HLS EIP 2010 Offer Thread Forum

[Anonymous Abuser]

Dinged at Paul, Weiss.

So far, 8 CBs, 4 offers, 2 rejections, 2 outstanding (expecting one to be a rejection, unsure on the other).

[Anonymous User]

If you have any experience that would suggest an interest in public interest law and/or government, I would not suggest bidding on Davis Polk next year, even if you have good grades and LR. I have both, and most of one of my interviews involved them telling me that they thought I just wanted to work at a firm for a few years before departing for government or PI. Friends with grades and experiences similar to mine had the same experience.

Different firms have different attitudes towards government/PI experience, and future 2Ls should be informed of firm's attitudes before they waste bids on a firm that is skeptical of experience in government or PI. Paul, Weiss and Cleary are alternatives that, from what I have heard, are much more likely to recognize the value of such experience.

[Anonymous User]

If you have any experience that would suggest an interest in public interest law and/or government, I would not suggest bidding on Davis Polk next year, even if you have good grades and LR. I have both, and most of one of my interviews involved them telling me that they thought I just wanted to work at a firm for a few years before departing for government or PI. Friends with grades and experiences similar to mine had the same experience.

Different firms have different attitudes towards government/PI experience, and future 2Ls should be informed of firm's attitudes before they waste bids on a firm that is skeptical of experience in government or PI. Paul, Weiss and Cleary are alternatives that, from what I have heard, are much more likely to recognize the value of such experience.

Hmmm... I wouldn't rule out Davis Polk just because you have significant PI/Gov work on your resume. 3 out of the 4 "Experience" entries on my resume were extremely public interest-oriented (2 legal services organizations and a public defender's office), and I still received an offer from Davis Polk. Beyond that, several of my interviewers at Davis Polk commented on how they do similar legal services work as pro bono at the firm. I think that you should definitely prepare to answer the question: "So I see that you've done a lot of public interest work, what makes you want to work in private practice?" However, beyond that, I know that it's definitely possible to still secure an offer.

[Anonymous User]

If you have any experience that would suggest an interest in public interest law and/or government, I would not suggest bidding on Davis Polk next year, even if you have good grades and LR. I have both, and most of one of my interviews involved them telling me that they thought I just wanted to work at a firm for a few years before departing for government or PI. Friends with grades and experiences similar to mine had the same experience.

Different firms have different attitudes towards government/PI experience, and future 2Ls should be informed of firm's attitudes before they waste bids on a firm that is skeptical of experience in government or PI. Paul, Weiss and Cleary are alternatives that, from what I have heard, are much more likely to recognize the value of such experience.

I found this experience to be very, very common. I came straight from college and have only PI internships, mostly in criminal justice policy, and people almost everywhere kept asking me about why my resume was "public interest oriented." I don't know that I got an offer from any of the firms that focused on this line of questioning, and I think my responses to the inquiry were good.

[Anonymous User]

If you have any experience that would suggest an interest in public interest law and/or government, I would not suggest bidding on Davis Polk next year, even if you have good grades and LR. I have both, and most of one of my interviews involved them telling me that they thought I just wanted to work at a firm for a few years before departing for government or PI. Friends with grades and experiences similar to mine had the same experience.

Different firms have different attitudes towards government/PI experience, and future 2Ls should be informed of firm's attitudes before they waste bids on a firm that is skeptical of experience in government or PI. Paul, Weiss and Cleary are alternatives that, from what I have heard, are much more likely to recognize the value of such experience.

I agree, and would broaden the point to spin/impression management (hey my sociology major finally came in handy) in general.

Quinn Emanuel's national director of recruiting looked at my resume and said it looked like that of an academic. I just about had a heart attack right there. Of course, my ding there was probably less the result of my seeming academic orientation and more the result of my dog shit credentials.

[Anonymous User]

If you have any experience that would suggest an interest in public interest law and/or government, I would not suggest bidding on Davis Polk next year, even if you have good grades and LR. I have both, and most of one of my interviews involved them telling me that they thought I just wanted to work at a firm for a few years before departing for government or PI. Friends with grades and experiences similar to mine had the same experience.

Different firms have different attitudes towards government/PI experience, and future 2Ls should be informed of firm's attitudes before they waste bids on a firm that is skeptical of experience in government or PI. Paul, Weiss and Cleary are alternatives that, from what I have heard, are much more likely to recognize the value of such experience.

I agree, and would broaden the point to spin/impression management (hey my sociology major finally came in handy) in general.

