Cornell 2016 AJF/BOJF/DCJF/OCI

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
User avatar
runinthefront
Posts: 1769
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:18 am

Cornell 2016 AJF/BOJF/DCJF/OCI

Postby runinthefront » Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:38 pm

Image




CLS *rising* 2Ls,

AJF is upon you.

This is where you can discuss all things related to the job hunt: bidding, number of screener interviews, success with mass mailing, etc. Use the anon feature if you want to discuss sensitive information (such as your own GPA range) without having anybody figure out who you are from your regular username. Elder Cornellians will give advice, check your bidlists, etc.

When AJF begins, you should use the anon feature to report any callbacks, offers and rejections you get so that other neurotic folks can know what to expect and freak out accordingly. And when you report a CB, please include the initials of the screener you had if the firm sent multiple screeners; different screeners for the same firm may make decisions at different times. I will update the OP with a master list of CBs and rejections as you send them in, so you can check this post to see which firms have given out callbacks already.

Fall Recruiting Timeline:
6/14: AJF/BOJF/DCJF Bidding Opens
6/23: Bidlists Due for AJF/BOJF/DCJF
7/1: Schedules Available for AJF/BOJF/DCJF
7/6: Open Slots Available for AJF/BOJF/DCJF
7/7: Open Slots Close for AJF/BOJF/DCJF
7/13: Resume Review Deadline
7/20: Resume Upload Deadline; Last Day to Cancel Participation in BOJF/DCJF
8/1-3: August Job Fair (AJF)
8/4: OCI #1 & #2 Bidding Opens
8/8: Boston Job Fair (BOJF); Bidding due for OCI #1 & #2
8/9: Schedules Available for OCI #1 & #2
8/11: Open Slots Available for OCI #1 & #2
8/12: Washington, DC Job Fair (DCJF); Open Slots Close for OCI #1 & #2
8/22-23: On Campus Interviews #1 (OCI #1)
9/8: On Campus Interviews #2 (OCI #2)

Threads from Previous Years
AJF 2015
AJF 2014
AJF 2013
AJF 2012
AJF 2011

Helpful Job Hunt Thread: Compilation - OCI and Job Search Advice & Info
In addition to the link above, you should also continuously reference the "Recruiting Launch Information Packet" sent to you via e-mail in late April by the Office of Career Services, as it is comprehensive and well-written.

Image

Prepare, prepare, prepare. As cliche as this may be, "proper preparation prevents piss-poor performance." Seriously.

The night is darkest just before the dawn.

Image

Callbacks Reported (Firm + Office Location):


Rejections Reported (Firm + Office Location):


Offers Reported:

User avatar
Lavitz
Posts: 3379
Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 1:39 am

Re: Cornell 2016 AJF/BOJF/DCJF/OCI

Postby Lavitz » Mon Jun 13, 2016 11:06 pm

Finally checking in as an alum and retired OP.

Anonymous User
Posts: 299643
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Cornell 2016 AJF/BOJF/DCJF/OCI

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 14, 2016 6:52 am

Hey guys thanks for all the help - its much appreciated!

I have a 3.66 (this roughly puts in top 25%), anticipating a secondary journal and have relevant work experience. Interested in Real Estate, Cap. Markets and M&A. Interviewing skills are pretty inconsistent (usually ranging from bad to pretty good, depending on if i click with the interviewer). All firms listed NY - trying to get as many interviews as possible. GPA indicates average call back GPA for 2014 & 2015 AJF.

day 1:
1. Proskauer (3.6) (20)
2. Fried Frank (3.57) (20)
3. Greenberg Traurig (3.59) (20)
4. Kaye Scholar (3.5) (20)
5. Paul Weiss (3.67) (40)
6. Morrison and Forrester (3.47) (20)
7. Weil Gotshal (3.59) (40)
8. Latham (3.62) (60)
9. Willkie Farr (3.53) (60)
10. Cahill Gordon (3.42) (60)
11. Debevoise and Plimpton (3.69) (40)
12. Davis Polk (3.74) (60)
13. Schulte Roth (3.42) (40)
14. Chadbourne and Parke (3.51) (20)
15. Cleary Gottlieb (3.78) (40)
16. Clifford Chance (3.55) (100)
17. Sullivan and Cromwell (3.85) (40)
18. Cravath (3.81) (40)
19. Strook & Strook 3.28) (40)
20. Goodwin Proctor (3.42) (20)
21. Gibson Dunn (3.71) (20)
22. Bryan Cave (3.21) (20)
23. Pillsbury Winthrop (3.35) (20)
24. Seward and Kissel (3.34) (20)
25. Cooley (n/a) (20)
26. Curtis Mallet (3.24) (20)

