CLS EIP 2018 Forum

[Anonymous User]

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.

I agree generally but I'd recommend dropping Weil instead...then you get the +1 at Gibson too. Which is like, a better firm.

[Anonymous User]

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.

I agree generally but I'd recommend dropping Weil instead...then you get the +1 at Gibson too. Which is like, a better firm.

Since this is NY offices only is that still true? Is there an advantage to choosing Weil HQ over Gibson's NY satellite office?

[Anonymous User]

This is the Kent from before. Thanks for the advice.

Another Question- when interviewing, should I stick with litigation and express 100% interest, or be honest and explain that I'm leaning toward litigation but I am not 100% sure yet and would like to experience both? (obviously N/A to Lit firms/boutiques). i.e. how important is the narrative of knowing exactly what you want? Parts of my resume/transcript strongly favor Lit, while others strongly favor Corp, so it could easily go either way. Thoughts?

[Anonymous User]

I'd start off saying you 100% want to do litigation. Story is everything in these interviews, and "I kinda like this but also like that" isn't compelling. They're completely different types of work, so when you tell a partner that you don't know which practice you prefer, it just sounds like you haven't done your homework.

Once you get an offer, though, you have leverage -- that's when you tell recruiting you want both. You'll get some pushback but who cares, they won't pull the offer.

[Hopefullitassociate]

I'd start off saying you 100% want to do litigation. Story is everything in these interviews, and "I kinda like this but also like that" isn't compelling. They're completely different types of work, so when you tell a partner that you don't know which practice you prefer, it just sounds like you haven't done your homework.

Once you get an offer, though, you have leverage -- that's when you tell recruiting you want both. You'll get some pushback but who cares, they won't pull the offer.

Strongly disagree with this. It's extremely common to not be certain on litigation or corporate after 1L - that's why the summer program is often about getting you as much exposure as you want. You can do as much "homework" as you want, but most people agree that you don't truly have an understanding of what a particular type of practice entails until you're actually doing it. I think it's better to show firms that you're open-minded, and can still create a narrative for yourself using the things listed on your resume.

[Anonymous User]

You would be completely wrong then lmao.

There's no upside and significant downside to being undecided. I mean some firms literally do not let you split between the groups, so if you say in the interview "I don't know if I want to do litigation or corporate," your interviewer (who in almost all cases does litigation or corporate, and not both) is thinking "ok, so we're gonna bring you on....where? Does this guy actually want to work with me?" Kent guy doesn't have to go to those firms, but it's a reality many TLSers face, every single year.

But. If you say "I want X for Y and Z reasons," a person who actually does X isn't going to fault you for it. The whole point of the game is to get the job offer. It's not about like, being transparent with a person who is looking for reasons not to hire you. When someone asks you if you want to work at their firm, you don't say "maybe." You say "I'd love to, it seems so great, blah blah blah." Same idea.

[Anonymous User]

You would be completely wrong then lmao.

There's no upside and significant downside to being undecided. I mean some firms literally do not let you split between the groups, so if you say in the interview "I don't know if I want to do litigation or corporate," your interviewer (who in almost all cases does litigation or corporate, and not both) is thinking "ok, so we're gonna bring you on....where? Does this guy actually want to work with me?" Kent guy doesn't have to go to those firms, but it's a reality many TLSers face, every single year.

But. If you say "I want X for Y and Z reasons," a person who actually does X isn't going to fault you for it. The whole point of the game is to get the job offer. It's not about like, being transparent with a person who is looking for reasons not to hire you. When someone asks you if you want to work at their firm, you don't say "maybe." You say "I'd love to, it seems so great, blah blah blah." Same idea.

New anon (rising 3L)

I actually think it comes off as fake to KNOW what you want to do, especially if you didn't summer at a firm/some other basis. What about splitting the difference- and saying "I'm MOST interested in Corporate for X,Y, Z reason- after all, thats one of the reasons I'm interested in your firm, because it has a great corporate group. However, because I've only done one year of law school, I'm open to new things. How did you decide which group to choose?"

[Anonymous User]

You would be completely wrong then lmao.

There's no upside and significant downside to being undecided. I mean some firms literally do not let you split between the groups, so if you say in the interview "I don't know if I want to do litigation or corporate," your interviewer (who in almost all cases does litigation or corporate, and not both) is thinking "ok, so we're gonna bring you on....where? Does this guy actually want to work with me?" Kent guy doesn't have to go to those firms, but it's a reality many TLSers face, every single year.

But. If you say "I want X for Y and Z reasons," a person who actually does X isn't going to fault you for it. The whole point of the game is to get the job offer. It's not about like, being transparent with a person who is looking for reasons not to hire you. When someone asks you if you want to work at their firm, you don't say "maybe." You say "I'd love to, it seems so great, blah blah blah." Same idea.