Quinn Emanuel's national director of recruiting looked at my resume and said it looked like that of an academic. I just about had a heart attack right there. Of course, my ding there was probably less the result of my seeming academic orientation and more the result of my dog shit credentials.

Interviewers thinking that you want to be an academic/government lawyer/public interest lawyer seems to be the kiss of death in this economy, where firms do not want to pay the money for summer associates who they fear are not likely to come back. In my experience, once an employer starts with this line of questioning, no matter how well-thought-out your explanation of why you want to work for the firm is, you will not get hired. This line of questioning kills good grades and any other credential. And I think it comes up more frequently, and is harder to deal with, at HYS, where the prospects of academia/high-level government job/prominent public interest positions are much more realistic. When a firm asks you why you aren't just going to become an academic, you should just thank them for their time and leave right then; they have signaled a doubt that you can do nothing to overcome.

[Anonymous User]

In my experience, once an employer starts with this line of questioning, no matter how well-thought-out your explanation of why you want to work for the firm is, you will not get hired. This line of questioning kills good grades and any other credential.

My resume screams public interest, but it didn't seem to hurt me. My response when asked was "law school doesn't give you much practical experience, pro bono is a great way to get some, and I'd love to continue pro bono at the firm because it'd help develop my skills as a lawyer". One partner responded by discussing all the pro bono awards his firm received recently and telling me about how my next interviewer was an associate with a lot of pro bono awards.

They gave me an offer. 2 offers so far from 4 CBs, so it didn't exactly "kill" me.

[Anonymous User]

In my experience, once an employer starts with this line of questioning, no matter how well-thought-out your explanation of why you want to work for the firm is, you will not get hired. This line of questioning kills good grades and any other credential.

My resume screams public interest, but it didn't seem to hurt me. My response when asked was "law school doesn't give you much practical experience, pro bono is a great way to get some, and I'd love to continue pro bono at the firm because it'd help develop my skills as a lawyer". One partner responded by discussing all the pro bono awards his firm received recently and telling me about how my next interviewer was an associate with a lot of pro bono awards.

They gave me an offer. 2 offers so far from 4 CBs, so it didn't exactly "kill" me.

This person had already clearly decided that he was going to overlook the public interest in your background. I've had interviews like that--they accept the canned response, and move on. But if this person had challenged your response, you would be dead. What would you have said if the interviewer had said: "Ok, I grant you that law school does not give much practical experience. But all that really justifies is your seeking some legal job after law school. Why do you want to work at a firm instead of a public interest organization? Do you really think that you are going to get more 'practical" experience here, at big firm X, as opposed to at a public defender's organization, where you will probably be handling court hearings in your first year? If you are attracted to big firm X because of the opportunity to do pro bono as part of your job, why not go somewhere where you can do pro bono work as your entire job? Do you just want 'practical' experience in general, or practical experience in a particular field? Big firm X will certainly give you practical experience on major corporate mergers, but it will give you only limited practical experience in handling, say, asylum cases, since the only such cases that we handle will be pro bono cases. So if you really want practical experience in asylum cases, why don't you go to an organization where you can handle a large number of asylum cases, and get extensive experience with such cases?"

I've had interviews where they accept my canned response, and interviews where they let loose like the above. The only convincing answers to the above are: a) as a result of my extensive public interest experience, I've decided that I hate PI, and therefore want to become a robotic doc review drone at big firm X; or b) I really resent having to take a job at big firm X, but HLS is not cheap, and PI jobs aren't going to pay off my loans. No one wants to hire someone who gives the above responses, however, so you are stuck with reiterating your unconvincing canned response.

My point is just that a firm is just going to decide, of its own accord, whether it is going to overlook signs that you might be into academia/government/PI, or will not overlook these signs. You will know what it had decided by whether or not it accepts your canned response. If it does not accept your canned response, the bell has already rung, and you will not get an offer. My other point is that certain firms are more willing to accept the canned response than others. People with significant academia/government/PI experience should target those firms.

[Anonymous User]

Interviewers thinking that you want to be an academic/government lawyer/public interest lawyer seems to be the kiss of death in this economy, where firms do not want to pay the money for summer associates who they fear are not likely to come back. In my experience, once an employer starts with this line of questioning, no matter how well-thought-out your explanation of why you want to work for the firm is, you will not get hired. This line of questioning kills good grades and any other credential. And I think it comes up more frequently, and is harder to deal with, at HYS, where the prospects of academia/high-level government job/prominent public interest positions are much more realistic. When a firm asks you why you aren't just going to become an academic, you should just thank them for their time and leave right then; they have signaled a doubt that you can do nothing to overcome.

