CLS EIP 2018

(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.
Anonymous User
Posts: 321596
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

CLS EIP 2018

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 11, 2018 11:08 am

Hey fellow Class of 2020ers,

I didn't see an EIP thread for 2018 so I figured I would steal last year's and start it.

Grades are coming back and the Offers by Honors reports are up on Symplicity, meaning that it's about time to start putting together bidlists for EIP. In this thread, we help one another put together suitable bidlists, share information, assuage fears, offer advice on interviews and callbacks, etc.

Past threads:
2017: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=278460
2016: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=265024
2015: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=248971
2014: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=231040
2013: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=211338
2012: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=187757
2011: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=162163

Here are the rules and some tips from last year:

I. Anonymous Handles

We all want to maintain some privacy during this process. That said, it is also nice to keep track of who is saying what. I recommend that everyone pick a handle with which to sign her anonymous posts (although you obviously don’t have to) so that we can keep track of one another.

II. Bidding

The basics of bidlist stuff should be straightforward even if you’re not Socrates: if you think other people are more likely to bid on a firm, you should bid it high. Firms that are less grade-selective or that have fewer interview spots are more competitive, so you should probably rank them higher. Don’t rank a firm high just because you want it, but if you really want a particular firm it might be good to rank it high for your peace of mind. The EIP Failed Bid Report helps with this, although relying too heavily on it could be a mistake (or so I've heard). Finally, spreading bids out between multiple markets increases the risk of striking out, especially if you don't have strong ties to those markets. We’ve all seen the data: there are just more jobs in New York, so NY is a solid backup for folks who are trying to head to California, Chicago, DC, etc.

III. Callbacks

Once we’re at least part-way through the first rings of interviewing hell, people will get callbacks. In past years, people would post the firm name and the initials of the person who interviewed them when they received a callback so that people would know that callbacks had gone out.

Good luck.

-Harvey Specter

Anonymous User
Posts: 321596
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: CLS EIP 2018

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jun 23, 2018 6:39 pm

3.22

1 Debevoise (FFB 2) 64%
2 MoFo (FFB 3) 36%
3 White & Case (FFB 4) 43%
4 Gibson Dunn (FFB 6) 71%
5 Cleary (FFB 8) 80%
6 Paul Weiss (9) 92%
7 Akin Gump (9) 67%
8 Davis Polk (9) 91%
9 Paul Hastings (12) 57%
10 Cooley (12) 67%
11 Fried Frank (12) 20%
12 Orrick (13) 67%
13 Shearman (17) 21%
14 Simpson (19) 80%
15 Hogan Lovells (19) 50%
16 Arnold & Porter (20) 55%
17 Winston & Strawn (19) 18%
18 Milbank (22) 38%
19 Mayer Brown (20) 0%
20 Schulte (23) 22%
21 Ropes (26) 50%
22 Cadwalader (25) 20%
23 Norton Rose (26) 22%
24 Allen & Overy (24) 40%
25 Kramer Levin (off) 40%
26 Willkie (off) 25%
27 O'Melveny (10) 100% (will miss)
28 Sidley 35% (will miss)
29 Wilmerhale (will miss)
30 Latham (will miss)

Anonymous User
Posts: 321596
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: CLS EIP 2018

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 25, 2018 2:06 am

Your list is too aggressive. FFB moves a ton from year to year. I would remove a couple of the reach firms to ensure you get as many interviews as possible with firms that routinely dip to your GPA.

Anonymous User
Posts: 321596
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: CLS EIP 2018

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 25, 2018 11:09 am

Anonymous User wrote:3.22

1 Debevoise (FFB 2) 64%
2 MoFo (FFB 3) 36%
3 White & Case (FFB 4) 43%
4 Gibson Dunn (FFB 6) 71%
5 Cleary (FFB 8) 80%
6 Paul Weiss (9) 92%
7 Akin Gump (9) 67%
8 Davis Polk (9) 91%
9 Paul Hastings (12) 57%
10 Cooley (12) 67%
11 Fried Frank (12) 20%
12 Orrick (13) 67%
13 Shearman (17) 21%
14 Simpson (19) 80%
15 Hogan Lovells (19) 50%
16 Arnold & Porter (20) 55%
17 Winston & Strawn (19) 18%
18 Milbank (22) 38%
19 Mayer Brown (20) 0%
20 Schulte (23) 22%
21 Ropes (26) 50%
22 Cadwalader (25) 20%
23 Norton Rose (26) 22%
24 Allen & Overy (24) 40%
25 Kramer Levin (off) 40%
26 Willkie (off) 25%
27 O'Melveny (10) 100% (will miss)
28 Sidley 35% (will miss)
29 Wilmerhale (will miss)
30 Latham (will miss)


