent foray into eDiscovery was necessarily superior as their tone implied (i,e, they acted like number one and they are not even one of the "big four"). The interviewers I spoke with seemed a little disengaged and somewhat under-prepared for the phone interview. When I cited specific platform skill information I sent in advance of the interview, at least one party did not appear to have access to (or perhaps did not read in advance) the material I referenced. May just have been a side-effect of having three 30 minute interviews scheduled across the lunch "hour", but I felt like there was nobody listening on the other end of the phone. The pace, descriptions and general content of the three interviews I engaged in were nearly identical, so there appears to have been no advance communication between parties prior to the call. Essentially, it felt like they were all winging it while sitting at their respective kitchen tables. This was a generally friendly group of folks who do not appear to fully comprehend the DC litigation services market very well (when I stated that legal services in DC was interesting because DC is a "big small town", one party thought I was referring to "square miles", which was a little disheartening). While CRA is a great company for certain regulatory and financial matters, they are certainly nowhere near the big four in size or influence when it comes to eDiscovery, so the odd, almost de facto smugness about their organization in the context of the eDiscovery field seemed ill-placed and misguided. It was a real turn-off and one of two reasons I felt it was kind of over before it really began. Especially odd was the idea of going through four interviews (including the recruiter) for a senior position in high-level, managed review in a law-first town like Washington and not ONE interviewer was a licensed attorney (definitely a first! I have never interviewed with a panel in this field and not had at least one attorney in the mix...this was the second reason I knew I was out) Generally, they were a very confident and nice group of people who appear to be deep in the throes of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. The strangest thing that occurred is that I withdrew from the process via email the day after the interviews and never received a reply. At first I felt that was a little odd, but I chalked it up to the notion that perhaps they were busy setting up their new DC office. I had essentially forgotten about it when just over a week later I received an email thanking me for my interest and expressing that they had decided to "not pursue my candidacy" (huh?); very weird. Also, their email went to the wrong email address (it went to a junk email I use for mass mailings from recruiters and head hunters, not my actual email from which all post-introductory exchanges had taken place). I was going to mention something in response, but then did not really see the point as they had solidly gone into my "life is too short to work with people who are..." by that point, so I simply sent a "sounds good/good luck". I can only assume my withdrawal email went the way of the Relativity skill list I provided at their request (sent but unread?) or got caught up in a junk mail or filter issue, but very unusual for sure. In the end, it does not really matter too much and is actually kind of funny!