Let's Talk San Francisco - Taking Questions

(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.
Anonymous User
Posts: 273568
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Let's Talk San Francisco - Taking Questions

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Jun 15, 2014 10:14 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:is it worth it to spend $1000 for 5 interviews at a SF minority fair? No ties to the area, top third at a top 10, non-AA, bidding on the relatively better firms of the area (MOFO, OMM, etc), if I could get a dream job in DC I would take it before SF, NYC is OK too.

Definitely worth it. People DO get jobs out of the SF diversity fair. I would be careful about OMM, though, they are having a lot of problems. Transactions is pretty much dead in their SF office, they have had some defections, and their start dates for incoming associates are much later than other Bay Area firms.


I wanted to apply to the Diversity Fair, but not all my grades are back yet. The deadline for submitting files for the fair was today. I sent in a transcript complete minus the two forthcoming grades, but am I out of luck?

The site says no exceptions for file submission, and I imagine a lot of firms will want to see a full set before making a decision. My only hope's that they'll email me later on during the pre-select process, but that's probably not going to happen.


(I'm the one that encouraged you to apply to the Diversity Fair.)

I have nothing but speculation to offer in response, but I would say that you aren't out of luck. I'm sure there are a number of applicants that had to send in incomplete transcripts. Just bring copies of your updated/complete transcript with you to the interviews. I don't think they will email you during the pre-select process, but it wouldn't hurt to email the recruitment coordinators with a copy of your completed transcript as soon as you have one, assuming there are no rules against contacting them. Good luck!

Anonymous User
Posts: 273568
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Let's Talk San Francisco - Taking Questions

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 02, 2014 12:56 pm

Not at B, but at a similar ranked school, and got Boies and Keker callbacks with top 30% grades (also no ties to Bay Area)

Anonymous User
Posts: 273568
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Let's Talk San Francisco - Taking Questions

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 02, 2014 1:55 pm

Got interviews with Orrick, Davis Polk, and Kirkland from the Bay Area Diversity Fair. What sort of work do those firms do, and are the exit options for the latter two different from the non-branch offices in the Bay? Want corporate.

Would like feedback on Orrick more generally, if anyone works there or know about.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273568
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Let's Talk San Francisco - Taking Questions

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 02, 2014 8:28 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Not at B, but at a similar ranked school, and got Boies and Keker callbacks with top 30% grades (also no ties to Bay Area)

Unless you are a URM, I find this highly unlikely, particularly with regard to Keker.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273568
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Let's Talk San Francisco - Taking Questions

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jul 03, 2014 2:58 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Not at B, but at a similar ranked school, and got Boies and Keker callbacks with top 30% grades (also no ties to Bay Area)

Unless you are a URM, I find this highly unlikely, particularly with regard to Keker.


what possible motivation would i have to lie about this?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273568
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Let's Talk San Francisco - Taking Questions

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:57 am

I've been preselected for a firm's SF office (for BADF) but I'm also interested in the same firm's LA office (for my school's OCI). Still worth it to bid on the firm? I assume in interviewing for the SF office I would sound less convincing about wanting LA especially since the recruiter likely knows about my SF interview.

Does Top 10% USC/UCLA with ties have a difficult time at Bay Area offices? Thinking specifically Perkins Coie, Cooley, WilmerHale, WSGR, STB, MoFo. More difficult for WSGR/MoFo?

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: Let's Talk San Francisco - Taking Questions

Postby Old Gregg » Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:38 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Not at B, but at a similar ranked school, and got Boies and Keker callbacks with top 30% grades (also no ties to Bay Area)

Unless you are a URM, I find this highly unlikely, particularly with regard to Keker.


what possible motivation would i have to lie about this?


well of course you'd want to boast about yourself anonymously.

jk that guy's dumb.

User avatar
rpupkin
Posts: 3864
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:32 pm

Re: Let's Talk San Francisco - Taking Questions

Postby rpupkin » Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:45 am

zweitbester wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Not at B, but at a similar ranked school, and got Boies and Keker callbacks with top 30% grades (also no ties to Bay Area)

Unless you are a URM, I find this highly unlikely, particularly with regard to Keker.


what possible motivation would i have to lie about this?


well of course you'd want to boast about yourself anonymously.

jk that guy's dumb.

