Page 1 of 1

3.72 UCLA Bid Strategy

Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 2:00 am
by sundance1988
Hey all. I'm shockingly unfamiliar with how all of this stuff works so I figured I'd seek some TLS wisdom. I've got a 3.72 after the first year at UCLA and I'm looking to either A) stay in LA; or (preferably) B) practice in Australia for an American firm. I used to live in Australia and I'd love to get back full time. However, it's more likely that I'll wind up practicing in LA so I guess that should be my focus. Does this seem like a wise bidding strategy? If not, what do you recommend? And, if it matters, I'm looking to practice securities law. I don't want litigation whatsoever.

1. Skadden
2. Latham
3. Sullivan (their NY office because they allow you to split the summer in Australia)
4. Gibson
5. O' Melveny
6. Morrison

Cleary is also accepting resumes in their NY office and I'm not positive I'd like to go back to NY (I'm from there), but I'm wondering if it would be worth sending a resume anyway.

Any thoughts/recommendations, etc. would be very much appreciated. Thanks a lot.

Re: 3.72 UCLA Bid Strategy

Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 2:19 am
by GeePee
Is 3.72 ~top 10%?

Re: 3.72 UCLA Bid Strategy

Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 2:29 am
by Wavelet
The only notable firm you're missing is Paul Hastings. With a 3.72 (roughly top 10%), you should get something on your list.

But you have forty slots to fill, so you might as well bid on places like Akin Gump, Jones Day, Proskauer, Simpson Thacher, Sidley Austin, etc. -- pretty much anything except Munger, Irell, and Quinn.

By the way, how do you know you want to do "securities law" and not litigation? If your aversion to litigation is because of Lawyering Skills, you should know that Lawyering Skills is not really representative of litigation work. IMO, what you thought of Civ Pro is far more indicative of whether you'll like litigation.

Re: 3.72 UCLA Bid Strategy

Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 2:41 am
by Br3v
Wavelet wrote:The only notable firm you're missing is Paul Hastings. With a 3.72 (roughly top 10%), you should get something on your list.

But you have forty slots to fill, so you might as well bid on places like Akin Gump, Jones Day, Proskauer, Simpson Thacher, Sidley Austin, etc. -- pretty much anything except Munger, Irell, and Quinn.

By the way, how do you know you want to do "securities law" and not litigation? If your aversion to litigation is because of Lawyering Skills, you should know that Lawyering Skills is not really representative of litigation work. IMO, what you thought of Civ Pro is far more indicative of whether you'll like litigation.


probably annoying elementary question but what is the bid process about? Is it like to bid to get different SA gigs?

Re: 3.72 UCLA Bid Strategy

Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 2:47 am
by Wavelet
Br3v wrote:
Wavelet wrote:The only notable firm you're missing is Paul Hastings. With a 3.72 (roughly top 10%), you should get something on your list.

But you have forty slots to fill, so you might as well bid on places like Akin Gump, Jones Day, Proskauer, Simpson Thacher, Sidley Austin, etc. -- pretty much anything except Munger, Irell, and Quinn.

By the way, how do you know you want to do "securities law" and not litigation? If your aversion to litigation is because of Lawyering Skills, you should know that Lawyering Skills is not really representative of litigation work. IMO, what you thought of Civ Pro is far more indicative of whether you'll like litigation.


probably annoying elementary question but what is the bid process about? Is it like to bid to get different SA gigs?


UCLA gives out interviews by lottery. Everyone participating in OCI gets 40 bids, numbered 1-40. You "bid" on firms you'd like to interview with by assigning them one of your bids. After bids are locked, the system applies an algorithm that tries to give everyone an interview with their #1 firm, then #2, and so on.

Re: 3.72 UCLA Bid Strategy

Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 2:50 am
by Br3v
Wavelet wrote:
Br3v wrote:
Wavelet wrote:The only notable firm you're missing is Paul Hastings. With a 3.72 (roughly top 10%), you should get something on your list.

But you have forty slots to fill, so you might as well bid on places like Akin Gump, Jones Day, Proskauer, Simpson Thacher, Sidley Austin, etc. -- pretty much anything except Munger, Irell, and Quinn.

By the way, how do you know you want to do "securities law" and not litigation? If your aversion to litigation is because of Lawyering Skills, you should know that Lawyering Skills is not really representative of litigation work. IMO, what you thought of Civ Pro is far more indicative of whether you'll like litigation.


probably annoying elementary question but what is the bid process about? Is it like to bid to get different SA gigs?


UCLA gives out interviews by lottery. Everyone participating in OCI gets 40 bids, numbered 1-40. You "bid" on firms you'd like to interview with by assigning them one of your bids. After bids are locked, the system applies an algorithm that tries to give everyone an interview with their #1 firm, then #2, and so on.


