Median Penn Bid List Critique

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
HeavenWood
Posts: 2915
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 6:42 pm

Re: Median Penn Bid List Critique

Postby HeavenWood » Mon Jul 02, 2012 10:48 am

Anonymous User wrote:
HeavenWood wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
r6_philly wrote:Well, the problem with the CPP stats is: if 80 people all put Saul as the first bid, it would turn out to be 25%. If all 80 people put Saul as their last (60th) bid, it would still turn out to be 25%. So you have no way of knowing how popular Saul really is. So realistically, you could rank Saul 30th and still get in - it all depends on where the other 79 bids are. If everyone rank it as a backup at the bottom of their lists, then it inflates the %.

My guess is, since most people at Penn don't want Philly firms as top choice, most people load up the Philly firms mid-low as backup/safeties, and that's why Philly firms appear to be more popular. Realistically, there are only about 20% of the class who want Philly first (that's 50 people, being generous). Many of those are able to get Philly firms through the diversity fair. So I can't imagine way-below-market Philly firms to be actually in demand in top 15 bids.


Well IDK if 120 is "way-below-market" in Philly. What's market, 145? And only a few firms here actually pay that from what I know. I know Saul isn't "ideal" but it's also a great safety. While I would be a little upset if that's what I ended up with in the end, I can still survive and pay off my six figure debt with what they're offering. And if push came to shove, I'll probably have some NYC offer to choose from that I could take over Saul if I wanted more dough (though, after factoring in COA, 160 NYC probably really isn't that much more than 120 Philly). I just feel that since Saul is a safety for seemingly everyone (just taking a look at who they hire from CPP's graphs) I just want to make sure I get it, because it seems that I can bid most of the other Philly firms anywhere in the top 20 or so and count on getting them.

After factoring bin COA, 160 in NYC is actually a good bit less than 120 in Philly. 160k in NYC is more like 100k in Philly.

Is there a reliable place to go to find out salary information for these firms?

NALP. Prevailing Philly market rates hover around 130, with a max of 145.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273572
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Median Penn Bid List Critique

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jul 02, 2012 1:26 pm

Hey everyone, thanks a TON for all of the input! It's been greatly helpful. After considering all of your advice and doing some more research, how does this slightly revised list look to the eyes? If anyone has some more thoughts on which NY firms I should bid, that would be much appreciated, too. I placed four NYC firms in my top ten with decent class sizes, but a limited number of interview slots. I have Kasowitz first because I’m possibly leaning towards litigation and they only have 20 spots. I figure they and Sidley and Linklaters should be targets, while Kaye is more of a “safety”? I then list the Philly firms and then mostly NYC firms. And anyone think I land a chance of winning a bid on Shearman and/or Schulte where I have them? Both of those firms interest me, but I have them lower because of the high number of interview slots they have.

Also, I have a lot of reaches (Cravath, Weil, etc, etc) at the bottom because they have seemingly a lot of interview slots considering their prestige. I figure that once I get towards the bottom of my list that I’ll be lucky to get any sort of interview, so why not since by then all of the firms I’m more of a “match” for will probably be filled up. I also added some firms/offices from other cities thinking roughly along the same lines. I may not have ties and my chances of landing something from them may be weak, but if I can snag any sort of interview with my 48th or 51st bids, then it’s better than nothing.

Finally, for some more specific background about me, I worked as a paralegal at a NLJ250 firm and went to undergrad in Philly. Also, my 1L grades were: A-, B-, B+, B+, B+, B, A-, A-. Still unsure about journals/LR, but I did participate in the writing competition so I should land some journal, though I’m not counting on LR, obviously.

Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman LLP – 20 – NYC
Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP -- 20 -- Philly
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP -- 40 -- London
Dechert LLP -- 20 -- London
Allen & Overy LLP -- 20 -- London
Linklaters LLP – 40 – NYC
Kaye Scholer LLP -- 40 -- NYC
Sidley Austin LLP -- 40 -- NYC
Blank Rome LLP -- 40 -- Philly
Cozen O'Connor -- 40 -- Philly
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP -- 40 -- Philly
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP -- 40 -- Philly
Duane Morris LLP -- 60 -- Philly
Ballard Spahr LLP -- 57 -- Philly
Dechert LLP -- 80 -- Philly
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP 60 – NYC
Proskauer LLP -- 60 -- NYC
Shearman & Sterling LLP -- 80 -- NYC
Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP -- 80 -- NYC
Pepper Hamilton LLP -- 80 – Philly
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP -- 100 -- NYC
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP -- 20 -- London
Paul Hastings LLP -- 40 -- NYC
White & Case LLP -- 60 -- NYC
Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP -- 60 -- NYC
Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP -- 60 -- NYC
Clifford Chance US LLP -- 64 -- NYC
Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP -- 60 -- NYC
Reed Smith 10 -- Pittsburgh
Thorp Reed & Armstrong, LLP – 9 – Pittsburgh
K&L Gates LLP -- 20 -- Pittsburgh
Jones Day -- 20 -- Pittsburgh
Fox Rothschild LLP -- 20 -- Philly (Not particularly interested after doing some more research, which is why I have them bidded so low even though they are a big Philly firm).
Manko, Gold, Katcher & Fox, LLP -- 20 -- Bala Cynwyd
Perkins Coie LLP – 20 – Portland
DLA Piper -- 20 -- Baltimore
Proskauer LLP -- 20 -- Boston
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP -- 48 -- NYC
Winston & Strawn LLP -- 35 -- NYC
Sidley Austin LLP -- 20 -- LA
Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP -- 20 -- Boston
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. -- 20 -- Boston
Goodwin Procter LLP -- 20 -- Boston
DLA Piper -- 20 -- Baltimore
Miles & Stockbridge P.C. -- 20 -- Baltimore
Archer & Greiner, P.C. -- 20 -- Philly Burbs
Baker & Hostetler LLP -- 20 -- LA
O'Melveny & [deleted] LLP -- 20 -- DC
O'Melveny & [deleted] LLP -- 20 -- LA
O'Melveny & [deleted] LLP -- 40 -- NYC
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP -- NYC
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP – NYC
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP – NYC
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP – NYC
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP – NYC
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP – NYC
Conrad O'Brien PC – 20 – Philly

Anonymous User
Posts: 273572
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Median Penn Bid List Critique

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jul 02, 2012 1:33 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Penn alum from above here.

I don't really believe in the idea of a safety firm. Truth is, a lot of firms have 3 or 4 interviews going on at once. You might have had everything in common with the interviewer meeting with your friend across the hall, but you got stuck with the awkward person who's practice area you want nothing to do with. Your safety just turned into a bust.

Plus, when it comes to getting callbacks the rich usually get richer. If there is just a baller out there gunning for Philly -- LR, great WE, did her research etc, she is going to get called back most everywhere. Leaving you with one fewer slot to take when a firm interviewing 60 people calls back 15.

I like to think of it in tiers, not necessarily by prestige. If you are median, carry yourself and dress in somewhat lawyerly way and have a good answer to the why Philly question, I think your results will look like this:

1 callback out of: Morgan, Dechert, Duane (firms that are looking for grades/LR mostly but will make some exceptions for WE, demonstrated interest, connections, etc.)

3-4 callbacks out of: Pepper, Ballard, Cozen, Blank, Drinker, Reed Smith. These are firms with medium to big SA classes that want the best Penn students they can get but care about fit. Be in the top 2/3rds and you should get an offer here.

1-2 callbacks out of: Stradley, Saul, Fox, Schnader. These are smaller firms with smaller SA classes that care a lot about fit I think. Edit: Ok Fox isn't small but it's my understanding that they only take 1-2 SAs in Philly.