Sorry, I find it unlikely. I'm not accusing an anonymous poster of "lying," but I do think some explanation of his or her circumstances is in order. Keker has a reputation for only hiring top-10% types, and they generally only do OCI at HYS and B (and periodically at Chicago). The anonymous poster says he or she attends a school that is ranked near B, so I assume it's MVP. How did the poster get a callback at Keker without an OCI screening interview? And why did Keker go well below its usual grade cut-off for the poster? Again, I'm not accusing the poster of lying, but it would help here to have some context.

User avatar
sundance95
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: Let's Talk San Francisco - Taking Questions

Postby sundance95 » Thu Jul 03, 2014 12:33 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I've been preselected for a firm's SF office (for BADF) but I'm also interested in the same firm's LA office (for my school's OCI). Still worth it to bid on the firm? I assume in interviewing for the SF office I would sound less convincing about wanting LA especially since the recruiter likely knows about my SF interview.

FWIW, my sense was that SF firms/offices cared more about wanting SF specifically than LA firms/offices, which seemed to consider general CA ties sufficient.

Caveat: two years removed from OCI

Anonymous User
Posts: 273568
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Let's Talk San Francisco - Taking Questions

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jul 03, 2014 6:29 pm

rpupkin wrote:Sorry, I find it unlikely. I'm not accusing an anonymous poster of "lying," but I do think some explanation of his or her circumstances is in order. Keker has a reputation for only hiring top-10% types, and they generally only do OCI at HYS and B (and periodically at Chicago). The anonymous poster says he or she attends a school that is ranked near B, so I assume it's MVP. How did the poster get a callback at Keker without an OCI screening interview? And why did Keker go well below its usual grade cut-off for the poster? Again, I'm not accusing the poster of lying, but it would help here to have some context.


Agree that it's unlikely absent weird circumstances. Keker generally hires not from top 10%, but from top 5% types. And they generally have 4 SAs -- one each from HYSB. To throw out a CB for someone that's nowhere near their grade cutoff at a school they don't ever recruit at seems very strange.

Edit: didn't mean to be anon - SLS AMG

Anonymous User
Posts: 273568
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Let's Talk San Francisco - Taking Questions

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jul 05, 2014 3:44 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Rising 2L from S here. My grades should put me around median.
I want to do transactional work and stay in the Bay Area. I think I'd be equally happy in either SF or SV. Some practice areas that I'm potentially interested in include emerging companies, venture capital, technology transactions and IP licensing, trademark, media/entertainment, privacy, and M&A.

Firms I'm currently looking at for OCI bids include:
Cooley
WSGR
Fenwick & West
Gibson Dunn
Latham & Watkins
MoFo
Sheppard Mullin
Davis Polk

Obviously I'll be bidding on a lot more than just these firms, but these are the main firms on my radar that will likely be at the top of my bid list. Any other firms that I should strongly consider as I put together my bid list?


What are we considering around median? Also a rising 2L and I have no idea where my grades put me.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273568
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Let's Talk San Francisco - Taking Questions

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jul 05, 2014 8:52 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Got interviews with Orrick, Davis Polk, and Kirkland from the Bay Area Diversity Fair. What sort of work do those firms do, and are the exit options for the latter two different from the non-branch offices in the Bay? Want corporate.

Would like feedback on Orrick more generally, if anyone works there or know about.


Orrick is a really solid NorCal firm and starting from the core office in SF will prove an asset, but I wouldn't choose Orrick first for corporate. In litigation and appellate work Orrick kills it and they've been successful on some huge cases; even as a summer every matter rings household names, but they lag behind a few others in SV on the transactional side (Cooley, Wilson, Fenwick, MoFo). Moreover, I think the firm has officially targeted increasing its litigation groups and presence to the partial detriment of the corporate side, so that's something to consider for growth long term.

User avatar
BearState
Posts: 239
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2012 1:37 pm

Re: Let's Talk San Francisco - Taking Questions

Postby BearState » Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:55 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Got interviews with Orrick, Davis Polk, and Kirkland from the Bay Area Diversity Fair. What sort of work do those firms do, and are the exit options for the latter two different from the non-branch offices in the Bay? Want corporate.

Would like feedback on Orrick more generally, if anyone works there or know about.


