GULC EIW 2017

(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
SubmedianHomeskAlien
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2017 8:32 pm

GULC EIW 2017

Postby SubmedianHomeskAlien » Tue Jun 13, 2017 2:24 pm

Didn't see one of these for GULC so I figured I'd get it going...

Past Threads:
GULC EIW 2015: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=249835
GULC EIW 2016: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=265183


Helpful template for reporting results:

Approx. class rank:
Journal:
Moot Court, Mock Trial, etc.:
IP background?:
Significant work experience?:
#Years out of undergrad:
Prestigious undergrad:
Other relevant factors:
Target markets:
Type of work sought:
Self-assessed interviewing ability:
#Screeners or callbacks prior to EIW from mass-mailing:
#Screeners received for EIW:
#Callbacks received from EIW screeners:
#Offers received:
Offer Accepted:
Other/Commentary:
Last edited by SubmedianHomeskAlien on Wed Jun 14, 2017 4:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
thelincolnlawyer
Posts: 377
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 11:33 pm

Re: GULC EIW 2017

Postby thelincolnlawyer » Tue Jun 13, 2017 3:01 pm

Checking in.

User avatar
Gray
Posts: 6863
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 1:02 pm

Re: GULC EIW 2017

Postby Gray » Tue Jun 13, 2017 3:57 pm

tagging b/c bored. Good luck 2Ls!

drich88
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 9:48 pm

Re: GULC EIW 2017

Postby drich88 » Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:37 am

Checking in too! Has anyone started reaching out to firms for pre EIW interviews?

Ar40
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2015 6:45 am

Re: GULC EIW 2017

Postby Ar40 » Sun Jun 18, 2017 2:09 am

Checking in.

User avatar
JustHawkin
Posts: 1768
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2013 10:54 am

Re: GULC EIW 2017

Postby JustHawkin » Sun Jun 18, 2017 11:19 am

Gray wrote:tagging b/c bored. Good luck 2Ls!

Yeah, bar studying sucks. This is way more exciting. Good luck Hoyas!

Anonymous User
Posts: 301180
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: GULC EIW 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 21, 2017 2:57 pm

my condolences to anyone in section 1 with a 3.73. That curve is bruuuutal.

oops this was Gray sorry for anon.
Last edited by Anonymous User on Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 301180
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: GULC EIW 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 21, 2017 8:28 pm

Anyone have an idea on how popular chicago firms are? Cant find much info from prior years threads.

User avatar
JustHawkin
Posts: 1768
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2013 10:54 am

Re: GULC EIW 2017

Postby JustHawkin » Thu Jun 22, 2017 4:33 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Anyone have an idea on how popular chicago firms are? Cant find much info from prior years threads.

OCS actually might be helpful with bid stats, etc. on this. They were for me wrt markets outside of DC, NY, LA.

Anonymous User
Posts: 301180
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: GULC EIW 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Jun 25, 2017 11:24 pm

This thread seems pretty dead but I'll post this here to see if any EIW veterans want to offer their thoughts on my current bid list...

GPA is 3.21. Prefer the PHI/DE/NJ firms, but tried to bid on a lot of NY firms to maximize my chances of getting an offer.

1. Venable – NY
2. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius – NY
3. Norton Rose Fulbright – NY
4. Kelley Drye – NY
5. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius – PHI
6. Ballard Spahr – PHI
7. Pepper Hamilton – PHI
8. DLA Piper - PHI
9. Dechert - PHI
10. Stroock & Stroock & Lavan – NY
11. Kasowitz Benson Torres - NY
12. Winston & Strawn - NY
13. Schulte Roth & Zabel - NY
14. Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft - NY
15. Kramer & Levin - NY
16. Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson – DC
17. Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson - NY
18. Seward & Kissel - NY
19. Greenberg Traurig - NY
20. Duane Morris - PHI
21. Drinker, Biddle & Reath – PHI
22. Hogan Lovalls - PHI
23. Chadbourne & Parke - NY
24. Baker & Mackenzie - NY
25. Cahill Gordon & Reindel - NY
26. Baker Botts – NY
27. Hewlett Packard – Wayne, PA
28. Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy - NY
29. Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo - NY
30. Willkie Farr & Gallagher- NY
31. Curtis Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle – NY
32. Hunton & Williams - NY
33. Baker Hostetler - NY
34. Fox Rothschild – Warrington, PA
35. Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell - DE
36. Richards, Layton & Finger – DE
37. Womble Bond Dickinson - DE
38. Potter Anderson & Corroon - DE
39. Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor - DE
40. Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young - PHI
41. Riker Danzig Scherer Hyland & Peretti – NJ
42. Pryor Cashman - NY
43. Polsinelli – DC
44. Squire Patton Boggs - DC
45. Bryan Cave – DC
46. Hughes Hubbard & Reed - DC
47. Bracewell - DC
48. Vedder Price – DC
49. Powers Pyles Sutter & Verville – DC
50. Cades Schutte – Honolulu, HI

