What Does WLRK Look For? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Just finished up my first semester at CCN and my grades place me roughly in the top 5-10% of the class. Pretty set on NYC transactional law so WLRK is at the top of my list. I know it’s early but I wanted to see if any TLSers who interviewed with WLRK or know people who got offers there had any insight in what the screeners and callbacks look like and what the firm looks for in candidates. I’ve heard the interviews are more substantive than typical big law interviews and that they prefer finance related WE (worked two years in compliance at a major asset management firm so hopefully that would count). Could any of you guys shed some light on this?

[Anonymous User]

Grades are a huge part of WLRK offers. I'm also a 1L so take what I have to say with a grain of salt, but from what I have heard 5-10% at CCN unfortunately does not guarantee a WLRK offer. I don't believe compliance WE will be that much of a boost. From what I have heard it's more restructuring/M&A experience at Laz/PJT/EVR or any of the big bulge brackets that will help.

Of course please defer to those much more experienced than I, in what recruiting will be like.

[Anonymous User]

Grades are a huge part of WLRK offers. I'm also a 1L so take what I have to say with a grain of salt, but from what I have heard 5-10% at CCN unfortunately does not guarantee a WLRK offer. I don't believe compliance WE will be that much of a boost. From what I have heard it's more restructuring/M&A experience at Laz/PJT/EVR or any of the big bulge brackets that will help.

Of course please defer to those much more experienced than I, in what recruiting will be like.

OP here. I figured that the threshold for a CB from CCN is top 10% and top 5% would make one competitive. Don’t think there are any grades that make WLRK, much less a CB, guaranteed. Also there are people with FO BBB experience at WLRK but it appears to be far from the norm, even in the corporate department. Also I don’t think there are any EB alums there (and frankly why would there be considering the awesome PE exit opps from PJT, Moelis...).

[UsernameNotTaken]

From what I've heard from Career Services at NYU, if you're not on Law Review, there's almost no chance WLRK will touch you, regardless of grades (which they also want to be extremely high).

[Anonymous User]

went to a CCN, got a WLRK offer. anon for obvious reasons. hopefully this will slow down the random speculation from 1Ls?

- at least for non-diverse applicants top 10% is basically necessary but by no means sufficient. once you're in that band, grades are still important but not determinative, the class is so small that people with really really good grades are routinely rejected. (this is presuming you don't have actual perfect grades, maybe a literal 4.0 is an auto-offer, i wouldn't know.)
- interviews seemed to be a bit harder than at other firms—more substantive questions, higher pressure, less "tell me about yourself"—but not inordinately so. standard callback + screener with nothing especially distinctive process-wise.
- finance or other legitimate professional services work experience will help. this obviously exists on a continuum so experience at bb ib / mbb consulting / similar (which many but not most hires have) is going to be way more helpful than working in compliance.
- maybe just correlation but elite undergrads are very overrepresented.
- basically no hires ever from outside of the T14, vast majority (90%+) are from T6 schools.
- the person who says law review is necessary is flatly wrong. that's basically the one prestige marker WLRK cares about less than other firms.

just some general thoughts, of course none of the above is an absolute, every year people who went to middling state undergrads with limited or weird work experience get hired, etc.

[Person1111]

From what I've heard from Career Services at NYU, if you're not on Law Review, there's almost no chance WLRK will touch you, regardless of grades (which they also want to be extremely high).

For whatever it's worth, I know that this is not true at HLS (and I assume not true at Y or S by extension).

[LBJ's Hair]

Also I don’t think there are any EB alums there (and frankly why would there be considering the awesome PE exit opps from PJT, Moelis...).

as opposed to the horrible private equity jobs available to bankers from JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs

[Anonymous User]

Also I don’t think there are any EB alums there (and frankly why would there be considering the awesome PE exit opps from PJT, Moelis...).

as opposed to the horrible private equity jobs available to bankers from JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs

Didn’t mean to imply that PE exits are worse at top bulge brackets. They aren’t. That being said, PJT restructuring and Lazard/Evercore M&A have the best buyside exit opps that one could have, and it would be even weirder for those people to wind up in law school compared to an analyst from a generic group at a bulge bracket.

