Would I be stupid to bid on only 8 firms during OCI? Forum

[Renzo]

Yeah, I agree. But some of the criticism was just hammering on the geographic and practice area distinctions, which I think misses the mark. Those firms mixed in with another 10-20 big names in NYC or DC would seem at least defensible for any given person in OP's shoes.

True. But the difference between your scenario and the OP's scenario is the difference between these two questions:

a) "I don't really know what I want to do, or where I want to live. Grades shouldn't hold me back, given that I have top grades at CLS. Given my situation, does this list of 20-30 firms look like good?"

b) "I don't know what I want to do, or where I want to live, but I am only willing to apply for jobs that Vault says are prestigious. Does this list look prestigious enough?"

[DAJ_Summer]

Rayiner/Renzo: Yeah, agreed on all points.

[RVP11]

Yeah, I agree. But some of the criticism was just hammering on the geographic and practice area distinctions, which I think misses the mark. Those firms mixed in with another 10-20 big names in NYC or DC would seem at least defensible for any given person in OP's shoes.

The criticism based on practice area hardly "misses the mark."

OP says he's undecided as to litigation or transactional. So he picks some firms that basically only do one or the other (WLRK, Susman, W&C)??? That makes no sense. You can't find out what you want to do if you spend your summer doing only one or the other.

[liLtuneChi]

Yeah, I agree. But some of the criticism was just hammering on the geographic and practice area distinctions, which I think misses the mark. Those firms mixed in with another 10-20 big names in NYC or DC would seem at least defensible for any given person in OP's shoes.

The criticism based on practice area hardly "misses the mark."

OP says he's undecided as to litigation or transactional. So he picks some firms that basically only do one or the other (WLRK, Susman, W&C)??? That makes no sense. You can't find out what you want to do if you spend your summer doing only one or the other.

I'm at a firm this summer that does litigation and transactional. I should have a good idea of what I want to do by the end of summer. I don't really need 2L summer to figure that out.

[rayiner]

Yeah, I agree. But some of the criticism was just hammering on the geographic and practice area distinctions, which I think misses the mark. Those firms mixed in with another 10-20 big names in NYC or DC would seem at least defensible for any given person in OP's shoes.

The criticism based on practice area hardly "misses the mark."

OP says he's undecided as to litigation or transactional. So he picks some firms that basically only do one or the other (WLRK, Susman, W&C)??? That makes no sense. You can't find out what you want to do if you spend your summer doing only one or the other.

I'm at a firm this summer that does litigation and transactional. I should have a good idea of what I want to do by the end of summer. I don't really need 2L summer to figure that out.

As I said before, there is a lot more to the choice than "litigation or transactional." Within transactional, you've got capital markets, fund formation, credit, etc. Do you have any idea which of these you want to end up doing, and what firms have strong practice groups in those areas? For example, if you wanted to do private equity buyouts, you'd be retarded to go to S&C over STB, just because of the marginally higher Vault ranking.

[RVP11]

Yeah, I agree. But some of the criticism was just hammering on the geographic and practice area distinctions, which I think misses the mark. Those firms mixed in with another 10-20 big names in NYC or DC would seem at least defensible for any given person in OP's shoes.

The criticism based on practice area hardly "misses the mark."

OP says he's undecided as to litigation or transactional. So he picks some firms that basically only do one or the other (WLRK, Susman, W&C)??? That makes no sense. You can't find out what you want to do if you spend your summer doing only one or the other.

I'm at a firm this summer that does litigation and transactional. I should have a good idea of what I want to do by the end of summer. I don't really need 2L summer to figure that out.

Again, most of the criticism of your bid choices that was based on your uncertainty over practice area occurred before you decided to mention you had a 1L SA.

[LurkerNoMore]

I'm at a firm this summer that does litigation and transactional. I should have a good idea of what I want to do by the end of summer. I don't really need 2L summer to figure that out.

So you are really only planning on applying to a few of the firms you listed?

[liLtuneChi]

I'm at a firm this summer that does litigation and transactional. I should have a good idea of what I want to do by the end of summer. I don't really need 2L summer to figure that out.