Can anysone shed any light on Reed Smith in Philly? I actually dropped them from my list because their Philly SA class sizes are so very small.

run26.2
Posts: 897
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2010 1:35 am

Re: Median Penn Bid List Critique

Postby run26.2 » Mon Jul 02, 2012 8:02 pm

Can you repost it with numbers next to it? It would be easier to evaluate that way.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273572
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Median Penn Bid List Critique

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jul 02, 2012 9:23 pm

run26.2 wrote:Can you repost it with numbers next to it? It would be easier to evaluate that way.


1.) Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman LLP – 20 – NYC
2.) Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP -- 20 -- Philly
3.) Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP -- 40 -- London
4.) Dechert LLP -- 20 -- London
5.) Allen & Overy LLP -- 20 -- London
6.) Linklaters LLP – 40 – NYC
7.) Kaye Scholer LLP -- 40 -- NYC
8.) Sidley Austin LLP -- 40 -- NYC
9.) Blank Rome LLP -- 40 -- Philly
10.) Cozen O'Connor -- 40 -- Philly
11.) Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP -- 40 -- Philly
12.) Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP -- 40 -- Philly
13.) Duane Morris LLP -- 60 -- Philly
14.) Ballard Spahr LLP -- 57 -- Philly
15.) Dechert LLP -- 80 -- Philly
16.) Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP 60 – NYC
17.) Proskauer LLP -- 60 -- NYC
18.) Shearman & Sterling LLP -- 80 -- NYC
19.) Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP -- 80 -- NYC
20.) Pepper Hamilton LLP -- 80 – Philly
21.) Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP -- 100 -- NYC
22.) Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP -- 20 -- London
23.) Paul Hastings LLP -- 40 -- NYC
24.) White & Case LLP -- 60 -- NYC
25.) Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP -- 60 -- NYC
26.) Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP -- 60 -- NYC
27.) Clifford Chance US LLP -- 64 -- NYC
28.) Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP -- 60 -- NYC
29.) Reed Smith 10 -- Pittsburgh
30.) Thorp Reed & Armstrong, LLP – 9 – Pittsburgh
31.) K&L Gates LLP -- 20 -- Pittsburgh
32.) Jones Day -- 20 -- Pittsburgh
33.) Fox Rothschild LLP -- 20 -- Philly (Not particularly interested after doing some more research, which is why I have them bidded so low even though they are a big Philly firm).
34.) Manko, Gold, Katcher & Fox, LLP -- 20 -- Bala Cynwyd
35.) Perkins Coie LLP – 20 – Portland
36.) DLA Piper -- 20 -- Baltimore
37.) Proskauer LLP -- 20 -- Boston
38.) Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP -- 48 -- NYC
39.) Winston & Strawn LLP -- 35 -- NYC
40.) Sidley Austin LLP -- 20 -- LA
41.) Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP -- 20 -- Boston
42.) Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. -- 20 -- Boston
43.) Goodwin Procter LLP -- 20 -- Boston
44.) DLA Piper -- 20 -- Baltimore
45.) Miles & Stockbridge P.C. -- 20 -- Baltimore
46.) Archer & Greiner, P.C. -- 20 -- Philly Burbs
47.) Baker & Hostetler LLP -- 20 -- LA
48.) O'Melveny & [deleted] LLP -- 20 -- DC
49.) O'Melveny & [deleted] LLP -- 20 -- LA
50.) O'Melveny & [deleted] LLP -- 40 -- NYC
51.) Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP -- NYC
52.) Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP – NYC
53.) Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP – NYC
54.) Sullivan & Cromwell LLP – NYC
55.) Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP – NYC
56.) Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP – NYC
57.) Conrad O'Brien PC – 20 – Philly

Still not sure about the last three spots not that they really matter.

bluelovebug
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 11:47 am

Re: Median Penn Bid List Critique

Postby bluelovebug » Mon Jul 02, 2012 10:22 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
bluelovebug wrote: Any firms that were lower ranked that than that I bid on thinking of them as "safeties" were incredibly skeptical of why I wanted to work there.