Concerns:

1) With firms like Fox Rothschild and Hogan Lovalls, there's a ton of different offices coming to EIW, but Symplicity's bidding system seems to lump them all under the same umbrella in terms of bidding. (You don't bid on Hogan-Philly or Hogan-NY, you just bid on Hogan). I'm not sure how to factor this into my bidding strategy. For example, Fox Rothschild seems to get TON of bids, but the Warrington, PA may literally get zero.

This is relevant to me because if the bids are all lumped together, I should probably put Fox higher on my list as it will be harder to get a screener. BUT if the Warrington office is considered separately, I can probably afford to have it lower. Does that make sense?

2) The reason I have the Delaware firms low despite my geographical preference is because Delaware firms seem to get very few bids, and I anticipate ending up with a few Delaware screeners due to missing out on some of my higher bids. Am I going about this correctly? (I have no idea what I'm doing or if my strategy makes any sense at all).

3) Finally, many of the firms that seem to dip down to a 3.21 GPA also seem to have smaller class sizes than firms with somewhat higher GPA medians. Would you guys advise putting the "lower GPA, smaller class size" firms higher on my list, or the "higher GPA, larger class size" firms?

(When I say "higher" GPA, I don't mean super high - I mean something like a 3.30-3.35).

Anonymous User
Posts: 301180
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: GULC EIW 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 26, 2017 12:03 pm

If I have a 3 hour interview with a V10 firm (DC office) would that be a callback? I didn't have a screener so just wondering

User avatar
Gray
Posts: 6863
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 1:02 pm

Re: GULC EIW 2017

Postby Gray » Mon Jun 26, 2017 12:28 pm

Anonymous User wrote:If I have a 3 hour interview with a V10 firm (DC office) would that be a callback? I didn't have a screener so just wondering

Well it's definitely not a screener

User avatar
buckiguy_sucks
Posts: 2860
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2015 12:07 pm

Re: GULC EIW 2017

Postby buckiguy_sucks » Wed Jun 28, 2017 1:33 am

Anonymous User wrote:This thread seems pretty dead but I'll post this here to see if any EIW veterans want to offer their thoughts on my current bid list...

GPA is 3.21. Prefer the PHI/DE/NJ firms, but tried to bid on a lot of NY firms to maximize my chances of getting an offer.

1. Venable – NY
2. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius – NY
3. Norton Rose Fulbright – NY
4. Kelley Drye – NY
5. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius – PHI
6. Ballard Spahr – PHI
7. Pepper Hamilton – PHI
8. DLA Piper - PHI
9. Dechert - PHI
10. Stroock & Stroock & Lavan – NY
11. Kasowitz Benson Torres - NY
12. Winston & Strawn - NY
13. Schulte Roth & Zabel - NY
14. Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft - NY
15. Kramer & Levin - NY
16. Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson – DC
17. Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson - NY
18. Seward & Kissel - NY
19. Greenberg Traurig - NY
20. Duane Morris - PHI
21. Drinker, Biddle & Reath – PHI
22. Hogan Lovalls - PHI
23. Chadbourne & Parke - NY
24. Baker & Mackenzie - NY
25. Cahill Gordon & Reindel - NY
26. Baker Botts – NY
27. Hewlett Packard – Wayne, PA
28. Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy - NY
29. Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo - NY
30. Willkie Farr & Gallagher- NY
31. Curtis Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle – NY
32. Hunton & Williams - NY
33. Baker Hostetler - NY
34. Fox Rothschild – Warrington, PA
35. Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell - DE
36. Richards, Layton & Finger – DE
37. Womble Bond Dickinson - DE
38. Potter Anderson & Corroon - DE
39. Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor - DE
40. Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young - PHI
41. Riker Danzig Scherer Hyland & Peretti – NJ
42. Pryor Cashman - NY
43. Polsinelli – DC
44. Squire Patton Boggs - DC
45. Bryan Cave – DC
46. Hughes Hubbard & Reed - DC
47. Bracewell - DC
48. Vedder Price – DC
49. Powers Pyles Sutter & Verville – DC
50. Cades Schutte – Honolulu, HI