So you are really only planning on applying to a few of the firms you listed?

if I make law review and my current firm offers to bring me back for 2L summer then yeah I would be willing to bid on around 8 or so firms depending on where my interests fall by the end of the summer

if I end up hating transactional work then I'll bid solely on the most prestigious litigation firms

if I however end up loving transactional work then I'll bid on firms that have a wide array of prestigious transactional practice groups so I can experiment some more

I'm a litigator at heart and the only reason I'm giving corporate a shot is because I want to be 100% sure I don't want to do it because turning down an offer from Wachtell (if I am lucky enough to get an offer) to go to a Williams & Connolly will be tough. Those bonus checks ain't no joke.

but remember this is all dependent on me making law review and getting an offer to come back from my current firm

[rayiner]

I'm at a firm this summer that does litigation and transactional. I should have a good idea of what I want to do by the end of summer. I don't really need 2L summer to figure that out.

So you are really only planning on applying to a few of the firms you listed?

if I make law review and my current firm offers to bring me back for 2L summer then yeah I would be willing to bid on around 8 or so firms depending on where my interests fall by the end of the summer

if I end up hating transactional work then I'll bid solely on the most prestigious litigation firms

if I however end up loving transactional work then I'll bid on firms that have a wide array of prestigious transactional practice groups so I can experiment some more

I'm a litigator at heart and the only reason I'm giving corporate a shot is because I want to be 100% sure I don't want to do it because turning down an offer from Wachtell (if I am lucky enough to get an offer) to go to a Williams & Connolly will be tough. Those bonus checks ain't no joke.

but remember this is all dependent on me making law review and getting an offer to come back from my current firm

Please start a thread when you're choosing between your Wachtell and W&C offers. We'd like to help.

[quakeroats]

I'm a litigator at heart

You're one year into law school. You can barely distinguish between dissimilar firms and still cling to the litigation/transactional dichotomy. It's a tad too early to nail down your heart's desire.

[liLtuneChi]

I'm a litigator at heart

You're one year into law school. You can barely distinguish between dissimilar firms and still cling to the litigation/transactional dichotomy. It's a tad too early to nail down your heart's desire.

I've actually done extensive mock trial in college and loved doing moot court in law school. I enjoy researching and crafting written arguments. I also enjoy oral arguments. The competitive aspect of litigation is also another draw for me. I enjoy competing and winning. That is what I mean when I say I'm a litigator at heart.

[HamDel]

I think you've all been flamed. There are two possibilities here.

1. OP is a more ordinary law student than he has suggested and is just trolling everyone really hard.

2. OP is in the top 5% at Columbia and is just trolling everyone really hard. No one in this position would actually be stupid enough not to use all of his bids.

[vamedic03]

Dude:

1) I've seen people with better grades than you strike out of entire markets (ie DC)

2) If you want to litigate and you want big bonuses, then why don't you bid in Boies Schiller?

[quakeroats]

I'm a litigator at heart

You're one year into law school. You can barely distinguish between dissimilar firms and still cling to the litigation/transactional dichotomy. It's a tad too early to nail down your heart's desire.

I've actually done extensive mock trial in college and loved doing moot court in law school. I enjoy researching and crafting written arguments. I also enjoy oral arguments. The competitive aspect of litigation is also another draw for me. I enjoy competing and winning. That is what I mean when I say I'm a litigator at heart.

You won't be doing anything that looks like a trial for a long time at the firms you listed (with very few exceptions), mostly because trials are rare, but also because junior associates aren't trusted with an issue important enough to make it to trial. The most you can hope for are pro bono trials and good luck billing more than 150 hours a year of those. Oral argument is largely dead in practice and there's almost no way you'll get to do any of that before you're a decade in. Vague interest in competition isn't any more helpful. The issues you'll work on are so small and directed that "winning" isn't possible. All you've done so far are academic exercises well apart from the practice of law. Think on things a bit more.

[RVP11]

I've actually done extensive mock trial in college and loved doing moot court in law school. I enjoy researching and crafting written arguments. I also enjoy oral arguments. The competitive aspect of litigation is also another draw for me. I enjoy competing and winning. That is what I mean when I say I'm a litigator at heart.

Definite flame.

[Renzo]

I've actually done extensive mock trial in college and loved doing moot court in law school. I enjoy researching and crafting written arguments. I also enjoy oral arguments. The competitive aspect of litigation is also another draw for me. I enjoy competing and winning. That is what I mean when I say I'm a litigator at heart.

Definite flame.

I want to agree, but my biases won't let me. I've met so many prestige-whoring douchtrucks from CLS, I can't not believe this is real.

[ben bernanke]

Clearly not a flame

[liLtuneChi]

I'm a litigator at heart

You're one year into law school. You can barely distinguish between dissimilar firms and still cling to the litigation/transactional dichotomy. It's a tad too early to nail down your heart's desire.

I've actually done extensive mock trial in college and loved doing moot court in law school. I enjoy researching and crafting written arguments. I also enjoy oral arguments. The competitive aspect of litigation is also another draw for me. I enjoy competing and winning. That is what I mean when I say I'm a litigator at heart.

You won't be doing anything that looks like a trial for a long time at the firms you listed (with very few exceptions), mostly because trials are rare, but also because junior associates aren't trusted with an issue important enough to make it to trial. The most you can hope for are pro bono trials and good luck billing more than 150 hours a year of those. Oral argument is largely dead in practice and there's almost no way you'll get to do any of that before you're a decade in. Vague interest in competition isn't any more helpful. The issues you'll work on are so small and directed that "winning" isn't possible. All you've done so far are academic exercises well apart from the practice of law. Think on things a bit more.

at Susman it'll be possible or other litigation boutiques

I'm sorry that my high aims and goals are unrealistic to you but I do plan on not waiting 10 years before actually doing extensive trial work or appellate......hence the reason I plan to continue to get high grades and put myself in the best position possible to choose from among these highly selective firms that give young associates much more responsibility that larger more highly leveraged firms

[liLtuneChi]

I've actually done extensive mock trial in college and loved doing moot court in law school. I enjoy researching and crafting written arguments. I also enjoy oral arguments. The competitive aspect of litigation is also another draw for me. I enjoy competing and winning. That is what I mean when I say I'm a litigator at heart.

Definite flame.

there is a reason I'm aiming for the top of the game. I know that real world litigation experience is impossible for young associates at big law firms that are highly leveraged.

I want to put myself in the best position to do actual work done by lawyers rather than be a drone that pumps out memos for 7 years. Its the main reason I'm gunning for a W&C or Susman.

[liLtuneChi]

I've actually done extensive mock trial in college and loved doing moot court in law school. I enjoy researching and crafting written arguments. I also enjoy oral arguments. The competitive aspect of litigation is also another draw for me. I enjoy competing and winning. That is what I mean when I say I'm a litigator at heart.

Definite flame.

I want to agree, but my biases won't let me. I've met so many prestige-whoring douchtrucks from CLS, I can't not believe this is real.

your posting on a site called toplawschools.com

everyone here is a prestige whore

We all want to be at the top. Hence the reason we all applied to the top schools and work hard once at those schools to get the top grades.

I don't understand why its a bad thing to want to be the best?

I think the reason many here want to knock down people with a mentality similar to mine has already been touched upon in this thread. Its JEALOUSY. We're all prestige whores. It just so happens that some people gain positions of prestige while those who don't get mad at those who do.

[Anonymous User]

I've actually done extensive mock trial in college and loved doing moot court in law school. I enjoy researching and crafting written arguments. I also enjoy oral arguments. The competitive aspect of litigation is also another draw for me. I enjoy competing and winning. That is what I mean when I say I'm a litigator at heart.

Definite flame.

I want to agree, but my biases won't let me. I've met so many prestige-whoring douchtrucks from CLS, I can't not believe this is real.

your posting on a site called toplawschools.com

everyone here is a prestige whore

We all want to be at the top. Hence the reason we all applied to the top schools and work hard once at those schools to get the top grades.

I don't understand why its a bad thing to want to be the best?

I think the reason many here want to knock down people with a mentality similar to mine has already been touched upon in this thread. Its JEALOUSY. We're all prestige whores. It just so happens that some people gain positions of prestige while those who don't get mad at those who do.

There are those in positions of prestige that are classy and those that are seriously socially inept.

Your Kent status enough for you to figure out which group you belong to?

[rayiner]

You're one year into law school. You can barely distinguish between dissimilar firms and still cling to the litigation/transactional dichotomy. It's a tad too early to nail down your heart's desire.