New anon (rising 3L)

I actually think it comes off as fake to KNOW what you want to do, especially if you didn't summer at a firm/some other basis. What about splitting the difference- and saying "I'm MOST interested in Corporate for X,Y, Z reason- after all, thats one of the reasons I'm interested in your firm, because it has a great corporate group. However, because I've only done one year of law school, I'm open to new things. How did you decide which group to choose?"

Kent from above again. This is exactly what I'd say- definitely leaning heavily towards Lit bc X, Y, and Z(and my resume will support that), but would also like to at least get a sense of ______ (specific type of Corp. work) that also interests me.

But I also take the point from above- seems like there's no upside to saying you're only 80% sure but there's significant downside. Maybe some interviewers would appreciate the honesty, but they know it's a show just like we do and will be expecting a solid narrative presentation.

Something to think about I guess as I refine my interview narrative. Thanks for the help.

[Hopefullitassociate]

You would be completely wrong then lmao.

There's no upside and significant downside to being undecided. I mean some firms literally do not let you split between the groups, so if you say in the interview "I don't know if I want to do litigation or corporate," your interviewer (who in almost all cases does litigation or corporate, and not both) is thinking "ok, so we're gonna bring you on....where? Does this guy actually want to work with me?" Kent guy doesn't have to go to those firms, but it's a reality many TLSers face, every single year.

But. If you say "I want X for Y and Z reasons," a person who actually does X isn't going to fault you for it. The whole point of the game is to get the job offer. It's not about like, being transparent with a person who is looking for reasons not to hire you. When someone asks you if you want to work at their firm, you don't say "maybe." You say "I'd love to, it seems so great, blah blah blah." Same idea.

If we're speaking strictly in terms of maximizing OP's changes of getting a summer offer though, saying that you strictly want litigation is a bad idea, when it's a shrinking area of focus for biglaw firms. I have personal experience with firms who tell associates that they can only guarantee offers in corporate, and not in litigation.

And sure, people end up going into one area or the other, but most of them did not make that choice after one year of law school, and it's not incredibly uncommon to switch areas after you realize that you don't like it. I truly don't think anyone will fault a 1L for not being certain that they do or don't want corporate (especially given the lack of exposure to corporate law during 1L).

OP, I think if you tell firms that you have enjoyed your litigation experience and can point to X, Y, and Z on your resume to add weight to that statement, but I don't think that adding that you're open minded about corporate, especially given the lack of exposure to corporate work, will harm your chances at all.

[Anonymous User]

You would be completely wrong then lmao.

There's no upside and significant downside to being undecided. I mean some firms literally do not let you split between the groups, so if you say in the interview "I don't know if I want to do litigation or corporate," your interviewer (who in almost all cases does litigation or corporate, and not both) is thinking "ok, so we're gonna bring you on....where? Does this guy actually want to work with me?" Kent guy doesn't have to go to those firms, but it's a reality many TLSers face, every single year.

But. If you say "I want X for Y and Z reasons," a person who actually does X isn't going to fault you for it. The whole point of the game is to get the job offer. It's not about like, being transparent with a person who is looking for reasons not to hire you. When someone asks you if you want to work at their firm, you don't say "maybe." You say "I'd love to, it seems so great, blah blah blah." Same idea.

If we're speaking strictly in terms of maximizing OP's changes of getting a summer offer though, saying that you strictly want litigation is a bad idea, when it's a shrinking area of focus for biglaw firms. I have personal experience with firms who tell associates that they can only guarantee offers in corporate, and not in litigation.

And sure, people end up going into one area or the other, but most of them did not make that choice after one year of law school, and it's not incredibly uncommon to switch areas after you realize that you don't like it. I truly don't think anyone will fault a 1L for not being certain that they do or don't want corporate (especially given the lack of exposure to corporate law during 1L).

OP, I think if you tell firms that you have enjoyed your litigation experience and can point to X, Y, and Z on your resume to add weight to that statement, but I don't think that adding that you're open minded about corporate, especially given the lack of exposure to corporate work, will harm your chances at all.

Edit: was being a jerk. Just like... as another Kent 2L who will be interviewing at WLRK, I would not advise this guy to tell David Karp that you think public market M&A is cool but you lack the experience to know whether you *really* prefer that to general commercial litigation.

[Hopefullitassociate]

You would be completely wrong then lmao.

