UChicago Law OCI 2019 Forum

[Anonymous User]

Ding - Mayer Brown. Some Chicago firms are definitely yield protecting, but tbh they're right in my case, I wouldn't have worked there. If I had done really poorly with the very selective firms for some reason this would be quite a scary OCI though!

There's no such thing as yield protecting in OCI. firms don't have to report yield for SA offers.

There's a huge amount of yield protection. I think even bigger than the costs is the fact that if they extend an offer (that a top-student will almost surely not take), they have to keep the offer open for several weeks while they could be nabbing other applicants.

As a biglaw associate who interviews students every week in the summer, including your classmates, no. There is no such thing as yield protect. The size of a summer class is variable so if we have more or less than the total number expected then whatever. Classes are large and that's part of the process. I think youre dramatically overestimating the value of an SA (and by extension a first year)

If you didn't get an offer from a firm that you think is beneath you, it's because they didn't like you. Not because they thought your grades were so good you'd never accept. This isn't law school and "yield" isn't a thing

rofl nobody said anything about the value of a SA or 1st year. But law firms do need people who will come on board, some of whom will be some of the firm's future leaders. That's why each firm spends tens of thousands of dollars recruiting (and some spend hundreds of thousands of dollars)--recruiting associates who will join your firm is extremely important in the long run.

And if you, as an associate, don't understand that there is, in fact, YP at law firms, then I don't know what to say to you. It is well-known in the legal profession that such occurs. I do hope you're trolling.

Of course, "yield protection" isn't a technically correct term, if that's what you're getting at. Yes, there's no "yield" to "protect." But firms don't want to waste time and money, and don't want to leave an offer pending that will not be accepted. And firms do target an approximate class size; if you don't understand that, I feel very sorry for you.

[Anonymous User]

Ding - Mayer Brown. Some Chicago firms are definitely yield protecting, but tbh they're right in my case, I wouldn't have worked there. If I had done really poorly with the very selective firms for some reason this would be quite a scary OCI though!

There's no such thing as yield protecting in OCI. firms don't have to report yield for SA offers.

There's a huge amount of yield protection. I think even bigger than the costs is the fact that if they extend an offer (that a top-student will almost surely not take), they have to keep the offer open for several weeks while they could be nabbing other applicants.

As a biglaw associate who interviews students every week in the summer, including your classmates, no. There is no such thing as yield protect. The size of a summer class is variable so if we have more or less than the total number expected then whatever. Classes are large and that's part of the process. I think youre dramatically overestimating the value of an SA (and by extension a first year)

If you didn't get an offer from a firm that you think is beneath you, it's because they didn't like you. Not because they thought your grades were so good you'd never accept. This isn't law school and "yield" isn't a thing

The hubris here is kind of amazing. You're a biglaw associate who's done interviews, so you think you're in a position to conclude that "there is no such thing as yield protect"? Different firms can't have different approaches? The same firm can't have shifting attitudes over the course of years of recruiting? You speak, in your infinite wisdom, for all of biglaw, everywhere? Well, gosh. We're honored by your presence.

[Anonymous User]

uh yeah not convinced. Clearly the data and the experiences of everyone on this thread are nothing compared to one random associate’s experience with his approach to interviewing for one firm.

[Anonymous User]

Fantastic posts, everybody. Keep up the great posting

[Anonymous User]

This hardly seems like a productive debate...

[Anonymous User]

Ding - Mayer Brown. Some Chicago firms are definitely yield protecting, but tbh they're right in my case, I wouldn't have worked there. If I had done really poorly with the very selective firms for some reason this would be quite a scary OCI though!

There's no such thing as yield protecting in OCI. firms don't have to report yield for SA offers.

There's a huge amount of yield protection. I think even bigger than the costs is the fact that if they extend an offer (that a top-student will almost surely not take), they have to keep the offer open for several weeks while they could be nabbing other applicants.

As a biglaw associate who interviews students every week in the summer, including your classmates, no. There is no such thing as yield protect. The size of a summer class is variable so if we have more or less than the total number expected then whatever. Classes are large and that's part of the process. I think youre dramatically overestimating the value of an SA (and by extension a first year)

If you didn't get an offer from a firm that you think is beneath you, it's because they didn't like you. Not because they thought your grades were so good you'd never accept. This isn't law school and "yield" isn't a thing

The hubris here is kind of amazing. You're a biglaw associate who's done interviews, so you think you're in a position to conclude that "there is no such thing as yield protect"? Different firms can't have different approaches? The same firm can't have shifting attitudes over the course of years of recruiting? You speak, in your infinite wisdom, for all of biglaw, everywhere? Well, gosh. We're honored by your presence.