Day 2:
1. Kirkland (3.57) (20)
2. Sidley Austin (3.65) (20)
3. Holland and Knight (3.52) (20)
4. Shearman (3.51) (60)
5. Allen & Overy (3.66) (20)
6. WilmerHale (3.61) (40)
7. Cadwalader (3.45) (80)
8. Paul Hastings (3.55) (80)
9. Simpson Thatcher (3.71) (60)
10. Winston Strawn (3.41) (40)
11. Millbank Tweed (3.66) (40)
12. Freshfields (3.61) (40)
13. White & Case (3.54) (60)
14. Akin Gump (3.58) (40)
15. Jones Day (3.57) (40)
16. Winston Strawn (3.41) (40)
17. Hogan Lovells (3.45) (60)
18. Dechert (N/A) (40)
19. Alston Bird (3.35) (20)
20. Baker Botts (N/A) (20)
21. Vinson Elkins (N/A) (20)

Day 3:
1. Ropes and Grey (3.63) (20)
2. Bois Schiller (3.67) (20)
3. Hunton Williams (3.38) (20)
4. Skadden Arps (3.76) (20)
5. Linklaters (3.39) (40)
6. Wilson Sonsini (3.26) (40)
7. Morgan Lewis (3.38) (20)
8. Pepper Hamilton (3.54) (20)
9. Hughes Hubbard (3.1) (20)

User avatar
runthetrap1990
Posts: 417
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2014 5:38 pm

Re: Cornell 2016 AJF/BOJF/DCJF/OCI

Postby runthetrap1990 » Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:49 am

I'm sure Lavitz will have a firm opinion as well, but here's my thoughts looking at what you have.

Anonymous User wrote:Hey guys thanks for all the help - its much appreciated!

I have a 3.66 (this roughly puts in top 25%), anticipating a secondary journal and have relevant work experience. Interested in Real Estate, Cap. Markets and M&A. Interviewing skills are pretty inconsistent (usually ranging from bad to pretty good, depending on if i click with the interviewer). All firms listed NY - trying to get as many interviews as possible. GPA indicates average call back GPA for 2014 & 2015 AJF.

day 1:
1. Proskauer (3.6) (20)
2. Fried Frank (3.57) (20)
3. Greenberg Traurig (3.59) (20)
4. Kaye Scholar (3.5) (20)
5. Paul Weiss (3.67) (40)
6. Morrison and Forrester (3.47) (20)
7. Weil Gotshal (3.59) (40)
8. Latham (3.62) (60)
9. Willkie Farr (3.53) (60)
10. Cahill Gordon (3.42) (60)
11. Debevoise and Plimpton (3.69) (40)
12. Davis Polk (3.74) (60)
13. Schulte Roth (3.42) (40)
14. Chadbourne and Parke (3.51) (20)
15. Cleary Gottlieb (3.78) (40)
16. Clifford Chance (3.55) (100)
17. Sullivan and Cromwell (3.85) (40)
18. Cravath (3.81) (40)
19. Strook & Strook 3.28) (40)
20. Goodwin Proctor (3.42) (20)
21. Gibson Dunn (3.71) (20)
22. Bryan Cave (3.21) (20)
23. Pillsbury Winthrop (3.35) (20)
24. Seward and Kissel (3.34) (20)
25. Cooley (n/a) (20)
26. Curtis Mallet (3.24) (20)


With your GPA I think you are being a bit too conservative with your bidding. In particular, you put a lot of firms that would be good fits for your GPA, and that present a good chance chance at call back, way out of any shot at getting them. For example, I would put Paul, Weiss, Latham, and Weil all higher. Maybe put PW at 2 or 3 (booming M&A and corporate practice) and Latham at 4. Also, Cahill may be a better option at a higher spot as well, given your work preferences and you would have a pretty solid shot at conversion. Putting GT and KS that high up are waste of bid spots (and maybe even FF), I think. If you do want Proskauer, would definitely keep them at 1 since they were really popular last year; however, think hard about this because I think there are firms on your list that may be worth a #1 spot over Proskauer.

