NU OCI 2013/The Great Jerb Hunt Forum

[Icculus]

3.7, decent resume, targeting Chicago

DLA Piper
Katten
Foley & Lardner
McDermott
Sidley
Kirkland
Barack Ferrazzano
Dentons
Holland & Knight
Jenner
Greenberg Traurig
Dykema Gossett
Mayer Brown
Perkins Coie
Quarles & Brady
Pircher
Drinker Biddle

-anon1

Looks ok. What do you want to do? Folely seems a little high to me, Mayer a little low. No Jones Day or Skadden?

Kirkland and Sidley should maybe be higher if you are really shooting for them. Those slots go fast. I think Sidley went at 2 or 3 last year (someone who bid Chi correct me if I am wrong). Kirkland ususally has a larger number of interview slots so they may last a bit longer.

Cue the Kirkland OCS drama story...

I got them at like 19 last year...at least I did for a day or two.

[Anonymous User]

3.7, decent resume, targeting Chicago

DLA Piper
Katten
Sidley
Kirkland
Foley & Lardner
Barack Ferrazzano
Dentons
Holland & Knight
McDermott
Jenner
Latham
Mayer Brown
Greenberg Traurig
Dykema Gossett
Perkins Coie
Quarles & Brady
Pircher
Drinker Biddle

-anon1

Is this ranked in order? What kind of law do you want to practice?

I'd add Latham also, and get rid of Pircher unless you want RE

Yes. RE. Oops, forgot Latham, fixed. Other adjustments made.

Homestyle: Foley is high for fit/networking reasons. Do you think I could get away with ranking it lower? I feel like if there is any firm I could get an interview with outside of OCI, it's Foley, but I don't want to look like I don't care about the firm by ranking it low.

Skadden feels like a poor fit to me, so they would be pretty low on my list. Don't know much about Jones Day, but I suppose they should fit in there somewhere.

Icculus: I'm not super interested in Sidley, but they are one of the top games in town for RE. I have great connections to Foley and McDermott, so maybe I move Sidley and Kirkland up because there's a good chance I could get an interview outside of OCI? See revised list.

There are only so many Chicago firms with strong RE practices. Where should I start filling in my list with the big-class NY firms?

[homestyle28]

3.7, decent resume, targeting Chicago

DLA Piper
Katten
Sidley
Kirkland
Foley & Lardner
Barack Ferrazzano
Dentons
Holland & Knight
McDermott
Jenner
Latham
Mayer Brown
Greenberg Traurig
Dykema Gossett
Perkins Coie
Quarles & Brady
Pircher
Drinker Biddle

-anon1

Is this ranked in order? What kind of law do you want to practice?

I'd add Latham also, and get rid of Pircher unless you want RE

Yes. RE. Oops, forgot Latham, fixed. Other adjustments made.

Homestyle: Foley is high for fit/networking reasons. Do you think I could get away with ranking it lower? I feel like if there is any firm I could get an interview with outside of OCI, it's Foley, but I don't want to look like I don't care about the firm by ranking it low.

Skadden feels like a poor fit to me, so they would be pretty low on my list. Don't know much about Jones Day, but I suppose they should fit in there somewhere.

Icculus: I'm not super interested in Sidley, but they are one of the top games in town for RE. I have great connections to Foley and McDermott, so maybe I move Sidley and Kirkland up because there's a good chance I could get an interview outside of OCI? See revised list.

There are only so many Chicago firms with strong RE practices. Where should I start filling in my list with the big-class NY firms?

Personally, I think keep firms high that you have contacts with, the more you can show interest the better (unless you can reach out pre-OCI and secure an interview). Just thought I'd throw Skadden out there...but it is Skadden afterall. My hunch is if you think Skadden is a poor fit, Kirkland might be too. JD on the other hand thinks of itself as the anti-Skadden.

[Anonymous User]

3.5x, good work experience, just wondering what firms in Chicago and NYC are within my range and should be in my top 10 on the bidlist?

i'll add that i want to get into corporate transactional, but wouldn't be averse to litigation

[Georgia Avenue]

3.7, decent resume, targeting Chicago

DLA Piper
Katten
Sidley
Kirkland
Foley & Lardner
Barack Ferrazzano
Dentons
Holland & Knight
McDermott
Jenner
Latham
Mayer Brown
Greenberg Traurig
Dykema Gossett
Perkins Coie
Quarles & Brady
Pircher
Drinker Biddle

-anon1

Is this ranked in order? What kind of law do you want to practice?