New Anonymous User Here:

Can you give more details about this? This kinda scares me, only because my absolute #1 choice firm is also a firm I happen to be way over their grade distributions for. I don't want them thinking they're a safety for me when in fact I really want them.

How did your interviews go?


Of course, I am happy to talk about this and if you have more questions feel free to PM me.

I don't think this is something that should really scare you because it doesn't seem like you are thinking of this firm as a safety and, given that it is your #1 choice, I assume you have well-thought out and legitimate reasons for why you want to work there. I think that is the most important thing for interviews with firms when your grades are substantially above their grade range. I had callbacks at every firm in my grade range that I interviewed with and, for the most part, I only had callbacks at firms that were below my grade range when I had a really compelling reason for why I wanted to work there (but when I did have a really compelling reason I got a high percentage of callbacks).

For firms in my grade range, when I was asked "why this firm" some kind of generic answer like "I want to do transactional work and you have a great corporate practice, I am particularly interested in this sub-practice area and am really impressed with this practice area at your firm" was sufficient; if you tossed in the names of some partners whose work you found interesting, big name clients you were interested in, or a specific transaction that highlight that interest that was a bonus. If you have V10 grades and are interviewing with a V50 firm (with the obvious exceptions that come from firms that have specialized or niche practice areas, or firms that just don't mesh with the vault ranking system, I'm just using this as a general grade proxy) no interviewer is going to believe that you are going to chose their firm over the dozens of other firms you are qualified for who probably have better and more highly regarded corporate practices.

I did get callbacks (I ended up accepting an offer from one of my top choice firms really early on in the call back period and cancelling a lot of my callbacks, so I don't know for sure that they would have turned into offers) at most of firms that were substantially below my grade range when I had compelling reasons for wanting to work there. Since practice area didn't usually cut it, this often was a result of connections I had to the firm (I talked to so and so partner and he said X, so and so summered there last summer and told me Y, etc. I'm happy to provide more detailed descriptions of the reasons I gave for wanting to work at those firms that led to callbacks if you PM me, but some of them were pretty specific). The problem is that it is really hard as a 2L to actually come up with meaningful distinctions between a lot of these firms. They have the same general practice areas, the same salary, the same lockstep promotion, the same grueling hours, the same kind of work, etc.

So generally, if you aren't thinking of a firm as a safety and you have real reasons that you want to work there I don't think this is something that should concern you. But I don't think anyone should go into any OCI interview thinking of a firm as a "safety" because (1) there are far too many things that can go wrong in the interview and even if you have done everything possible you may not click with any of the interviewers at the firms you considered safeties and (2) I think there are instances when being far above a firm's grade range can make an interview harder.

bluelovebug
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 11:47 am

Re: Median Penn Bid List Critique

Postby bluelovebug » Mon Jul 02, 2012 10:32 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
run26.2 wrote:Can you repost it with numbers next to it? It would be easier to evaluate that way.