Anonymous User wrote:Day 2:
1. Kirkland (3.57) (20)
2. Sidley Austin (3.65) (20)
3. Holland and Knight (3.52) (20)
4. Shearman (3.51) (60)
5. Allen & Overy (3.66) (20)
6. WilmerHale (3.61) (40)
7. Cadwalader (3.45) (80)
8. Paul Hastings (3.55) (80)
9. Simpson Thatcher (3.71) (60)
10. Winston Strawn (3.41) (40)
11. Millbank Tweed (3.66) (40)
12. Freshfields (3.61) (40)
13. White & Case (3.54) (60)
14. Akin Gump (3.58) (40)
15. Jones Day (3.57) (40)
16. Winston Strawn (3.41) (40)
17. Hogan Lovells (3.45) (60)
18. Dechert (N/A) (40)
19. Alston Bird (3.35) (20)
20. Baker Botts (N/A) (20)
21. Vinson Elkins (N/A) (20)


I think you do a better job here on this list, all though H&K is a waste of a spot at 3. Would consider throwing WH or PH up way higher instead. Also, and this is my preference, but I think you are a better match for Sidley than Kirkland although Kirkland has an apparently "lower" mean GPA. I would consider reversing. I would show Simpson some more love too. You are only a touch below their mean GPA and it would be a good fit given your preferences. Consider pushing them up into a top 5 spot, although consider it a reach.

Anonymous User wrote:Day 3:
1. Ropes and Grey (3.63) (20)
2. Bois Schiller (3.67) (20)
3. Hunton Williams (3.38) (20)
4. Skadden Arps (3.76) (20)
5. Linklaters (3.39) (40)
6. Wilson Sonsini (3.26) (40)
7. Morgan Lewis (3.38) (20)
8. Pepper Hamilton (3.54) (20)
9. Hughes Hubbard (3.1) (20)


I think this looks fine, in general.

Anonymous User
Posts: 299643
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Cornell 2016 AJF/BOJF/DCJF/OCI

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 14, 2016 5:41 pm

Thanks for taking over for lavitz and making this thread runinthefront, and thanks for the advice all!

GPA: 3.76; want to do NYC corporate (I don't know what practice area, I suppose M&A/private equity/securities). Worked in a law firm after undergrad primarily doing small M&A/securities for pharm & tech companies and enjoyed it. I'm concerned my list is trying to do too much at once, and that I should narrow my focus a bit to ensure I maximize my screeners.

Name (office if not NY) (slots) (2014/2015 gpa)

Monday:
1. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (20) (3.74/3.70)
2. Paul Weiss (40) (3.68/3.66)
3. Latham & Watkins (60) (3.63/3.62)
4. Cahill Gordon & Reindel (60) (3.46/3.39)
5. Debevoise & Plimpton (40) (3.72/3.67)
6. Davis Polk (60) (3.71/3.77)
7. Clifford Chance (100) (3.52/3.60)
8. Cleary, Gottlieb, Seen & Hamilton (40) (3.78/3.79)
9. Cravath, Swaine & Moore (40) (3.81/3.81)
10. Sullivan & Cromwell (40) (3.86/3.85)
11. Cleary, Gottlieb, Seen & Hamilton (DC) (20) (no data)
12. Willkie Farr & Gallagher (60) (3.56/3.51)
13. Schulte Roth & Zabel (40) (3.46/3.40)
14. Weil, Gotshal & Manges (40) (3.57/3.63)
15. Fried Frank (20) (3.58/3.57)
16. Cooley (20) (no data)
17. Morrison & Foerster (20) (3.58/3.37)


Tuesday:
1. Sidley Austin (20) (3.62/3.70)
2. Jones Day (40) (3.55/3.60)
3. WilmerHale (40) (3.62/3.60)
4. Shearman & Sterling (60) (3.48/3.54)
5. Paul Hastings (NY+Palo Alto) (80) (NY: 3.61/3.51) (PA:3.96)
6. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett (60) (3.73/3.72)
7. White & Case (60) (3.57/3.52)
8. Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft (80) (3.46/3.46)
9. White & Case (DC) (20) (no data)
10. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld (40) (3.52/3.65)
11. Hogan Lovells (60) (3.45/3.46)
12. Baker Botts (20) (no data)
13. Holland & Knight (20) (3.63/3.42)
14. Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer (40) (3.64/3.58)


Wednesday:
1. Kirkland & Ellis (20) (3.57/3.58)
2. Ropes & Gray (20) (3.63/no data)
3. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (20) (3.74/3.80)
4. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (Palo Alto) (20) (3.68/3.55)
5. Linklaters (20) (3.49/3.30)
6. Crowell & Moring (20) (no data/3.47)
7. McDermott Will & Emery (20) (no data)
8. Add more?