Orrick is a really solid NorCal firm and starting from the core office in SF will prove an asset, but I wouldn't choose Orrick first for corporate. In litigation and appellate work Orrick kills it and they've been successful on some huge cases; even as a summer every matter rings household names, but they lag behind a few others in SV on the transactional side (Cooley, Wilson, Fenwick, MoFo). Moreover, I think the firm has officially targeted increasing its litigation groups and presence to the partial detriment of the corporate side, so that's something to consider for growth long term.


My apologies Sedgwick cancelled their program in SF:

http://abovethelaw.com/2014/06/a-biglaw ... wo-cities/
Last edited by BearState on Wed Jul 09, 2014 10:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273568
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Let's Talk San Francisco - Taking Questions

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 09, 2014 10:02 am

BearState wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Got interviews with Orrick, Davis Polk, and Kirkland from the Bay Area Diversity Fair. What sort of work do those firms do, and are the exit options for the latter two different from the non-branch offices in the Bay? Want corporate.

Would like feedback on Orrick more generally, if anyone works there or know about.


Orrick is a really solid NorCal firm and starting from the core office in SF will prove an asset, but I wouldn't choose Orrick first for corporate. In litigation and appellate work Orrick kills it and they've been successful on some huge cases; even as a summer every matter rings household names, but they lag behind a few others in SV on the transactional side (Cooley, Wilson, Fenwick, MoFo). Moreover, I think the firm has officially targeted increasing its litigation groups and presence to the partial detriment of the corporate side, so that's something to consider for growth long term.


Didn't Above the Law report Orrick was cancelling its summer program in SF?


I hope not! I'm the original guy who got interviews and that's where I'll be interviewing for.

Thanks to the above guy for the Orrick feedback, I really appreciate that! Are they pretty comparable to MoFo on the litigation side?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273568
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Let's Talk San Francisco - Taking Questions

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 23, 2014 2:53 am

2L Transfer to Berkeley. Any thoughts/critiques/advice on my bid list? I'm looking to get into soft IP (litigation or transactional, open to both) in CA (SF, LA, or SV):

1. Wilson SF
2. Irell LA
3. Gibson LA
4. Gibson SF
5. OMM SF
6. Mannat Phelps LA
7. MoFo SF
8. MoFo LA
9. Latham LA
10. Akin Gump LA
11. Katten Muchin LA
12. Jenner and Block LA
13. Shepard Mullin SF
14. Jones Day SF
15. Kirkland Ellis SF
16. Paul Hastings SF
17. Farella Braun SF
18. Latham SF
19. Shepard Mullin LA
20. Munger LA
21. Kirkland LA
22. Skadden LA
23. Shephard Mullin Century City
24. Kirkland Ellis LA
25. Paul Hastings LA
26. Quinn SF
27. DLA LA
29. Covington SF
30. Jones Day LA
31. Cooley SV
32. King Spalding SF
33. Sidley LA
34. Jones Day SV
35. Latham SV
36. MoFo SV
37. OMM SV
38. Orrick SV
39. Paul Hastings SV
40. Quinn SV
41. Shepard Mullin SV
42. Simpson Thacher SV
43. Skadden SV
44. WilmerHale SV

Anonymous User
Posts: 273568
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Let's Talk San Francisco - Taking Questions

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:08 am

FWIW: I have heard (mostly through word of mouth and TLS searches) that Irell and Akin Gump aren't transfer-friendly, so those may be wasted high bids.

May also be easier to judge if we knew how many slots were available. WSGR usually has a lot of slots so may not be worth it to bid them so high (but also depends on how highly bid they have been in the past).

Edit: Seems like Arnold & Porter should be on there considering your interest in soft IP.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273568
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Let's Talk San Francisco - Taking Questions

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:39 am

Anonymous User wrote:FWIW: I have heard (mostly through word of mouth and TLS searches) that Irell and Akin Gump aren't transfer-friendly, so those may be wasted high bids.

May also be easier to judge if we knew how many slots were available. WSGR usually has a lot of slots so may not be worth it to bid them so high (but also depends on how highly bid they have been in the past).

Edit: Seems like Arnold & Porter should be on there considering your interest in soft IP.


To jump off of this:

I'd drop Irell, Jenner, Covington, Munger, and Wilmer. None are known to be particularly transfer friendly (at least at SLS, so I imagine the same rings true for Berkeley), and unless you absolutely killed it at a school where they already interview, they seem like wasted bids taking up valuable space.

I'd be wary of bidding the same firm and three offices, and have a good answer for which city you actually prefer (and why you prefer the work in that city).