Hold on. The hypocrisy here is astounding. Only one of us has interviewed law students and only one of us has any insight into this process. Generically suggesting that "some firms may be different" isn't based on anything. If anything this should be encouraging. If you're friendly and normal and have find/good grades, you're in a great spot. What i'm saying is that a firm isn't going to reject someone because their grades are "too high."

Good grades help. And bad/underwhelming grades will kill a chance at an offer. But to think that the firm is going to spend the money to have a callback and not extend an offer simply because the firm is so blown away by the student's grades is delusional. It's even worse to think that a biglaw firm wouldn't extend a callback to a student because their grades are too high.

Look, we want someone who is smart and who we can see ourselves working with at 2am. If you dont meet both criteria then you arent getting an offer. If it makes you feel better to think that a firm didn't offer you because your grades were "too high" then fine. I'm just saying that's not how it works.

I wish you the best and i know OCI is exhausting. Just remember to relax. The interviewers are people too so if you can just connect then you're in a good spot. At the callback stage, you already have the grades

[QContinuum]

My personal experience is that while "yield protection" isn't specifically a consideration - firms don't really care about their "yield" for prestige/ranking purposes in the way law schools do - interviewers/firms definitely do consider a candidate's likelihood of accepting an offer (if extended) in deciding who to call back (callbacks are costly to firms in terms of attorney time). And grades can be an important factor in that consideration. If an interviewer believes - rightly or wrongly - that a particular candidate would never realistically join their firm, then they may very well not extend a callback even if they like the fella.

Now, of course there will be exceptions. Some interviewers/firms may have a more "liberal" callback policy.

[Anonymous User]

Ding - Mayer Brown. Some Chicago firms are definitely yield protecting, but tbh they're right in my case, I wouldn't have worked there. If I had done really poorly with the very selective firms for some reason this would be quite a scary OCI though!

There's no such thing as yield protecting in OCI. firms don't have to report yield for SA offers.

There's a huge amount of yield protection. I think even bigger than the costs is the fact that if they extend an offer (that a top-student will almost surely not take), they have to keep the offer open for several weeks while they could be nabbing other applicants.

As a biglaw associate who interviews students every week in the summer, including your classmates, no. There is no such thing as yield protect. The size of a summer class is variable so if we have more or less than the total number expected then whatever. Classes are large and that's part of the process. I think youre dramatically overestimating the value of an SA (and by extension a first year)

If you didn't get an offer from a firm that you think is beneath you, it's because they didn't like you. Not because they thought your grades were so good you'd never accept. This isn't law school and "yield" isn't a thing

The hubris here is kind of amazing. You're a biglaw associate who's done interviews, so you think you're in a position to conclude that "there is no such thing as yield protect"? Different firms can't have different approaches? The same firm can't have shifting attitudes over the course of years of recruiting? You speak, in your infinite wisdom, for all of biglaw, everywhere? Well, gosh. We're honored by your presence.

Hold on. The hypocrisy here is astounding. Only one of us has interviewed law students and only one of us has any insight into this process. Generically suggesting that "some firms may be different" isn't based on anything. If anything this should be encouraging. If you're friendly and normal and have find/good grades, you're in a great spot. What i'm saying is that a firm isn't going to reject someone because their grades are "too high."

Good grades help. And bad/underwhelming grades will kill a chance at an offer. But to think that the firm is going to spend the money to have a callback and not extend an offer simply because the firm is so blown away by the student's grades is delusional. It's even worse to think that a biglaw firm wouldn't extend a callback to a student because their grades are too high.

Look, we want someone who is smart and who we can see ourselves working with at 2am. If you dont meet both criteria then you arent getting an offer. If it makes you feel better to think that a firm didn't offer you because your grades were "too high" then fine. I'm just saying that's not how it works.

I wish you the best and i know OCI is exhausting. Just remember to relax. The interviewers are people too so if you can just connect then you're in a good spot. At the callback stage, you already have the grades

I feel bad for people. I know OCI is brutal on the ego, but the yield protection phenomenon stretching to actual jobs is almost laughable. Wouldn't it make more sense to yield protect (if that was the case) at the screener portion rather than the callback? I suspect it's more likely that certain people are a turn off, and I wonder whether the type of person who thinks they are being yield-protected is the type of person to also come off as arrogant.