User avatar
Lincoln
Posts: 1153
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:27 pm

Re: Cornell 2016 AJF/BOJF/DCJF/OCI

Postby Lincoln » Tue Jun 14, 2016 6:08 pm

Just a thought:

Much like in game theory, part of the difficulty with AJF is that your ability to get a screener is dependent on what others do. So while it probably makes little difference if one person displays the bid list, if enough people do it, those who don't can rank their bids based on what they see their peers do. So collectively, it may be in your class's interests if you don't display your bid lists in this thread but instead ask upperclassmen and others to review in a PM.

User avatar
Lincoln
Posts: 1153
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:27 pm

Re: Cornell 2016 AJF/BOJF/DCJF/OCI

Postby Lincoln » Tue Jun 14, 2016 6:13 pm

Separately, some of the bids on both of the above lists are crazy for what you say you want to do.

User avatar
Lavitz
Posts: 3379
Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 1:39 am

Re: Cornell 2016 AJF/BOJF/DCJF/OCI

Postby Lavitz » Tue Jun 14, 2016 7:01 pm

Lincoln wrote:Just a thought:

Much like in game theory, part of the difficulty with AJF is that your ability to get a screener is dependent on what others do. So while it probably makes little difference if one person displays the bid list, if enough people do it, those who don't can rank their bids based on what they see their peers do. So collectively, it may be in your class's interests if you don't display your bid lists in this thread but instead ask upperclassmen and others to review in a PM.

Yeah, this is why I never posted mine on here. And it would be interesting to see if firms that traditionally had to be at the top of the list would be obtainable from lower if everyone didn't publicly post on TLS "PW NEEDS TO BE IN TOP 3." But I'm pretty sure that this ship has already sailed since I've gotten 3 fb messages asking "Should I bid X firm number 1? I've looked though old threads on TLS and it seems really popular".

Also there were a ton of people my year who didn't discover TLS until AJF started and you'd hear whispers in the hallways "there's this site where you can anonymously post callbacks. It's called...toplawschools."

Also by PMing, you'd have to PM several of us separately and then we could end up giving conflicting advice and not be able to respond to each other. So while PMing definitely has its benefits, I'm still going to post this since I already typed it out:

runthetrap1990 wrote:I'm sure Lavitz will have a firm opinion as well, but here's my thoughts looking at what you have.

Anonymous User wrote:Hey guys thanks for all the help - its much appreciated!

I have a 3.66 (this roughly puts in top 25%), anticipating a secondary journal and have relevant work experience. Interested in Real Estate, Cap. Markets and M&A. Interviewing skills are pretty inconsistent (usually ranging from bad to pretty good, depending on if i click with the interviewer). All firms listed NY - trying to get as many interviews as possible. GPA indicates average call back GPA for 2014 & 2015 AJF.

day 1:
1. Proskauer (3.6) (20)
2. Fried Frank (3.57) (20)
3. Greenberg Traurig (3.59) (20)
4. Kaye Scholar (3.5) (20)
5. Paul Weiss (3.67) (40)
6. Morrison and Forrester (3.47) (20)
7. Weil Gotshal (3.59) (40)
8. Latham (3.62) (60)
9. Willkie Farr (3.53) (60)
10. Cahill Gordon (3.42) (60)
11. Debevoise and Plimpton (3.69) (40)
12. Davis Polk (3.74) (60)
13. Schulte Roth (3.42) (40)
14. Chadbourne and Parke (3.51) (20)
15. Cleary Gottlieb (3.78) (40)
16. Clifford Chance (3.55) (100)
17. Sullivan and Cromwell (3.85) (40)
18. Cravath (3.81) (40)
19. Strook & Strook 3.28) (40)
20. Goodwin Proctor (3.42) (20)
21. Gibson Dunn (3.71) (20)
22. Bryan Cave (3.21) (20)
23. Pillsbury Winthrop (3.35) (20)
24. Seward and Kissel (3.34) (20)
25. Cooley (n/a) (20)
26. Curtis Mallet (3.24) (20)


With your GPA I think you are being a bit too conservative with your bidding. In particular, you put a lot of firms that would be good fits for your GPA, and that present a good chance chance at call back, way out of any shot at getting them. For example, I would put Paul, Weiss, Latham, and Weil all higher. Maybe put PW at 2 or 3 (booming M&A and corporate practice) and Latham at 4. Also, Cahill may be a better option at a higher spot as well, given your work preferences and you would have a pretty solid shot at conversion. Putting GT and KS that high up are waste of bid spots (and maybe even FF), I think. If you do want Proskauer, would definitely keep them at 1 since they were really popular last year; however, think hard about this because I think there are firms on your list that may be worth a #1 spot over Proskauer.