Obvi should run your list by the career center anyway, But I'd give yourself a bit more cushion on firms like White & Case, Orrick, Fried Frank, Akin Gump, etc. Like I get that Gibson, PW, Cleary, DPW are more desirable, but you have a 3.22. Unless you're URM or have meaningful prior work experience, it's not worth underbidding your matches for an interview with em. And even then...

Like here's another way of looking at it: you didn't put Wachtell on your list, right? Wachtell is 100% Stone. PW is 92%, with a much larger class (ie, this isn't a product of small sample size). It's closer to a Wachtell than it is to Sidley, a good firm which you bid as a "will miss."

Anonymous User
Posts: 321596
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: CLS EIP 2018

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 25, 2018 12:20 pm

I went through this process two years ago. Just some observations that will hopefully be helpful to this years 2Ls. These are in random order as I thought of them.

1. In my view, the most important goal is to get in front as many screeners as possible that you have at least a reasonable shot of landing a job from. Consider facts like stone percentage and FFB, but I would also look at the number of callbacks and number of offers relative to the number of interviews. For example, I created a created a spreadsheet which included this formula for every firm, the formula is intended to roughly approximate the odds of getting an offer from having a screener interview:

(Call back invitations/screener interviews) * (Offers/accepted callbacks)

If two firms have similar Stone percentages but one scores much higher on the above formula, your odds of landing a job there are likely greater.

For example, in my data set from a few years ago, Firm A had 7% stone but only returned 16% on the above formula, while Firm B had 11% stone but returned 28% on the above formula. All else being equal, if I had to assign a bid to one of these firms, Firm B would be my preference.

2. When setting your bid list, pay careful attention to the number of interview schedules each firm has compared to past years. If you look at the data from last year, you can divide the number of interviews by 20 to figure out how many schedules a firm had last year. If the number of schedules increased, then you might be able to be more aggressive bidding that firm then you otherwise would, but if the number of schedules went down then you need to be more conservative.

3. Absent unusual circumstances, It is rare for FFB to drop for any particular firm. Don't waste your high bids on firms where you don't have a good shot of landing them. In my view, a huge mistake is to take a firm with a FFB of 1 and bid it 2.

4. Utilize as many tools as possible to get interviews you miss in bidding. If you miss a firm while bidding you can and should: reach out to the recruiter and ask if you can still meet a screener, monitor add/drop constantly for additional interviews to open, visit the hospitality suite first thing in the morning with a resume and cover letter, try to land an interview in the morning lottery.

5. Don't drop interviews even if the firm is not that interesting or the logistics are difficult (5 minute interview stacks for example). The possible costs of missing a screener are too great. Only drop an interview if there is no rational way you would go to a particular firm.

6. TLS will likely become a stress point later in the process as people start to post about their callbacks and other progress through the process. This information can be very valuable in monitoring your progress and adjusting strategy accordingly. However, if all this information will throw you off your game too much, don't obsess with this thread.

7. Be very careful if you are interested in non-NY markets or in niche practice areas. The vast majority of offers come in NY corporate or litigation practices. If you are pursuing other opportunities, make sure you don't underbid New York in the process. Use your highest bids for New York offices with high chances of landing an offer.

Anonymous User
Posts: 321596
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: CLS EIP 2018

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 25, 2018 1:12 pm

Did LR calls go out?

Anonymous User
Posts: 321596
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: CLS EIP 2018

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 25, 2018 3:13 pm

One of you said, "FFB moves a ton from year to year."

Another one of you said, "Absent unusual circumstances, It is rare for FFB to drop for any particular firm."

How do we reconcile this inconsistency?

User avatar
4LTsPointingNorth

Bronze
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 9:17 am

Re: CLS EIP 2018

Postby 4LTsPointingNorth » Mon Jun 25, 2018 3:20 pm

Anonymous User wrote:One of you said, "FFB moves a ton from year to year."

Another one of you said, "Absent unusual circumstances, It is rare for FFB to drop for any particular firm."