I'd add Latham also, and get rid of Pircher unless you want RE

Yes. RE. Oops, forgot Latham, fixed. Other adjustments made.

Homestyle: Foley is high for fit/networking reasons. Do you think I could get away with ranking it lower? I feel like if there is any firm I could get an interview with outside of OCI, it's Foley, but I don't want to look like I don't care about the firm by ranking it low.

Skadden feels like a poor fit to me, so they would be pretty low on my list. Don't know much about Jones Day, but I suppose they should fit in there somewhere.

Icculus: I'm not super interested in Sidley, but they are one of the top games in town for RE. I have great connections to Foley and McDermott, so maybe I move Sidley and Kirkland up because there's a good chance I could get an interview outside of OCI? See revised list.

There are only so many Chicago firms with strong RE practices. Where should I start filling in my list with the big-class NY firms?

I would probably get rid of Jenner and Mayer Brown

Katten should be #1 with a bullet if you're after RE, especially if they only interview 40. No reason to risk it, and they're right in your grades/interests/practice area wheelhouse

Sidley you can probably keep up there if you're going for RE since it's more of a niche practice and not too many people will be going after them for that. I would also bid Latham a lot higher.

[Icculus]

3.7, decent resume, targeting Chicago

DLA Piper
Katten
Sidley
Kirkland
Foley & Lardner
Barack Ferrazzano
Dentons
Holland & Knight
McDermott
Jenner
Latham
Mayer Brown
Greenberg Traurig
Dykema Gossett
Perkins Coie
Quarles & Brady
Pircher
Drinker Biddle

-anon1

Is this ranked in order? What kind of law do you want to practice?

I'd add Latham also, and get rid of Pircher unless you want RE

Yes. RE. Oops, forgot Latham, fixed. Other adjustments made.

Homestyle: Foley is high for fit/networking reasons. Do you think I could get away with ranking it lower? I feel like if there is any firm I could get an interview with outside of OCI, it's Foley, but I don't want to look like I don't care about the firm by ranking it low.

Skadden feels like a poor fit to me, so they would be pretty low on my list. Don't know much about Jones Day, but I suppose they should fit in there somewhere.

Icculus: I'm not super interested in Sidley, but they are one of the top games in town for RE. I have great connections to Foley and McDermott, so maybe I move Sidley and Kirkland up because there's a good chance I could get an interview outside of OCI? See revised list.

There are only so many Chicago firms with strong RE practices. Where should I start filling in my list with the big-class NY firms?

Personally, I think keep firms high that you have contacts with, the more you can show interest the better (unless you can reach out pre-OCI and secure an interview). Just thought I'd throw Skadden out there...but it is Skadden afterall. My hunch is if you think Skadden is a poor fit, Kirkland might be too. JD on the other hand thinks of itself as the anti-Skadden.

Even knowing Kirkland may be a bad fit they do have a good RE practice, and I from what I remember last year were having trouble picking up RE people so it may be a good way to get into the top Chicago firm.

EDIT: Caveat to all this is much of what happens depends on your class's goals. For example, the year before me was not very NYC heavy so many firms lasted linger than my class which was very NYC heay.

[Anonymous User]

Personally, I think keep firms high that you have contacts with, the more you can show interest the better (unless you can reach out pre-OCI and secure an interview). Just thought I'd throw Skadden out there...but it is Skadden afterall. My hunch is if you think Skadden is a poor fit, Kirkland might be too. JD on the other hand thinks of itself as the anti-Skadden.

Ugh, Kirkland drives me crazy because I know that it would be a terrible fit, but it's Kirkland. And I like a lot of the RE people that are there or going there. It's like an abusive relationship.

I'll look into Jones Day more.

[Anonymous User]

I would probably get rid of Jenner and Mayer Brown

Katten should be #1 with a bullet if you're after RE, especially if they only interview 40. No reason to risk it, and they're right in your grades/interests/practice area wheelhouse

Sidley you can probably keep up there if you're going for RE since it's more of a niche practice and not too many people will be going after them for that. I would also bid Latham a lot higher.

Not real into Mayer, so no problem there, but why Jenner? They are Band 3 RE and their pro bono reputation seems legit.

Thanks!

[Icculus]

Personally, I think keep firms high that you have contacts with, the more you can show interest the better (unless you can reach out pre-OCI and secure an interview). Just thought I'd throw Skadden out there...but it is Skadden afterall. My hunch is if you think Skadden is a poor fit, Kirkland might be too. JD on the other hand thinks of itself as the anti-Skadden.