Thats cool. 1) do any other schools do this? 2) when you say OCI is that for like summer gigs or like an actual job offer? I ask because OP just finished first year.

Re: 3.72 UCLA Bid Strategy

Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 2:53 am
by Wavelet
Br3v wrote:
Wavelet wrote:UCLA gives out interviews by lottery. Everyone participating in OCI gets 40 bids, numbered 1-40. You "bid" on firms you'd like to interview with by assigning them one of your bids. After bids are locked, the system applies an algorithm that tries to give everyone an interview with their #1 firm, then #2, and so on.


Thats cool. 1) do any other schools do this? 2) when you say OCI is that for like summer gigs or like an actual job offer? I ask because OP just finished first year.


I think most top law schools assign interviews by lottery, yes. OCI stands for "on-campus interviewing," and usually refers to interviews for 2L summer jobs.

Re: 3.72 UCLA Bid Strategy

Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 3:41 am
by sundance1988
Wavelet wrote:The only notable firm you're missing is Paul Hastings. With a 3.72 (roughly top 10%), you should get something on your list.

But you have forty slots to fill, so you might as well bid on places like Akin Gump, Jones Day, Proskauer, Simpson Thacher, Sidley Austin, etc. -- pretty much anything except Munger, Irell, and Quinn.

By the way, how do you know you want to do "securities law" and not litigation? If your aversion to litigation is because of Lawyering Skills, you should know that Lawyering Skills is not really representative of litigation work. IMO, what you thought of Civ Pro is far more indicative of whether you'll like litigation.


I currently work at a mutual fund and I think I will likely prefer transactional type work. I actually did love civ pro though so who knows. May I ask why I shouldnt bother with Munger, Irell, and Quinn? Not that I have a desire to work for any of them (I interviewed with Irell for my 1L job and did not like what I saw), but I am curious as to why I wouldn't bid. Irell/Quinn say they want 3.7 or above. Does that generally mean far above?

Re: 3.72 UCLA Bid Strategy

Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 4:02 am
by Wavelet
sundance1988 wrote:
Wavelet wrote:The only notable firm you're missing is Paul Hastings. With a 3.72 (roughly top 10%), you should get something on your list.

But you have forty slots to fill, so you might as well bid on places like Akin Gump, Jones Day, Proskauer, Simpson Thacher, Sidley Austin, etc. -- pretty much anything except Munger, Irell, and Quinn.

By the way, how do you know you want to do "securities law" and not litigation? If your aversion to litigation is because of Lawyering Skills, you should know that Lawyering Skills is not really representative of litigation work. IMO, what you thought of Civ Pro is far more indicative of whether you'll like litigation.


I currently work at a mutual fund and I think I will likely prefer transactional type work. I actually did love civ pro though so who knows. May I ask why I shouldnt bother with Munger, Irell, and Quinn? Not that I have a desire to work for any of them (I interviewed with Irell for my 1L job and did not like what I saw), but I am curious as to why I wouldn't bid. Irell/Quinn say they want 3.7 or above. Does that generally mean far above?


I didn't mean to suggest that you should avoid them because of grades/selectivity. (Though they are selective -- your numbers aren't high enough for Munger, and you'd need Law Review to have any shot at Irell).

Rather, I suggest you avoid them if you don't want to litigate. Munger and Irell are lopsidedly lit-focused. And Quinn is 100% lit -- no corporate group at all.

Re: 3.72 UCLA Bid Strategy

Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 3:42 am
by Anonymous User
Wavelet wrote:The only notable firm you're missing is Paul Hastings. With a 3.72 (roughly top 10%), you should get something on your list.


One caveat re: Paul Hastings. While your overall GPA makes you a strong candidate, Paul Hastings seems to care a bit more about Lawyering Skills grades than other firms.

Re: 3.72 UCLA Bid Strategy

Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 7:16 pm
by saladfiend
What lawyering skills grade is Paul Hastings looking for, and how do you know this?

Re: 3.72 UCLA Bid Strategy

Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 4:29 am
by Anonymous User
saladfiend wrote:What lawyering skills grade is Paul Hastings looking for, and how do you know this?


I doubt that PHJW has a specific Lawyering Skills grade cut-off or that a lower grade in the class would disqualify someone with an otherwise strong resume/transcript. However, I mentioned it because I have heard multiple people at the firm mention looking for high Lawyering Skills grades during OCI (including showing a little flexibility on overall GPA for a high Lawyering Skills grade). In the last couple of years, the summer class seems to include people either on Law Review or who served as writing advisers.