[Anonymous User]

went to a CCN, got a WLRK offer. anon for obvious reasons. hopefully this will slow down the random speculation from 1Ls?

- at least for non-diverse applicants top 10% is basically necessary but by no means sufficient. once you're in that band, grades are still important but not determinative, the class is so small that people with really really good grades are routinely rejected. (this is presuming you don't have actual perfect grades, maybe a literal 4.0 is an auto-offer, i wouldn't know.)
- interviews seemed to be a bit harder than at other firms—more substantive questions, higher pressure, less "tell me about yourself"—but not inordinately so. standard callback + screener with nothing especially distinctive process-wise.
- finance or other legitimate professional services work experience will help. this obviously exists on a continuum so experience at bb ib / mbb consulting / similar (which many but not most hires have) is going to be way more helpful than working in compliance.
- maybe just correlation but elite undergrads are very overrepresented.
- basically no hires ever from outside of the T14, vast majority (90%+) are from T6 schools.
- the person who says law review is necessary is flatly wrong. that's basically the one prestige marker WLRK cares about less than other firms.

just some general thoughts, of course none of the above is an absolute, every year people who went to middling state undergrads with limited or weird work experience get hired, etc.

OP here. Thanks for the insight! This is very helpful. Did you find that the higher pressure parts of the interview were focused on legal stuff (I.e discussing a topic of interest in depth with the interviewer)? Or were the behavioral questions asked just harder overall?

[LBJ's Hair]

Also I don’t think there are any EB alums there (and frankly why would there be considering the awesome PE exit opps from PJT, Moelis...).

as opposed to the horrible private equity jobs available to bankers from JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs

Didn’t mean to imply that PE exits are worse at top bulge brackets. They aren’t. That being said, PJT restructuring and Lazard/Evercore M&A have the best buyside exit opps that one could have, and it would be even weirder for those people to wind up in law school compared to an analyst from a generic group at a bulge bracket.

I really shouldn't respond to this but getting mansplained private equity by a 1L at CCN who worked in compliance is impossibly aggravating...

1. Lazard and Evercore don't even have M&A groups. They're boutiques, they just do advisory work. Their teams are split by coverage (technology, energy, retail and consumer), not product. So I have no idea what you're talking about.
2. Lazard and Evercore are great banks; to the extent you think private equity exit options turn on the firm/group (which is overstated), I would not have selected those two as like, the "best." Goldman TMT and FIG have always been the gold standard.
3. Even if we're accepting, arguendo, that the people at said "elite" banks/investment banking groups are special...doesn't that make it *more* likely that they'd go to law school and work at a hyper-elite law firm? If you told me XYZ banker left his job to become a writer, I wouldn't think "Oh that dude worked at Citi, he couldn't get a private equity gig." Anyone can get a private equity gig. What a boring thing to do. I'd say "huh, did he go to Harvard undergrad and work at Goldman Sachs?" https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/07/07 ... w-profile/

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Thanks for the insight! This is very helpful. Did you find that the higher pressure parts of the interview were focused on legal stuff (I.e discussing a topic of interest in depth with the interviewer)? Or were the behavioral questions asked just harder overall?

nothing crazy, just recall walking out thinking it was a bit tougher and less friendly than most other interviews. there aren't any quizzes on substantive law or whatever. vastly preferred the experience to the all-day cravath callback (which is truly unpleasant, though obviously the odds are way better and they at least make offers on the spot).

also, not to be rude, but you're halfway through 1L year. i'd recommend you keep working hard, get good grades, and not worry right now about the content of an interview you may or may not get in 6 months.

[Anonymous User]

Also I don’t think there are any EB alums there (and frankly why would there be considering the awesome PE exit opps from PJT, Moelis...).

as opposed to the horrible private equity jobs available to bankers from JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs

Didn’t mean to imply that PE exits are worse at top bulge brackets. They aren’t. That being said, PJT restructuring and Lazard/Evercore M&A have the best buyside exit opps that one could have, and it would be even weirder for those people to wind up in law school compared to an analyst from a generic group at a bulge bracket.

I really shouldn't respond to this but getting mansplained private equity by a 1L at CCN who worked in compliance is impossibly aggravating...

