V15 Partner/OCI Interviewer Answering Questions... Forum

[itbdvorm]

And for whatever it's worth...

I appreciate that several of you came to my defense. Even we older folks can use some validation here and there.

More importantly (because I can't help but try to find teachable moments), if the first grumpy individual learned something from an anonymous message board kerfuffle, that seems like an overall universe win. When I was a law student, I wrote a cocky, snarky email to a law professor regarding an article he had written. A few minutes later, he replied with a terse email that (a) ripped my specious argument to threads and (b) in so many words, said "who the f do you think you are?" I sat there in shame and re-read both my email, and his response, several times. Then I went in the next day to his office hours and apologized.

Today, he's still one of my mentors. And his upbraiding was exactly the slap in the head I needed.

I was then, and presumably most of you are now, a twenty-something know-it-all who had found academic success at nearly every step along the way. But despite being a know-it-all, I didn't know shit. And most of you guys don't either. And that's actually ok!

Being an entry level individual it's much more important to be eager and humble than actually to know what you're doing. All of you will do far better in interviews - and in life - by remembering how lucky you are to have opportunities and that you're not entitled to anything. Hell, I still feel that way...often

Starting salaries at firms - for people with zero real world experience - are insane. But for people with the credentials to actually get hired, it's not actually that hard to earn it. If you demonstrate commitment and eagerness, you really will do well.

And because I truly can't help myself...

I'm sorry, but there's really just no reason to go to Kirkland (assuming you mean NY) if you've got an offer at Simpson. Yeah, maybe, you'll get a few extra bucks as a junior (though the number of people who actually get that cash is, from what I understand, much more limited than they'd have you believe). But then your career will stall a bit in the middle ranks as you enter the weird nether-region of non-share partner (a 6-10 year passive-aggressive bizarre world from which virtually no one leaves). I know people think that "oh, I'm a partner" gives you some special exit rights - it doesn't. You just play that game for awhile and then go be a counsel at a not-very-good firm. And in the meantime, you live in their system, which by all accounts is a cutthroat bloodbath.

If you really want to get a few extra $s for working a few extra hours, I'd much rather go someplace like Latham, which is frankly a much better firm in most geographic areas (Chicago notwithstanding), better people and they pay over-market too. But to each their own.

[Danger Zone]

Thanks man, that's really insightful. Appreciate you sticking around all these years.

[Genius]

And for whatever it's worth...

I appreciate that several of you came to my defense. Even we older folks can use some validation here and there.

More importantly (because I can't help but try to find teachable moments), if the first grumpy individual learned something from an anonymous message board kerfuffle, that seems like an overall universe win. When I was a law student, I wrote a cocky, snarky email to a law professor regarding an article he had written. A few minutes later, he replied with a terse email that (a) ripped my specious argument to threads and (b) in so many words, said "who the f do you think you are?" I sat there in shame and re-read both my email, and his response, several times. Then I went in the next day to his office hours and apologized.

Today, he's still one of my mentors. And his upbraiding was exactly the slap in the head I needed.

I was then, and presumably most of you are now, a twenty-something know-it-all who had found academic success at nearly every step along the way. But despite being a know-it-all, I didn't know shit. And most of you guys don't either. And that's actually ok!

Being an entry level individual it's much more important to be eager and humble than actually to know what you're doing. All of you will do far better in interviews - and in life - by remembering how lucky you are to have opportunities and that you're not entitled to anything. Hell, I still feel that way...often

Starting salaries at firms - for people with zero real world experience - are insane. But for people with the credentials to actually get hired, it's not actually that hard to earn it. If you demonstrate commitment and eagerness, you really will do well.

hey man you may be of different race and upbringing from someone like me but you are tremendously appreciated for what you've done for me and everyone else here. im not going to say anything more because it sounds patronizing to someone much more knowledgeable in career and life, but know pay no attention to the few haters and keep fighting the good fight to make a difference in younger people's lives. I bet you are a really cool boss to invite to a wedding.

[Shyguy4]

And for whatever it's worth...

