1. Any candidate whose resume lists as their most relevant qualification (as indicated by being the first thing I see after his or her name) a degree from Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc. I still have yet to see anything that makes me think those folks are better suited than non elite school graduates to be law professors. The overt pandering of listing the School first is all I need to know. If the candidate thinks the most important information is the name of his or her law school I assume he or she will follow suit when deciding on future hires. No thanks.
2. Any fudging on a resume or the AALS form. For example, the form asks candidates to list "major publications." I'd say that means listing the best of whatever the candidate has published. To me that excludes "in progress" which can mean nothing. More importantly, the the candidate who lists "in progress" as a "major publication" is highly likely to be excessively self-promotional. I can see a future resume -- every talk, one page introduction, and 5 page coauthored symposium piece listed under scholarship.
3. Not a smidgen of diversity. I am not looking for much here but most schools need another elitist education white male or female from a upper middle class family like they need a terrarium. In fact, they may need one of those less than a terrarium.
4. Political pandering in scholarship. Is the candidate a scholar? Does the scholarship reflect an openness to opposing positions. Does it at least raise them and address them? Is this the work of an intellectual curious person? Or, in a first outing as a scholar is there a lack of humility. I don't think I have met anyone who was not driven by intellectual curiosity at the outset then become intellectually curious later.