Top Law Schools

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

proleteriate wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Can confirm that Wheeler is moving. Is there any movement in DC or LA?

Anyone have an update here on Wheeler? Particularly, any offers or interviews out there, or any knowledge about how many they are looking to hire?

They are definitely moving.

I have an interview, but also a competing offer, was just trying to gauge my odds and timeline in terms of offers

callback or screener interview?

Callback.

Anonymous User wrote:Williams and Connolly post-callback ding.

do you know their current salary for second, third, and fourth years?

Anonymous User wrote:Williams and Connolly post-callback ding.

+1

Anyone else here anxious AF waiting to hear back post CBs? I'm literally here sitting on my thumbs wanting to scream!

proleteriate wrote:Anyone else here anxious AF waiting to hear back post CBs? I'm literally here sitting on my thumbs wanting to scream!

Yep. Some take a day to get back to you, others a month and it is almost impossible to know why...I try not to think about it...and then I think about it anyway.

proleteriate wrote:Anyone else here anxious AF waiting to hear back post CBs? I'm literally here sitting on my thumbs wanting to scream!

It is tough. I thought it would get better once I had an offer, but now I'm worried about pissing them off by waiting on other decisions. Did you ever hear from WTO? I'm waiting post-callback.

Anonymous User wrote:

proleteriate wrote:Anyone else here anxious AF waiting to hear back post CBs? I'm literally here sitting on my thumbs wanting to scream!

It is tough. I thought it would get better once I had an offer, but now I'm worried about pissing them off by waiting on other decisions. Did you ever hear from WTO? I'm waiting post-callback.

Not yet. How long ago was ur CB?

proleteriate wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

proleteriate wrote:Anyone else here anxious AF waiting to hear back post CBs? I'm literally here sitting on my thumbs wanting to scream!

It is tough. I thought it would get better once I had an offer, but now I'm worried about pissing them off by waiting on other decisions. Did you ever hear from WTO? I'm waiting post-callback.

Not yet. How long ago was ur CB?

About a week. You similar? And did you get a timeline?

Has anyone gotten an offer from Winston & Strawn yet?

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Williams and Connolly post-callback ding.

do you know their current salary for second, third, and fourth years?

Second years make $230,000.

How do you deal with interviewers who ask you about cases? Both "so smith v jones was a tough one, huh?" And "tell me about the most interesting case you worked on?"

I've said I can't really discuss that and gotten a disappointed/irritated response

Anonymous User wrote:How do you deal with interviewers who ask you about cases? Both "so smith v jones was a tough one, huh?" And "tell me about the most interesting case you worked on?"

I've said I can't really discuss that and gotten a disappointed/irritated response

It’s my understanding that the prohibition against talking about a case applies to currently pending matters. Personally, I still talk about cases that are no longer pending in generalities as to the facts and then the specifics on the law. So long as you aren’t divulging the judge’s decision making process, I’d assume you’re okay.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:How do you deal with interviewers who ask you about cases? Both "so smith v jones was a tough one, huh?" And "tell me about the most interesting case you worked on?"

I've said I can't really discuss that and gotten a disappointed/irritated response

It’s my understanding that the prohibition against talking about a case applies to currently pending matters. Personally, I still talk about cases that are no longer pending in generalities as to the facts and then the specifics on the law. So long as you aren’t divulging the judge’s decision making process, I’d assume you’re okay.

I think this is really good advice, I just add one caveat. I actually talk about the way we reached a decision (it’s in the analysis to some degree anyway) but I don’t discuss, nor am I asked about, the road not traveled.

In my experience these are what I’ve come to call “human being” questions. The absoulute wrong answer is: “chambers code; can’t talk about it.” The right answer talks about the entered decision and the arguments without making the interviewer feel like they committed a crime by asking. Many, many, many of classmates blew their interviews until they learned how to respond to these questions like human beings and not soulless rule-robots programmed by a mad law school dean at law review camp. If the matter is currently pending, they know not to ask about and are only doing so to see how you respond. Redirect the question to a discussable case where the issues are similar...but for the love of god don’t say no and just sit there staring at them.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:How do you deal with interviewers who ask you about cases? Both "so smith v jones was a tough one, huh?" And "tell me about the most interesting case you worked on?"

I've said I can't really discuss that and gotten a disappointed/irritated response

It’s my understanding that the prohibition against talking about a case applies to currently pending matters. Personally, I still talk about cases that are no longer pending in generalities as to the facts and then the specifics on the law. So long as you aren’t divulging the judge’s decision making process, I’d assume you’re okay.

I think this is really good advice, I just add one caveat. I actually talk about the way we reached a decision (it’s in the analysis to some degree anyway) but I don’t discuss, nor am I asked about, the road not traveled.

In my experience these are what I’ve come to call “human being” questions. The absoulute wrong answer is: “chambers code; can’t talk about it.” The right answer talks about the entered decision and the arguments without making the interviewer feel like they committed a crime by asking. Many, many, many of classmates blew their interviews until they learned how to respond to these questions like human beings and not soulless rule-robots programmed by a mad law school dean at law review camp. If the matter is currently pending, they know not to ask about and are only doing so to see how you respond. Redirect the question to a discussable case where the issues are similar...but for the love of god don’t say no and just sit there staring at them.

While I agree with this, I think its important for this discussion to differentiate between "the way we reached the decision" in a legal analysis sense, and "the way we reached a decision" in a chambers process sense. The former is on the face of the opinion. But chambers process would include things like whether there was consensus coming out of conference.

But yes, the "can't talk about anything" crowd misunderstands the rules and fails the "be a normal person" test.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Looking for a little advice.

I'm a fed appellate clerk with an offer from a great firm (v-15) known for its appellate practice. Recently I received an offer from a state's SG's office. The SG promised me I'd be arguing some of the state's most important appeals in front of the state's supreme court and the fed appellate court by the end of the year. Obviously the money is significantly less, but appellate work is my thing.

I'm pretty tempted by the SG's offer. Am I crazy to turn down biglaw? Would anybody else do this?

Yes, I would turn down an offer from Gibson Dunn to work for my state's SG office.

I went to a state SG straight from my clerkship, but I know it will be only be for a short period of time for financial reasons. I love it and have had way better experience (I think) than if I had gone to a law firm. If I could afford to make a career of it at this point, I'd be tempted.

Listen to these guys, dude. You don’t somehow become less marketable after arguing on behalf of a state.

You don't think it might be quite difficult to land biglaw later at a firm like GDC after you turn down those firms post-law school or post-clerkship? I've heard the ideal path is 1-2 years clerking --> 2-3 years biglaw --> your ideal gov't work (perhaps that is state SG's office) for 5-10 years --> back to biglaw as a partner.

Im curious, what do you think the criteria is at firms like GDC, Skadden, or Latham for being elevated to parter? Your question and hypothetical timeline suggest that we’re not all working from the same basic understanding about how law firms or businesses work.

Firms like GDC, Skadden, and Latham all hire former AUSAs as partners. It is arguably easier to get a partner position that way than climbing up through the ranks internally as a generalist litigator.

The first time i responded to this the moderators blocked it. Ya, that's GROSSLY inaccurate and defies all logic. Law firms are a business and exist to make money. You become partner by cultivating, or coming in with, a book of business. No partner at any of those firms is voting to give you a percentage of the firms profits (which comes directly out of their pockets) because you were a line prosecutor making $145k the year before.

https://abovethelaw.com/2015/10/life-af ... g-an-ausa/

Anonymous User wrote:
The first time i responded to this the moderators blocked it. Ya, that's GROSSLY inaccurate and defies all logic. Law firms are a business and exist to make money. You become partner by cultivating, or coming in with, a book of business. No partner at any of those firms is voting to give you a percentage of the firms profits (which comes directly out of their pockets) because you were a line prosecutor making $145k the year before.

https://abovethelaw.com/2015/10/life-af ... g-an-ausa/

The article is as helpful to my point as yours, if not more helpful to my point. In it, Biglaw firms are listed as the "#1" landing spot for former AUSAs. The article goes on to say: "Big firms like to hire former prosecutors — there’s no doubt. You know what they like more? Hiring former prosecutors with a demonstrable book of business. And it is a rare former AUSA who has a demonstrable book of business (since an AUSA isn’t allowed to generate business as an AUSA)." This suggests that it is helpful--but not at all necessary--for a former AUSA to have a demonstrable book of business.

Of course, having moved up in the ranks to be more than a low-level "line prosecutor" is important.

I think the aspect of the Biglaw business model you may be forgetting about is that rainmaking partners get called by potential clients, and then they farm out some of that business to partners whom are more specialized and/or are still developing a full book of business.