I appreciate that several of you came to my defense. Even we older folks can use some validation here and there.

More importantly (because I can't help but try to find teachable moments), if the first grumpy individual learned something from an anonymous message board kerfuffle, that seems like an overall universe win. When I was a law student, I wrote a cocky, snarky email to a law professor regarding an article he had written. A few minutes later, he replied with a terse email that (a) ripped my specious argument to threads and (b) in so many words, said "who the f do you think you are?" I sat there in shame and re-read both my email, and his response, several times. Then I went in the next day to his office hours and apologized.

Today, he's still one of my mentors. And his upbraiding was exactly the slap in the head I needed.

I was then, and presumably most of you are now, a twenty-something know-it-all who had found academic success at nearly every step along the way. But despite being a know-it-all, I didn't know shit. And most of you guys don't either. And that's actually ok!

Being an entry level individual it's much more important to be eager and humble than actually to know what you're doing. All of you will do far better in interviews - and in life - by remembering how lucky you are to have opportunities and that you're not entitled to anything. Hell, I still feel that way...often

Starting salaries at firms - for people with zero real world experience - are insane. But for people with the credentials to actually get hired, it's not actually that hard to earn it. If you demonstrate commitment and eagerness, you really will do well.

And because I truly can't help myself...

I'm sorry, but there's really just no reason to go to Kirkland (assuming you mean NY) if you've got an offer at Simpson. Yeah, maybe, you'll get a few extra bucks as a junior (though the number of people who actually get that cash is, from what I understand, much more limited than they'd have you believe). But then your career will stall a bit in the middle ranks as you enter the weird nether-region of non-share partner (a 6-10 year passive-aggressive bizarre world from which virtually no one leaves). I know people think that "oh, I'm a partner" gives you some special exit rights - it doesn't. You just play that game for awhile and then go be a counsel at a not-very-good firm. And in the meantime, you live in their system, which by all accounts is a cutthroat bloodbath.

If you really want to get a few extra $s for working a few extra hours, I'd much rather go someplace like Latham, which is frankly a much better firm in most geographic areas (Chicago notwithstanding), better people and they pay over-market too. But to each their own.

Can you elaborate on Latham v. Kirkland in Chicago? I'm looking to do transactional work in Chicago and I know many feel Kirkland is best in the city, but Latham office seemed pretty good as well in terms of deal flow and work.

[Anonymous User]

And for whatever it's worth...

I appreciate that several of you came to my defense. Even we older folks can use some validation here and there.

More importantly (because I can't help but try to find teachable moments), if the first grumpy individual learned something from an anonymous message board kerfuffle, that seems like an overall universe win. When I was a law student, I wrote a cocky, snarky email to a law professor regarding an article he had written. A few minutes later, he replied with a terse email that (a) ripped my specious argument to threads and (b) in so many words, said "who the f do you think you are?" I sat there in shame and re-read both my email, and his response, several times. Then I went in the next day to his office hours and apologized.

Today, he's still one of my mentors. And his upbraiding was exactly the slap in the head I needed.

I was then, and presumably most of you are now, a twenty-something know-it-all who had found academic success at nearly every step along the way. But despite being a know-it-all, I didn't know shit. And most of you guys don't either. And that's actually ok!

Being an entry level individual it's much more important to be eager and humble than actually to know what you're doing. All of you will do far better in interviews - and in life - by remembering how lucky you are to have opportunities and that you're not entitled to anything. Hell, I still feel that way...often

Starting salaries at firms - for people with zero real world experience - are insane. But for people with the credentials to actually get hired, it's not actually that hard to earn it. If you demonstrate commitment and eagerness, you really will do well.

And because I truly can't help myself...

I'm sorry, but there's really just no reason to go to Kirkland (assuming you mean NY) if you've got an offer at Simpson. Yeah, maybe, you'll get a few extra bucks as a junior (though the number of people who actually get that cash is, from what I understand, much more limited than they'd have you believe). But then your career will stall a bit in the middle ranks as you enter the weird nether-region of non-share partner (a 6-10 year passive-aggressive bizarre world from which virtually no one leaves). I know people think that "oh, I'm a partner" gives you some special exit rights - it doesn't. You just play that game for awhile and then go be a counsel at a not-very-good firm. And in the meantime, you live in their system, which by all accounts is a cutthroat bloodbath.