Ugh, Kirkland drives me crazy because I know that it would be a terrible fit, but it's Kirkland. And I like a lot of the RE people that are there or going there. It's like an abusive relationship.

I'll look into Jones Day more.

This is important because these are the people you will be interacting with regularly.

[Georgia Avenue]

I would probably get rid of Jenner and Mayer Brown

Katten should be #1 with a bullet if you're after RE, especially if they only interview 40. No reason to risk it, and they're right in your grades/interests/practice area wheelhouse

Sidley you can probably keep up there if you're going for RE since it's more of a niche practice and not too many people will be going after them for that. I would also bid Latham a lot higher.

Not real into Mayer, so no problem there, but why Jenner? They are Band 3 RE and their pro bono reputation seems legit.

Thanks!

Fair enough, I didn't know they even did much RE. As long as you're cool with what Jenner is all about then by all means throw a bid their way. Just as long as you're aware of their preference for certain political views/interests (liberal litigators) and their lack of market salary, etc. Want to make sure you were aware since a fair number of people who bid them for stuff like M&A aren't

[Anonymous User]

I would probably get rid of Jenner and Mayer Brown

Katten should be #1 with a bullet if you're after RE, especially if they only interview 40. No reason to risk it, and they're right in your grades/interests/practice area wheelhouse

Sidley you can probably keep up there if you're going for RE since it's more of a niche practice and not too many people will be going after them for that. I would also bid Latham a lot higher.

Not real into Mayer, so no problem there, but why Jenner? They are Band 3 RE and their pro bono reputation seems legit.

Thanks!

Fair enough, I didn't know they even did much RE. As long as you're cool with what Jenner is all about then by all means throw a bid their way. Just as long as you're aware of their preference for certain political views/interests (liberal litigators) and their lack of market salary, etc. Just wanted to make sure you were aware since a fair number of people who bid them for stuff like M&A aren't

Definitely on board with their liberal litigation. I didn't know they paid below market. NALP says they start at 160. Lockstep salary is not very important to me though, or I wouldn't have DLA so high.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks for all this help.

3.8, targeting Chicago.

Sidley
Latham
Kirkland
Jones Day
Skadden
McDermott
Winston
Bartlit
mcguirewoods
Locke Lord
Drinker (CHI)
Morgan Lewis
K&L Gates
Baker
Greenberg

[Georgia Avenue]

Definitely on board with their liberal litigation. I didn't know they paid below market. NALP says they start at 160. Lockstep salary is not very important to me though, or I wouldn't have DLA so high.

160 only for first-years if I remember correctly. Variable after that.

[homestyle28]

Thanks for all this help.

3.8, targeting Chicago.

Sidley
Latham
Kirkland
Jones Day
Skadden
McDermott
Winston
Bartlit
McGuireWoods
Locke Lord
Drinker (CHI)
Morgan Lewis
K&L Gates
Baker
Greenberg

No Boutiques? Grippo, Barack? FWIW I got the impression last year that Drinker hates people thinking of them as a safety firm.

[Georgia Avenue]

Thanks for all this help.

3.8, targeting Chicago.

Sidley
Latham
Kirkland
Jones Day
Skadden
McDermott
Winston
Bartlit
McGuireWoods
Locke Lord
Drinker (CHI)
Morgan Lewis
K&L Gates
Baker
Greenberg

No Boutiques? Grippo, Barack? FWIW I got the impression last year that Drinker hates people thinking of them as a safety firm.

K&L Gates and Baker McKenzie will both go fast and I doubt you'll pick them up that low. Bartlit as in Bartlit Beck? Looking at their attorney bios, basically everyone is a CoA or SCOTUS clerk, so I'm not sure how wise a bid that one is. You can probably move Kirkland and Latham down a few spots.

[Anonymous User]

Based on 3.3 GPA, targeting NYC:

Bid 1-5 Bid 6-10 Bid 11-15
Chadbourne
Cahill
Dechert
Kaye Scholer
Pillsbury
Proskquer
Milbank
Alston Bird
Fried Frank
White & Case
Willkie Farr
Cadwalader
Shearman Sterling
Paul Hastings
Mayer Brown

Not sure where to insert Fitzpatrick Schiff Hardin, Gunderson, or any of those smaller firms, like IP, etc.
,

Is this in order? It posted a little oddly.

I know this may sound crazy, but I would add Weil on there. They have a huge class, tend to like NU students, and I think dip down to 3.3.