1.) Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman LLP – 20 – NYC
2.) Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP -- 20 -- Philly
3.) Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP -- 40 -- London
4.) Dechert LLP -- 20 -- London
5.) Allen & Overy LLP -- 20 -- London
6.) Linklaters LLP – 40 – NYC
7.) Kaye Scholer LLP -- 40 -- NYC
8.) Sidley Austin LLP -- 40 -- NYC
9.) Blank Rome LLP -- 40 -- Philly
10.) Cozen O'Connor -- 40 -- Philly
11.) Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP -- 40 -- Philly
12.) Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP -- 40 -- Philly
13.) Duane Morris LLP -- 60 -- Philly
14.) Ballard Spahr LLP -- 57 -- Philly
15.) Dechert LLP -- 80 -- Philly
16.) Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP 60 – NYC
17.) Proskauer LLP -- 60 -- NYC
18.) Shearman & Sterling LLP -- 80 -- NYC
19.) Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP -- 80 -- NYC
20.) Pepper Hamilton LLP -- 80 – Philly
21.) Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP -- 100 -- NYC
22.) Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP -- 20 -- London
23.) Paul Hastings LLP -- 40 -- NYC
24.) White & Case LLP -- 60 -- NYC
25.) Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP -- 60 -- NYC
26.) Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP -- 60 -- NYC
27.) Clifford Chance US LLP -- 64 -- NYC
28.) Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP -- 60 -- NYC
29.) Reed Smith 10 -- Pittsburgh
30.) Thorp Reed & Armstrong, LLP – 9 – Pittsburgh
31.) K&L Gates LLP -- 20 -- Pittsburgh
32.) Jones Day -- 20 -- Pittsburgh
33.) Fox Rothschild LLP -- 20 -- Philly (Not particularly interested after doing some more research, which is why I have them bidded so low even though they are a big Philly firm).
34.) Manko, Gold, Katcher & Fox, LLP -- 20 -- Bala Cynwyd
35.) Perkins Coie LLP – 20 – Portland
36.) DLA Piper -- 20 -- Baltimore
37.) Proskauer LLP -- 20 -- Boston
38.) Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP -- 48 -- NYC
39.) Winston & Strawn LLP -- 35 -- NYC
40.) Sidley Austin LLP -- 20 -- LA
41.) Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP -- 20 -- Boston
42.) Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. -- 20 -- Boston
43.) Goodwin Procter LLP -- 20 -- Boston
44.) DLA Piper -- 20 -- Baltimore
45.) Miles & Stockbridge P.C. -- 20 -- Baltimore
46.) Archer & Greiner, P.C. -- 20 -- Philly Burbs
47.) Baker & Hostetler LLP -- 20 -- LA
48.) O'Melveny & [deleted] LLP -- 20 -- DC
49.) O'Melveny & [deleted] LLP -- 20 -- LA
50.) O'Melveny & [deleted] LLP -- 40 -- NYC
51.) Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP -- NYC
52.) Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP – NYC
53.) Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP – NYC
54.) Sullivan & Cromwell LLP – NYC
55.) Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP – NYC
56.) Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP – NYC
57.) Conrad O'Brien PC – 20 – Philly

Still not sure about the last three spots not that they really matter.


Do you have any kind of ties to Boston? It seemed like a particularly tough market last year. I know that you have those really far down on your list and aren't likely to get them anyway, but I would maybe replace them with some (any) other NYC firms (the ones with the largest class sizes and largest number of interview slots that you haven't bid on yet).

Anonymous User
Posts: 273572
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Median Penn Bid List Critique

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jul 02, 2012 10:36 pm

bluelovebug wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
run26.2 wrote:Can you repost it with numbers next to it? It would be easier to evaluate that way.


