UChicago OCI 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: 273581
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago OCI 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Jul 26, 2013 4:17 pm

URM male less than a point under median. Ideally I'd like to end up in NY, but am also bidding Chicago. A little WE but no journal- what firms should I realistically be looking at? Should I add a secondary market as well?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273581
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago OCI 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Jul 26, 2013 5:10 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Do any former bidders have an idea where the lowest place the V2-10 can to be bid to feel confident about getting all of them?

And then re: the order to bid them, assuming one doesn't eliminate Latham or Weil for layoff reasons, should it be:
Kirkland, Latham, Weil (Low interview slots)
DPW, Simpson, Skadden, Cleary (More interview slots in order of lowest callback selectivity)
SullCrom, Cravath (More selective)


Not saying they need to be bid as a block either, but that is a good chunk of the NY slots right there so I don't want to miss out on any.

Still curious about this.

Gonna give this one more shot lol

Anonymous User
Posts: 273581
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago OCI 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Jul 26, 2013 5:18 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Do any former bidders have an idea where the lowest place the V2-10 can to be bid to feel confident about getting all of them?

And then re: the order to bid them, assuming one doesn't eliminate Latham or Weil for layoff reasons, should it be:
Kirkland, Latham, Weil (Low interview slots)
DPW, Simpson, Skadden, Cleary (More interview slots in order of lowest callback selectivity)
SullCrom, Cravath (More selective)


Not saying they need to be bid as a block either, but that is a good chunk of the NY slots right there so I don't want to miss out on any.

Still curious about this.

Gonna give this one more shot lol


This is how I understand things. You might be able to get away with moving Weil down with layoff concerns. In your middle list, I think Skadden should be the highest of the 4. Simpson or DPW probably the lowest (I get the sense that Cleary and DPW are more popular with our students than Simpson, but that's just my speculation).

On a side note, I really think Weil is a smart place to go -- Latham's layoff scheme has returned them to pretty impressive profitability in their main offices, so I would think Weil may be going down the same path. I think they just need to get enough restructuring work to replace the kind of workflow they had from Lehman the past few years.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273581
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago OCI 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Jul 26, 2013 7:25 pm

Anonymous User wrote: On a side note, I really think Weil is a smart place to go -- Latham's layoff scheme has returned them to pretty impressive profitability in their main offices, so I would think Weil may be going down the same path. I think they just need to get enough restructuring work to replace the kind of workflow they had from Lehman the past few years.


The difference between Weil's lathaming and Latham's lathaming is that Weil is arguably setting a dangerous precedent that conducting a mass layoff when times are relatively good is acceptable. (Shitboomers gonna boom)

If you are interested in to doing debtor-side restructuring, Kirkland seems like the no-brainer here (better pay, taking a large # of big debtors right now, and a more robust corporate practice than Weil to counterbalance a restructuring slowdown).

Anonymous User
Posts: 273581
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago OCI 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Jul 26, 2013 7:49 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote: On a side note, I really think Weil is a smart place to go -- Latham's layoff scheme has returned them to pretty impressive profitability in their main offices, so I would think Weil may be going down the same path. I think they just need to get enough restructuring work to replace the kind of workflow they had from Lehman the past few years.


The difference between Weil's lathaming and Latham's lathaming is that Weil is arguably setting a dangerous precedent that conducting a mass layoff when times are relatively good is acceptable. (Shitboomers gonna boom)

If you are interested in to doing debtor-side restructuring, Kirkland seems like the no-brainer here (better pay, taking a large # of big debtors right now, and a more robust corporate practice than Weil to counterbalance a restructuring slowdown).


Agreed that Kirkland is the better place to go, but I'm saying if you're looking in NY, you might as well be bidding Weil and Kirkland. If you have the choice between the two, then I think Kirkland is a no-brainer -- partially because they're doing so well, rather than Weil doing poorly.

But I do think the "dangerous precedent" is one that will need to be adopted by everyone other than the top few firms. It's how every other industry trims ranks when necessary, even if times aren't 08-09 bad. These firms will need to be flexible to survive, and being able to shed underperforming groups in lean times and hire them in good times might be the best way to pull that off. The other way is to just have small classes (the secondary market + Wachtell strategy), but that leaves slim pickings for a large portion of rising 2L classes. The layoff in soft-but-not-08/09 times might open up a more flexible 3L hiring system as well. The "better" model probably depends on your particular perspective -- as a law student, prospective law student, associate, or partner.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273581
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago OCI 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jul 27, 2013 10:31 am

Right at median, no WE, 1L SA, no diversity. Are Kirkland (Chi) and Sidley (Chi) worth bids or should I just strike them from my list? How low can I bid them and still get an interview? Would top 20 be sufficient?

User avatar
Emma.
Posts: 2401
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:57 pm

Re: UChicago OCI 2013

Postby Emma. » Sat Jul 27, 2013 10:44 am

Anonymous User wrote:Right at median, no WE, 1L SA, no diversity. Are Kirkland (Chi) and Sidley (Chi) worth bids or should I just strike them from my list? How low can I bid them and still get an interview? Would top 20 be sufficient?


Not sure if serious?

Both K&E and Sidley need to be in your top 10 to have any chance of getting an interview. In my year people bid Sidley #8 and missed out. There's little harm in giving either or both firms a shot, but you probably aren't super competitive for either firm and it is probably a good idea focus your top bids on less grade selective firms.

Also, if you are at median you should definitely NOT be bidding solely on Chicago—unless you already have an offer from your 1L position and have nothing to lose, in which case, congrats!

Anonymous User
Posts: 273581
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago OCI 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jul 27, 2013 12:42 pm

I was serious. :oops: My top 10 is composed of all targets, 8 Chicago and 2 NYC. Would you advise putting either KE or Sidley in the top 10 and ditching the other? Just wasn't sure since they have so many OCI slots and SA spots in Chicago, but also don't want to waste a bid if my chances at a CB are super low anyway...

User avatar
Emma.
Posts: 2401
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:57 pm

Re: UChicago OCI 2013

Postby Emma. » Sat Jul 27, 2013 1:37 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I was serious. :oops: My top 10 is composed of all targets, 8 Chicago and 2 NYC. Would you advise putting either KE or Sidley in the top 10 and ditching the other? Just wasn't sure since they have so many OCI slots and SA spots in Chicago, but also don't want to waste a bid if my chances at a CB are super low anyway...


Does your current firm give offers to 1L SAs? If you have that as a backup plan then you may as well swing for the fences at OCI.

Even if you don't have an offer from this summer, there's probably no harm in putting either Sidley or K&E in your top 10 (maybe at #4 or #5) and giving it a shot. My impression (which could be off base) is that Sidley is marginally less grade-conscious than K&E. If you can charm their socks of at OCI you certainly have a chance at a CB.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273581
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago OCI 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jul 27, 2013 3:13 pm

I'm the top 1%, WUSTL/GW/USC transfer from above. Any feedback on this draft of a bid list would be super helpful. Thanks!

1. Weil NY 21
2. Kirkland NY 21
3. Sidley Chi 84
4. Sullcrom NY 42
5. Kirkland Chi 84
6. Cleary NY 42
7. Mayer Brown Chi 63
8. Shearman NY 21
9. Katten Chi 42
10. Jenner Chi 63
11. Paul Weiss NY 42
12. DPW NY 42
13. Skadden NY 42
14. Simpson NY 52
15. Milbank NY 21
16. Debevoise NY 63
17. Skadden Chi 84
18. Winston Chi 42
19. McDermott Chi 63
20. Schiff Chi 84
21. Paul Hastings Chi 26
22. GDC NY 42
23. Foley NY 42
24. Ropes NY 42
25. Latham Chi 50
26. Boies NY 21
27. Freshfields NY 14
28. Fried Frank NY 21
29. Sidley NY 21
30. Proskauer NY 21
31. Sheppard Mullin NY 21
32. Faegre Baker Chi 21
33. Barack Ferrazano Chi 42
34. Cravath NY 34
35. Williams and Connolly DC 38
36. Susman NY 16
37. Wachtell NY

2013applicant
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: UChicago OCI 2013

Postby 2013applicant » Sat Jul 27, 2013 3:40 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I'm the top 1%, WUSTL/GW/USC transfer from above. Any feedback on this draft of a bid list would be super helpful. Thanks!

List


Weird placement of Weil at 1 (Given placement of Weil and K&E, are you interested in restructuring?). I'd drop Winston Chi lower/out, bring Latham Chi higher. I think you probably wont get Skadden Chi at 17. Move whichever of DPW/Paul Weiss/Skadden that you want higher.

User avatar
Helmholtz
Posts: 4394
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:48 pm

Re: UChicago OCI 2013

Postby Helmholtz » Sat Jul 27, 2013 4:12 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I'm the top 1%, WUSTL/GW/USC transfer from above. Any feedback on this draft of a bid list would be super helpful. Thanks!

1. Weil NY 21
2. Kirkland NY 21
3. Sidley Chi 84
4. Sullcrom NY 42
5. Kirkland Chi 84
6. Cleary NY 42
7. Mayer Brown Chi 63
8. Shearman NY 21
9. Katten Chi 42
10. Jenner Chi 63
11. Paul Weiss NY 42
12. DPW NY 42
13. Skadden NY 42
14. Simpson NY 52
15. Milbank NY 21
16. Debevoise NY 63
17. Skadden Chi 84
18. Winston Chi 42
19. McDermott Chi 63
20. Schiff Chi 84
21. Paul Hastings Chi 26
22. GDC NY 42
23. Foley NY 42
24. Ropes NY 42
25. Latham Chi 50
26. Boies NY 21
27. Freshfields NY 14
28. Fried Frank NY 21
29. Sidley NY 21
30. Proskauer NY 21
31. Sheppard Mullin NY 21
32. Faegre Baker Chi 21
33. Barack Ferrazano Chi 42
34. Cravath NY 34
35. Williams and Connolly DC 38
36. Susman NY 16
37. Wachtell NY


Seems like you're interested in both NYC and Chicago, but any preference?

User avatar
Helmholtz
Posts: 4394
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:48 pm

Re: UChicago OCI 2013

Postby Helmholtz » Sat Jul 27, 2013 4:24 pm

2013applicant wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I'm the top 1%, WUSTL/GW/USC transfer from above. Any feedback on this draft of a bid list would be super helpful. