Columbia Law School EIP 2013

(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: 273048
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia Law School EIP 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jun 29, 2013 7:55 pm

You're going to miss out on a ton of interviews with that bid list (like Skadden), and I have no idea why you have W&C on there when they don't even do corporate.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273048
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia Law School EIP 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jun 29, 2013 8:17 pm

Anonymous User wrote:You're going to miss out on a ton of interviews with that bid list (like Skadden), and I have no idea why you have W&C on there when they don't even do corporate.


I guess I was just interested in getting to know the firm since it's so hyped up across a number of metrics, but you're probably right that it's a poor choice.

The reason for the current order is that there are some firms I'm concerned people seem to be bidding higher than usual this year (Cleary, Simpson, Davis) that I'm more worried about missing out on. Besides Skadden, which are particularly poorly located?

I'm thinking of starting over in terms of the order based on the ratio of bids to screeners and moving around from there.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273048
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia Law School EIP 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jun 29, 2013 8:23 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Besides Skadden, which are particularly poorly located?

Shearman, White & Case, Weil

Also wondering why Arnold & Porter is so high. They don't make many offers and aren't focused on transactional at all (12 Corporate Associates in NY vs. 41 litigation associates.)

--Garth Algar

Anonymous User
Posts: 273048
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia Law School EIP 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jun 29, 2013 8:30 pm

The way the list comes out when I just sort it according to the bid-to-screener ratio is (and without Arnold & Porter/W&C):

1. Shearman
2. Sidley
3. Linklaters
4. Kirkland
5. Gibson
6. V&E
7. Ropes
8. Paul Hastings
9. Skadden
10. Clifford Chance
11. White & Case
12. MoFo
13. Latham
14. Fried, Frank
15. Weil
16. Akin
17. Debevoise
18. Freshfields
19. S&C
20. Cadwalader (from a prior list)
21. Cleary
22. Paul, Weiss
23. Covington
24. Willkie
25. DPW
26. Cahill
27. STB
28. Cravath
29. Wachtell
30. Boies corporate

This order makes me nervous because many of my top choices are in the very bottom. I had pushed some of those pretty high up to make sure I got them, which is how I got the order I did.

-Jon Snow

Anonymous User
Posts: 273048
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia Law School EIP 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jun 29, 2013 9:53 pm

Now you're going to miss out on firms like Paul Weiss and DPW.

You need to remove firms like Linklaters, e.g., and replace them with ones that have lower bid:interview ratios.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273048
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia Law School EIP 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jun 29, 2013 10:07 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Now you're going to miss out on firms like Paul Weiss and DPW.

You need to remove firms like Linklaters, e.g., and replace them with ones that have lower bid:interview ratios.


To clarify, the above wasn't an actual attempt at my bidlist. It was just arranging firms by ratio. But yes, I know that I'm going to miss firms I really want if I do it like that. Which is why I had originally pushed those firms so high to the detriment of more competitive ones.

I appreciate your help. Do you have suggestions for worthwhile firms with less competitive ratios to fill out the bottom of my list? The problem from my initial glance over the list was that a lot of the less competitive firms (in terms of bid-to-interview ratios) don't appeal to me.

Jon Snow

Anonymous User
Posts: 273048
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia Law School EIP 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Jun 30, 2013 3:37 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:CLS 3L again - just to clarify, those second numbers are this summer's class sizes, NOT what they expect to take at EIP for next summer. (I'm in one of the classes in the second column).


Oh shit, really? Is there any way to determine what they expect to take at EIP THIS summer?

Same 3L - no, but although the legal market is contracting, all of the top firms are very busy, so at least with regard to the V10 I wouldn't expect class sizes to retract significantly, if at all. Plus your overall class size is smaller, which I think will help a lot. At any rate, it shouldn't change your bidding/interviewing strategy, so try not to worry about it.

To the 3.7 poster above - you have a great gpa and should do quite well. Because of that, you should feel comfortable bidding aggressively. The only thing you should change is that you should move firms like S&C and Skadden up to guarantee interviews. Along those lines, it's not worth it for you to have safeties that require high bids - all of your high bids should be firms you really want to work for. You can get safeties in the 10-20 bid range.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273048
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia Law School EIP 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Jun 30, 2013 5:28 am

3.2 here. Trying to make the best of a terrible spring semester!

What should my cutoff be for selectivity? Anything over 50% honors rate?