My overall point is this: It is simply not accurate to say that Biglaw firms will only hire lateral partners that have a readymade book of business.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:
The first time i responded to this the moderators blocked it. Ya, that's GROSSLY inaccurate and defies all logic. Law firms are a business and exist to make money. You become partner by cultivating, or coming in with, a book of business. No partner at any of those firms is voting to give you a percentage of the firms profits (which comes directly out of their pockets) because you were a line prosecutor making $145k the year before.

https://abovethelaw.com/2015/10/life-af ... g-an-ausa/

The article is as helpful to my point as yours, if not more helpful to my point. In it, Biglaw firms are listed as the "#1" landing spot for former AUSAs. The article goes on to say: "Big firms like to hire former prosecutors — there’s no doubt. You know what they like more? Hiring former prosecutors with a demonstrable book of business. And it is a rare former AUSA who has a demonstrable book of business (since an AUSA isn’t allowed to generate business as an AUSA)." This suggests that it is helpful--but not at all necessary--for a former AUSA to have a demonstrable book of business.

Of course, having moved up in the ranks to be more than a low-level "line prosecutor" is important.

I think the aspect of the Biglaw business model you may be forgetting about is that rainmaking partners get called by potential clients, and then they farm out some of that business to partners whom are more specialized and/or are still developing a full book of business.

My overall point is this: It is simply not accurate to say that Biglaw firms will only hire lateral partners that have a readymade book of business.

You allude to this, but the other thing the previous poster is missing is the distinction between equity and service partners that most firms now have. The former AUSA who comes in without a book of business is certainly the latter, not the former.

What ratio of callbacks to offers should one expect? If you get offers from only 30% of the callbacks you do, are you doing something wrong?

Anonymous User wrote:What ratio of callbacks to offers should one expect? If you get offers from only 30% of the callbacks you do, are you doing something wrong?

Not necessarily. It completely depends on the firm. Keep in mind that firms typically use clerks to pad out classes that have holes in them - it's not as robust as regular recruiting, where they're looking to fill classes. As a consequence, they often take fewer candidates as a proportion to the number they interview.

AUSAs can be made equity partner without a book of business. Happens all the time in DC/NYC/LA/Chicago. The way AUSA compensation as a partner works is that you become a equity partner, but your first two years are at a guaranteed compensation + a small percentage of the pie. After two years, you're expected to have made significant progress in building a book of business, and if so, your guaranteed comp goes away and your comp is driven by your business generation. If not, the partner is asked to leave. This happens as most firms (top 20 - 100) firms.

At the top 10 firms, AUSAs come in as counsel generally (PW, Skadden, Sullivan, etc), but they are paid insane amounts of money and have a 2-year look. If they have ability to build business, they can become equity partners after 2 years. If not, they can stay counsel and build a significant fortune as counsel without the pressure of bringing in business. Also, generally, these firms hire AUSAs that were previously associates at these firms. This is not always the case of course.

Of course, if you're a big name at a USAO or at a relevant division at main, then you can probably become partner at a top 10 firm right away.

Finally, as has been mentioned, some AUSAs become non-equity partners right away.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:What ratio of callbacks to offers should one expect? If you get offers from only 30% of the callbacks you do, are you doing something wrong?

Not necessarily. It completely depends on the firm. Keep in mind that firms typically use clerks to pad out classes that have holes in them - it's not as robust as regular recruiting, where they're looking to fill classes. As a consequence, they often take fewer candidates as a proportion to the number they interview.

Thank you. I tell myself these are small offices with 1 or 2 spots and a lot of applicants but the dings still sting. Lucky to have offers though, good luck to those still waiting.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:What ratio of callbacks to offers should one expect? If you get offers from only 30% of the callbacks you do, are you doing something wrong?

Not necessarily. It completely depends on the firm. Keep in mind that firms typically use clerks to pad out classes that have holes in them - it's not as robust as regular recruiting, where they're looking to fill classes. As a consequence, they often take fewer candidates as a proportion to the number they interview.

Thank you. I tell myself these are small offices with 1 or 2 spots and a lot of applicants but the dings still sting. Lucky to have offers though, good luck to those still waiting.

Just curious OP, what kind of offer did you get?

how long after a CB do you guys assume it's a Ding? I need to make a move on another offer, and I don't want to lose it all.

Anonymous User wrote:how long after a CB do you guys assume it's a Ding? I need to make a move on another offer, and I don't want to lose it all.

Post-CB you should always receive an answer one way or another. If you haven't heard, it means you're still under consideration.

Have you reached out?

Anonymous User wrote:how long after a CB do you guys assume it's a Ding? I need to make a move on another offer, and I don't want to lose it all.

If you have another offer, let the firm you're waiting for know. Every post-clerkship CB they explicitly told me to do so.