Concerns:

1) With firms like Fox Rothschild and Hogan Lovalls, there's a ton of different offices coming to EIW, but Symplicity's bidding system seems to lump them all under the same umbrella in terms of bidding. (You don't bid on Hogan-Philly or Hogan-NY, you just bid on Hogan). I'm not sure how to factor this into my bidding strategy. For example, Fox Rothschild seems to get TON of bids, but the Warrington, PA may literally get zero.

This is relevant to me because if the bids are all lumped together, I should probably put Fox higher on my list as it will be harder to get a screener. BUT if the Warrington office is considered separately, I can probably afford to have it lower. Does that make sense?

2) The reason I have the Delaware firms low despite my geographical preference is because Delaware firms seem to get very few bids, and I anticipate ending up with a few Delaware screeners due to missing out on some of my higher bids. Am I going about this correctly? (I have no idea what I'm doing or if my strategy makes any sense at all).

3) Finally, many of the firms that seem to dip down to a 3.21 GPA also seem to have smaller class sizes than firms with somewhat higher GPA medians. Would you guys advise putting the "lower GPA, smaller class size" firms higher on my list, or the "higher GPA, larger class size" firms?

(When I say "higher" GPA, I don't mean super high - I mean something like a 3.30-3.35).


You will be able to choose specific offices when you actually bid on firms.

Bidding Delaware firms low is fine if they historically dont even fill all their interview slots, but I'd get worried if your ties aren't really apparent through your resume (i.e. You'll be preselected) and the bid stats are not THAT good.

Small class sizes is definitely a huge concern but I don't have a good answer to this question because frankly I don't know. The best outcome would be to get in front of all of these firms (and kill it at the interview) and my sense is firms with bigger summer classes are more likely to offer interviews outside of the ones they do through their regular OCI schedule (either pre-OCI or on a shadow schedule or whatever) so try to pick up those interviews to the extent you can.

lawgirl1990
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2017 10:07 pm

Re: GULC EIW 2017

Postby lawgirl1990 » Wed Jun 28, 2017 11:53 am

3.33 gpa - interested in transactional - want NY - strong ties to London
Please help :(


Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (New York, NY) -

Greenberg Traurig, LLP (New York, NY) -

Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP (New York, NY) -

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP (New York, NY) -

White & Case LLP (New York, NY) -

Winston & Strawn, LLP (New York, NY)
 -
Dechert LLP (New York, NY)
 -
Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson LLP (New York, NY) -

Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP (New York, NY)
 -
Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP (New York, NY) -


Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP (New York, NY)

 -
Cahill Gordon & Reindel (New York, NY) -

Seward & Kissel LLP (New York, NY)
 -
Chadbourne & Parke, LLP (New York, NY) -

Willkie Farr & Gallagher (Houston, TX)
 -
Reed Smith LLP (New York, NY)
 -
Paul Hastings LLP (Los Angeles, CA)
 -
Vinson & Elkins LLP 
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP (New York, NY)
 -
Baker Botts L.L.P. -

Clifford Chance (London, UK) -



Allen and Overy London -

Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP (London, U.K.) -

Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP (New York, NY)
Clifford Chance (New York, NY) -

Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson LLP (Washington, DC)
 -
Linklaters LLP (New York, NY)

Foley Hoag LLP (Boston, MA) -

Hollingsworth LLP (Washington, DC) -

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (Boston, MA) -


Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (Los Angeles, CA) -


Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (Philadelphia, PA)
 -
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP (New York, NY) -

Linklaters LLP (Hong Kong)
 -
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP (New York, NY)
 -
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP (Los Angeles, CA) -

User avatar
BmoreOrLess
Posts: 2187
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 10:15 pm

Re: GULC EIW 2017

Postby BmoreOrLess » Wed Jun 28, 2017 2:18 pm

lawgirl1990 wrote:3.33 gpa - interested in transactional - want NY - strong ties to London
Please help :(


Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (New York, NY) -

Greenberg Traurig, LLP (New York, NY) -

Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP (New York, NY) -

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP (New York, NY) -

White & Case LLP (New York, NY) -

Winston & Strawn, LLP (New York, NY)
 -
Dechert LLP (New York, NY)
 -
Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson LLP (New York, NY) -

Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP (New York, NY)
 -
Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP (New York, NY) -


Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP (New York, NY)

 -
Cahill Gordon & Reindel (New York, NY) -

Seward & Kissel LLP (New York, NY)
 -
Chadbourne & Parke, LLP (New York, NY) -

Willkie Farr & Gallagher (Houston, TX)
 -
Reed Smith LLP (New York, NY)
 -
Paul Hastings LLP (Los Angeles, CA)
 -
Vinson & Elkins LLP 
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP (New York, NY)
 -
Baker Botts L.L.P. -

Clifford Chance (London, UK) -



Allen and Overy London -

Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP (London, U.K.) -

Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP (New York, NY)
Clifford Chance (New York, NY) -

Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson LLP (Washington, DC)
 -
Linklaters LLP (New York, NY)

Foley Hoag LLP (Boston, MA) -

Hollingsworth LLP (Washington, DC) -

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (Boston, MA) -


Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (Los Angeles, CA) -


Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (Philadelphia, PA)
 -
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP (New York, NY) -

Linklaters LLP (Hong Kong)
 -
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP (New York, NY)
 -
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP (Los Angeles, CA) -


Shearman and Mintz Levin should probably be on your bidlist somewhere towards the top-ish. If I remember correctly, Cahill is going to be tough to snag that low and should be in your wheel house grade-wise, so maybe consider moving them up. White & Case should probably be dropped lower; I think they're a bit grade selective.

Anonymous User
Posts: 301180
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: GULC EIW 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 28, 2017 2:41 pm

Also looking for some bidding help for at least the top 25.
3.2X GPA. No specific interests, will take whatever I can get. Bidding NY heavily due to GPA but would rather go somewhere other than NY or DC, hence the wide range of secondary markets included. Have strong ties to the south and decent ties to Boston.

1. Venable, DC
2. Morgan, Lewis, NY
3. White & Case, NY
4. Dechert, NY
5. Cahill Gordon, NY
6. Foley & Lardner, DC
7. Paul Hastings, NY
8. Weil Gotshal, NY
9. Schulte, NY
10. Linklaters, NY
11. DLA Piper, DC
12. Cadwalader, NY
13. Proskauer, NY
14. Milbank, NY
15. Goodwin, Boston
16. Fried, Frank, NY
17. Wilkie Farr, NY
18. Squire Patton Boggs, DC
19. Clifford Chance, NY
20. Mayer Brown, Chicago
21. Alston & Bird, Atlanta
22. Winston & Strawn, Chicago
23. Polsinelli, Chicago
24. Norton Rose, Houston
25. Greenberg Traurig, NY
26-50 (Have not ordered specifically yet)
Seward & Kissel, NY
Reed Smith, NY
Pillsbury, NY
Pepper Hamilton, Philly
Morris, Nichols, Wilmington, DE
McGuireWoods, Richmond, VA
McDermott, Will, & Emery, Chicago
Liddle & Robinson, NY
Latham, Chicago
Kramer Levin, NY
Kelley Drye, NY
Kasowitz, NY
Jones Day, Atlanta
Hunton & Williams, Richmond, VA
Hughes Hubbard, DC
Goodwin, NY
Cades Schutte, Hawaii
Baker McKenzie, NY
Choate Hall, Boston
Cooley, NY
Chadbourne & Park, NY
Drinker Biddle, Philly
Duane Morris, Philly
Foley Hoag, Boston
Freshfields, NY

- Steph Curry

User avatar
buckiguy_sucks
Posts: 2860
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2015 12:07 pm

Re: GULC EIW 2017

Postby buckiguy_sucks » Wed Jun 28, 2017 3:19 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Also looking for some bidding help for at least the top 25.
3.2X GPA. No specific interests, will take whatever I can get. Bidding NY heavily due to GPA but would rather go somewhere other than NY or DC, hence the wide range of secondary markets included. Have strong ties to the south and decent ties to Boston.

