whatever reason, the partners had a strong subconscious bias to perceive young associates as if they hadn't grown or improved since they arrived. If a firm was the first job, they'd think of the associate as a brand new lawyer even with three years of experience. And a candidate with three years' experience from another firm would be brought in and paid more.

I switched jobs a couple of times in my first few years. Both times I came in to the new firm and was more valued and paid more than people with equal experience and ability. And when I stayed a while, others would be brought in with my experience level and paid more than I was based on nothing more than resume.

When you've been somewhere a while, people know your strengths and weaknesses. If someone else interviews well, the higher ups only know their strengths and they don't think about potential weaknesses. For whatever reason, it's human nature.

That said, I might wait and see what really happens before complaining. It could be that higher ups got together and changed the hiring process this time so that they are interviewing more people no matter what. It could be that you are the fallback candidate and you might get the job anyway. I remember reading that Coach K told his wife she was his third choice for a date (kind of a lame move if you ask me), but they ended up married and, as far as I know, remain happily married a long time later.