1. Lazard and Evercore don't even have M&A groups. They're boutiques, they just do advisory work. Their teams are split by coverage (technology, energy, retail and consumer), not product. So I have no idea what you're talking about.
2. Lazard and Evercore are great banks; to the extent you think private equity exit options turn on the firm/group (which is overstated), I would not have selected those two as like, the "best." Goldman TMT and FIG have always been the gold standard.
3. Even if we're accepting, arguendo, that the people at said "elite" banks/investment banking groups are special...doesn't that make it *more* likely that they'd go to law school and work at a hyper-elite law firm? If you told me XYZ banker left his job to become a writer, I wouldn't think "Oh that dude worked at Citi, he couldn't get a private equity gig." Anyone can get a private equity gig. What a boring thing to do. I'd say "huh, did he go to Harvard undergrad and work at Goldman Sachs?" https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/07/07 ... w-profile/

Woah there take a chill pill. How do you know I’m a man? And I’m just going to ignore your inane dig at CCN and respond to your numbered points.

1. When I say Lazard/Evercore M&A I’m talking about their strategic advisory groups. I have a friend at one of those firms and plenty of other friends in IB and everyone universally refers to those respective groups as “Lazard M&A” and “Evercore M&A”. Please go over to WSO if you don’t believe me.

2. Without a doubt Goldman TMT and FIG have top PE exit opps. My point was that people in strategic advisory at an EB or GS TMT/FIG, MS M&A... are probably going to have amazing exit opportunities that would cut against taking out massive loans and losing three years of income to go to law school. Obviously if you couldn’t think of doing anything else long term other than law, it would make sense. But outside of that, I’m not sure why anyone would turn down PE for law school. If you end up at a firm that’s not WLRK, (extreme,y likely), you’ll make substantially less and will undoubtedly work more hours over the long term.

3. Also don’t see how being at a top group at a top bank would make someone more likely to abandon finance altogether to pursue law. It sounds like you did IB, so you should know that there are far more lawyers that transition into banking than the other way around. Not speculating on why that’s the case, but I think it’s not fair to say that being at a top Ibank would make someone more likely to go to a top law school. More likely to get in? Yes. Attending is another story.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Thanks for the insight! This is very helpful. Did you find that the higher pressure parts of the interview were focused on legal stuff (I.e discussing a topic of interest in depth with the interviewer)? Or were the behavioral questions asked just harder overall?

nothing crazy, just recall walking out thinking it was a bit tougher and less friendly than most other interviews. there aren't any quizzes on substantive law or whatever. vastly preferred the experience to the all-day cravath callback (which is truly unpleasant, though obviously the odds are way better and they at least make offers on the spot).

also, not to be rude, but you're halfway through 1L year. i'd recommend you keep working hard, get good grades, and not worry right now about the content of an interview you may or may not get in 6 months.

Thanks again and understood. A lot can happen between now and spring finals so you’re right that I shouldn’t be thinking about this now. These questions have just been creeping into my head lately.

[RaceJudicata]

OP here. Thanks for the insight! This is very helpful. Did you find that the higher pressure parts of the interview were focused on legal stuff (I.e discussing a topic of interest in depth with the interviewer)? Or were the behavioral questions asked just harder overall?

also, not to be rude, but you're halfway through 1L year. i'd recommend you keep working hard, get good grades, and not worry right now about the content of an interview you may or may not get in 6 months.

This is the most important answer.

[QContinuum]

OP here. Thanks for the insight! This is very helpful. Did you find that the higher pressure parts of the interview were focused on legal stuff (I.e discussing a topic of interest in depth with the interviewer)? Or were the behavioral questions asked just harder overall?

also, not to be rude, but you're halfway through 1L year. i'd recommend you keep working hard, get good grades, and not worry right now about the content of an interview you may or may not get in 6 months.

This is the most important answer.

Race is right. Nothing against OP in particular but for anyone in OP's position with great first-semester grades, it's actually more likely that their grades will drop second-semester than that they will stay the same (due to the inherent randomness of law school grading). Again, I'm not saying OP's grades are gonna drop - but just that equivalent performance second-semester is by no means a sure thing.