Yeah, being a bit to conservative with all those 20-slot, low gpa firms taking up the top 4, especially with relevant work experience. In general, I think you've got the right idea, putting the firms with fewer slots at the top and then steadily increasing. But something to keep in mind is that there are a number of firms that are always just too popular, so they fill up in the top 3 or so spots even if they have 40 or even 60 slots. For example, conventional wisdom has been that Paul Weiss has to be in the top 3, preferably 2, to have a shot. Of course, it's possible for this to change slightly from year to year depending on the popularity within your particular class (so if a firm stops doing firm receptions or something it could drop) and what other firms are coming that day, which changes each year. But I think that past results are still the best predictions, and I don't think you'd be able to get Paul Weiss below 3. Also I agree with Latham going at 4 since I hear it's popular now for some reason.

Since you have like 25 firms per day, I should mention that you shouldn't expect to get anything past, say, the 8th slot. You should certainly still bid all of these just in case you do snag some below that, and it is useful if you want to play it safe and e-mail / drop in at hospitality suites with firms you don't get in bidding, so you can say you bid on them. But generally the 8, 9, and 10 spots should be firms that have more than 20 slots and are also not popular for one reason or another (too competitive or bad/unknown reputation). In this case, I think Latham, Willkie, and Cahill are too popular to get down there, even with 60 slots each. TBH, I'm not sure what I'd bet on for Monday. Probably Clifford because of the 100 slots. And maybe Cleary/Cravath/S&C, although your gpa is probably a bit too low to make those good chances. Only firm I ever got at 8 was Williams and Connolly, and I immediately regretted putting them above Clifford Chance, since it was the only DC firm I got an interview with, and I had no good reason to be in DC.

runthetrap1990 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Day 2:
1. Kirkland (3.57) (20)
2. Sidley Austin (3.65) (20)
3. Holland and Knight (3.52) (20)
4. Shearman (3.51) (60)
5. Allen & Overy (3.66) (20)
6. WilmerHale (3.61) (40)
7. Cadwalader (3.45) (80)
8. Paul Hastings (3.55) (80)
9. Simpson Thatcher (3.71) (60)
10. Winston Strawn (3.41) (40)
11. Millbank Tweed (3.66) (40)
12. Freshfields (3.61) (40)
13. White & Case (3.54) (60)
14. Akin Gump (3.58) (40)
15. Jones Day (3.57) (40)
16. Winston Strawn (3.41) (40)
17. Hogan Lovells (3.45) (60)
18. Dechert (N/A) (40)
19. Alston Bird (3.35) (20)
20. Baker Botts (N/A) (20)
21. Vinson Elkins (N/A) (20)


I think you do a better job here on this list, all though H&K is a waste of a spot at 3. Would consider throwing WH or PH up way higher instead. Also, and this is my preference, but I think you are a better match for Sidley than Kirkland although Kirkland has an apparently "lower" mean GPA. I would consider reversing. I would show Simpson some more love too. You are only a touch below their mean GPA and it would be a good fit given your preferences. Consider pushing them up into a top 5 spot, although consider it a reach.

I don't think Wilmer needs to be way higher, since I got it at 5 my year. I hear Shearman is one of those popular firms that needs to be in top 3 to have shot, even with 60 slots. I've also been told (well, runthetrap told me) that PH is ridiculously popular and will probably fill up early despite having 80 slots. I guess everyone likes the idea of working in cubicles or something. Cadwalader should be solid at 7. Simpson at 9 might be a bit too low if you're really interested in it. Might want to bid it at 7 and push Cadwalader down if you want to be a bit more aggressive.


runthetrap1990 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Day 3:
1. Ropes and Grey (3.63) (20)
2. Bois Schiller (3.67) (20)
3. Hunton Williams (3.38) (20)
4. Skadden Arps (3.76) (20)
5. Linklaters (3.39) (40)
6. Wilson Sonsini (3.26) (40)
7. Morgan Lewis (3.38) (20)
8. Pepper Hamilton (3.54) (20)
9. Hughes Hubbard (3.1) (20)


I think this looks fine, in general.

Boies is here this year? Thought they stopped coming. I'm not sure why you'd want them if you're corporate, since they're really known for lit / pretty sure they're not a 100% offer firm, unless they changed. I almost want to recommend replacing it with Skadden, but I couldn't even get it at #1 my year, so who knows.

Also, if you want Real Estate, where is Duval? And Willkie should be higher then.

User avatar
runinthefront
Posts: 1769
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:18 am

Re: Cornell 2016 AJF/BOJF/DCJF/OCI

Postby runinthefront » Tue Jun 14, 2016 7:11 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Hey guys thanks for all the help - its much appreciated!