- Liz Lemon

Anonymous User
Posts: 273048
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia Law School EIP 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Jun 30, 2013 9:59 am

@ Liz, hopefully a 2L or 3L answers this, but it is my impression that you should probably aim at less selective firms but not think of a "cutoff" for selectivity. I'd say that there are firms that mainly take non-Stone, firms that prefer Stone and firms that nearly require Stone. You should get rid of those that pretty much require Stone, but probably bid some more selective firms that are known to take students with median or below grades. I'd definitely make 2/3 or more of my bidlist firms that are under 50% Stone, probably focusing on ones that at are 1/3 or less.

@ Jon, I think you're just going to need to weed out more firms. We have different interests/grades but maybe my current bidlist will be helpful.

My current bidlist:
I have a 3.6~ GPA and I think I want litigation, but I waffle and am totally open to transactional work. All offices are NY except for the [Regional Office] slots.

1. Shearman
2. Kirkland
3. Skadden
4. Gibson
5. MoFo
6. Fried Frank
7. Debevoise
8. Freshfields
9. Willkie
10. Milbank
11. Kramer Levin Natalis & Frankel
12. Kasowitz
13. SullCrom
14. Paul, Weiss
15. DavisPolk
16. Cleary
17. Covington & Burling
18. SRZ
19. Chadbourne & Parke
20. Crowell & Moring
21. [Regional Office]
22. CSW
23. Simpson Thacher
24. [Regional Office]
25. Cahill Gordon & Reindel
26. Patterson, Belknap
27. O'Melveny & Meyers
28. Baker Botts
29. [Regional Office]
30. [Regional Office]

It still has issues but this is where I'm at for now. I know I'll probably not get O'Melveny & [deleted] or Baker Botts, but I'm less interested in them and don't want them to push out firms I want to interview with. I'll probably end up removing one more from the top six and shifting everything up.

I am wondering if it is worth bidding Boies with a 3.6. Obviously I'd have to rank them high for lit, so I'm hesitant to waste an early bid on them.

I also have a question: does anyone know the actual mechanics of the bidding process? Does it go through person by person, or does it go firm by firm?

-Ted "Theodore" Logan

Anonymous User
Posts: 273048
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia Law School EIP 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Jun 30, 2013 10:26 am

Another bid list for around 3.6. I'm willing to be a bit aggressive with my bid list—I think I will have an offer from a firm in my home market that I would be pretty happy with, so striking out at EIP wouldn't be the end of the world. Though I don't want to, of course.

My priorities are training and fit (mostly in terms of not being too social of a firm). I don't have a target practice area. I've bolded firms of particular interest; if any of them are too low to get an interview, please let me know. Thanks!

Boies, Schiller & Flexner
Bingham McCutchen
Arent Fox
Shearman & Sterling
Sidley Austin
Arnold & Porter
Jenner & Block
Mayer Brown
WilmerHale
Ropes & Gray
White & Case
Debevoise & Plimpton
Fulbright & Jaworski
Reed Smith
Katten Muchin Rosenman
K&L Gates
King & Spalding
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
Covington & Burling
Davis Polk & Wardwell
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
Crowell & Moring
Dechert
O'Melveny & [deleted]
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett
Cravath, Swaine & Moore
Bryan Cave
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
Goodwin Procter

-B.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273048
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia Law School EIP 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Jun 30, 2013 11:00 am

Anonymous User wrote:[Ted's Bidlist]
-Ted "Theodore" Logan


You did really well last semester. Congrats my friend.

What about adding Cravath, Weil and Latham? The list actually looks pretty good. I might drop Patterson Belknap a slot or two though.

For some reason my revised bid list seemed to get lost in the woods -- can anyone take another look at mine?