Also, I think Paul Weiss usually has an enormous class as well so you may want to add them.

Edit: I would also put Strook & Strook on there.

Thanks, corrected it. Now they're in order. Even hinting Weil or Paul Weiss makes my head spin. Anyway, where would you put them (1-5,6-10, or 11-15)? Also, I was originally thinking Stroock but after seeing the CB stats for past 3 yrs, their gpa floor seems so high, unjustifiably so. Second question is whether I'm on the right track with my GPA, putting >V50 in first 5 bids, and not going anywhere near V30 until the 10th bid.

[Anonymous User]

Anyone have advice on bidding CA with a 3.4x (strong ties)?

[VulcanVulcanVulcan]

Personally, I think keep firms high that you have contacts with, the more you can show interest the better (unless you can reach out pre-OCI and secure an interview). Just thought I'd throw Skadden out there...but it is Skadden afterall. My hunch is if you think Skadden is a poor fit, Kirkland might be too. JD on the other hand thinks of itself as the anti-Skadden.

Ugh, Kirkland drives me crazy because I know that it would be a terrible fit, but it's Kirkland. And I like a lot of the RE people that are there or going there. It's like an abusive relationship.

I'll look into Jones Day more.

This is important because these are the people you will be interacting with regularly.

Have to disagree with Icculus and above a little here. "Fit" is important but it can't be an overriding concern. Kirkland and Skadden are going to give you excellent options anywhere in the country. I don't know about other firms. You also have to consider that firm "stereotypes," passed down from generation to generation may not be entirely accurate. For example, yeah, Kirkland M&A is probably a little fratty, but its litigation groups are very chill and normal.

[Icculus]

Personally, I think keep firms high that you have contacts with, the more you can show interest the better (unless you can reach out pre-OCI and secure an interview). Just thought I'd throw Skadden out there...but it is Skadden afterall. My hunch is if you think Skadden is a poor fit, Kirkland might be too. JD on the other hand thinks of itself as the anti-Skadden.

Ugh, Kirkland drives me crazy because I know that it would be a terrible fit, but it's Kirkland. And I like a lot of the RE people that are there or going there. It's like an abusive relationship.

I'll look into Jones Day more.

This is important because these are the people you will be interacting with regularly.

Have to disagree with Icculus and above a little here. "Fit" is important but it can't be an overriding concern. Kirkland and Skadden are going to give you excellent options anywhere in the country. I don't know about other firms. You also have to consider that firm "stereotypes," passed down from generation to generation may not be entirely accurate. For example, yeah, Kirkland M&A is probably a little fratty, but its litigation groups are very chill and normal.

My point was merely that if OP wants RE and likes the RE people at Kirkland he should probably bid them since he would probably be working with a lot of these people. I think we actually agree here as I think OP should consider Kirkland a viable option. What I will say about fit, is if you have more than one offer you should go where you feel most comfortable. Until then I think people should keep all their options open. I also agree that the frat types I have met at Kirkland are all M&A guys, but my guess is that is probably a similar mentality across firms.

[homestyle28]

Personally, I think keep firms high that you have contacts with, the more you can show interest the better (unless you can reach out pre-OCI and secure an interview). Just thought I'd throw Skadden out there...but it is Skadden afterall. My hunch is if you think Skadden is a poor fit, Kirkland might be too. JD on the other hand thinks of itself as the anti-Skadden.

Ugh, Kirkland drives me crazy because I know that it would be a terrible fit, but it's Kirkland. And I like a lot of the RE people that are there or going there. It's like an abusive relationship.

I'll look into Jones Day more.

This is important because these are the people you will be interacting with regularly.

Have to disagree with Icculus and above a little here. "Fit" is important but it can't be an overriding concern. Kirkland and Skadden are going to give you excellent options anywhere in the country. I don't know about other firms. You also have to consider that firm "stereotypes," passed down from generation to generation may not be entirely accurate. For example, yeah, Kirkland M&A is probably a little fratty, but its litigation groups are very chill and normal.

I think "fit" gets at some of the uncertainty in the process. There are probably chill folks at K&E and Skadden, and not everyone at Jenner is a raging liberal. But to the extent there is truth in the stereotypes, chances are you will interview with people matching those types, and they have to like you. It obviously can't be the only thing you think about, but it's crazy not to think about it. My worst interviews were with firms where I was a bad fit, and I probably could've guessed it based on stereotypes. I don't think anyone would argue that K&E and Skadden aren't fine places to start a career, just that they are places with overriding cultures and if you don't match up well with that culture, it can be tough.