I have a 3.66 (this roughly puts in top 25%), anticipating a secondary journal and have relevant work experience. Interested in Real Estate, Cap. Markets and M&A. Interviewing skills are pretty inconsistent (usually ranging from bad to pretty good, depending on if i click with the interviewer).


Until you fix your interviewing skills, I think you should remain on the conservative side of bidding.

You can't retake Contracts (or the LSAT for Yale), but you can always practice interviewing. Get to it.

Winter is Coming
Posts: 391
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 9:51 am

Re: Cornell 2016 AJF/BOJF/DCJF/OCI

Postby Winter is Coming » Tue Jun 14, 2016 7:19 pm

Boies is (almost?) exclusively litigation and extremely hard to predict, so I'd watch out for that.

Anonymous User
Posts: 299643
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Cornell 2016 AJF/BOJF/DCJF/OCI

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 14, 2016 7:30 pm

first anon here

duval is not coming to AJF planning on mass mailing them @Lavitz, was also unaware about Boise being exclusively lit until today, will just take them off my list.

thanks to everyone on the advice - HUGE help and have made some big changes to the bid list

if possible could you explain any firms which immediately strike you as crazy? @Lincoln - Thanks!

User avatar
Lavitz
Posts: 3379
Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 1:39 am

Re: Cornell 2016 AJF/BOJF/DCJF/OCI

Postby Lavitz » Tue Jun 14, 2016 10:33 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Thanks for taking over for lavitz and making this thread runinthefront, and thanks for the advice all!

GPA: 3.76; want to do NYC corporate (I don't know what practice area, I suppose M&A/private equity/securities). Worked in a law firm after undergrad primarily doing small M&A/securities for pharm & tech companies and enjoyed it. I'm concerned my list is trying to do too much at once, and that I should narrow my focus a bit to ensure I maximize my screeners.

Name (office if not NY) (slots) (2014/2015 gpa)

Monday:
1. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (20) (3.74/3.70)
2. Paul Weiss (40) (3.68/3.66)
3. Latham & Watkins (60) (3.63/3.62)
4. Cahill Gordon & Reindel (60) (3.46/3.39)
5. Debevoise & Plimpton (40) (3.72/3.67)
6. Davis Polk (60) (3.71/3.77)
7. Clifford Chance (100) (3.52/3.60)
8. Cleary, Gottlieb, Seen & Hamilton (40) (3.78/3.79)
9. Cravath, Swaine & Moore (40) (3.81/3.81)
10. Sullivan & Cromwell (40) (3.86/3.85)
11. Cleary, Gottlieb, Seen & Hamilton (DC) (20) (no data)
12. Willkie Farr & Gallagher (60) (3.56/3.51)
13. Schulte Roth & Zabel (40) (3.46/3.40)
14. Weil, Gotshal & Manges (40) (3.57/3.63)
15. Fried Frank (20) (3.58/3.57)
16. Cooley (20) (no data)
17. Morrison & Foerster (20) (3.58/3.37)


Tuesday:
1. Sidley Austin (20) (3.62/3.70)
2. Jones Day (40) (3.55/3.60)
3. WilmerHale (40) (3.62/3.60)
4. Shearman & Sterling (60) (3.48/3.54)
5. Paul Hastings (NY+Palo Alto) (80) (NY: 3.61/3.51) (PA:3.96)
6. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett (60) (3.73/3.72)
7. White & Case (60) (3.57/3.52)
8. Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft (80) (3.46/3.46)
9. White & Case (DC) (20) (no data)
10. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld (40) (3.52/3.65)
11. Hogan Lovells (60) (3.45/3.46)
12. Baker Botts (20) (no data)
13. Holland & Knight (20) (3.63/3.42)
14. Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer (40) (3.64/3.58)


Wednesday:
1. Kirkland & Ellis (20) (3.57/3.58)
2. Ropes & Gray (20) (3.63/no data)
3. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (20) (3.74/3.80)
4. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (Palo Alto) (20) (3.68/3.55)
5. Linklaters (20) (3.49/3.30)
6. Crowell & Moring (20) (no data/3.47)
7. McDermott Will & Emery (20) (no data)
8. Add more?

Honestly, Monday looks pretty good. Maybe swap Latham and Cahill because the less competitive firms usually attract more bids. And even though Latham seems more popular lately, I got it at 4 back when it only had 38 slots, and apparently it now has 60. On Tuesday, should probably move Shearman above Wilmer and probably even Jones Day. You should be able to get Wilmer as low as 5. I know White and Case is usually popular, although I have no idea how high they would need to be now that they have 60 slots. Maybe 7 can still make it, but I'm not sure.