1. Shearman and Sterling (E3) (288%) (15 offers)
2. Kirkland & Ellis (E3) (268%) (22 offers)
3. Sidley Austin (HR1) (284%) (13 offers)
4. GDC (E5) (239%) (22 offers)
5. Skadden (E1) (222%) (24 offers)
6. Jones Day (E5) (230%) (12 offers)
7. White & Case (HR1) (204%) (9 offers)
8. Latham (E3) (189%) (12 offers)
9. Fried Frank (E4) (189%) (10 offers)
10. Debevoise (E2) (163%) (37 offers)
11. Wilkie Farr (E4) (151%) (26 offers)
12. Weil (E2) (178%) (15 offers)
13. Millbank (HR2) (145%) (29 offers)
14. Cleary (E2) (139%) (40 offers)
15. Paul Weiss (E3) (137%) (41 offers)
16. DPW (E1) (132%) (46 offers)
17. Akin Gump (HR3) (167%) (10 offers)
18. Kramer Levin (HR3) (152%) (9 offers)
19. Cadwalader (HR3) (140%) (10 offers)
20. SullCrom (E1) (147%) (35 offers)
21. Schulte Roth (HR1) (126%) (36 offers)
22. Covington (HR2) (135%) (19 offers)
23. Pillsbury Winthrop (HR4) (130%) (6 offers)
24. Greenberg Traurig (HR2) (130%) (7 offers)
25. Dechert (HR1) (119%) (6 offers)
26. Simpson Thacher (E1) (106%) (30 offers)
27. Baker Botts (HR 3) (120%) (5 offers)
28. Hughes Hubbard (HR2) (109%) (7 offers)
29. Cravath (E1) (104%) (38 offers)
30. Goodwin Procter (HR3) (93%) (4 offers)

I've already added most of the lowest bid:interview ratio Chambers & Partners rated M&A firms. Should I remove Sidley and move everything up a slot? I'm not sure what I'd replace it with -- I guess I could maybe do it with something that has a smaller class size but a smaller bid:interview ratio as well. Or does it look pretty good as is? I just noticed that in your list, in particular, your 200% bid:interview firms stopped with MoFo at 5, while mine goes to White & Case at 7. And then I don't hit ~160% until Debevoise at 10 while you hit it at ~7-8 with Debevoise/Freshfields.

- Hodor

Anonymous User
Posts: 273048
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia Law School EIP 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Jun 30, 2013 11:05 am

^Just a helpful note. It's much more intuitive to do interview divided by bid than the reverse which you did. If you get 95%, it means 95% of those who bid got an interview. The percentages you have right now don't give off such an easy interpretation. Just my thoughts.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273048
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia Law School EIP 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Jun 30, 2013 11:06 am

Anonymous User wrote:Boies, Schiller & Flexner
Bingham McCutchen
Arent Fox
Shearman & Sterling
Sidley Austin
Arnold & Porter
Jenner & Block
Mayer Brown
WilmerHale
Ropes & Gray
White & Case
Debevoise & Plimpton
Fulbright & Jaworski
Reed Smith
Katten Muchin Rosenman
K&L Gates
King & Spalding
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
Covington & Burling
Davis Polk & Wardwell
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
Crowell & Moring
Dechert
O'Melveny & [deleted]
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett
Cravath, Swaine & Moore
Bryan Cave
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
Goodwin Procter

-B.


Off the bat, the biggest problem I notice is that you have a ton of super popular firms at the top. I wouldn't be surprised if you missed out on quite a few. I'd prioritize those (think in the Boies to White & Case range). This is pushing firms like Cleary, Paul Weiss and DPW to the high teens/low 20s, which you may very well lose. The bottom of your list looks better though. Not sure why Wilson Sonsini is there twice -- not sure where you wanted it to be. You might even be able to drop CSM a slot or so (though others should comment).

- Hodor

Anonymous User
Posts: 273048
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia Law School EIP 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Jun 30, 2013 11:20 am

Hodor wrote:
You did really well last semester. Congrats my friend.

What about adding Cravath, Weil and Latham? The list actually looks pretty good. I might drop Patterson Belknap a slot or two though.

For some reason my revised bid list seemed to get lost in the woods -- can anyone take another look at mine?

[Hodor's list]

I've already added most of the lowest bid:interview ratio Chambers & Partners rated M&A firms. Should I remove Sidley and move everything up a slot? I'm not sure what I'd replace it with -- I guess I could maybe do it with something that has a smaller class size but a smaller bid:interview ratio as well. Or does it look pretty good as is? I just noticed that in your list, in particular, your 200% bid:interview firms stopped with MoFo at 5, while mine goes to White & Case at 7. And then I don't hit ~160% until Debevoise at 10 while you hit it at ~7-8 with Debevoise/Freshfields.

- Hodor


Yeah, not sure what happened; I guess I ate my Wheaties. I have Cravath on my list but I had a typo, lol. (CSW should be CSM, embarassing). I'm not going to bid Latham even if it is silly. Their class size is comparatively small and I'd never feel safe there. I have similar concerns about Weil, but Weil seems really interesting otherwise. I might bid them low/bid them anyway but I haven't decided.

I think your bidlist is much better this time. I think it might be good to have one fewer firm up top in the 1-9 range, but if those are your favorites/you really like them you probably don't need to. I'm trying to bid on as few of the really popular firms as possible unless I actually really like the firm. I could also see Paul, Weiss and Cadwalader being popular this year, but I have no reason for that other than my worthless gut instinct.