1. Venable, DC
2. Morgan, Lewis, NY
3. White & Case, NY
4. Dechert, NY
5. Cahill Gordon, NY
6. Foley & Lardner, DC
7. Paul Hastings, NY
8. Weil Gotshal, NY
9. Schulte, NY
10. Linklaters, NY
11. DLA Piper, DC
12. Cadwalader, NY
13. Proskauer, NY
14. Milbank, NY
15. Goodwin, Boston
16. Fried, Frank, NY
17. Wilkie Farr, NY
18. Squire Patton Boggs, DC
19. Clifford Chance, NY
20. Mayer Brown, Chicago
21. Alston & Bird, Atlanta
22. Winston & Strawn, Chicago
23. Polsinelli, Chicago
24. Norton Rose, Houston
25. Greenberg Traurig, NY
26-50 (Have not ordered specifically yet)
Seward & Kissel, NY
Reed Smith, NY
Pillsbury, NY
Pepper Hamilton, Philly
Morris, Nichols, Wilmington, DE
McGuireWoods, Richmond, VA
McDermott, Will, & Emery, Chicago
Liddle & Robinson, NY
Latham, Chicago
Kramer Levin, NY
Kelley Drye, NY
Kasowitz, NY
Jones Day, Atlanta
Hunton & Williams, Richmond, VA
Hughes Hubbard, DC
Goodwin, NY
Cades Schutte, Hawaii
Baker McKenzie, NY
Choate Hall, Boston
Cooley, NY
Chadbourne & Park, NY
Drinker Biddle, Philly
Duane Morris, Philly
Foley Hoag, Boston
Freshfields, NY

- Steph Curry


Don't even bother with Chicago or Hawaii or Philly. Decent ties to Boston probably aren't enough I think that Boston is historically really really ties sensitive. You need ties (and good ones) to all of those places. Idk how generalized ties to the south will get you in various southern markets. My sense is Houston is probably a good bet with general southern ties but idk really I didn't try the South. It may seem like wasted bids you're throwing around for fun that low but you can follow up with firms you bid low and miss and try to get those interviews in non-traditional ways.

Anonymous User
Posts: 301180
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: GULC EIW 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:19 pm

lawgirl1990 wrote:3.33 gpa - interested in transactional - want NY - strong ties to London
Please help :(
-


Wanted to chime in and say Hollingsworth is all litigation. If you want transactional, take them off. Your grades are okay but you'll need to be able to speak thoughtfully about what type of work you want to do and why the firm make sense for you -- make sure the firm does what you want!

Anonymous User
Posts: 301180
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: GULC EIW 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jun 29, 2017 4:33 pm

3.8x, vaguely interested in transactional but undecided. Only bidding 20-25 (have a couple of interviews already set up on the side) and I'm looking mainly at DC. Everything below is DC unless noted otherwise. No ties anywhere helpful. Thoughts on the bid list? Struggling to balance firms I like with the difficulty of getting an interview slot.

1. Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
2. WilmerHale
3. Davis Polk & Wardwell
4. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
5. Debevoise & Plimpton
6. Hogan Lovells
7. Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
8. Williams & Connolly LLP
9. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
10. Kirkland & Ellis LLP
11. Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP (NY)
12. Baker & McKenzie
13. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
14. Steptoe & Johnson LLP
15. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison (NY)
16. Shearman & Sterling LLP
17. King & Spalding
18. Latham & Watkins LLP
19. Morrison & Foerster (VA)
20. Norton Rose Fulbright
21. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (NY)
22. Winston & Strawn LLP
23. Sidley Austin LLP
24. O'Melveny & Myers LLP
25. Foley Hoag (Bos)

User avatar
buckiguy_sucks
Posts: 2860
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2015 12:07 pm

Re: GULC EIW 2017

Postby buckiguy_sucks » Thu Jun 29, 2017 10:56 pm

Anonymous User wrote:3.8x, vaguely interested in transactional but undecided. Only bidding 20-25 (have a couple of interviews already set up on the side) and I'm looking mainly at DC. Everything below is DC unless noted otherwise. No ties anywhere helpful. Thoughts on the bid list? Struggling to balance firms I like with the difficulty of getting an interview slot.

1. Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
2. WilmerHale
3. Davis Polk & Wardwell
4. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
5. Debevoise & Plimpton
6. Hogan Lovells
7. Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
8. Williams & Connolly LLP
9. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
10. Kirkland & Ellis LLP
11. Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP (NY)
12. Baker & McKenzie
13. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
14. Steptoe & Johnson LLP
15. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison (NY)
16. Shearman & Sterling LLP
17. King & Spalding
18. Latham & Watkins LLP
19. Morrison & Foerster (VA)
20. Norton Rose Fulbright
21. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (NY)
22. Winston & Strawn LLP
23. Sidley Austin LLP
24. O'Melveny & Myers LLP
25. Foley Hoag (Bos)


there is literally zero reason to not use all fifty bids

Anonymous User
Posts: 301180
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: GULC EIW 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jun 29, 2017 11:27 pm

buckiguy_sucks wrote:
there is literally zero reason to not use all fifty bids


Considering the GPA, he/she is likely trying to avoid being pre-selected by lower bids, which would count against interview # cap before lottery process even runs... Smart move to limit bids in this scenario.

Anonymous User
Posts: 301180
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: GULC EIW 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Jun 30, 2017 2:59 am

Anonymous User wrote:This thread seems pretty dead but I'll post this here to see if any EIW veterans want to offer their thoughts on my current bid list...

GPA is 3.21. Prefer the PHI/DE/NJ firms, but tried to bid on a lot of NY firms to maximize my chances of getting an offer.

1. Venable – NY
2. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius – NY
3. Norton Rose Fulbright – NY
4. Kelley Drye – NY
5. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius – PHI
6. Ballard Spahr – PHI
7. Pepper Hamilton – PHI
8. DLA Piper - PHI
9. Dechert - PHI
10. Stroock & Stroock & Lavan – NY
11. Kasowitz Benson Torres - NY
12. Winston & Strawn - NY
13. Schulte Roth & Zabel - NY
14. Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft - NY
15. Kramer & Levin - NY
16. Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson – DC
17. Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson - NY
18. Seward & Kissel - NY
19. Greenberg Traurig - NY
20. Duane Morris - PHI
21. Drinker, Biddle & Reath – PHI
22. Hogan Lovalls - PHI
23. Chadbourne & Parke - NY
24. Baker & Mackenzie - NY
25. Cahill Gordon & Reindel - NY
26. Baker Botts – NY
27. Hewlett Packard – Wayne, PA
28. Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy - NY
29. Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo - NY
30. Willkie Farr & Gallagher- NY
31. Curtis Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle – NY
32. Hunton & Williams - NY
33. Baker Hostetler - NY
34. Fox Rothschild – Warrington, PA
35. Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell - DE
36. Richards, Layton & Finger – DE
37. Womble Bond Dickinson - DE
38. Potter Anderson & Corroon - DE
39. Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor - DE
40. Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young - PHI
41. Riker Danzig Scherer Hyland & Peretti – NJ
42. Pryor Cashman - NY
43. Polsinelli – DC
44. Squire Patton Boggs - DC
45. Bryan Cave – DC
46. Hughes Hubbard & Reed - DC
47. Bracewell - DC
48. Vedder Price – DC
49. Powers Pyles Sutter & Verville – DC
50. Cades Schutte – Honolulu, HI

Concerns:

1) With firms like Fox Rothschild and Hogan Lovalls, there's a ton of different offices coming to EIW, but Symplicity's bidding system seems to lump them all under the same umbrella in terms of bidding. (You don't bid on Hogan-Philly or Hogan-NY, you just bid on Hogan). I'm not sure how to factor this into my bidding strategy. For example, Fox Rothschild seems to get TON of bids, but the Warrington, PA may literally get zero.

This is relevant to me because if the bids are all lumped together, I should probably put Fox higher on my list as it will be harder to get a screener. BUT if the Warrington office is considered separately, I can probably afford to have it lower. Does that make sense?

2) The reason I have the Delaware firms low despite my geographical preference is because Delaware firms seem to get very few bids, and I anticipate ending up with a few Delaware screeners due to missing out on some of my higher bids. Am I going about this correctly? (I have no idea what I'm doing or if my strategy makes any sense at all).

3) Finally, many of the firms that seem to dip down to a 3.21 GPA also seem to have smaller class sizes than firms with somewhat higher GPA medians. Would you guys advise putting the "lower GPA, smaller class size" firms higher on my list, or the "higher GPA, larger class size" firms?