User avatar
Lincoln
Posts: 1153
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:27 pm

Re: Cornell 2016 AJF/BOJF/DCJF/OCI

Postby Lincoln » Tue Jun 14, 2016 10:43 pm

Anonymous User wrote:if possible could you explain any firms which immediately strike you as crazy? @Lincoln - Thanks!


Boies was the obvious one.

I also don't understand bidding Proskauer #1 unless you want to do sports law or employment. Kirkland is a big place that rakes in $$$ but personally I would pay $$$ not to be in their assignment system. Allen & Overy and other tiny offices are always popular which makes them hard to get even at #2, but they hire like 5 people per year and probably won't get you the kinds of deals you're looking for anyway. Hunton & Williams is a firm I've litigated against a lot (and gotten schooled in the process), but I've literally never heard of their NYC office as a player in deals. I've always thought of GDC as a heavy hitter in investigations and lit; their M&A practice seems miles behind firms that are otherwise their competitors.

Surprised you're not bidding STB higher.

Cue associates at all above-mentioned firms telling me I'm wrong in 3, 2, 1...

Edited for typos.

Anonymous User
Posts: 299643
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Cornell 2016 AJF/BOJF/DCJF/OCI

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 14, 2016 11:12 pm

Question: When a firm says that it wants the top 20% of the class but the GPA average is definitely not top 20%, what does that mean?

User avatar
runinthefront
Posts: 1769
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:18 am

Re: Cornell 2016 AJF/BOJF/DCJF/OCI

Postby runinthefront » Tue Jun 14, 2016 11:20 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Question: When a firm says that it wants the top 20% of the class but the GPA average is definitely not top 20%, what does that mean?


It means that you shouldn't listen to the firm's lofty "aspirations" for their ideal candidate. You shouldn't fail to bid on a firm simply because they say "Law Review preferred" or "Moot Court experience preferred." If they're within your grade range, bid.

Anonymous User
Posts: 299643
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Cornell 2016 AJF/BOJF/DCJF/OCI

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 14, 2016 11:30 pm

Question 2: How far is it typically permissible to "reach" for a firm outside of your GPA range? Say I have a 3.5 and the firm's low-end is a 3.6. Is that a no-go?

User avatar
runinthefront
Posts: 1769
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:18 am

Re: Cornell 2016 AJF/BOJF/DCJF/OCI

Postby runinthefront » Tue Jun 14, 2016 11:36 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Question 2: How far is it typically permissible to "reach" for a firm outside of your GPA range? Say I have a 3.5 and the firm's low-end is a 3.6. Is that a no-go?

it's not a no-go, but you should ask yourself whether you have anything going for you that would make an interviewer want to call you back (as opposed to others who may have grades closer to what they usually call back). Are you a good interviewer? If not, this is easily fixable. You can definitely "outkick your coverage" if you leave the interviewer really wanting to work with you somehow. Are you diverse? Do you have good pre-law work experience? Advanced degree? good undergrad?

Obviously this list isn't dispositive, but how far you "reach" really just depends on your own personal risk tolerance and an honest assessment of yourself as a candidate

Anonymous User
Posts: 299643
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Cornell 2016 AJF/BOJF/DCJF/OCI

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 14, 2016 11:53 pm

Awesome, thank you!

Anonymous User
Posts: 299643
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Cornell 2016 AJF/BOJF/DCJF/OCI

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 15, 2016 9:30 am

so if you lack a diverse background, you can still punch above your weight if you interview well? Anecdotally, what sort of stories do we have with respect to Cornell to back this up? Specifically, I'd like to know from non-diverse people whose parents didn't work in big law...

User avatar
Jakobe
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 12:10 am

Re: Cornell 2016 AJF/BOJF/DCJF/OCI

Postby Jakobe » Wed Jun 15, 2016 10:03 am

Anonymous User wrote:so if you lack a diverse background, you can still punch above your weight if you interview well? Anecdotally, what sort of stories do we have with respect to Cornell to back this up? Specifically, I'd like to know from non-diverse people whose parents didn't work in big law...


There are tons of students who are working at prestigious firms with grades below the firms average. Maybe you should go and talk to your fellow students, I mean, you have been surrounded by them for the last year. Also, not having a chip on your shoulder will probably help.

User avatar
Lavitz
Posts: 3379
Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 1:39 am

Re: Cornell 2016 AJF/BOJF/DCJF/OCI

Postby Lavitz » Wed Jun 15, 2016 10:59 am

Jakobe wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:so if you lack a diverse background, you can still punch above your weight if you interview well? Anecdotally, what sort of stories do we have with respect to Cornell to back this up? Specifically, I'd like to know from non-diverse people whose parents didn't work in big law...