I'd also echo the above and add A&P SF, which likes Berkeley students and has a fairly large IP group. Why no Fenwick? Gunderson? Orrick SF?

For bid ordering, I'd move up Farella, Shepard, MoFo SF, Cooley, and Sidley LA. But more critically, I'd give a lot of thought to which city you'd rather be in, and focus your bids there. For me, if I wanted soft IP, I'd go all-in on SF and SV (with maybe a few large LA firms that are transfer friendly thrown in, though I never bid LA so I can't tell you who they are).

Anonymous User
Posts: 273568
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Let's Talk San Francisco - Taking Questions

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 23, 2014 1:45 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:FWIW: I have heard (mostly through word of mouth and TLS searches) that Irell and Akin Gump aren't transfer-friendly, so those may be wasted high bids.

May also be easier to judge if we knew how many slots were available. WSGR usually has a lot of slots so may not be worth it to bid them so high (but also depends on how highly bid they have been in the past).

Edit: Seems like Arnold & Porter should be on there considering your interest in soft IP.


To jump off of this:

I'd drop Irell, Jenner, Covington, Munger, and Wilmer. None are known to be particularly transfer friendly (at least at SLS, so I imagine the same rings true for Berkeley), and unless you absolutely killed it at a school where they already interview, they seem like wasted bids taking up valuable space.

I'd be wary of bidding the same firm and three offices, and have a good answer for which city you actually prefer (and why you prefer the work in that city).

I'd also echo the above and add A&P SF, which likes Berkeley students and has a fairly large IP group. Why no Fenwick? Gunderson? Orrick SF?

For bid ordering, I'd move up Farella, Shepard, MoFo SF, Cooley, and Sidley LA. But more critically, I'd give a lot of thought to which city you'd rather be in, and focus your bids there. For me, if I wanted soft IP, I'd go all-in on SF and SV (with maybe a few large LA firms that are transfer friendly thrown in, though I never bid LA so I can't tell you who they are).


Thanks so much. Interested in LA to potentially (based on past work experience) do entertainment work down the line (which is why I'm bidding firms Like Mannat). Hierarchy for me would be SF>LA>SV. Also, can anyone else credit the Irell anti-transfer policy?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273568
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Let's Talk San Francisco - Taking Questions

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 23, 2014 2:39 pm

Also, can anyone else credit the Irell anti-transfer policy?


I'm the first poster who had reservations about Irell. Anyway, for me, the issue isn't so much having them on there as it is having them so high when it's a lottery. I think it would be better to use that spot for a firm that (a) you really want, (b) is generally harder to get through the lottery (i.e. overbid), and (c) you have a good shot of converting from screener -> CB. Just my .02.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273568
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Let's Talk San Francisco - Taking Questions

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jul 24, 2014 10:34 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Also, can anyone else credit the Irell anti-transfer policy?


I'm the first poster who had reservations about Irell. Anyway, for me, the issue isn't so much having them on there as it is having them so high when it's a lottery. I think it would be better to use that spot for a firm that (a) you really want, (b) is generally harder to get through the lottery (i.e. overbid), and (c) you have a good shot of converting from screener -> CB. Just my .02.


Thanks. Any thoughts on Wilson Sonsini? Also, does anyone have suggestions for adding firms toward the bottom of a bid list? Trying to add about 10-15 more.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273568
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Let's Talk San Francisco - Taking Questions

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jul 24, 2014 11:43 am

Does anyone know roughly ho many SA slots Boies has for their Oakland office?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273568
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Let's Talk San Francisco - Taking Questions

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jul 24, 2014 12:04 pm

T14 not in CA, interested pretty much solely in SF Lit, no-IP background. Does anyone have suggestions for moving firms up or down based on their SF, non-ip lit practice? Trying to be strategic based on number of SA slots as well (the more available, the higher I want to bid them).