[Icculus]

I think "fit" gets at some of the uncertainty in the process. There are probably chill folks at K&E and Skadden, and not everyone at Jenner is a raging liberal. But to the extent there is truth in the stereotypes, chances are you will interview with people matching those types, and they have to like you. It obviously can't be the only thing you think about, but it's crazy not to think about it. My worst interviews were with firms where I was a bad fit, and I probably could've guessed it based on stereotypes. I don't think anyone would argue that K&E and Skadden aren't fine places to start a career, just that they are places with overriding cultures and if you don't match up well with that culture, it can be tough.

Right, but given how tough Chicago can be to get I think that it would be crazy to forego a place like Kirkland with a huge class because of a possible issue with fit. I agree with you in the abstract, but until you get that offer it's tough to make that an overriding concern. Though I am sure there are several firms I did not get a CB from becauuse I just didn't click with the interviewer.

[homestyle28]

I think "fit" gets at some of the uncertainty in the process. There are probably chill folks at K&E and Skadden, and not everyone at Jenner is a raging liberal. But to the extent there is truth in the stereotypes, chances are you will interview with people matching those types, and they have to like you. It obviously can't be the only thing you think about, but it's crazy not to think about it. My worst interviews were with firms where I was a bad fit, and I probably could've guessed it based on stereotypes. I don't think anyone would argue that K&E and Skadden aren't fine places to start a career, just that they are places with overriding cultures and if you don't match up well with that culture, it can be tough.

Right, but given how tough Chicago can be to get I think that it would be crazy to forego a place like Kirkland with a huge class because of a possible issue with fit. I agree with you in the abstract, but until you get that offer it's tough to make that an overriding concern. Though I am sure there are several firms I did not get a CB from becauuse I just didn't click with the interviewer.

Fair point

<Interviewed with Kirkland>
<did NOT go well>

[Anonymous User]

3.7...would like to stay in Chicago if possible, but getting dat jerb is most important and I have a ton of personal ties to East Coast (will probably go back eventually), so planning on bidding NYC pretty heavily and then mass-mailing the Chicago firms. Also want to go transactional (interested in tax which I realize I may not get).

1. Weil Gotshal
2. Simpson Thacher
3. Paul Weiss
4. Kirkland -- Chicago
5. Proskauer Rose
6. Cadwalader
7. Milbank Tweed
8. Davis Polk
9. Skadden -- NYC
10. Linklaters

Any thoughts on this list much appreciated, also not sure about the bid NYC/mass-mail Chicago strategy, OCS seemed to think it was an okay strategy, but that's OCS...

[Icculus]

I think "fit" gets at some of the uncertainty in the process. There are probably chill folks at K&E and Skadden, and not everyone at Jenner is a raging liberal. But to the extent there is truth in the stereotypes, chances are you will interview with people matching those types, and they have to like you. It obviously can't be the only thing you think about, but it's crazy not to think about it. My worst interviews were with firms where I was a bad fit, and I probably could've guessed it based on stereotypes. I don't think anyone would argue that K&E and Skadden aren't fine places to start a career, just that they are places with overriding cultures and if you don't match up well with that culture, it can be tough.

Right, but given how tough Chicago can be to get I think that it would be crazy to forego a place like Kirkland with a huge class because of a possible issue with fit. I agree with you in the abstract, but until you get that offer it's tough to make that an overriding concern. Though I am sure there are several firms I did not get a CB from becauuse I just didn't click with the interviewer.

Fair point

<Interviewed with Kirkland>
<did NOT go well>

Me, too, but it was the NYC office. I was not crushed.

[Georgia Avenue]

3.7...would like to stay in Chicago if possible, but getting dat jerb is most important and I have a ton of personal ties to East Coast (will probably go back eventually), so planning on bidding NYC pretty heavily and then mass-mailing the Chicago firms. Also want to go transactional (interested in tax which I realize I may not get).

1. Weil Gotshal
2. Simpson Thacher
3. Paul Weiss
4. Kirkland -- Chicago
5. Proskauer Rose
6. Cadwalader
7. Milbank Tweed
8. Davis Polk
9. Skadden -- NYC
10. Linklaters

Any thoughts on this list much appreciated, also not sure about the bid NYC/mass-mail Chicago strategy, OCS seemed to think it was an okay strategy, but that's OCS...

Weil was available at 18 last year FWIW.

If you want to stay in Chicago, bid more Chicago in your top 10.