There are tons of students who are working at prestigious firms with grades below the firms average. Maybe you should go and talk to your fellow students, I mean, you have been surrounded by them for the last year. Also, not having a chip on your shoulder will probably help.

I like your style. Tbf, it would be a bit much to expect every 1L to know the upperclassmen's exact grades + the firms they're working at.

But it was still a weird post because: 1) It came off as unnecessarily skeptical and confrontational. No idea why you would doubt runinthefront of all people. 2) I don't understand the "parents in biglaw" criteria. I think this applied to maybe 3 people in my class and I fail to see how this gave them any sort of edge beyond a better answer to "why law." 3) It seems pretty obvious that an average is an average, not a cutoff, and not everyone below the average is a URM. Callback averages aren't LSAT medians. It's not like firms are tracking these things and going "no, we can't give a callback to this white guy with decent grades and relevant work experience we really liked because he's .05 below our average from last year and he'll pull us down and we'll drop in the prestigious Cornell Law callback gpa rankings."

I don't know everyone's grades but there are a ton of people on secondary journals at V5 firms. And it's pretty common for good, likeable interviewers to get offers at firms with averages about .1 above your gpa. Whether you can expect to accomplish that, or higher or lower than .1 depends on the factors runinthefront already laid out for you.

User avatar
Lincoln
Posts: 1153
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:27 pm

Re: Cornell 2016 AJF/BOJF/DCJF/OCI

Postby Lincoln » Wed Jun 15, 2016 11:44 am

Anonymous User wrote:so if you lack a diverse background, you can still punch above your weight if you interview well? Anecdotally, what sort of stories do we have with respect to Cornell to back this up? Specifically, I'd like to know from non-diverse people whose parents didn't work in big law...


Anecdotally, I'm white as rice, my parents' idea of what I do is based on "Better Call Saul", I had median-ish grades and was on a secondary journal, and I work at one of the three firms with the highest CB averages based on the above.

Because I slay at interviewing (and don't make excuses for myself).

Anonymous User
Posts: 299643
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Cornell 2016 AJF/BOJF/DCJF/OCI

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 15, 2016 2:46 pm

Gracias, Lincoln.

Anonymous User
Posts: 299643
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Cornell 2016 AJF/BOJF/DCJF/OCI

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:58 pm

How much should the fact that a firm will have a hospitality suite factor into one's bidding. Ex. Fried Frank only has 20 slots but has a hospitality suite, is it even worth it to try and bid high and get an interview with FF or am i better off trying to get an interview with another 20 slot firm that won't have a hospitality suite>

User avatar
Lavitz
Posts: 3379
Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 1:39 am

Re: Cornell 2016 AJF/BOJF/DCJF/OCI

Postby Lavitz » Wed Jun 15, 2016 4:27 pm

Anonymous User wrote:How much should the fact that a firm will have a hospitality suite factor into one's bidding. Ex. Fried Frank only has 20 slots but has a hospitality suite, is it even worth it to try and bid high and get an interview with FF or am i better off trying to get an interview with another 20 slot firm that won't have a hospitality suite>

I could see it being a tiebreaker if you feel you have to choose between two 20 slot firms and they're otherwise interchangeable (same gpa range, same summer class size, would be fine working at either). How likely it is that you get an interview with the hospitality suite may depend a bit on the firm, but it will help a lot if your gpa is already above their average / the rest of your resume is solid / if you know any 3Ls in the hospitality suite who will recommend you to the recruiter, etc. In my firm's suite last year, I think 15-20 people must have dropped off their resumes, we only gave interviews to 2 who had high GPAs and gave a CB to 1 of those. Other firms may vary. I know people who are summering at firms where they were below the gpa average and had no interview before going to the hospitality suite.

In general, it's not a bad strategy to use bidding spots for firms where you have no connections, and dropping firms where you think you have an alternative path to an interview. A few examples: I once bid a firm at the bottom of my list so I could e-mail an associate I knew there and say that I bid on them but didn't get them; he forwarded my resume and I got a screener. I did the same with another firm where I knew a 2L summering there. I ended up e-mailing recruiting / asking my friend to forward my resume / showing up at the hospitality suite and giving them my resume yet again, until they finally gave me a screener. Worth noting that both of these were firms where I was about .3 above their average, and I was making room on my bidlist for more competitive firms. So if it's a target firm and the fact that they have a hospitality suite is the only special feature, I would probably only consider it as a tiebreaker between similar firms. Just my opinion.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.