(When I say "higher" GPA, I don't mean super high - I mean something like a 3.30-3.35).


Put the philly firms after that 2nd NYC block. They can be teens. You just won't pull heavily bid NYC firms at that point, period.

User avatar
buckiguy_sucks
Posts: 2860
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2015 12:07 pm

Re: GULC EIW 2017

Postby buckiguy_sucks » Fri Jun 30, 2017 7:09 am

Anonymous User wrote:
buckiguy_sucks wrote:
there is literally zero reason to not use all fifty bids


Considering the GPA, he/she is likely trying to avoid being pre-selected by lower bids, which would count against interview # cap before lottery process even runs... Smart move to limit bids in this scenario.


OP is going to get preselected by literally every firm they bid? That's dumb. Low GPA firms don't preselect high GPA people they know aren't going to go to their firm, and high GPA firms have plenty of 3.8 candidates interviewing with them. The more firms you bid the more opportunities you have to reach out when you don't get in front of them at EIW and try to get an outside interview. OP could be a terrible interviewer and not know it, people with high GPAs strike out. Maximizing interviews is always the move.

PotatoSalad
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2016 12:10 pm

Re: GULC EIW 2017

Postby PotatoSalad » Fri Jun 30, 2017 7:16 am

buckiguy_sucks wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
buckiguy_sucks wrote:
there is literally zero reason to not use all fifty bids


Considering the GPA, he/she is likely trying to avoid being pre-selected by lower bids, which would count against interview # cap before lottery process even runs... Smart move to limit bids in this scenario.


OP is going to get preselected by literally every firm they bid? That's dumb. Low GPA firms don't preselect high GPA people they know aren't going to go to their firm, and high GPA firms have plenty of 3.8 candidates interviewing with them. The more firms you bid the more opportunities you have to reach out when you don't get in front of them at EIW and try to get an outside interview. OP could be a terrible interviewer and not know it, people with high GPAs strike out. Maximizing interviews is always the move.


Seconding the dissent. With that GPA I think the 25-range is wholly appropriate. You get a maximum of 18 interviews either way, so OP should bid just enough to get 18 to maximize the number of desired firms OP will interview with. I might be inclined to say 30 bids would be safer, but that's OP's call based on GPA/Resume/Interviewing Skills.

Editing with more information:
I think OP will almost certainly get the top 10 bids. Scanning through the historical information... (An earlier version showed much more information, but in the interest of privacy of GTown data, I changed the presentation)

Firm Difference Between Bids Available and Bids Taken at the relevant band
1 Arnold Porter 31
2 WilmerHale 11
3 DPW 5
4 Skadden 13
5 Debevoise 17
6 Hogan -64
7 S&C 4
8 William & Co 7
9 Simpson Th 12
10 Kirkland 3

In every case except for Hogan the bids in the relevant band were less than bids available. The only reason OP wouldn't get interviews in these places if there was a huge shift in the bidding preferences and the firms themselves didn't preselect. With a likely 9 interviews in the bag out of the top ten, why chance that through needless bidding of 25-50 who might preselect you and take away your top ten?

Anonymous User
Posts: 301180
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: GULC EIW 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Jun 30, 2017 7:55 am

Why Foley Hoag?

Anonymous User wrote:3.8x, vaguely interested in transactional but undecided. Only bidding 20-25 (have a couple of interviews already set up on the side) and I'm looking mainly at DC. Everything below is DC unless noted otherwise. No ties anywhere helpful. Thoughts on the bid list? Struggling to balance firms I like with the difficulty of getting an interview slot.

1. Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
2. WilmerHale
3. Davis Polk & Wardwell
4. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
5. Debevoise & Plimpton
6. Hogan Lovells
7. Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
8. Williams & Connolly LLP
9. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
10. Kirkland & Ellis LLP
11. Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP (NY)
12. Baker & McKenzie
13. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
14. Steptoe & Johnson LLP
15. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison (NY)
16. Shearman & Sterling LLP
17. King & Spalding
18. Latham & Watkins LLP
19. Morrison & Foerster (VA)
20. Norton Rose Fulbright
21. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (NY)
22. Winston & Strawn LLP
23. Sidley Austin LLP
24. O'Melveny & Myers LLP
25. Foley Hoag (Bos)




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.