There's no upside and significant downside to being undecided. I mean some firms literally do not let you split between the groups, so if you say in the interview "I don't know if I want to do litigation or corporate," your interviewer (who in almost all cases does litigation or corporate, and not both) is thinking "ok, so we're gonna bring you on....where? Does this guy actually want to work with me?" Kent guy doesn't have to go to those firms, but it's a reality many TLSers face, every single year.

But. If you say "I want X for Y and Z reasons," a person who actually does X isn't going to fault you for it. The whole point of the game is to get the job offer. It's not about like, being transparent with a person who is looking for reasons not to hire you. When someone asks you if you want to work at their firm, you don't say "maybe." You say "I'd love to, it seems so great, blah blah blah." Same idea.

If we're speaking strictly in terms of maximizing OP's changes of getting a summer offer though, saying that you strictly want litigation is a bad idea, when it's a shrinking area of focus for biglaw firms. I have personal experience with firms who tell associates that they can only guarantee offers in corporate, and not in litigation.

And sure, people end up going into one area or the other, but most of them did not make that choice after one year of law school, and it's not incredibly uncommon to switch areas after you realize that you don't like it. I truly don't think anyone will fault a 1L for not being certain that they do or don't want corporate (especially given the lack of exposure to corporate law during 1L).

OP, I think if you tell firms that you have enjoyed your litigation experience and can point to X, Y, and Z on your resume to add weight to that statement, but I don't think that adding that you're open minded about corporate, especially given the lack of exposure to corporate work, will harm your chances at all.

A median CLS grad who had to settle for corporate at a V50 is earnestly telling this Kent how to crush his WLRK interview. Gotta love TLS.

To be fair, this thread isn't strictly for this OP. I'm sure this OP will have no trouble getting offers to work biglaw in NYC. But to the extent that other 2Ls at CLS are reading this, I don't think it's great advice to go into an interview telling your interviewer that you are 100% set on litigation, unless you have a really compelling reason for it and/or have this OP's Kent-level stats.

[Anonymous User]

I've got a ~3.1, 3 years of good WE. Charisma like a tree. Here's what I'm thinking:

1. Debevoise (2) 64%
2. White & Case (4) 43%
3. Goodwin (11) 20%
4. O'Melveny (10) 100%
5. Akin Gump (8) 67%
6. Fried Frank (12) 25%
7. Linklaters (12) 25%
8. Paul Hastings (12) 57%
9. Orrick (13) 67%
10. Shearman (17) 22%
Then, in an as yet undetermined order (FFB all mid-20s or None, Stone mostly below 50%):
Allen & Ovary
Cadwalader
Cahill Gordon
Dechert
Freshfields
Hogan Lovells
KL Gates
Kramer Levin
Morgan Lewis
Norton Rose
Pillsbury
Ropes
Schulte
Winston & Strawn
Willkie Farr
Greenberg Traurig

This leaves the bottom 4 spots for ones I'll miss:
Sidley Austin (1) 35%
Weil (3) 48%
MoFo (3) 36%
Proskauer (2) 70%




Also, I would ideally like DC, but after looking at numbers and grades that seems like a fools errand. Should I give up on DC entirely, or drop a few of these to make room for a few dc long shots?

[Anonymous User]

Speaking as a former near-Kent who has been working for a while, the correct answer is to be honest. No one gives a shit if you have strong views on corporate v. lit* so long as you show a legitimate interest in doing Wall Street firm work- deals, white collar, investigations, etc. I.e. it’s only a problem if (1) people think you’re dishonest (which no grades can overcome) or (2) you leave people with the impression that you’re only coming to pay down your debt and do pro bono and will leave in 18 months to do public interest work.**

I would definitely not lie about your interest in lit or corp unless you have supreme confidence in your ability to bullshit people and can keep it up for 2 weeks.

*unless you worked in finance for a few years before law school, in which case you should have at least some sense of whether or not you liked deal work or not.

**and there being a possibility you might leave is different than knowing up front you have no intention of staying. The former is OK but the latter can be problemmatic in terms of getting offers.

[Anonymous User]

I would love some advice on how it my list is looking as well as how to fill out the bottom. Thanks.

Kent, Secondary Journal. I am only interested in NY. Primarily interested in Lit. All offices listed are NY.