1.) Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman LLP – 20 – NYC
2.) Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP -- 20 -- Philly
3.) Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP -- 40 -- London
4.) Dechert LLP -- 20 -- London
5.) Allen & Overy LLP -- 20 -- London
6.) Linklaters LLP – 40 – NYC
7.) Kaye Scholer LLP -- 40 -- NYC
8.) Sidley Austin LLP -- 40 -- NYC
9.) Blank Rome LLP -- 40 -- Philly
10.) Cozen O'Connor -- 40 -- Philly
11.) Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP -- 40 -- Philly
12.) Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP -- 40 -- Philly
13.) Duane Morris LLP -- 60 -- Philly
14.) Ballard Spahr LLP -- 57 -- Philly
15.) Dechert LLP -- 80 -- Philly
16.) Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP 60 – NYC
17.) Proskauer LLP -- 60 -- NYC
18.) Shearman & Sterling LLP -- 80 -- NYC
19.) Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP -- 80 -- NYC
20.) Pepper Hamilton LLP -- 80 – Philly
21.) Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP -- 100 -- NYC
22.) Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP -- 20 -- London
23.) Paul Hastings LLP -- 40 -- NYC
24.) White & Case LLP -- 60 -- NYC
25.) Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP -- 60 -- NYC
26.) Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP -- 60 -- NYC
27.) Clifford Chance US LLP -- 64 -- NYC
28.) Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP -- 60 -- NYC
29.) Reed Smith 10 -- Pittsburgh
30.) Thorp Reed & Armstrong, LLP – 9 – Pittsburgh
31.) K&L Gates LLP -- 20 -- Pittsburgh
32.) Jones Day -- 20 -- Pittsburgh
33.) Fox Rothschild LLP -- 20 -- Philly (Not particularly interested after doing some more research, which is why I have them bidded so low even though they are a big Philly firm).
34.) Manko, Gold, Katcher & Fox, LLP -- 20 -- Bala Cynwyd
35.) Perkins Coie LLP – 20 – Portland
36.) DLA Piper -- 20 -- Baltimore
37.) Proskauer LLP -- 20 -- Boston
38.) Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP -- 48 -- NYC
39.) Winston & Strawn LLP -- 35 -- NYC
40.) Sidley Austin LLP -- 20 -- LA
41.) Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP -- 20 -- Boston
42.) Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. -- 20 -- Boston
43.) Goodwin Procter LLP -- 20 -- Boston
44.) DLA Piper -- 20 -- Baltimore
45.) Miles & Stockbridge P.C. -- 20 -- Baltimore
46.) Archer & Greiner, P.C. -- 20 -- Philly Burbs
47.) Baker & Hostetler LLP -- 20 -- LA
48.) O'Melveny & [deleted] LLP -- 20 -- DC
49.) O'Melveny & [deleted] LLP -- 20 -- LA
50.) O'Melveny & [deleted] LLP -- 40 -- NYC
51.) Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP -- NYC
52.) Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP – NYC
53.) Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP – NYC
54.) Sullivan & Cromwell LLP – NYC
55.) Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP – NYC
56.) Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP – NYC
57.) Conrad O'Brien PC – 20 – Philly

Still not sure about the last three spots not that they really matter.


Do you have any kind of ties to Boston? It seemed like a particularly tough market last year. I know that you have those really far down on your list and aren't likely to get them anyway, but I would maybe replace them with some (any) other NYC firms (the ones with the largest class sizes and largest number of interview slots that you haven't bid on yet).


I have some friends there but that's it.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273572
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Median Penn Bid List Critique

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 04, 2012 7:53 am

Bump

HeavenWood
Posts: 2915
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 6:42 pm

Re: Median Penn Bid List Critique

Postby HeavenWood » Thu Jul 05, 2012 9:19 am

Anonymous User wrote:Bump

Why Manko? Unless you have a vested interest in enviro, it's a wasted bid. Also, why is Kasowitz your #1?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273572
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Median Penn Bid List Critique

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jul 09, 2012 9:53 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Hey everyone, thanks a TON for all of the input! It's been greatly helpful. After considering all of your advice and doing some more research, how does this slightly revised list look to the eyes? If anyone has some more thoughts on which NY firms I should bid, that would be much appreciated, too. I placed four NYC firms in my top ten with decent class sizes, but a limited number of interview slots. I have Kasowitz first because I’m possibly leaning towards litigation and they only have 20 spots. I figure they and Sidley and Linklaters should be targets, while Kaye is more of a “safety”? I then list the Philly firms and then mostly NYC firms. And anyone think I land a chance of winning a bid on Shearman and/or Schulte where I have them? Both of those firms interest me, but I have them lower because of the high number of interview slots they have.