I've actually done extensive mock trial in college and loved doing moot court in law school. I enjoy researching and crafting written arguments. I also enjoy oral arguments. The competitive aspect of litigation is also another draw for me. I enjoy competing and winning. That is what I mean when I say I'm a litigator at heart.

You won't be doing anything that looks like a trial for a long time at the firms you listed (with very few exceptions), mostly because trials are rare, but also because junior associates aren't trusted with an issue important enough to make it to trial. The most you can hope for are pro bono trials and good luck billing more than 150 hours a year of those. Oral argument is largely dead in practice and there's almost no way you'll get to do any of that before you're a decade in. Vague interest in competition isn't any more helpful. The issues you'll work on are so small and directed that "winning" isn't possible. All you've done so far are academic exercises well apart from the practice of law. Think on things a bit more.

at Susman it'll be possible or other litigation boutiques

I'm sorry that my high aims and goals are unrealistic to you but I do plan on not waiting 10 years before actually doing extensive trial work or appellate......hence the reason I plan to continue to get high grades and put myself in the best position possible to choose from among these highly selective firms that give young associates much more responsibility that larger more highly leveraged firms

I can't believe you put a rant about leverage in the same sentence as a bid list that includes: Cravath, Sullcrom, Cleary, and DPW.

If you want to really do trial work at an early level, you need have more low-leverage litigation shops. Throw in: Irell and Patterson Belknap, and also WilmerHale. If you want to do appellate practice, you need to apply to more of the DC appellate shops: Gibson DC, Kirkland DC, Sidley DC. You need to seek out advice from some other folks because your bid list is *completely* wrong if you want appellate practice. See: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=120472

Note, appellate practice is not a given with your stats. It's not out of the question, but into appellate practice you're going to need to have solid execution at OCI, then gun for a COA clerkship.

[RVP11]

I think the reason many here want to knock down people with a mentality similar to mine has already been touched upon in this thread. Its JEALOUSY. We're all prestige whores. It just so happens that some people gain positions of prestige while those who don't get mad at those who do.

At least 3 of the posters who've criticized you in this thread have already been through OCI and had V5 and V10 offers. Don't confuse us making fun of your douchebaggery (or flaminess) with "jealousy."

[liLtuneChi]

I can't believe you put a rant about leverage in the same sentence as a bid list that includes: Cravath, Sullcrom, Cleary, and DPW.

If you want to really do trial work at an early level, you need have more low-leverage litigation shops. Throw in: Irell and Patterson Belknap, and also WilmerHale. If you want to do appellate practice, you need to apply to more of the DC appellate shops: Gibson DC, Kirkland DC, Sidley DC. You need to seek out advice from some other folks because your bid list is *completely* wrong if you want appellate practice. See: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=120472

Note, appellate practice is not a given with your stats. It's not out of the question, but into appellate practice you're going to need to have solid execution at OCI, then gun for a COA clerkship.

you continue to misunderstand my posts

those firms are only on my list if I want to do transactional work and Wachtell doesn't work out for me

however if I hate transactional work this summer then I'll only apply to lit firms where there is low leverage and I'll have a great chance to get true lit experience at an early stage

could you please give me some more info on Kirkland DC and Sidley DC? I know Gibson DC is the best appellate litigation shop in the country but how come you put Kirkland and Sidley in the same group?

Oh and I do plan on gunning for a top clerkship with a SCOTUS feeder judge. One person from CLS gets on the supreme court every year (and sometimes two on a good year). So why not me?

[Moxie]

Oh and I do plan on gunning for a top clerkship with a SCOTUS feeder judge. One person from CLS gets on the supreme court every year (and sometimes two on a good year). So why not me?

Because there are other CLS students with higher grades than you and better personalities.

I'm sorry that my high aims and goals are unrealistic to you but I do plan on not waiting 10 years before actually doing extensive trial work or appellate......hence the reason I plan to continue to get high grades and put myself in the best position possible to choose from among these highly selective firms that give young associates much more responsibility that larger more highly leveraged firms

Then why are you bidding on Cravath, S&C, DPW, CGSH? Edit - Damn, Rayiner beat me to the leverage argument.