1. DLA (strategic placement, the slots for their SF office are sharing space with the office in the city my school is in).
2. MoFO
3. Gibson
4. Latham
5. Cooley
6. WSGR
7. Fenwick
8. Paul Hastings
9. OMM (has about triple to interview slots as the firms above it so I figured it'd still be available this low).
10. Pillsbury
11. Kirkland
12. Ropes & Gray
13. Jones Day
14. Goodwin Procter
15. Winston & Strawn
16. Dechert
17. Holland & Knight
18. Greenberg Traurig
19. Perkins Coie
20. Foley & Lardner
21. Bryan Cave
22. Boies Schiller

These are all the SF firms coming, btw, so if one is missing I can't bid it :(

User avatar
Yukos
Posts: 1775
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 12:47 pm

Re: Let's Talk San Francisco - Taking Questions

Postby Yukos » Thu Jul 24, 2014 12:29 pm

Anonymous User wrote:T14 not in CA, interested pretty much solely in SF Lit, no-IP background. Does anyone have suggestions for moving firms up or down based on their SF, non-ip lit practice? Trying to be strategic based on number of SA slots as well (the more available, the higher I want to bid them).

1. DLA (strategic placement, the slots for their SF office are sharing space with the office in the city my school is in).
2. MoFO
3. Gibson
4. Latham
5. Cooley
6. WSGR
7. Fenwick
8. Paul Hastings
9. OMM (has about triple to interview slots as the firms above it so I figured it'd still be available this low).
10. Pillsbury
11. Kirkland
12. Ropes & Gray
13. Jones Day
14. Goodwin Procter
15. Winston & Strawn
16. Dechert
17. Holland & Knight
18. Greenberg Traurig
19. Perkins Coie
20. Foley & Lardner
21. Bryan Cave
22. Boies Schiller

These are all the SF firms coming, btw, so if one is missing I can't bid it :(


Without your class rank we can't tell you if you're being to aggressive and without your school we can't tell you if you're bidding strategically. For the latter, your CEO or school's own OCI thread on TLS are probably better anyway.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273568
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Let's Talk San Francisco - Taking Questions

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jul 24, 2014 12:35 pm

Yukos wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:T14 not in CA, interested pretty much solely in SF Lit, no-IP background. Does anyone have suggestions for moving firms up or down based on their SF, non-ip lit practice? Trying to be strategic based on number of SA slots as well (the more available, the higher I want to bid them).

1. DLA (strategic placement, the slots for their SF office are sharing space with the office in the city my school is in).
2. MoFO
3. Gibson
4. Latham
5. Cooley
6. WSGR
7. Fenwick
8. Paul Hastings
9. OMM (has about triple to interview slots as the firms above it so I figured it'd still be available this low).
10. Pillsbury
11. Kirkland
12. Ropes & Gray
13. Jones Day
14. Goodwin Procter
15. Winston & Strawn
16. Dechert
17. Holland & Knight
18. Greenberg Traurig
19. Perkins Coie
20. Foley & Lardner
21. Bryan Cave
22. Boies Schiller

These are all the SF firms coming, btw, so if one is missing I can't bid it :(


Without your class rank we can't tell you if you're being to aggressive and without your school we can't tell you if you're bidding strategically. For the latter, your CEO or school's own OCI thread on TLS are probably better anyway.


Your definitely right. I was hoping for just feedback on the firms non-ip Lit departments in SF. For example, I know Fenwick and WSGR are very strong in IP, but are they way behind places like Pillsbury and Ropes & Gray for non-IP? If so, I would take that as one factor to consider for my bid list. I am also researching this same question across the internet, but of course would love to hear what TLSers who know more than me have to say.
The mention of strategic stuff was mostly as an explanation of what may otherwise be seemingly weird choices, but I can see where it confused the issue. Of course, I am simply looking for some people's opinions, I will likely not swap firms based purely on this advice, because as you say there are certainly other factors to consider.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273568
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Let's Talk San Francisco - Taking Questions

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jul 24, 2014 1:00 pm

Thanks. Any thoughts on Wilson Sonsini? Also, does anyone have suggestions for adding firms toward the bottom of a bid list? Trying to add about 10-15 more.


Not sure exactly what you mean re: Wilson Sonsini. I would assume that they're transfer friendly since they regularly attend OCI at and hire from non-T14 schools.

Re: bidding strategy. First, I would second the suggestion to add Fenwick, Orrick SF and Gunderson to your bidlist (but obviously not at the bottom). A few additional firms that may be worth adding: Reed Smith SF, Nixon SF, Hanson Bridgett, Shartsis Friese, Shearman & Sterling. Generally speaking, you want to use the remaining bottom slots for firms that are traditionally underbid at your school. I would imagine that pretty much every Bay Area firm that is at least midsized has a soft IP practice group, so at least you won't be limited in that respect.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.