If you really want to get a few extra $s for working a few extra hours, I'd much rather go someplace like Latham, which is frankly a much better firm in most geographic areas (Chicago notwithstanding), better people and they pay over-market too. But to each their own.

Can you elaborate on Latham v. Kirkland in Chicago? I'm looking to do transactional work in Chicago and I know many feel Kirkland is best in the city, but Latham office seemed pretty good as well in terms of deal flow and work.

OP can chime in and disagree, but as someone in Big Law Corporate in Chicago (not at Kirkland or Latham) kirkland is the best in the city. They work and burn ppl out quickly, but their reputation is the best in the city and solid exit options. Not sure if Latham is any different with regards to burn out/exit options, only have friends in Lit there. Personally I would lean towards Kirkland unless you felt Latham was a better fit. But can't wrong really either way

[Anonymous User]

Thanks for doing this!

Clerkship after 2 years of working at a firm at a competitive district court... worthwhile or just stay with the firm and forget clerkship? I'm in litigation. Some people seem to think it's useless especially given that the firm has an excellent reputation in litigation.

[Anonymous User]

Could you give me your thoughts on Cahill and Willkie?

[itbdvorm]

And for whatever it's worth...

I appreciate that several of you came to my defense. Even we older folks can use some validation here and there.

More importantly (because I can't help but try to find teachable moments), if the first grumpy individual learned something from an anonymous message board kerfuffle, that seems like an overall universe win. When I was a law student, I wrote a cocky, snarky email to a law professor regarding an article he had written. A few minutes later, he replied with a terse email that (a) ripped my specious argument to threads and (b) in so many words, said "who the f do you think you are?" I sat there in shame and re-read both my email, and his response, several times. Then I went in the next day to his office hours and apologized.

Today, he's still one of my mentors. And his upbraiding was exactly the slap in the head I needed.

I was then, and presumably most of you are now, a twenty-something know-it-all who had found academic success at nearly every step along the way. But despite being a know-it-all, I didn't know shit. And most of you guys don't either. And that's actually ok!

Being an entry level individual it's much more important to be eager and humble than actually to know what you're doing. All of you will do far better in interviews - and in life - by remembering how lucky you are to have opportunities and that you're not entitled to anything. Hell, I still feel that way...often

Starting salaries at firms - for people with zero real world experience - are insane. But for people with the credentials to actually get hired, it's not actually that hard to earn it. If you demonstrate commitment and eagerness, you really will do well.

And because I truly can't help myself...

I'm sorry, but there's really just no reason to go to Kirkland (assuming you mean NY) if you've got an offer at Simpson. Yeah, maybe, you'll get a few extra bucks as a junior (though the number of people who actually get that cash is, from what I understand, much more limited than they'd have you believe). But then your career will stall a bit in the middle ranks as you enter the weird nether-region of non-share partner (a 6-10 year passive-aggressive bizarre world from which virtually no one leaves). I know people think that "oh, I'm a partner" gives you some special exit rights - it doesn't. You just play that game for awhile and then go be a counsel at a not-very-good firm. And in the meantime, you live in their system, which by all accounts is a cutthroat bloodbath.

If you really want to get a few extra $s for working a few extra hours, I'd much rather go someplace like Latham, which is frankly a much better firm in most geographic areas (Chicago notwithstanding), better people and they pay over-market too. But to each their own.

Can you elaborate on Latham v. Kirkland in Chicago? I'm looking to do transactional work in Chicago and I know many feel Kirkland is best in the city, but Latham office seemed pretty good as well in terms of deal flow and work.

Wasn't trying to knock Latham's Chicago offices - I've worked with a few of the folks there (one of my best clients is an ex-Chicago LW guy), and they're really good too. It's just the one location that I couldn't as definitively say you'd be crazy to pick K&E over Latham. If you like the people there I wouldn't think twice about it, you'll get a great experience.