-Ted "Theodore" Logan

Anonymous User
Posts: 273048
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia Law School EIP 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Jun 30, 2013 11:26 am

@Liz: Avoid the firms with small classes, and make sure you put plenty of less selective firms that made lots of offers high on your bidlist. SRZ is obviously the money firm in this area, but there are lots of firms that made anywhere from 6 to 17 offers last year that didn't seem particularly concerned with the Stone designation.

@B.: Someone didn't get Debevoise last year at 13. You'll probably get them at 12 but if that interview is especially important to you it might be worth it to move it up another 1-2 spots. I also don't think anyone will get White & Case at 11.

@Ted: If you're going to take one firm out from your top 6, I'd make it MoFo just because they only gave 4 offers last year.

@Hodor: Looks good. As Ted said, it would look a little safer if you dropped 1 from the top and moved everything else up.

--Garth Algar

Anonymous User
Posts: 273048
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia Law School EIP 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Jun 30, 2013 11:31 am

Thanks Ted and Garth. I decided to remove Sidley and bump everything up one. I definitely feel safer that way. I couldn't find anything else to throw in, so I just tossed Cahill Gordon near the bottom since it gives a lot of offers. It's not particularly great at corporate work, but oh well.

- Hodor

Anonymous User
Posts: 273048
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia Law School EIP 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Jun 30, 2013 11:37 am

Where are you guys getting the info about the specific slots that people got or didn't get interviews?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273048
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia Law School EIP 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Jun 30, 2013 11:45 am

Anonymous User wrote:Where are you guys getting the info about the specific slots that people got or didn't get interviews?

Scouring the equivalent threads from past years. Unfortunately the data is really sparse, so in the interest of helping future classes it would be cool if we gave a little more info in this thread once our actual bidlists come out.

--Garth Algar

Anonymous User
Posts: 273048
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia Law School EIP 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Jun 30, 2013 11:45 am

Anonymous User wrote:Where are you guys getting the info about the specific slots that people got or didn't get interviews?

I think people are pulling those from last year's thread.-SCOOPED (linked in the OP) I'm not sure if there's a list out there, but it might be handy to gather that info. That said, I wouldn't put too much emphasis on an exact number, because things will shift year to year. For example, if fewer people bid Weil (or bid it lower) there might be displacement. There are many variables here: a firm could have a better/worse event; we don't have Quinn; firms could change the number of interview slots…

-Ted "Theodore" Logan

Anonymous User
Posts: 273048
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia Law School EIP 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Jun 30, 2013 11:52 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Where are you guys getting the info about the specific slots that people got or didn't get interviews?

I think people are pulling those from last year's thread.-SCOOPED (linked in the OP) I'm not sure if there's a list out there, but it might be handy to gather that info. That said, I wouldn't put too much emphasis on an exact number, because things will shift year to year. For example, if fewer people bid Weil (or bid it lower) there might be displacement. There are many variables here: a firm could have a better/worse event; we don't have Quinn; firms could change the number of interview slots…

-Ted "Theodore" Logan


Moreover, even if something is at 2.0 bid:interview ratio, it's possible that everyone bid it the teens and 20s, so comparing ratios to one another is imperfect. It's obviously our best metric, though.

- Hodor

Anonymous User
Posts: 273048
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia Law School EIP 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Jun 30, 2013 11:35 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Off the bat, the biggest problem I notice is that you have a ton of super popular firms at the top. I wouldn't be surprised if you missed out on quite a few. I'd prioritize those (think in the Boies to White & Case range). This is pushing firms like Cleary, Paul Weiss and DPW to the high teens/low 20s, which you may very well lose. The bottom of your list looks better though. Not sure why Wilson Sonsini is there twice -- not sure where you wanted it to be. You might even be able to drop CSM a slot or so (though others should comment).

- Hodor


Thanks for the comments—I've revised my bid list below. I now have 31 on there; I want to take one more of the top ones off and move everything up, but I'm having trouble picking which one. Any suggestions?

Also, am I being too risky by taking so many grade-selective firms? As I said, I have ~3.6, so I hadn't worried too much. But I just counted and a full half of the firms on my list have a Stone % of above 70%. Is that taking too much of a risk? (I really wish they gave us more data on just how selective firms are!)