How do we reconcile this inconsistency?


Reconcile by bidding as if FFB might go up (e.g., 10 to 7) but won't drop (e.g., 7 to 10) for any particular firm. Use offers by honors and your own GPA to set realistic targets and maximize your number of chances.

MantisToboggan

New
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 12:10 pm

Re: CLS EIP 2018

Postby MantisToboggan » Mon Jun 25, 2018 3:24 pm

Anonymous User wrote:One of you said, "FFB moves a ton from year to year."

Another one of you said, "Absent unusual circumstances, It is rare for FFB to drop for any particular firm."

How do we reconcile this inconsistency?


clearly these posters have spaghetti brains

Anonymous User
Posts: 321596
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: CLS EIP 2018

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 25, 2018 3:30 pm

3.0x
URM
4+ years WE

Firm (% Stone, +/- 2017 FFB)

Debevoise (64%, +1)
Weil (48%, +1)
Morrison & Foerester (36%, +0)
Cleary Gottlieb (80%, +4)
Akin Gump (67%, +4)
Davis Polk (91%, +3)
Goodwin (20%, +4)
Paul Hastings (57%, +4)
Cooley (67%, +3)
Orrick (67%, +3)
Kirkland-Corporate (53%, +7)
Shearman (21%, +5)
Hogan Lovells (50%, +6)
Simpson Thatcher (88%, +5)
Winston & Strawn (18%, +4)
Milibank (38%, +6)
Mayer Brown (0%, +3)
Schulte (22%, +5)
Allen & Overy (40%, +5)
Ropes & Gray (50%, +6)
Freshfields (40%, +4)
Fenwick & West (100%, +8)
Wilson Sonsini (100%, +7)
Gunderson (0%, N/A)
Willike Farr (25%, N/A)
Sidley Austin (35%, will miss)
Gibson Dunn (71%, will miss)
Paul Weiss (92%, will miss)
Latham (92%, will miss)
Proskauer (70%, will miss)

MantisToboggan

New
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 12:10 pm

Re: CLS EIP 2018

Postby MantisToboggan » Mon Jun 25, 2018 3:32 pm

Anonymous User wrote:3.0x
URM
4+ years WE

Firm (% Stone, +/- 2017 FFB)

Debevoise (64%, +1)
Weil (48%, +1)
Morrison & Foerester (36%, +0)
Cleary Gottlieb (80%, +4)
Akin Gump (67%, +4)
Davis Polk (91%, +3)
Goodwin (20%, +4)
Paul Hastings (57%, +4)
Cooley (67%, +3)
Orrick (67%, +3)
Kirkland-Corporate (53%, +7)
Shearman (21%, +5)
Hogan Lovells (50%, +6)
Simpson Thatcher (88%, +5)
Winston & Strawn (18%, +4)
Milibank (38%, +6)
Mayer Brown (0%, +3)
Schulte (22%, +5)
Allen & Overy (40%, +5)
Ropes & Gray (50%, +6)
Freshfields (40%, +4)
Fenwick & West (100%, +8)
Wilson Sonsini (100%, +7)
Gunderson (0%, N/A)
Willike Farr (25%, N/A)
Sidley Austin (35%, will miss)
Gibson Dunn (71%, will miss)
Paul Weiss (92%, will miss)
Latham (92%, will miss)
Proskauer (70%, will miss)


2 aggressive pal

Anonymous User
Posts: 321596
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: CLS EIP 2018

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 25, 2018 3:34 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:3.22

1 Debevoise (FFB 2) 64%
2 MoFo (FFB 3) 36%
3 White & Case (FFB 4) 43%
4 Gibson Dunn (FFB 6) 71%
5 Cleary (FFB 8) 80%
6 Paul Weiss (9) 92%
7 Akin Gump (9) 67%
8 Davis Polk (9) 91%
9 Paul Hastings (12) 57%
10 Cooley (12) 67%
11 Fried Frank (12) 20%
12 Orrick (13) 67%
13 Shearman (17) 21%
14 Simpson (19) 80%
15 Hogan Lovells (19) 50%
16 Arnold & Porter (20) 55%
17 Winston & Strawn (19) 18%
18 Milbank (22) 38%
19 Mayer Brown (20) 0%
20 Schulte (23) 22%
21 Ropes (26) 50%
22 Cadwalader (25) 20%
23 Norton Rose (26) 22%
24 Allen & Overy (24) 40%
25 Kramer Levin (off) 40%
26 Willkie (off) 25%
27 O'Melveny (10) 100% (will miss)
28 Sidley 35% (will miss)
29 Wilmerhale (will miss)
30 Latham (will miss)


Obvi should run your list by the career center anyway, But I'd give yourself a bit more cushion on firms like White & Case, Orrick, Fried Frank, Akin Gump, etc. Like I get that Gibson, PW, Cleary, DPW are more desirable, but you have a 3.22. Unless you're URM or have meaningful prior work experience, it's not worth underbidding your matches for an interview with em. And even then...