In addition, I want to caution OP against focusing too narrowly on WLRK. A 1L fixating on WLRK is pretty much analogous to a 0L fixating on Harvard Law. WLRK is a top firm for transactional work, absolutely, just like HLS is a top law school. But WLRK isn't the only top transactional firm. They don't even work on unique deals that no one else gets to touch, because think about it: Every transaction involves (at least) two sides. Every deal WLRK handles will inevitably involve the other side being repped by S&C, DPW, Cravath, what have you.

To be fair, WLRK is more different from the rest of the V10/20 than HLS is from the rest of the T6/T13. For one thing, WLRK pays much more. But it cuts both ways: WLRK associates earn that extra pay by putting in insane hours (even by NYC V10/20 standards). So keep in mind that it may not be a clear-cut decision to go to WLRK over, say, DPW or STB. There are real tradeoffs involved.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Thanks for the insight! This is very helpful. Did you find that the higher pressure parts of the interview were focused on legal stuff (I.e discussing a topic of interest in depth with the interviewer)? Or were the behavioral questions asked just harder overall?

also, not to be rude, but you're halfway through 1L year. i'd recommend you keep working hard, get good grades, and not worry right now about the content of an interview you may or may not get in 6 months.

This is the most important answer.

Race is right. Nothing against OP in particular but for anyone in OP's position with great first-semester grades, it's actually more likely that their grades will drop second-semester than that they will stay the same (due to the inherent randomness of law school grading). Again, I'm not saying OP's grades are gonna drop - but just that equivalent performance second-semester is by no means a sure thing.

In addition, I want to caution OP against focusing too narrowly on WLRK. A 1L fixating on WLRK is pretty much analogous to a 0L fixating on Harvard Law. WLRK is a top firm for transactional work, absolutely, just like HLS is a top law school. But WLRK isn't the only top transactional firm. They don't even work on unique deals that no one else gets to touch, because think about it: Every transaction involves (at least) two sides. Every deal WLRK handles will inevitably involve the other side being repped by S&C, DPW, Cravath, what have you.

To be fair, WLRK is more different from the rest of the V10/20 than HLS is from the rest of the T6/T13. For one thing, WLRK pays much more. But it cuts both ways: WLRK associates earn that extra pay by putting in insane hours (even by NYC V10/20 standards). So keep in mind that it may not be a clear-cut decision to go to WLRK over, say, DPW or STB. There are real tradeoffs involved.

Thanks for the advice QC! As I mentioned above, it is stupid for me to be thinking about this now. I’ve heard plenty of stories about people who get straight A’s their first semester and do much worse in the spring and I’m not taking anything for granted. The top 10% is a tight margin and you’re right that I’m more likely to do worse this semester. I Just have to buckle down and try my best.

And I know that outside of takeover defense (which I find fascinating) WLRK’s M&A practice looks very similar to S&C’s and CSM’s. The pay is a nice addition, but I’m mostly interested in the firm because of it’s flat structure,(and hence higher partnership prospects), and their egalitarian culture. But again I shouldn’t be thinking about this now. I’ve still got to seal the deal come May.

[Anonymous User]

From what I've heard from Career Services at NYU, if you're not on Law Review, there's almost no chance WLRK will touch you, regardless of grades (which they also want to be extremely high).

I worked at WLRK and I never got the impression that students needed to be on law review to get offers. Maybe they do for NYU, but I think if you have the right grades, WLRK doesn't really care about LR. FWIW, I also tend to think WLRK hires a certain type of associate. I think they tend to be folks who are in shape to handle the pace and volume of work, take care of their bodies, and serious. I think WLRK, in general, wants folks who can be client facing right away.

[Anonymous User]

From what I've heard from Career Services at NYU, if you're not on Law Review, there's almost no chance WLRK will touch you, regardless of grades (which they also want to be extremely high).

I worked at WLRK and I never got the impression that students needed to be on law review to get offers. Maybe they do for NYU, but I think if you have the right grades, WLRK doesn't really care about LR. FWIW, I also tend to think WLRK hires a certain type of associate. I think they tend to be folks who are in shape to handle the pace and volume of work, take care of their bodies, and serious. I think WLRK, in general, wants folks who can be client facing right away.