Also, I have a lot of reaches (Cravath, Weil, etc, etc) at the bottom because they have seemingly a lot of interview slots considering their prestige. I figure that once I get towards the bottom of my list that I’ll be lucky to get any sort of interview, so why not since by then all of the firms I’m more of a “match” for will probably be filled up. I also added some firms/offices from other cities thinking roughly along the same lines. I may not have ties and my chances of landing something from them may be weak, but if I can snag any sort of interview with my 48th or 51st bids, then it’s better than nothing.

Finally, for some more specific background about me, I worked as a paralegal at a NLJ250 firm and went to undergrad in Philly. Also, my 1L grades were: A-, B-, B+, B+, B+, B, A-, A-. Still unsure about journals/LR, but I did participate in the writing competition so I should land some journal, though I’m not counting on LR, obviously.

Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman LLP – 20 – NYC
Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP -- 20 -- Philly
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP -- 40 -- London
Dechert LLP -- 20 -- London
Allen & Overy LLP -- 20 -- London
Linklaters LLP – 40 – NYC
Kaye Scholer LLP -- 40 -- NYC
Sidley Austin LLP -- 40 -- NYC
Blank Rome LLP -- 40 -- Philly
Cozen O'Connor -- 40 -- Philly
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP -- 40 -- Philly
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP -- 40 -- Philly
Duane Morris LLP -- 60 -- Philly
Ballard Spahr LLP -- 57 -- Philly
Dechert LLP -- 80 -- Philly
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP 60 – NYC
Proskauer LLP -- 60 -- NYC
Shearman & Sterling LLP -- 80 -- NYC
Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP -- 80 -- NYC
Pepper Hamilton LLP -- 80 – Philly
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP -- 100 -- NYC
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP -- 20 -- London
Paul Hastings LLP -- 40 -- NYC
White & Case LLP -- 60 -- NYC
Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP -- 60 -- NYC
Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP -- 60 -- NYC
Clifford Chance US LLP -- 64 -- NYC
Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP -- 60 -- NYC
Reed Smith 10 -- Pittsburgh
Thorp Reed & Armstrong, LLP – 9 – Pittsburgh
K&L Gates LLP -- 20 -- Pittsburgh
Jones Day -- 20 -- Pittsburgh
Fox Rothschild LLP -- 20 -- Philly (Not particularly interested after doing some more research, which is why I have them bidded so low even though they are a big Philly firm).
Manko, Gold, Katcher & Fox, LLP -- 20 -- Bala Cynwyd
Perkins Coie LLP – 20 – Portland
DLA Piper -- 20 -- Baltimore
Proskauer LLP -- 20 -- Boston
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP -- 48 -- NYC
Winston & Strawn LLP -- 35 -- NYC
Sidley Austin LLP -- 20 -- LA
Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP -- 20 -- Boston
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. -- 20 -- Boston
Goodwin Procter LLP -- 20 -- Boston
DLA Piper -- 20 -- Baltimore
Miles & Stockbridge P.C. -- 20 -- Baltimore
Archer & Greiner, P.C. -- 20 -- Philly Burbs
Baker & Hostetler LLP -- 20 -- LA
O'Melveny & [deleted] LLP -- 20 -- DC
O'Melveny & [deleted] LLP -- 20 -- LA
O'Melveny & [deleted] LLP -- 40 -- NYC
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP -- NYC
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP – NYC
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP – NYC
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP – NYC
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP – NYC
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP – NYC
Conrad O'Brien PC – 20 – Philly


Anyone else with some more input? Tis due tomorrow!

Anonymous User
Posts: 273572
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Median Penn Bid List Critique

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jul 10, 2012 3:48 pm

One final bump!

User avatar
PennBull
Posts: 15435
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:59 pm

Re: Median Penn Bid List Critique

Postby PennBull » Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:26 pm

Anonymous User wrote:One final bump!


I don't think you'd get the London Skadden office that low. Either put it high or get rid of it, in my opinion.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.