1. Boies (1)
2 Debevoise (2)
3 Skadden (8)
4 Gibson (6)
5 Cleary (8)
6 Davis Polk (9)
7 WilmerHale (10)
8 Latham (11)
9 Cravath (16)
10 Covington & Burling (13)
11 Jones Day (15)
12 Kirkland (17)
13 Simpson Thatcher (19)
14 Hogan Lovells (19)
15 Wachtell (*)
16 Arnold and Porter (20)
17 S&C (*)
18 Milbank (22)
19 Allen & Overy (24)
20 Ropes and Gray (26)
21 Freshfields (25)
22 Selendy & Gay
23 Cahil (*)
24 Hughes Hubbard (*)
25 Quinn Emanuel

[Anonymous User]

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

Updated bid list, I got rid of Gibson Dunn so that I could move everything up. I also moved up Sull-Crom because I saw that they have a pretty volatile FFB year to year and I want to give myself a better chance. I switched out a lot of firms at the bottom and rounded out the bottom of my list (including some bids that will almost for sure fail, hoping to get interviews later).

1 Debevoise (2)
2 Weil (3)
3 Cleary Gottlieb (8)
4 Skadden (8)
5 Davis Polk (9)
6 Paul Weiss (9)
7 Latham Watkins (11)
8 Paul Hastings (12)
9 Fried Frank (12)
10 Covington & Burling (13)
11 Cravath (16)
12 Sullivan and Cromwell (*)
13 Kirkland Ellis (17)
14 Simpson Thatcher (19)
15 Shearman & Sterling (17)
16 Winston Strawn (19)
17 Arnold and Porter (20)
18 Milbank (22)
19 clifford chance (24)
20 Wachtell (*)
21 Freshfields (25)
22 Ropes and Gray (26)
23 Cadwalader (25)
24 Willkie Farr (*)
25 Linklaters (12)
26 White & Case (4)
27 Fenwick & West (30)
28 Akin Gump (9)
29 Proskauer (2)
30 Katten Muchin (*)

-Marian Hossa

[Anonymous User]

Any help or suggestions on my bid list would be really appreciated!

For reference, 3.5 (Stone), LR, interested in litigation/arbitration - primarily in NY, maybe DC

1. Boies (1)
2. Debevoise (2)
3. Gibson Dunn (6)
4. Skadden (8)
5. Cleary Gottlieb (8)
6. Paul Weiss (9)
7. Davis Polk (9)
8. Latham (11)
9. Covington (13)
10. Sullivan and Cromwell (*)
11. Cravath (16)
12. Kirkland (17)
13. WilmerHale (DC) (17)
14. Wachtell (*)
15. Simpson Thacher (19)
16. Hogan Lovells (19)
17. Arnold and Porter (20)
18. Paul Weiss (DC) (22)
19. Cleary (DC) (22)
20. Schulte (23)
21. Clifford Chance (24)
22. Freshfields (25)
23. Ropes and Gray (26)
24. Baker Botts (27)
25. Davis Polk (DC) (*)
26. Sidley Austin (1)
27. Weil (3)
28. White and Case (4)
29. Akin Gump (9)
30. WilmerHale (10)


- Chester Cheetah

[Anonymous User]

Any help or suggestions on my bid list would be really appreciated!

For reference, 3.5 (Stone), LR, interested in litigation/arbitration - primarily in NY, maybe DC

1. Boies (1)
2. Debevoise (2)
3. Gibson Dunn (6)
4. Skadden (8)
5. Cleary Gottlieb (8)
6. Paul Weiss (9)
7. Davis Polk (9)
8. Latham (11)
9. Covington (13)
10. Sullivan and Cromwell (*)
11. Cravath (16)
12. Kirkland (17)
13. WilmerHale (DC) (17)
14. Wachtell (*)
15. Simpson Thacher (19)
16. Hogan Lovells (19)
17. Arnold and Porter (20)
18. Paul Weiss (DC) (22)
19. Cleary (DC) (22)
20. Schulte (23)
21. Clifford Chance (24)
22. Freshfields (25)
23. Ropes and Gray (26)
24. Baker Botts (27)
25. Davis Polk (DC) (*)
26. Sidley Austin (1)
27. Weil (3)
28. White and Case (4)
29. Akin Gump (9)
30. WilmerHale (10)


- Chester Cheetah

I might make Sidley #1 and remove Boies - unlikely they'd dip for that GPA. WLRK is similar - looking for high-Stone/Kent, with relevant work experience a plus. You're on the low side for them.

Otherwise list looks fine, and if you *really* want to take those interviews, not like you're fucking up the rest of your list to do so.

[Anonymous User]

Any help or suggestions on my bid list would be really appreciated!