[itbdvorm]

Thanks for doing this!

Clerkship after 2 years of working at a firm at a competitive district court... worthwhile or just stay with the firm and forget clerkship? I'm in litigation. Some people seem to think it's useless especially given that the firm has an excellent reputation in litigation.

Well, what's your long-term goal? Is that one that would be helped or hurt by a clerkship? And do you want to clerk?

[itbdvorm]

Could you give me your thoughts on Cahill and Willkie?

Solid firms, both. Cahill's got a really fantastic underwriter-side lev fin practice (one of the tops in the city, only a handful in the same tier); really specific niche but great to transition into a position at the bank. Generally good people from what I recall. Also have the infamous Floyd Abrams for the litigators

Willkie is a bit more generalist - they're good at a number of different things, but my guess is their strengths are not as strong as Cahill's.

I'd do some background research on their specialties and what you think you want to do, plus fit. Good luck.

[Anonymous User]

What do 2-4 year associates go on to do that once they leave your firm? 5-7 year associates?

Is there any animosity when an associate leaves or is it sort of part of the system?

[Anonymous User]

How would your firm look at someone who grew up and went to college in a non-NY market, who went to a top east coast law school, but then returned to the home market firm for a year, and then clerked (for a sufficiently fancy judge) in new york and was applying to new york firms to try to stay in the city post-clerkship?

To be blunt, my concern is that I won't be taken seriously by elite new york firms anymore due to having selected my home market several times over NY. My interest is sincere because my wife will be taking a job in NY during my clerkship with long-term potential, but its difficult to communicate that without seeming transparent.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks for doing this!

Clerkship after 2 years of working at a firm at a competitive district court... worthwhile or just stay with the firm and forget clerkship? I'm in litigation. Some people seem to think it's useless especially given that the firm has an excellent reputation in litigation.

Well, what's your long-term goal? Is that one that would be helped or hurt by a clerkship? And do you want to clerk?

Definitely want to clerk but the firm gets pretty annoyed about it. The firm itself not that big into clerkship -- more ambivalent towards it. Want to make partner, but that's obviously not something I can bank on or know even I have a shot this early in my career. Intend to stay in big law one shape or form...

ETA: firm has people who've worked then clerked, only to return. But the current partnership only has either people clerking straight out of LS, or no clerkship at all (litigation side).

[itbdvorm]

What do 2-4 year associates go on to do that once they leave your firm? 5-7 year associates?

Is there any animosity when an associate leaves or is it sort of part of the system?

Such a huge variety. Different markets, different types of firms, different schools, etc.

Lots go in-house. Or non-profit / gov / academia.

Only animosity(ish) is if someone leaves for a peer firm. If we liked you, we'll be bummed if you're doing that, but easy to not burn bridges when you go.

Despite being easy to not burn bridges, many people do anyway

[itbdvorm]

How would your firm look at someone who grew up and went to college in a non-NY market, who went to a top east coast law school, but then returned to the home market firm for a year, and then clerked (for a sufficiently fancy judge) in new york and was applying to new york firms to try to stay in the city post-clerkship?

To be blunt, my concern is that I won't be taken seriously by elite new york firms anymore due to having selected my home market several times over NY. My interest is sincere because my wife will be taking a job in NY during my clerkship with long-term potential, but its difficult to communicate that without seeming transparent.

Have a story about why it's time for you to be in NY now that doesn't mention your wife

[Anonymous User]

What do 2-4 year associates go on to do that once they leave your firm? 5-7 year associates?

Is there any animosity when an associate leaves or is it sort of part of the system?

Such a huge variety. Different markets, different types of firms, different schools, etc.

Lots go in-house. Or non-profit / gov / academia.

Only animosity(ish) is if someone leaves for a peer firm. If we liked you, we'll be bummed if you're doing that, but easy to not burn bridges when you go.

Despite being easy to not burn bridges, many people do anyway

What are some ways to avoid burning bridges, assuming you're trying to do everything by the book -- give advance notice, do good work, be polite...