This is terrible advice. I'm getting a joint PhD in a very un-practice-y field and it wasn't a scarlet letter. As long as you have a convincing answer to that line of questioning, the mere fact that you might seem to be leaning toward academia will not by itself doom your chances.

[Anonymous User]

Interviewers thinking that you want to be an academic/government lawyer/public interest lawyer seems to be the kiss of death in this economy, where firms do not want to pay the money for summer associates who they fear are not likely to come back. In my experience, once an employer starts with this line of questioning, no matter how well-thought-out your explanation of why you want to work for the firm is, you will not get hired. This line of questioning kills good grades and any other credential. And I think it comes up more frequently, and is harder to deal with, at HYS, where the prospects of academia/high-level government job/prominent public interest positions are much more realistic. When a firm asks you why you aren't just going to become an academic, you should just thank them for their time and leave right then; they have signaled a doubt that you can do nothing to overcome.

This is terrible advice. I'm getting a joint PhD in a very un-practice-y field and it wasn't a scarlet letter. As long as you have a convincing answer to that line of questioning, the mere fact that you might seem to be leaning toward academia will not by itself doom your chances.

You are not understanding my point. I am not saying that an apparent academic lean will doom your chances. I am saying that you can tell, based on how far the interviewer pushes the line of questioning, whether it has doomed your chances for that particular firm. If you were absolutely convinced that you wanted to be in biglaw for life, you wouldn't be getting a Ph.D. You know that, and employers know that. Some do not care that much, and will hire you anyway. Others do care. If they do care, they will be able to ask you questions that you cannot convincingly answer without admitting that you are not entirely sure you want to work for a private firm forever. Again, some firms don't care that you probably don't want to work for them forever. But others do, and they will not hire someone who is getting a Ph.D.

[Anonymous User]

My point is just that a firm is just going to decide, of its own accord, whether it is going to overlook signs that you might be into academia/government/PI, or will not overlook these signs. You will know what it had decided by whether or not it accepts your canned response. If it does not accept your canned response, the bell has already rung, and you will not get an offer. My other point is that certain firms are more willing to accept the canned response than others. People with significant academia/government/PI experience should target those firms.

This is completely not true, though. I originally felt like I was being tested on the matter, and the partner responded well to my answer, but how does that mean he planned to respond the same way no matter how I answered? I responded with an enthusiasm for pro bono but also for being at the firm, and all through the interview I kept pushing my enthusiasm for the firm. If I'd only talked about how I enjoy pro bono work and the moral satisfaction it gave me I'd have expected a different response, since it wouldn't have looked like I wanted to work there very much or very long. There are different possible answers, there's not just one "canned" answer, and if pressed further I'm sure I would've been fine since I was giving a coherent answer I could keep expanding on and not just a canned one.

In fact, thinking about some of the questions he was asking he might have been continuing to test me. But because I had a genuine interest in the firm I could talk about I didn't feel that tested or pressured. Firms do screen for enthusiasm, but because I had plenty to be enthusiastic about it wasn't hard to respond.

If you were giving canned answers that might have added to how "pressed" you felt. Yes, they'll ask some hard questions, but that doesn't mean they made up their mind before they asked you.

[Anonymous User]

My point is just that a firm is just going to decide, of its own accord, whether it is going to overlook signs that you might be into academia/government/PI, or will not overlook these signs. You will know what it had decided by whether or not it accepts your canned response. If it does not accept your canned response, the bell has already rung, and you will not get an offer. My other point is that certain firms are more willing to accept the canned response than others. People with significant academia/government/PI experience should target those firms.

This is completely not true, though. I originally felt like I was being tested on the matter, and the partner responded well to my answer, but how does that mean he planned to respond the same way no matter how I answered? I responded with an enthusiasm for pro bono but also for being at the firm, and all through the interview I kept pushing my enthusiasm for the firm. If I'd only talked about how I enjoy pro bono work and the moral satisfaction it gave me I'd have expected a different response, since it wouldn't have looked like I wanted to work there very much or very long. There are different possible answers, there's not just one "canned" answer, and if pressed further I'm sure I would've been fine since I was giving a coherent answer I could keep expanding on and not just a canned one.

In fact, thinking about some of the questions he was asking he might have been continuing to test me. But because I had a genuine interest in the firm I could talk about I didn't feel that tested or pressured. Firms do screen for enthusiasm, but because I had plenty to be enthusiastic about it wasn't hard to respond.

If you were giving canned answers that might have added to how "pressed" you felt. Yes, they'll ask some hard questions, but that doesn't mean they made up their mind before they asked you.

If you could do fine if pressed, why don't you answer the questions I pose above? Why don't you want to get practical experience from a public interest organization or from the government? I realize you are "enthusiastic" about big firm X, but are there not any public interest organizations that you would be equally or more enthusiastic about? What exactly makes you enthusiastic about big firm X?

[Anonymous User]

If you could do fine if pressed, why don't you answer the questions I pose above? Why don't you want to get practical experience from a public interest organization or from the government? I realize you are "enthusiastic" about big firm X, but are there not any public interest organizations that you would be equally or more enthusiastic about? What exactly makes you enthusiastic about big firm X?

Because public interest employers are both hard to get into and pay significantly less, because at a firm I could make a bigger difference with the pro bono work I do since the firm has more resources than most PI organizations, because while I want to keep doing good work I also want to build a financially successful future for myself... As to specific firms it would depend on the firm.

I don't consider that "pressing" because I already knew that's what my motivation was going in. And those are things I talked about during interviews. If there's a real lesson for people to learn, it's "know how to sell yourself to a law firm", not "PI is a death knell to your job chances".

[Anonymous User]

because at a firm I could make a bigger difference with the pro bono work I do since the firm has more resources than most PI organizations

Hate to break it to you, but the pro bono work you do at a firm is mostly cookie-cutter work from pro bono orgs. Rarely does it actually approach the high-level impact litigation they handle. Moreover, simply because a firm has more resources than public interest organizations, that doesn't mean they'll devote what you think they'll devote to their pro bono projects.

When 200 of your 2,000 hours are dedicated to pro bono work, believe me, you aren't changing the world nearly as much as the actual pro bono orgs are.

[Anonymous User]

Hate to break it to you, but the pro bono work you do at a firm is mostly cookie-cutter work from pro bono orgs. Rarely does it actually approach the high-level impact litigation they handle. Moreover, simply because a firm has more resources than public interest organizations, that doesn't mean they'll devote what you think they'll devote to their pro bono projects.

When 200 of your 2,000 hours are dedicated to pro bono work, believe me, you aren't changing the world nearly as much as the actual pro bono orgs are.

This isn't really true either. I worked for a fairly prestigious PI org last summer and there were some huge law-changing projects handled by area law firms that they didn't have the resources to tackle. And even if the firms don't devote all the resources you want to your pro bono work it's still more than you get at most PI orgs.

[Anonymous User]

If you could do fine if pressed, why don't you answer the questions I pose above? Why don't you want to get practical experience from a public interest organization or from the government? I realize you are "enthusiastic" about big firm X, but are there not any public interest organizations that you would be equally or more enthusiastic about? What exactly makes you enthusiastic about big firm X?

Because public interest employers are both hard to get into and pay significantly less, because at a firm I could make a bigger difference with the pro bono work I do since the firm has more resources than most PI organizations, because while I want to keep doing good work I also want to build a financially successful future for myself... As to specific firms it would depend on the firm.

I don't consider that "pressing" because I already knew that's what my motivation was going in. And those are things I talked about during interviews. If there's a real lesson for people to learn, it's "know how to sell yourself to a law firm", not "PI is a death knell to your job chances".

I don't see how you can possibly regard the answers that you supplied as effective "selling" of yourself. MOST Law Firm partners and associates delight themselves in the belief that their firm is very selective and desirable, regardless of whether this is true or not. So they are probably not going to be pleased that you are so enthusiastic about working there because you thought you didn't have a chance to work for the DC Public Defenders' Office. And the thing about the firm having more resources than most PI organizations suggests that you don't realize that law firms are a business. Think about it: essentially, what you are saying to the partner to whose profits per partner you will, if hired, contribute, is that you hope to exploit the billable work that other people are doing in order to perform non-billable work that will make you feel noble, all while not having to sacrifice your high salary.

I don't doubt that the answers you sketched out above worked. I am just saying that they did not work because they convinced anyone of your commitment to the firm; they worked because the firm is willing to accept the the risk that you are not that committed. Thinking that your successes are attributable to effective "selling of yourself" is a standard law student fallacy--thinking that you have way more agency in your life than you actually do.

[Anonymous User]

Thinking that your successes are attributable to effective "selling of yourself" is a standard law student fallacy--thinking that you have way more agency in your life than you actually do.