For reference, 3.5 (Stone), LR, interested in litigation/arbitration - primarily in NY, maybe DC

1. Boies (1)
2. Debevoise (2)
3. Gibson Dunn (6)
4. Skadden (8)
5. Cleary Gottlieb (8)
6. Paul Weiss (9)
7. Davis Polk (9)
8. Latham (11)
9. Covington (13)
10. Sullivan and Cromwell (*)
11. Cravath (16)
12. Kirkland (17)
13. WilmerHale (DC) (17)
14. Wachtell (*)
15. Simpson Thacher (19)
16. Hogan Lovells (19)
17. Arnold and Porter (20)
18. Paul Weiss (DC) (22)
19. Cleary (DC) (22)
20. Schulte (23)
21. Clifford Chance (24)
22. Freshfields (25)
23. Ropes and Gray (26)
24. Baker Botts (27)
25. Davis Polk (DC) (*)
26. Sidley Austin (1)
27. Weil (3)
28. White and Case (4)
29. Akin Gump (9)
30. WilmerHale (10)


- Chester Cheetah

I might make Sidley #1 and remove Boies - unlikely they'd dip for that GPA. WLRK is similar - looking for high-Stone/Kent, with relevant work experience a plus. You're on the low side for them.

Otherwise list looks fine, and if you *really* want to take those interviews, not like you're fucking up the rest of your list to do so.

Agreed. Boies and Wachtell aren’t happening at 3.5 barring some insane unique quality

[4LTsPointingNorth]

You would be completely wrong then lmao.

There's no upside and significant downside to being undecided. I mean some firms literally do not let you split between the groups, so if you say in the interview "I don't know if I want to do litigation or corporate," your interviewer (who in almost all cases does litigation or corporate, and not both) is thinking "ok, so we're gonna bring you on....where? Does this guy actually want to work with me?" Kent guy doesn't have to go to those firms, but it's a reality many TLSers face, every single year.

But. If you say "I want X for Y and Z reasons," a person who actually does X isn't going to fault you for it. The whole point of the game is to get the job offer. It's not about like, being transparent with a person who is looking for reasons not to hire you. When someone asks you if you want to work at their firm, you don't say "maybe." You say "I'd love to, it seems so great, blah blah blah." Same idea.

If we're speaking strictly in terms of maximizing OP's changes of getting a summer offer though, saying that you strictly want litigation is a bad idea, when it's a shrinking area of focus for biglaw firms. I have personal experience with firms who tell associates that they can only guarantee offers in corporate, and not in litigation.

And sure, people end up going into one area or the other, but most of them did not make that choice after one year of law school, and it's not incredibly uncommon to switch areas after you realize that you don't like it. I truly don't think anyone will fault a 1L for not being certain that they do or don't want corporate (especially given the lack of exposure to corporate law during 1L).

OP, I think if you tell firms that you have enjoyed your litigation experience and can point to X, Y, and Z on your resume to add weight to that statement, but I don't think that adding that you're open minded about corporate, especially given the lack of exposure to corporate work, will harm your chances at all.

A median CLS grad who had to settle for corporate at a V50 is earnestly telling this Kent how to crush his WLRK interview. Gotta love TLS.

To be fair, this thread isn't strictly for this OP. I'm sure this OP will have no trouble getting offers to work biglaw in NYC. But to the extent that other 2Ls at CLS are reading this, I don't think it's great advice to go into an interview telling your interviewer that you are 100% set on litigation, unless you have a really compelling reason for it and/or have this OP's Kent-level stats.

Interviewers understand that the first year of law school biases many applicants toward wanting to work in Litigation. I think it's safe to express a strong preference for lit in an interview, but you should express some willingness or interest in trying corporate work over your summer (unless you have a genuine, easily articulable basis for having zero interest). This is particularly true if you're interviewing for an office that is primarily corporate as opposed to primarily lit, or even 50/50. Also do research your interviewers beforehand to see what they practice in.

[sphyrnidae13]

Does anyone know if there is a list of firms that are receptive to pre-EIP interviews (or alternatively, which firms we shouldn't reach out to pre-EIP)?

[MantisToboggan]

Why did this thread suck this year. Normally more informative. Is it because TLS is dying?

[Anonymous User]

Why did this thread suck this year. Normally more informative. Is it because TLS is dying?

Yes. TLS is dead.

[jbagelboy]

Why did this thread suck this year. Normally more informative. Is it because TLS is dying?

Yes. TLS is dead.

tls died a few months back when it went to new ownership

I'm still around if anyone has specific questions about firms or bidding, but don't count on the same general level of alumni participation

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone know if there is a list of firms that are receptive to pre-EIP interviews (or alternatively, which firms we shouldn't reach out to pre-EIP)?

Pretty much everyone other than ultra-selective firms (WLRK, Quinn, Boies, Susman, W&C, MTO, etc) are doing pre-EIP. Know various people who have, will interview at, or have received offers from: S&C, STB, Cleary, DPW, CSM, PW.

[Anonymous User]

Now that EIP has started, any of ya’ll willing to revive this thread to keep track of CBs?