Like here's another way of looking at it: you didn't put Wachtell on your list, right? Wachtell is 100% Stone. PW is 92%, with a much larger class (ie, this isn't a product of small sample size). It's closer to a Wachtell than it is to Sidley, a good firm which you bid as a "will miss."



By "will miss" I meant the FFB was very high last year (Sidley = FFB 1) so I'd rather put it at the bottom and try to get an interview later at their suite than try to bid it really high (like at 1) and push back firms that I like more and maybe have a shot at (Like Debevoise and MoFo).

Also career services liked the list at this point. I was however wearing a deep v-neck so I was lookin real good and they were prob just distracted. I'm think about cutting out White & Case to give a little breathing room to the list for Akin, Fried Frank and Orrick.

badlefthook

New
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 1:17 pm

Re: CLS EIP 2018

Postby badlefthook » Mon Jun 25, 2018 3:46 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Did LR calls go out?


any news?

Anonymous User
Posts: 321596
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: CLS EIP 2018

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 25, 2018 3:47 pm

Can we keep this to EIP please?

MantisToboggan

New
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 12:10 pm

Re: CLS EIP 2018

Postby MantisToboggan » Mon Jun 25, 2018 4:53 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Can we keep this to EIP please?


+1

although the answer to the question about LR is yes, they called and if you didn't hear you probably didn't get it and also I imagine will die alone. or this is what I hear

Anonymous User
Posts: 321596
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: CLS EIP 2018

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 25, 2018 7:32 pm

MantisToboggan wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Can we keep this to EIP please?


+1

although the answer to the question about LR is yes, they called and if you didn't hear you probably didn't get it and also I imagine will die alone. or this is what I hear


TITCR

Anonymous User
Posts: 321596
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: CLS EIP 2018

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 25, 2018 10:59 pm

I posted the above comment about how FFB does not tend to go down from year to year. It is true that it can change considerably, it just primarly changes in only one direction.

When I prepared for EIP two years ago I used historic FFB data to try and determine the odds of a successful bid. My data is old (from EIP 2 years ago) so I don't know what is current (it might be very different), but this might give some idea. About 9% of firms had a FFB that dropped from year to year, about 11% stayed flat, about 14% increased by 1, about 18% increased by 2, about 26% increased by 3, about 10% increased by 4, about 8% increased by 5 or more.

Using this data I tried to determine the odds of landing a particular interview with a particular bid.

Anonymous User
Posts: 321596
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: CLS EIP 2018

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 26, 2018 3:41 pm

Kent (3.8x) but missed LR (don't know how that'll look) Moot Court + Secondary Journal

Interested in NYC. Strongly leaning Lit, though not 100% sure.


1 Boies 1
2 Debevoise 2
3 Gibson 6
4 Cleary 8
5 Paul Weiss 9
6 Davis Polk 9
7 WilmerHale 10
8 O'Melveny 10
9 Latham 11
10 Quinn Emanuel
11 Covington 13
12 Jones Day 15
13 Cravath 16
14 Kirkland 17
15 Williams & Connolly 18
16 Simpson 19
17 Hogan 19
18 Arnold & Porter 20
19 Selendy & Gay
20 Munger 22
21 Susman 25
22 Sull Crom
23 Wachtell
24 Ropes & Gray 26
25 Cahill
26-30?

Anonymous User
Posts: 321596
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: CLS EIP 2018

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 26, 2018 4:40 pm

Finally put together a start of a list.

I have ~3.7 GPA, Secondary Journal, 3 Years WE. I am only interested in NY Corporate/transactional work. All offices listed are NY. My worry is that at the top I am a bit tight on some of the bids, and that Wachtell/SullCrom will not be No-Fails this year. Also any ideas on how to fill out the bottom or firm to switch out?