In terms of LR I think the people they hire from NYU tend to be people who grade on to Law Review immediately.

[Anonymous User]

went to a CCN, got a WLRK offer. anon for obvious reasons. hopefully this will slow down the random speculation from 1Ls?

- at least for non-diverse applicants top 10% is basically necessary but by no means sufficient. once you're in that band, grades are still important but not determinative, the class is so small that people with really really good grades are routinely rejected. (this is presuming you don't have actual perfect grades, maybe a literal 4.0 is an auto-offer, i wouldn't know.)
- interviews seemed to be a bit harder than at other firms—more substantive questions, higher pressure, less "tell me about yourself"—but not inordinately so. standard callback + screener with nothing especially distinctive process-wise.
- finance or other legitimate professional services work experience will help. this obviously exists on a continuum so experience at bb ib / mbb consulting / similar (which many but not most hires have) is going to be way more helpful than working in compliance.
- maybe just correlation but elite undergrads are very overrepresented.
- basically no hires ever from outside of the T14, vast majority (90%+) are from T6 schools.
- the person who says law review is necessary is flatly wrong. that's basically the one prestige marker WLRK cares about less than other firms.

just some general thoughts, of course none of the above is an absolute, every year people who went to middling state undergrads with limited or weird work experience get hired, etc.

This all seems right from my experience interviewing at Wachtell and other firms. I cannot stress enough the importance of the baseline academic credentials at that firm. Compared to, say, Cravath or Davis Polk, Wachtell is considerably more selective, and does not make the sort of leeway those other firms will for marginal candidates with *meh* grades but other valuable qualities. It is far more comparable to, e.g., Munger Tolles or Williams & Connolly, but might even have a higher emphasis on grades.

The interview process is more substantive than at other big New York firms. I, and many others, found the questions at screener, and to a lesser extent at the callback, to be more challenging and require a more complex digression into legal and financial topics.

In addition to grades, they will look to background—not necessarily because of what is learned from finance or consulting, but to see whether you can cut it and hit the ground running in a hyper intensive professional environment. I have seen extremely qualified applicants from YSHCCN dinged because they give off too much of a future-law-professor vibe.

[Anonymous User]

Interviews are definitely different, looking to see if you can think on your feet. They are still very friendly, but they definitely push back on your answers, ask why a lot, and make you explain or justify things that just get a "Neat!" at other firms.

Obviously grades and school are threshold issues. I think we had 3 non T6 people this summer, two of whom were JD/MBAs and one ex-military. No one from outside the T14 (although my understanding is that some people with juice are pushing back on the school elitism, no telling if that means anything will change in the near future). It's not a prerequisite to be on law review, I think most people with the grades to get an offer just end up getting on depending on how the school handles grading on. There are a couple juniors who were on their school's business law journal, for example.

Interview-wise, it's my understanding that they are looking for serious, professional, self-driven people. The teams are very small (often like 1 partner and 2 associates), so they are looking for people who won't need their hand held and will work themselves to the bone without anyone having to check in on them. Even as a summer you will be on calls with clients, CCed on on client and opposing counsel email chains, etc. They expect you to come in the door ready to represent the firm, which is why you see a lot of people with previous professional experience.

[Anonymous User]

Interviews are definitely different, looking to see if you can think on your feet. They are still very friendly, but they definitely push back on your answers, ask why a lot, and make you explain or justify things that just get a "Neat!" at other firms.

Obviously grades and school are threshold issues. I think we had 3 non T6 people this summer, two of whom were JD/MBAs and one ex-military. No one from outside the T14 (although my understanding is that some people with juice are pushing back on the school elitism, no telling if that means anything will change in the near future). It's not a prerequisite to be on law review, I think most people with the grades to get an offer just end up getting on depending on how the school handles grading on. There are a couple juniors who were on their school's business law journal, for example.

Interview-wise, it's my understanding that they are looking for serious, professional, self-driven people. The teams are very small (often like 1 partner and 2 associates), so they are looking for people who won't need their hand held and will work themselves to the bone without anyone having to check in on them. Even as a summer you will be on calls with clients, CCed on on client and opposing counsel email chains, etc. They expect you to come in the door ready to represent the firm, which is why you see a lot of people with previous professional experience.

OP here. Just want to thank you and the other users for being so helpful and responsive. Do you think that the firm is also picky about where someone did their undergrad? I was STEM at a top public-(realized late in undergrad that IP wasn’t for me)- and have always been told that even the most prestigious firms by and large don’t care about where someone did their undergrad.

[Anonymous User]

Interviews are definitely different, looking to see if you can think on your feet. They are still very friendly, but they definitely push back on your answers, ask why a lot, and make you explain or justify things that just get a "Neat!" at other firms.

Obviously grades and school are threshold issues. I think we had 3 non T6 people this summer, two of whom were JD/MBAs and one ex-military. No one from outside the T14 (although my understanding is that some people with juice are pushing back on the school elitism, no telling if that means anything will change in the near future). It's not a prerequisite to be on law review, I think most people with the grades to get an offer just end up getting on depending on how the school handles grading on. There are a couple juniors who were on their school's business law journal, for example.

Interview-wise, it's my understanding that they are looking for serious, professional, self-driven people. The teams are very small (often like 1 partner and 2 associates), so they are looking for people who won't need their hand held and will work themselves to the bone without anyone having to check in on them. Even as a summer you will be on calls with clients, CCed on on client and opposing counsel email chains, etc. They expect you to come in the door ready to represent the firm, which is why you see a lot of people with previous professional experience.

OP here. Just want to thank you and the other users for being so helpful and responsive. Do you think that the firm is also picky about where someone did their undergrad? I was STEM at a top public-(realized late in undergrad that IP wasn’t for me)- and have always been told that even the most prestigious firms by and large don’t care about where someone did their undergrad.

While there are a lot of Ivy UGs, I think it's more correlation than causation. I don't think they care much at all, but I honestly can't say with much certainty.

[Anonymous User]

Interviews are definitely different, looking to see if you can think on your feet. They are still very friendly, but they definitely push back on your answers, ask why a lot, and make you explain or justify things that just get a "Neat!" at other firms.

Obviously grades and school are threshold issues. I think we had 3 non T6 people this summer, two of whom were JD/MBAs and one ex-military. No one from outside the T14 (although my understanding is that some people with juice are pushing back on the school elitism, no telling if that means anything will change in the near future). It's not a prerequisite to be on law review, I think most people with the grades to get an offer just end up getting on depending on how the school handles grading on. There are a couple juniors who were on their school's business law journal, for example.

Interview-wise, it's my understanding that they are looking for serious, professional, self-driven people. The teams are very small (often like 1 partner and 2 associates), so they are looking for people who won't need their hand held and will work themselves to the bone without anyone having to check in on them. Even as a summer you will be on calls with clients, CCed on on client and opposing counsel email chains, etc. They expect you to come in the door ready to represent the firm, which is why you see a lot of people with previous professional experience.

OP here. Just want to thank you and the other users for being so helpful and responsive. Do you think that the firm is also picky about where someone did their undergrad? I was STEM at a top public-(realized late in undergrad that IP wasn’t for me)- and have always been told that even the most prestigious firms by and large don’t care about where someone did their undergrad.

Not the anon you were responding to, but in my summer class of ~30, only a handful didn't go to very good undergrads (like top-20 USNWR ranking). The most common undergrad school was Harvard. I'm sure there's some correlation there (i.e. people who went to those schools for undergrad probably do better on average in law school), but hard to say they don't care at all where you went.

It's not like you can change where you went for UG at this point, though, so seems pretty useless to worry. And people who went to random undergrad schools do get hired each year.

[Anonymous User]

Does WLRK hire laterals? If so, is there an emphasis on law firm eliteness, i.e., 99% of interviewees are likely from a V5/10?

[Anonymous User]

Does WLRK hire laterals? If so, is there an emphasis on law firm eliteness, i.e., 99% of interviewees are likely from a V5/10?

Yes they take laterals, but it is extremely difficult to lateral to WLRK. When I was there all of the laterals came from Yale law and had worked at other elite firms. Even so, there were only 2 or so laterals per year.