[Anonymous User]

Ding - Mayer Brown. Some Chicago firms are definitely yield protecting, but tbh they're right in my case, I wouldn't have worked there. If I had done really poorly with the very selective firms for some reason this would be quite a scary OCI though!

There's no such thing as yield protecting in OCI. firms don't have to report yield for SA offers.

There's a huge amount of yield protection. I think even bigger than the costs is the fact that if they extend an offer (that a top-student will almost surely not take), they have to keep the offer open for several weeks while they could be nabbing other applicants.

As a biglaw associate who interviews students every week in the summer, including your classmates, no. There is no such thing as yield protect. The size of a summer class is variable so if we have more or less than the total number expected then whatever. Classes are large and that's part of the process. I think youre dramatically overestimating the value of an SA (and by extension a first year)

If you didn't get an offer from a firm that you think is beneath you, it's because they didn't like you. Not because they thought your grades were so good you'd never accept. This isn't law school and "yield" isn't a thing

The hubris here is kind of amazing. You're a biglaw associate who's done interviews, so you think you're in a position to conclude that "there is no such thing as yield protect"? Different firms can't have different approaches? The same firm can't have shifting attitudes over the course of years of recruiting? You speak, in your infinite wisdom, for all of biglaw, everywhere? Well, gosh. We're honored by your presence.

Hold on. The hypocrisy here is astounding. Only one of us has interviewed law students and only one of us has any insight into this process. Generically suggesting that "some firms may be different" isn't based on anything. If anything this should be encouraging. If you're friendly and normal and have find/good grades, you're in a great spot. What i'm saying is that a firm isn't going to reject someone because their grades are "too high."

Good grades help. And bad/underwhelming grades will kill a chance at an offer. But to think that the firm is going to spend the money to have a callback and not extend an offer simply because the firm is so blown away by the student's grades is delusional. It's even worse to think that a biglaw firm wouldn't extend a callback to a student because their grades are too high.

Look, we want someone who is smart and who we can see ourselves working with at 2am. If you dont meet both criteria then you arent getting an offer. If it makes you feel better to think that a firm didn't offer you because your grades were "too high" then fine. I'm just saying that's not how it works.

I wish you the best and i know OCI is exhausting. Just remember to relax. The interviewers are people too so if you can just connect then you're in a good spot. At the callback stage, you already have the grades

I feel bad for people. I know OCI is brutal on the ego, but the yield protection phenomenon stretching too actual jobs is almost laughable. Wouldn't it make more sense to yield protect (if that was the case) at the screener portion rather than the callback? I suspect it's more likely that certain people are a turn off, and I wonder whether the type of person who thinks they are being yield-protected is the type of person to also come off as arrogant.

This. If a phenomenon that resembles YP exists in law firm recruiting, it’s only at the screener stage. A firm is not going to take attorneys off of their billables and pay for flights, hotels etc. unless they were reasonably certain that the candidates called back would seriously consider taking an offer. Personality issues/fit problems are a more plausible explanation for no offers at the CB stage than YP.

[Anonymous User]

Ding - Mayer Brown. Some Chicago firms are definitely yield protecting, but tbh they're right in my case, I wouldn't have worked there. If I had done really poorly with the very selective firms for some reason this would be quite a scary OCI though!

There's no such thing as yield protecting in OCI. firms don't have to report yield for SA offers.

There's a huge amount of yield protection. I think even bigger than the costs is the fact that if they extend an offer (that a top-student will almost surely not take), they have to keep the offer open for several weeks while they could be nabbing other applicants.

As a biglaw associate who interviews students every week in the summer, including your classmates, no. There is no such thing as yield protect. The size of a summer class is variable so if we have more or less than the total number expected then whatever. Classes are large and that's part of the process. I think youre dramatically overestimating the value of an SA (and by extension a first year)

If you didn't get an offer from a firm that you think is beneath you, it's because they didn't like you. Not because they thought your grades were so good you'd never accept. This isn't law school and "yield" isn't a thing

The hubris here is kind of amazing. You're a biglaw associate who's done interviews, so you think you're in a position to conclude that "there is no such thing as yield protect"? Different firms can't have different approaches? The same firm can't have shifting attitudes over the course of years of recruiting? You speak, in your infinite wisdom, for all of biglaw, everywhere? Well, gosh. We're honored by your presence.

