Cold/No-Offers: Which firms? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Very interested in this, specifically for firms in the V5-25. Any firms notable for this? I have several options and am trying to figure out which ones are riskier propositions than others.

Is the V10 generally safe? V5?

Thanks!

[Anonymous User]

Vault ranking is a shaky proxy for this. As a quick for example, before the downturn Latham was at like, 7 in the vault rankings, and we all know what happened there.

[Anonymous User]

b u m p

[Anonymous User]

this is purely speculation, as i really have no way of knowing with any certainty, but my guess would be that if your concern is going to a highly ranked firm that may no-offer some of its SAs, then you'd probably be best served going to a firm that has a more conservatively-sized summer class. there are a few highly ranked Vault firms that are being far more cautious with summer hiring than others. to me, this says that if we run into another recession, the firms that are still hiring conservatively are going to be less likely to no-offer their SAs than those firms that have begun to increase their class sizes closer to what they were pre-recession.

[Anonymous User]

b u m p

[rayiner]

Of the V10, only Weil and Kirkland had as significant number of no-offers.

Every firm that doesn't no-offer will cold-offer people. People do some pretty crazy things during the summer.

[Anonymous User]

If you really want to know about firms that have likely cold offered, ask the firm about their yield from the past few years. If there are good number of people each year who don't return and it's not a matter of them going to their 1L firms, that should give you a good idea since not many law students are going to pass up jobs ITE.

[Anonymous User]

Of the V10, only Weil and Kirkland had as significant number of no-offers.

Every firm that doesn't no-offer will cold-offer people. People do some pretty crazy things during the summer.

Can you expand on this? Considering Weil in particular, but it seems like they have given 100% or close to it in the last 2 years. 2009 seemed bad, but it seemed bad for many firms. Is there more to the story that I haven't heard?

[Anonymous User]

Of the V10, only Weil and Kirkland had as significant number of no-offers.

Every firm that doesn't no-offer will cold-offer people. People do some pretty crazy things during the summer.

Can you expand on this? Considering Weil in particular, but it seems like they have given 100% or close to it in the last 2 years. 2009 seemed bad, but it seemed bad for many firms. Is there more to the story that I haven't heard?

+1; I am seriously considering both and this is terrifying to hear.

[Cavalier]

...

[Anonymous User]

Of the V10, only Weil and Kirkland had as significant number of no-offers.

Every firm that doesn't no-offer will cold-offer people. People do some pretty crazy things during the summer.

Can you expand on this? Considering Weil in particular, but it seems like they have given 100% or close to it in the last 2 years. 2009 seemed bad, but it seemed bad for many firms. Is there more to the story that I haven't heard?

From my understanding, no. Weil and Kirkland simply acted like most V100 firms, and not like most V10 firms. I don't think a firm's 2009 offer rate should be of much concern to students. If you get an offer from a firm that had a near 100% offer rate in 2009, great, but most firms didn't, and almost all of those have gone back to near 100% offer rates in 2010 and 2011 (with smaller classes). Unless there's a double dip in the next year, there's little reason to worry about getting no-offered from a V100 firm for the summer of 2012.

ITE, do you think it'd be wiser to take a firm that has given 100% offers in the last 5+ years even if that means going a little lower in the rankings? E.g., Sidley, JD, Cahill.

[Anonymous User]

Of the V10, only Weil and Kirkland had as significant number of no-offers.

Every firm that doesn't no-offer will cold-offer people. People do some pretty crazy things during the summer.

Can you expand on this? Considering Weil in particular, but it seems like they have given 100% or close to it in the last 2 years. 2009 seemed bad, but it seemed bad for many firms. Is there more to the story that I haven't heard?

From my understanding, no. Weil and Kirkland simply acted like most V100 firms, and not like most V10 firms. I don't think a firm's 2009 offer rate should be of much concern to students. If you get an offer from a firm that had a near 100% offer rate in 2009, great, but most firms didn't, and almost all of those have gone back to near 100% offer rates in 2010 and 2011 (with smaller classes). Unless there's a double dip in the next year, there's little reason to worry about getting no-offered from a V100 firm for the summer of 2012.

ITE, do you think it'd be wiser to take a firm that has given 100% offers in the last 5+ years even if that means going a little lower in the rankings? E.g., Sidley, JD, Cahill.

or skadden vs kirkland, both chi?

[Cavalier]

...

[rayiner]

Of the V10, only Weil and Kirkland had as significant number of no-offers.

Every firm that doesn't no-offer will cold-offer people. People do some pretty crazy things during the summer.

Can you expand on this? Considering Weil in particular, but it seems like they have given 100% or close to it in the last 2 years. 2009 seemed bad, but it seemed bad for many firms. Is there more to the story that I haven't heard?

Not much to expand on. WLRK, S&C, DPW, Cleary, STB, and Covington started their associates on time and gave nearly 100% offers. CSM and Skadden gave nearly 100% offers, but deferred people to 2011. Kirkland didn't defer anyone, but no-offered a significant portion of their class (10-15%?) Weil deferred some people to 2012 and no-offered significant numbers outside NYC.

I don't think it means anything systematic. Kirkland never had near 100% offer rates until recently -- that's just how they run their summer program. I think Weil's SV office (which bore the brunt of the no-offers) is a risky place to be, but other than that I think NYC is fine.

[rayiner]

Of the V10, only Weil and Kirkland had as significant number of no-offers.

Every firm that doesn't no-offer will cold-offer people. People do some pretty crazy things during the summer.

Can you expand on this? Considering Weil in particular, but it seems like they have given 100% or close to it in the last 2 years. 2009 seemed bad, but it seemed bad for many firms. Is there more to the story that I haven't heard?