Bid list w/ overbid percentages

1 Boies, Schiller & Flexner 315%
2 Shearman & Sterling 288%
3 Sidley Austin 284%
4 Jenner & Block 210%
5 Mayer Brown 260%
6 WilmerHale 233%
7 Ropes & Gray 233%
8 White & Case 204%
9 Debevoise & Plimpton 163%
10 Fulbright & Jaworski (Now Norton Rose Fulbright, as of June 3, 2013) 180%
11 Reed Smith 175%
12 Katten Muchin Rosenman 175%
13 K&L Gates 165%
14 King & Spalding 156%
15 Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton 139%
16 Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison 137%
17 Covington & Burling 135%
18 Davis Polk & Wardwell 132%
19 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman 130%
20 Crowell & Moring 125%
21 Dechert 119%
22 O'Melveny & [deleted] 115%
23 Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 95%
24 Simpson Thacher & Bartlett 106%
25 Cravath, Swaine & Moore 104%
26 Bryan Cave 100%
27 Goodwin Procter 93%
28 Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz 88%
29 Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler 86%
30 Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP (New York, NY - Corporate Group) 80%
31 Sutherland 70%

Thanks,

-B.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273048
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia Law School EIP 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Jun 30, 2013 11:47 pm

Anonymous User wrote:My current bidlist:
I have a 3.6~ GPA and I think I want litigation, but I waffle and am totally open to transactional work. All offices are NY except for the [Regional Office] slots.

1. Shearman
2. Kirkland
3. Skadden
4. Gibson
5. MoFo
6. Fried Frank
7. Debevoise
8. Freshfields
9. Willkie
10. Milbank
11. Kramer Levin Natalis & Frankel
12. Kasowitz
13. SullCrom
14. Paul, Weiss
15. DavisPolk
16. Cleary
17. Covington & Burling
18. SRZ
19. Chadbourne & Parke
20. Crowell & Moring
21. [Regional Office]
22. CSW
23. Simpson Thacher
24. [Regional Office]
25. Cahill Gordon & Reindel
26. Patterson, Belknap
27. O'Melveny & Meyers
28. Baker Botts
29. [Regional Office]
30. [Regional Office]



I don't have much to add—I'm not that focused on lit and I ruled out many of your firms on fit. In particular, I've heard bad things about Kirkland (like people describing them as scarey/screamers). But that's just word of mouth.

I also have a question: does anyone know the actual mechanics of the bidding process? Does it go through person by person, or does it go firm by firm?

-Ted "Theodore" Logan


My understanding is that they go firm by firm. As it was explained to me, they look at one firm and see how many people bid it #1. Assuming that's less than the number of interview slots the firm has, they all get an interview and the computer looks at who bid the firm #2; if there are enough interview slots left, they all get an interview and the computer moves on to those who bid it #3. Eventually the computer reaches a number (say, #12) where more people bid the firm at that number than there are remaining interview slots. At that point, the computer randomly assigns the remaining interview slots to some of those who bid that number. Then no one who bid any lower gets the firm. After that, the computer goes on to the next firm.

At least that's what I was told.

-B.

aceofspades8412
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 10:12 am

Re: Columbia Law School EIP 2013

Postby aceofspades8412 » Mon Jul 01, 2013 10:18 am

Alright I'll give this a shot and see if anybody has some advice for this list. As you can probably guess from the list, I'm thinking transactional and solely in NYC. Also I'm taking suggestions for moving some around and for filling 18, 27, and 30. Not thinking about GPA, just trying to get the most interviews at the best possible firms.

Bid Firm Date 2012 Bids 2012 Intvws 2013Intvw Slots
1 Gibson Dunn 8&9 239 100 100
2 Skadden 13 266 120 120
3 Sullivan & Cromwell 12 175 120 120
4 Latham & Watkins 8 214 113 120
5 Paul Weiss 8 246 180 180
6 Ropes and Gray 12&13 279 120 120
7 Davis Polk 9 291 220 220
8 Sydley Austin 8 227 80 80
9 Debevoise 9 261 160 160
10 Simpson Thacher 12 230 217 200
11 Weil 9 176 100 100
12 Freshfields 9 128 80 80
13 Cleary 8&9 276 199 200
14 Morrison & Foerster13 120 60 60
15 Willkie 8 211 140 120
16 Dechert 13 166 140 120
17 Akin Gump 13 167 100 80
18
19 Cravath 8&9 151 145 160
20 Wachtell 12 70 80 80
21 Cadwalader 8 140 100 100
22 Cahill 9 129 100 100
23 Morgan Lewis 12 37 20 20
24 O'Melveny 8 92 80 60
25 Schulte Roth 9 126 100 100
26 Stroock & Stroock 9 64 60 60
27
28 Cooley 9 31 31 20
29 Bracewell & Guiliani 13 19 20 20
30