[itbdvorm]

Thanks for doing this!

Clerkship after 2 years of working at a firm at a competitive district court... worthwhile or just stay with the firm and forget clerkship? I'm in litigation. Some people seem to think it's useless especially given that the firm has an excellent reputation in litigation.

Well, what's your long-term goal? Is that one that would be helped or hurt by a clerkship? And do you want to clerk?

Definitely want to clerk but the firm gets pretty annoyed about it. The firm itself not that big into clerkship -- more ambivalent towards it. Want to make partner, but that's obviously not something I can bank on or know even I have a shot this early in my career. Intend to stay in big law one shape or form...

ETA: firm has people who've worked then clerked, only to return. But the current partnership only has either people clerking straight out of LS, or no clerkship at all (litigation side).

A little weird. Would think lots of places would like something like that. Or could potentially transition from that to AUSA back to firm or something.

My guess is you wouldn't get "full credit" for doing it, but if you want to do it enough I'd go for it.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks for doing this!

Clerkship after 2 years of working at a firm at a competitive district court... worthwhile or just stay with the firm and forget clerkship? I'm in litigation. Some people seem to think it's useless especially given that the firm has an excellent reputation in litigation.

Well, what's your long-term goal? Is that one that would be helped or hurt by a clerkship? And do you want to clerk?

Definitely want to clerk but the firm gets pretty annoyed about it. The firm itself not that big into clerkship -- more ambivalent towards it. Want to make partner, but that's obviously not something I can bank on or know even I have a shot this early in my career. Intend to stay in big law one shape or form...

ETA: firm has people who've worked then clerked, only to return. But the current partnership only has either people clerking straight out of LS, or no clerkship at all (litigation side).

A little weird. Would think lots of places would like something like that. Or could potentially transition from that to AUSA back to firm or something.

My guess is you wouldn't get "full credit" for doing it, but if you want to do it enough I'd go for it.

Hi, thanks for your response. What do you mean "full credit"? Like they'll give me bonus but won't be happy about it?

[itbdvorm]

What do 2-4 year associates go on to do that once they leave your firm? 5-7 year associates?

Is there any animosity when an associate leaves or is it sort of part of the system?

Such a huge variety. Different markets, different types of firms, different schools, etc.

Lots go in-house. Or non-profit / gov / academia.

Only animosity(ish) is if someone leaves for a peer firm. If we liked you, we'll be bummed if you're doing that, but easy to not burn bridges when you go.

Despite being easy to not burn bridges, many people do anyway

What are some ways to avoid burning bridges, assuming you're trying to do everything by the book -- give advance notice, do good work, be polite...

All of those things are good. You get in trouble if you talk badly about your current place, leave people hanging, do bad work leading up to departure, etc.

[itbdvorm]

Thanks for doing this!

Clerkship after 2 years of working at a firm at a competitive district court... worthwhile or just stay with the firm and forget clerkship? I'm in litigation. Some people seem to think it's useless especially given that the firm has an excellent reputation in litigation.

Well, what's your long-term goal? Is that one that would be helped or hurt by a clerkship? And do you want to clerk?

Definitely want to clerk but the firm gets pretty annoyed about it. The firm itself not that big into clerkship -- more ambivalent towards it. Want to make partner, but that's obviously not something I can bank on or know even I have a shot this early in my career. Intend to stay in big law one shape or form...

ETA: firm has people who've worked then clerked, only to return. But the current partnership only has either people clerking straight out of LS, or no clerkship at all (litigation side).

A little weird. Would think lots of places would like something like that. Or could potentially transition from that to AUSA back to firm or something.

My guess is you wouldn't get "full credit" for doing it, but if you want to do it enough I'd go for it.

Hi, thanks for your response. What do you mean "full credit"? Like they'll give me bonus but won't be happy about it?

Maybe you don't get full progression of class year or equivalent. Maybe no bonus. All depends.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks for doing this!