From my understanding, no. Weil and Kirkland simply acted like most V100 firms, and not like most V10 firms. I don't think a firm's 2009 offer rate should be of much concern to students. If you get an offer from a firm that had a near 100% offer rate in 2009, great, but most firms didn't, and almost all of those have gone back to near 100% offer rates in 2010 and 2011 (with smaller classes). Unless there's a double dip in the next year, there's little reason to worry about getting no-offered from a V100 firm for the summer of 2012.

That's a big fat elephant of an "unless" hanging there.

[Anonymous User]

Of the V10, only Weil and Kirkland had as significant number of no-offers.

Every firm that doesn't no-offer will cold-offer people. People do some pretty crazy things during the summer.

I don't know about cold offers, but Kirkland only no-offered two of its 124 associates this year. Hardly a "significant number." http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdail ... ffers.html

[Anonymous User]

Liskow & Lewis no-offered SA's.

[Anonymous User]

Of the V10, only Weil and Kirkland had as significant number of no-offers.

Every firm that doesn't no-offer will cold-offer people. People do some pretty crazy things during the summer.

I don't know about cold offers, but Kirkland only no-offered two of its 124 associates this year. Hardly a "significant number." http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdail ... ffers.html

Yeah, I was just about to say this. I looked around a bit before accepting Kirkland, and I feel quite safe with a firm that gave offers to 122/124 of its SAs. It indicates, to me anyway, a more honest number. If a firm is 100% offers always, some of them have to be cold.

[rayiner]

Of the V10, only Weil and Kirkland had as significant number of no-offers.

Every firm that doesn't no-offer will cold-offer people. People do some pretty crazy things during the summer.

I don't know about cold offers, but Kirkland only no-offered two of its 124 associates this year. Hardly a "significant number." http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdail ... ffers.html

Yeah, I was just about to say this. I looked around a bit before accepting Kirkland, and I feel quite safe with a firm that gave offers to 122/124 of its SAs. It indicates, to me anyway, a more honest number. If a firm is 100% offers always, some of them have to be cold.

I was talking about during the recession. Their firm-wide offer rate in 2009 was 85%. That in and of itself would not make me feel uncomfortable about accepting their offer, but do understand Kirkland is a tightly-run ship. As a firm they're more aggressive about performance-reviews early-on than the other V10s. 122/124 is actually very high for them, pre-ITE their offer rate was in the low 90's.

As for cold offers being more "honest" than no-offers---that's a load of bull. You'd much rather be sitting on a cold offer than no offer. Either way the firm is expressing that it doesn't want you, but at least with a cold offer you have a fighting chance for 3L recruiting.

[imchuckbass58]

ITE, do you think it'd be wiser to take a firm that has given 100% offers in the last 5+ years even if that means going a little lower in the rankings? E.g., Sidley, JD, Cahill.

No, because such firms probably cold offer people.

[Anonymous User]

Of the V10, only Weil and Kirkland had as significant number of no-offers.

Every firm that doesn't no-offer will cold-offer people. People do some pretty crazy things during the summer.

I don't know about cold offers, but Kirkland only no-offered two of its 124 associates this year. Hardly a "significant number." http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdail ... ffers.html

Yeah, I was just about to say this. I looked around a bit before accepting Kirkland, and I feel quite safe with a firm that gave offers to 122/124 of its SAs. It indicates, to me anyway, a more honest number. If a firm is 100% offers always, some of them have to be cold.

I was talking about during the recession. Their firm-wide offer rate in 2009 was 85%. That in and of itself would not make me feel uncomfortable about accepting their offer, but do understand Kirkland is a tightly-run ship. As a firm they're more aggressive about performance-reviews early-on than the other V10s. 122/124 is actually very high for them, pre-ITE their offer rate was in the low 90's.

As for cold offers being more "honest" than no-offers---that's a load of bull. You'd much rather be sitting on a cold offer than no offer. Either way the firm is expressing that it doesn't want you, but at least with a cold offer you have a fighting chance for 3L recruiting.

Then do you take the risk or not? I'm very interested in them but this is worrying.

[rayiner]

I don't know about cold offers, but Kirkland only no-offered two of its 124 associates this year. Hardly a "significant number." http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdail ... ffers.html

Yeah, I was just about to say this. I looked around a bit before accepting Kirkland, and I feel quite safe with a firm that gave offers to 122/124 of its SAs. It indicates, to me anyway, a more honest number. If a firm is 100% offers always, some of them have to be cold.

I was talking about during the recession. Their firm-wide offer rate in 2009 was 85%. That in and of itself would not make me feel uncomfortable about accepting their offer, but do understand Kirkland is a tightly-run ship. As a firm they're more aggressive about performance-reviews early-on than the other V10s. 122/124 is actually very high for them, pre-ITE their offer rate was in the low 90's.

As for cold offers being more "honest" than no-offers---that's a load of bull. You'd much rather be sitting on a cold offer than no offer. Either way the firm is expressing that it doesn't want you, but at least with a cold offer you have a fighting chance for 3L recruiting.

Then do you take the risk or not? I'm very interested in them but this is worrying.

I wouldn't worry about it. It's more about firm culture than anything else. Kirkland is an entrepreneurial kind of place. The flip side of this is that they're a bit more aggressive with performance-based dismissals. This historically extended to the summer program as well, but it looks like post-ITE they're no-offering only the most egregious offenders. I think if you're a bottom 10% performer, one of the big NYC firms will let you skate along for a couple of years longer than Kirkland, but I don't think a median person has much to worry about.