1 Debevoise (2)
2 Weil (3)
3 Gibson Dunn (6)
4 Cleary Gottlieb (8)
5 Skadden (8)
6 Davis Polk (9)
7 Paul Weiss (9)
8 Latham Watkins (11)
9 Paul Hastings (12)
10 Fried Frank (12)
11 Covington & Burling (13)
12 Cravath (16)
13 Shearman Sterling (17)
14 Simpson Thatcher (19)
15 Hogan Lovells (19)
16 Winston Strawn (19)
17 Arnold and Porter (20)
18 Milbank (22)
19 Clifford Chance (24)
20 Cadwalader (25)
21 Ropes and Gray (26)
22 Wachtell (*)
23 Sullivan and Cromwell (*)
24 Fenwick & West (30)
25 Willkie Farr (*)

-Marian Hossa

MantisToboggan

New
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 12:10 pm

Re: CLS EIP 2018

Postby MantisToboggan » Tue Jun 26, 2018 4:51 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Kent (3.8x) but missed LR (don't know how that'll look) Moot Court + Secondary Journal

Interested in NYC. Strongly leaning Lit, though not 100% sure.


1 Boies 1
2 Debevoise 2
3 Gibson 6
4 Cleary 8
5 Paul Weiss 9
6 Davis Polk 9
7 WilmerHale 10
8 O'Melveny 10
9 Latham 11
10 Quinn Emanuel
11 Covington 13
12 Jones Day 15
13 Cravath 16
14 Kirkland 17
15 Williams & Connolly 18
16 Simpson 19
17 Hogan 19
18 Arnold & Porter 20
19 Selendy & Gay
20 Munger 22
21 Susman 25
22 Sull Crom
23 Wachtell
24 Ropes & Gray 26
25 Cahill
26-30?


I would say just make sure you give the firms you really like a solid cushion (+2 for O'Melveny, for example, might not cut it). Other than that as long as you have barely functional social skills you should have a lot of offers. Then again you are on TLS

Anonymous User
Posts: 321596
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: CLS EIP 2018

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 26, 2018 4:59 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Kent (3.8x) but missed LR (don't know how that'll look) Moot Court + Secondary Journal

Interested in NYC. Strongly leaning Lit, though not 100% sure.


1 Boies 1
2 Debevoise 2
3 Gibson 6
4 Cleary 8
5 Paul Weiss 9
6 Davis Polk 9
7 WilmerHale 10
8 O'Melveny 10
9 Latham 11
10 Quinn Emanuel
11 Covington 13
12 Jones Day 15
13 Cravath 16
14 Kirkland 17
15 Williams & Connolly 18
16 Simpson 19
17 Hogan 19
18 Arnold & Porter 20
19 Selendy & Gay
20 Munger 22
21 Susman 25
22 Sull Crom
23 Wachtell
24 Ropes & Gray 26
25 Cahill
26-30?


Imagine you’re interviewing a Kent scholar who’s expressed interest in litigation who failed to get on law review. How would that look to you?

MantisToboggan

New
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 12:10 pm

Re: CLS EIP 2018

Postby MantisToboggan » Tue Jun 26, 2018 5:03 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Kent (3.8x) but missed LR (don't know how that'll look) Moot Court + Secondary Journal

Interested in NYC. Strongly leaning Lit, though not 100% sure.


1 Boies 1
2 Debevoise 2
3 Gibson 6
4 Cleary 8
5 Paul Weiss 9
6 Davis Polk 9
7 WilmerHale 10
8 O'Melveny 10
9 Latham 11
10 Quinn Emanuel
11 Covington 13
12 Jones Day 15
13 Cravath 16
14 Kirkland 17
15 Williams & Connolly 18
16 Simpson 19
17 Hogan 19
18 Arnold & Porter 20
19 Selendy & Gay
20 Munger 22
21 Susman 25
22 Sull Crom
23 Wachtell
24 Ropes & Gray 26
25 Cahill
26-30?


Imagine you’re interviewing a Kent scholar who’s expressed interest in litigation who failed to get on law review. How would that look to you?


all these flavors and u choose to be salty

I can't for the life of me figure out why people hate TLS. Such a loving community

Anonymous User
Posts: 321596
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: CLS EIP 2018

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 26, 2018 5:23 pm

Chill. Many Kent scholars don't get law review- it is not nearly as grade based as you might think (anecdote from a professor who complained about it). Don't mean to derail the thread.