This is ridiculously ignorant. Selling yourself well is what gets you jobs, and if they weren't listening, why did they pay all that money to bring me down for a CB interview?

Your advice is worthless to anyone reading in the future, it basically amounts to "law firms will pre-judge you regardless of what happens during the interviews," and that's both untrue and unhelpful.

[Anonymous User]

Thinking that your successes are attributable to effective "selling of yourself" is a standard law student fallacy--thinking that you have way more agency in your life than you actually do.

This is ridiculously ignorant. Selling yourself well is what gets you jobs, and if they weren't listening, why did they pay all that money to bring me down for a CB interview?

Your advice is worthless to anyone reading in the future, it basically amounts to "law firms will pre-judge you regardless of what happens during the interviews," and that's both untrue and unhelpful.

This is standard issue law student tautological thinking: You say that I am wrong to claim that your getting a job is not attributable to effective "selling of yourself" because "selling yourself well is what gets you jobs." Do you not see the flaw in your argument here?

I hate to break it to you, but law firms will pre-judge you. They will pre-judge you based on your resume, which they get before your interviews with them. If you get invited to a callback, they will prejudge you for that based on your resume, transcript, and whatever else you have given them. The fact that they have invited you for a callback does not mean that they won't prejudge you. For one thing, the person who invited you to the callback normally does not have final say over whether you get hired: he or she may be fine with people who have extensive PI experience; the hiring partner may not be. The fact that your campus interviewer liked your PI experience won't mean much when you come up against the skeptical hiring partner at the firm.

Your tautological reasoning here is obvious: If you get a job, you must have effectively sold yourself; if you don't get a job, you must not have effectively sold yourself, because if you have effectively sold yourself you would have got a job. This shows the fallacy of assuming that everything that happens to you is attributable to your actions. I should not have to tell you that that is not correct. You are not the only thing that determines whether you get a particular job. The firm also has the power to choose. Firms have different criteria. Law students, who have a limited number of bids to use and want to maximize the value of those bids, should not use the bids for a firm that is known to look with skepticism at some aspect of their background. I have it on good authority that Davis Polk looks with skepticism on people with PI/government backgrounds. This authority involves the experience of fellow students, as well as career advisors, who tell me the questions these students were asked are typical of Davis Polk. I am sharing this authority with fellow students (i.e. any 1Ls who might be looking in horror at this thread) because I want them to have information to bid wisely. People can consider this information or discard it if they want, but regardless it gives them more information, and for that reason I think it is productive. Your wishful thinking about the magical powers of "selling yourself" is not productive.

[Anonymous User]

Thinking that your successes are attributable to effective "selling of yourself" is a standard law student fallacy--thinking that you have way more agency in your life than you actually do.

This is ridiculously ignorant. Selling yourself well is what gets you jobs, and if they weren't listening, why did they pay all that money to bring me down for a CB interview?

Your advice is worthless to anyone reading in the future, it basically amounts to "law firms will pre-judge you regardless of what happens during the interviews," and that's both untrue and unhelpful.

This is standard issue law student tautological thinking: You say that I am wrong to claim that your getting a job is not attributable to effective "selling of yourself" because "selling yourself well is what gets you jobs." Do you not see the flaw in your argument here?

I hate to break it to you, but law firms will pre-judge you. They will pre-judge you based on your resume, which they get before your interviews with them. If you get invited to a callback, they will prejudge you for that based on your resume, transcript, and whatever else you have given them. The fact that they have invited you for a callback does not mean that they won't prejudge you. For one thing, the person who invited you to the callback normally does not have final say over whether you get hired: he or she may be fine with people who have extensive PI experience; the hiring partner may not be. The fact that your campus interviewer liked your PI experience won't mean much when you come up against the skeptical hiring partner at the firm.

Your tautological reasoning here is obvious: If you get a job, you must have effectively sold yourself; if you don't get a job, you must not have effectively sold yourself, because if you have effectively sold yourself you would have got a job. This shows the fallacy of assuming that everything that happens to you is attributable to your actions. I should not have to tell you that that is not correct. You are not the only thing that determines whether you get a particular job. The firm also has the power to choose. Firms have different criteria. Law students, who have a limited number of bids to use and want to maximize the value of those bids, should not use the bids for a firm that is known to look with skepticism at some aspect of their background. I have it on good authority that Davis Polk looks with skepticism on people with PI/government backgrounds. This authority involves the experience of fellow students, as well as career advisors, who tell me the questions these students were asked are typical of Davis Polk. I am sharing this authority with fellow students (i.e. any 1Ls who might be looking in horror at this thread) because I want them to have information to bid wisely. People can consider this information or discard it if they want, but regardless it gives them more information, and for that reason I think it is productive. Your wishful thinking about the magical powers of "selling yourself" is not productive.