Anonymous User
Posts: 273048
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia Law School EIP 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jul 01, 2013 11:14 am

aceofspades8412 wrote:Alright I'll give this a shot and see if anybody has some advice for this list. As you can probably guess from the list, I'm thinking transactional and solely in NYC. Also I'm taking suggestions for moving some around and for filling 18, 27, and 30. Not thinking about GPA, just trying to get the most interviews at the best possible firms.

Bid Firm Date 2012 Bids 2012 Intvws 2013Intvw Slots
1 Gibson Dunn 8&9 239 100 100
2 Skadden 13 266 120 120
3 Sullivan & Cromwell 12 175 120 120
4 Latham & Watkins 8 214 113 120
5 Paul Weiss 8 246 180 180
6 Ropes and Gray 12&13 279 120 120
7 Davis Polk 9 291 220 220
8 Sydley Austin 8 227 80 80
9 Debevoise 9 261 160 160
10 Simpson Thacher 12 230 217 200
11 Weil 9 176 100 100
12 Freshfields 9 128 80 80
13 Cleary 8&9 276 199 200
14 Morrison & Foerster13 120 60 60
15 Willkie 8 211 140 120
16 Dechert 13 166 140 120
17 Akin Gump 13 167 100 80
18
19 Cravath 8&9 151 145 160
20 Wachtell 12 70 80 80
21 Cadwalader 8 140 100 100
22 Cahill 9 129 100 100
23 Morgan Lewis 12 37 20 20
24 O'Melveny 8 92 80 60
25 Schulte Roth 9 126 100 100
26 Stroock & Stroock 9 64 60 60
27
28 Cooley 9 31 31 20
29 Bracewell & Guiliani 13 19 20 20
30


Just off the bat based on positioning to maximize interviews, I would:

Move up - Sidley, Willkie, MoFo, Weil (hard to tell though if their recent publicity will impact bidding)
Move down -SullCrom, Paul Weiss, Davis Polk, Simpson Thacher

- Roger Sterling

aceofspades8412
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 10:12 am

Re: Columbia Law School EIP 2013

Postby aceofspades8412 » Mon Jul 01, 2013 11:57 am

Anonymous User wrote:
aceofspades8412 wrote:Alright I'll give this a shot and see if anybody has some advice for this list. As you can probably guess from the list, I'm thinking transactional and solely in NYC. Also I'm taking suggestions for moving some around and for filling 18, 27, and 30. Not thinking about GPA, just trying to get the most interviews at the best possible firms.

Bid Firm Date 2012 Bids 2012 Intvws 2013Intvw Slots
1 Gibson Dunn 8&9 239 100 100
2 Skadden 13 266 120 120
3 Sullivan & Cromwell 12 175 120 120
4 Latham & Watkins 8 214 113 120
5 Paul Weiss 8 246 180 180
6 Ropes and Gray 12&13 279 120 120
7 Davis Polk 9 291 220 220
8 Sydley Austin 8 227 80 80
9 Debevoise 9 261 160 160
10 Simpson Thacher 12 230 217 200
11 Weil 9 176 100 100
12 Freshfields 9 128 80 80
13 Cleary 8&9 276 199 200
14 Morrison & Foerster13 120 60 60
15 Willkie 8 211 140 120
16 Dechert 13 166 140 120
17 Akin Gump 13 167 100 80
18
19 Cravath 8&9 151 145 160
20 Wachtell 12 70 80 80
21 Cadwalader 8 140 100 100
22 Cahill 9 129 100 100
23 Morgan Lewis 12 37 20 20
24 O'Melveny 8 92 80 60
25 Schulte Roth 9 126 100 100
26 Stroock & Stroock 9 64 60 60
27
28 Cooley 9 31 31 20
29 Bracewell & Guiliani 13 19 20 20
30


Just off the bat based on positioning to maximize interviews, I would:

Move up - Sidley, Willkie, MoFo, Weil (hard to tell though if their recent publicity will impact bidding)
Move down -SullCrom, Paul Weiss, Davis Polk, Simpson Thacher

- Roger Sterling


I guess I might have kept those four higher in the list because they are among the top 5 firms I'd like to work at eventually and I really want to make sure I get them. Looks like I should think more on that though.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.