Anyway-with a 3.7+, most firms are getable. I'd try to clear up some space in your bidlist- its pretty tight. Try dropping O'Melvany, Latham, QE, KE, and Jones Day. The first and last because their exit options aren't as good and QE/KE because of their notorious sweatshop reputations (I mean, CSM is a sweatshop, but they seem more humane as a general firm than the horror stories I hear about QE)

(Directed at the Kent above)

Anonymous User
Posts: 321596
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: CLS EIP 2018

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 26, 2018 5:38 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Finally put together a start of a list.

I have ~3.7 GPA, Secondary Journal, 3 Years WE. I am only interested in NY Corporate/transactional work. All offices listed are NY. My worry is that at the top I am a bit tight on some of the bids, and that Wachtell/SullCrom will not be No-Fails this year. Also any ideas on how to fill out the bottom or firm to switch out?

1 Debevoise (2)
2 Weil (3)
3 Gibson Dunn (6)
4 Cleary Gottlieb (8)
5 Skadden (8)
6 Davis Polk (9)
7 Paul Weiss (9)
8 Latham Watkins (11)
9 Paul Hastings (12)
10 Fried Frank (12)
11 Covington & Burling (13)
12 Cravath (16)
13 Shearman Sterling (17)
14 Simpson Thatcher (19)
15 Hogan Lovells (19)
16 Winston Strawn (19)
17 Arnold and Porter (20)
18 Milbank (22)
19 Clifford Chance (24)
20 Cadwalader (25)
21 Ropes and Gray (26)
22 Wachtell (*)
23 Sullivan and Cromwell (*)
24 Fenwick & West (30)
25 Willkie Farr (*)

-Marian Hossa


I would push out Gibson unless you feel strongly about them. Cleary, Skadden, DPW, PW, Latham all have better corp. practices and removing Gibson will give you more of a cushion for those firms.

Anonymous User
Posts: 321596
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: CLS EIP 2018

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 26, 2018 6:50 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Chill. Many Kent scholars don't get law review- it is not nearly as grade based as you might think (anecdote from a professor who complained about it). Don't mean to derail the thread.

Anyway-with a 3.7+, most firms are getable. I'd try to clear up some space in your bidlist- its pretty tight. Try dropping O'Melvany, Latham, QE, KE, and Jones Day. The first and last because their exit options aren't as good and QE/KE because of their notorious sweatshop reputations (I mean, CSM is a sweatshop, but they seem more humane as a general firm than the horror stories I hear about QE)

(Directed at the Kent above)


Agree regarding law review. At this point there are *no* purely grade-on spots, and diversity is a not-insignificant factor. iirc half of Kent 1Ls didn't make it on last year.

Disagree pretty strongly regarding dropping QE though. Yes, Quinn has a reputation as a sweatshop with a shitty culture. However...you will *actually litigate* there. As a new associate. We can't say the same thing about most of the firms CLS slobbers over, like DPW/Cleary/Paul, Weiss. Ask the second years whether they've taken a deposition, written a motion, etc. By themselves. Then ask a Quinn associate. Maybe Kent guy/gal is a bad fit, but he should at least interview.

NY firms: Add Skadden. Not sure why you left it off. Maybe summering there already? Anyway, their transactional groups are extremely good. Notch below WLRK, but that's it. I'd take them over Cravath/SullCrom. And lit is same tier as the DPW/Cleary/WE

DC: Add Sidley, Kellogg, Kobre & Kim. Last two might not do EIP, but you should apply online or w/e then -- same tier as W&C.

California: You're bidding Munger, right? LA is HQ. If you're willing to go West Coast, add Keker. It's Keker.

Globally: You could, maybe should, target +4 FFB, which would basically guarantee you an interview at every firm on your list. That means dropping lower-tier firms, but you're Kent. You can pick up, for example, Debevoise at the hospitality suite anyway just by chatting a little and dropping your transcript, and dropping gets you +1 with everyone else save Boies, which is #1. Unless you have Aspbergers, you're gonna get multiple offers. I'd focus on locking up interviews at the places you would actually consider working for. You don't need to do 25. (Plus bidding Debevoise at FFB is no guarantee of getting it.)
Last edited by Anonymous User on Fri Jun 29, 2018 3:12 pm, edited 3 times in total.



Return to “Legal Employment?

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.