And just as you have provided your perspective, I'd like to jump in and offer that my resume is 90% filled with public interest/government work, and I got an offer from Davis Polk. Furthermore, during my callback, I engaged multiple interviewers with conversations regarding how much I loved my public interest work, and each of them provided stories of their significant pro bono work at DPW. I'm not saying this will happen for everyone, only that it happened for me, and it is therefore possible.

[Anonymous User]

In summation:

Arrogant LR person gets rejected by their dream firm and arrogant Non-LR person wants to play up their "personality" due to receiving offer at dream firm, LR person recognizes the subliminal slight and seeks to defend their own "personality."

[Anonymous User]

Your tautological reasoning here is obvious: If you get a job, you must have effectively sold yourself; if you don't get a job, you must not have effectively sold yourself, because if you have effectively sold yourself you would have got a job. This shows the fallacy of assuming that everything that happens to you is attributable to your actions.

But that's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying the ability to sell yourself well guarantees you offers or that failing to get an offer is always and solely due to bad interviewing skills; I had 20-25 EIP interviews which led to 4-5 CBs and 2-3 offers, in total. If "selling yourself" was all that mattered and I was that good at it I should've had 25 offers, but I didn't, and that's not how it works. You're also being measured against the other people they've called back, and yes, you're being "prejudged" by them looking at your resume and transcript and what school you're from before you even get there. I'm not disputing any of that.

What I am disputing is the notion you expressed earlier, repeatedly, that being PI-heavy on your resume will "kill" your chances and that you have no chance going in of making a case for yourself. That's what you said before and it's ridiculously untrue. You can sell yourself effectively to a firm even if you have a PI-heavy resume, which was my point, and a point you haven't really contradicted.

In fact another poster above said pretty much the same thing, he had a very PI-heavy resume and managed to sell himself to Davis Polk. That directly contradicts what you're saying. There is no "death knell" that you're warning about. It's something that will come up with some firms, sure, but if you've actually prepared yourself to respond and to have enthusiasm for the firm, you're still going to have a shot at an offer there.

[Anonymous User]

Your tautological reasoning here is obvious: If you get a job, you must have effectively sold yourself; if you don't get a job, you must not have effectively sold yourself, because if you have effectively sold yourself you would have got a job. This shows the fallacy of assuming that everything that happens to you is attributable to your actions.

But that's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying the ability to sell yourself well guarantees you offers or that failing to get an offer is always and solely due to bad interviewing skills; I had 20-25 EIP interviews which led to 4-5 CBs and 2-3 offers, in total. If "selling yourself" was all that mattered and I was that good at it I should've had 25 offers, but I didn't, and that's not how it works. You're also being measured against the other people they've called back, and yes, you're being "prejudged" by them looking at your resume and transcript and what school you're from before you even get there. I'm not disputing any of that.

What I am disputing is the notion you expressed earlier, repeatedly, that being PI-heavy on your resume will "kill" your chances and that you have no chance going in of making a case for yourself. That's what you said before and it's ridiculously untrue. You can sell yourself effectively to a firm even if you have a PI-heavy resume, which was my point, and a point you haven't really contradicted.

In fact another poster above said pretty much the same thing, he had a very PI-heavy resume and managed to sell himself to Davis Polk. That directly contradicts what you're saying. There is no "death knell" that you're warning about. It's something that will come up with some firms, sure, but if you've actually prepared yourself to respond and to have enthusiasm for the firm, you're still going to have a shot at an offer there.

This is the poster with the DPW offer. Another possibility (other than my ability to "sell" myself to Davis Polk), is that the OP is incorrect in his belief that Davis Polk inherently treats a PI-heavy resume as a severe negative in terms of SA hiring. That's all I was proposing.

[Anonymous User]

Another possibility (other than my ability to "sell" myself to Davis Polk), is that the OP is incorrect in his belief that Davis Polk inherently treats a PI-heavy resume as a severe negative in terms of SA hiring. That's all I was proposing.

this wouldn't seem to jive with the emphasis that dpw places on pro bono work compared to their peers

[Anonymous User]

Anyone else with good grades strike out?

[Anonymous User]

Anyone else with good grades strike out?

Yes.