Clerkship after 2 years of working at a firm at a competitive district court... worthwhile or just stay with the firm and forget clerkship? I'm in litigation. Some people seem to think it's useless especially given that the firm has an excellent reputation in litigation.

Well, what's your long-term goal? Is that one that would be helped or hurt by a clerkship? And do you want to clerk?

Definitely want to clerk but the firm gets pretty annoyed about it. The firm itself not that big into clerkship -- more ambivalent towards it. Want to make partner, but that's obviously not something I can bank on or know even I have a shot this early in my career. Intend to stay in big law one shape or form...

ETA: firm has people who've worked then clerked, only to return. But the current partnership only has either people clerking straight out of LS, or no clerkship at all (litigation side).

A little weird. Would think lots of places would like something like that. Or could potentially transition from that to AUSA back to firm or something.

My guess is you wouldn't get "full credit" for doing it, but if you want to do it enough I'd go for it.

Hi, thanks for your response. What do you mean "full credit"? Like they'll give me bonus but won't be happy about it?

Maybe you don't get full progression of class year or equivalent. Maybe no bonus. All depends.

Wow, you're amazing.. that's actually exactly what they said haha.

[Frayed Knot]

How would your firm look at someone who grew up and went to college in a non-NY market, who went to a top east coast law school, but then returned to the home market firm for a year, and then clerked (for a sufficiently fancy judge) in new york and was applying to new york firms to try to stay in the city post-clerkship?

To be blunt, my concern is that I won't be taken seriously by elite new york firms anymore due to having selected my home market several times over NY. My interest is sincere because my wife will be taking a job in NY during my clerkship with long-term potential, but its difficult to communicate that without seeming transparent.

Have a story about why it's time for you to be in NY now that doesn't mention your wife

Why is this the right way to do it? You have a lot more experience than I do, so you're probably right. But I would have thought that saying "I wasn't sure where I wanted to end up, but my wife just accepted a permanent job in NY, so we'll definitely be living here now" would be a good answer. I mean, if you have to live there, you're not a flight risk, right? What am I missing?

[itbdvorm]

How would your firm look at someone who grew up and went to college in a non-NY market, who went to a top east coast law school, but then returned to the home market firm for a year, and then clerked (for a sufficiently fancy judge) in new york and was applying to new york firms to try to stay in the city post-clerkship?

To be blunt, my concern is that I won't be taken seriously by elite new york firms anymore due to having selected my home market several times over NY. My interest is sincere because my wife will be taking a job in NY during my clerkship with long-term potential, but its difficult to communicate that without seeming transparent.

Have a story about why it's time for you to be in NY now that doesn't mention your wife

Why is this the right way to do it? You have a lot more experience than I do, so you're probably right. But I would have thought that saying "I wasn't sure where I wanted to end up, but my wife just accepted a permanent job in NY, so we'll definitely be living here now" would be a good answer. I mean, if you have to live there, you're not a flight risk, right? What am I missing?

What if you get divorced? What if your wife's job moves someplace else (you're moving for her now, why wouldn't you move again)? What does permanent mean - 1 year? 2 years? 20 years?

You need to convince them that you want to be there - not that you have to be there. If you have to be there, nothing will keep you there if for some reason you don't have to be there any more.

There are about a million reasons why you could or should want to be in NY. If none of them apply to you, then see if your home market firm has a NY outpost.

[Anonymous User]

DPW v. Simpson for NY corporate? Seems like I should just flip a coin at this point because I get great vibes from both firms. Any substantive reason to pick one over the other besides fit?

[Anonymous User]

Hi OP, thanks so much for doing this. I am a 1st year v25 corp associate, recently got an email from a recruiter saying there's an unlisted position at a v10 firm in the same market (with a much stronger office), and this firm is looking for candidates with exactly the same experience that I have (same practice area, within the targeted class range). My question is how hard would it be to move up the "ladder"? I don't think my grades are good enough for say getting a SA offer at this v10, but would it still matter after 1 year? In addition, should I ask my friends at this firm to probe around and perhaps do an internal referral? Would that be more effective than using a recruiter? Thank you very much.