Hold on. The hypocrisy here is astounding. Only one of us has interviewed law students and only one of us has any insight into this process. Generically suggesting that "some firms may be different" isn't based on anything. If anything this should be encouraging. If you're friendly and normal and have find/good grades, you're in a great spot. What i'm saying is that a firm isn't going to reject someone because their grades are "too high."

Good grades help. And bad/underwhelming grades will kill a chance at an offer. But to think that the firm is going to spend the money to have a callback and not extend an offer simply because the firm is so blown away by the student's grades is delusional. It's even worse to think that a biglaw firm wouldn't extend a callback to a student because their grades are too high.

I'm not going through OCI this year. I've already been through it. Just step back for 5 seconds and think about the kind of sweeping generalization you've made: that YP "just does not exist". All it takes is literally for one firm to have occasionally done something like YP to falsify your claim. And I know some firms do it because I was all but told by a partner that his firm does it when they were recruiting me. You (and some of the below posters) can bicker about what *exactly* firms do and if there's an *exact* analogue to YP in the OCI process, but I've been told firsthand by a partner that his firms considers, when deciding whether to invite people, whether they're likely to accept or decline, in order to minimize the number of invitations made to people who will likely decline. Maybe your firm doesn't. But you'd have to literally speak to every single firm in order to justify the claim that it "does not exist" or "just does not happen."

Also, I can't help commenting on the irony of people here talking about arrogance when making such sweeping claims about all of Biglaw based on their anecdotal experiences and armchair theorizing about law firm economics. NTD: that you're now a junior associate doing doc review/due diligence doesn't mean you're some wise sage who can lecture students on the definitive ins and outs of the real world. Humility goes in both directions.

[Anonymous User]

This. If a phenomenon that resembles YP exists in law firm recruiting, it’s only at the screener stage. A firm is not going to take attorneys off of their billables and pay for flights, hotels etc. unless they were reasonably certain that the candidates called back would seriously consider taking an offer. Personality issues/fit problems are a more plausible explanation for no offers at the CB stage than YP.

Everybody is talking about the screener stage. Also, you just made everyone’s point.

[Anonymous User]

Alumnus here. Just a couple things:

(1) YP will only really happen at screener stage, as noted by others above, but it isn't as big of a deal as people seem to think. Firms have a pretty good sense of how many offers will be accepted, and they have a general idea of how big a summer class they want, but neither of these numbers are written in stone.

(2) OCS likes to say that basically everyone gets a job. This is true, but not everyone gets that job through OCI. Every year, classes end up shocked by the number of people who strike out of OCI, because OCS is not forthright about this issue. (This annoys me, because it also makes the people who strike out feel really bad about themselves and start to second-guess their approach, which leads me to my last point...)

(3) There may be behind-the-scenes factors that you are not aware of. Chicago's OCI is very late, and some firms come into it with only one or two spots left, sometimes only in corp or only in lit. So even with good grades and a winning personality (lol), you can get dinged because you said you wanted the wrong group. SOME firms are good about being above board on this issue and telling you/the school what they are looking for, but others are not. For an example: I had a great screener at OCI for one of the firm's secondary market locations, and the guy offered me a callback on the spot (told me that they were going to definitely have me come in for one, told me when that office was doing them, and when/from whom I would be hearing back about specific time, etc). After some silence, I reached out and learned that--unbeknownst to even that interviewer--the office I was applying to was hiring only a very specific SINGLE summer (think: patent eligible, etc). I wasn't married to that locale--I thought it was just a better bet for me--and asked to be considered for their other office(s), but was then informed that those were all hired up.

Anyway, good luck. Also remember that scheduling callbacks is hard on the firms. Some places will just take longer than others.

[Anonymous User]

Ding - Mayer Brown. Some Chicago firms are definitely yield protecting, but tbh they're right in my case, I wouldn't have worked there. If I had done really poorly with the very selective firms for some reason this would be quite a scary OCI though!

There's no such thing as yield protecting in OCI. firms don't have to report yield for SA offers.

There's a huge amount of yield protection. I think even bigger than the costs is the fact that if they extend an offer (that a top-student will almost surely not take), they have to keep the offer open for several weeks while they could be nabbing other applicants.

As a biglaw associate who interviews students every week in the summer, including your classmates, no. There is no such thing as yield protect. The size of a summer class is variable so if we have more or less than the total number expected then whatever. Classes are large and that's part of the process. I think youre dramatically overestimating the value of an SA (and by extension a first year)

If you didn't get an offer from a firm that you think is beneath you, it's because they didn't like you. Not because they thought your grades were so good you'd never accept. This isn't law school and "yield" isn't a thing

The hubris here is kind of amazing. You're a biglaw associate who's done interviews, so you think you're in a position to conclude that "there is no such thing as yield protect"? Different firms can't have different approaches? The same firm can't have shifting attitudes over the course of years of recruiting? You speak, in your infinite wisdom, for all of biglaw, everywhere? Well, gosh. We're honored by your presence.

Hold on. The hypocrisy here is astounding. Only one of us has interviewed law students and only one of us has any insight into this process. Generically suggesting that "some firms may be different" isn't based on anything. If anything this should be encouraging. If you're friendly and normal and have find/good grades, you're in a great spot. What i'm saying is that a firm isn't going to reject someone because their grades are "too high."

Good grades help. And bad/underwhelming grades will kill a chance at an offer. But to think that the firm is going to spend the money to have a callback and not extend an offer simply because the firm is so blown away by the student's grades is delusional. It's even worse to think that a biglaw firm wouldn't extend a callback to a student because their grades are too high.

Look, we want someone who is smart and who we can see ourselves working with at 2am. If you dont meet both criteria then you arent getting an offer. If it makes you feel better to think that a firm didn't offer you because your grades were "too high" then fine. I'm just saying that's not how it works.

I wish you the best and i know OCI is exhausting. Just remember to relax. The interviewers are people too so if you can just connect then you're in a good spot. At the callback stage, you already have the grades

I feel bad for people. I know OCI is brutal on the ego, but the yield protection phenomenon stretching to actual jobs is almost laughable. Wouldn't it make more sense to yield protect (if that was the case) at the screener portion rather than the callback? I suspect it's more likely that certain people are a turn off, and I wonder whether the type of person who thinks they are being yield-protected is the type of person to also come off as arrogant.

Imagine being this poster who (a) has no self-awareness that they, in fact, are insufferable and arrogant and (b) has such poor reading comprehension that they don’t understand that this entire discussion is about the screener stage.

[Anonymous User]

It seems that most of the denialists are confused and think the allegation is that it’s at the callback stage. That’s obviously wrong. There hasn’t been any convincing evidence that the abundant evidence supporting YP (the DC data, NY data in previous TLS threads, the experiences of most of the students and many of the practitioners in this thread) is wrong.

[Anonymous User]

A theory that might explain what both sides see going on here is interest playing a key role in hiring. Would firms not offer someone despite having great grades + being someone you want to work with if they felt the candidate wasn't interested in the firm specifically? (e.g. having a bad answer for "why this firm," targeting a secondary market without good ties, etc)

[Anonymous User]

Y’all are killing me.

What has Katten (Chicago)’s timeline been from CB -> offer?

[Anonymous User]

I'm an associate who was a KE Scholar. I suspect that "yield protection," in the sense of "there's no way we are getting this kid, so why spend the effort" happens sometimes. Firms that are plenty decent but not as well known as KE/Sidley/Mayer/etc. may hesitate to spend all the time and resources on a callback process if they think somebody is getting 10 offers and their firm isn't anywhere near the top choice.

Probably more likely for interviewers that can give only limited numbers of callbacks, and so who want people who seem really interested.

Anyway, if you have top grades and actually want someplace, try to show that in your interview. And if you don't want someplace, don't go for every screener, and start cancelling stuff once you have a comfortable number of callbacks and/or your first offer. Best to let firms give someone else a call, and save yourself and others a lot of headache.

[Anonymous User]

Has anyone who did a callback at Gibson DC this week received an offer yet?

[Anonymous User]

Crowell DC ding

[Anonymous User]

Ding in the mail from Williams & Connolly. Fancy paper, decently long, and even personalized a bit - very classy.

[Anonymous User]

Decent number of callbacks under my belt, but I know many people with 1 or 0. If you're not interested in a firm, please let them know. This has a real impact on people.

[Anonymous User]

Has anyone gotten a ding from Quinn Emanuel?

[Anonymous User]

Crowell DC ding

Callback or screener?

[Anonymous User]

Crowell DC ding

Callback or screener?

Screener

[Anonymous User]

Anyone hear from Perkins DC? Callback or offers?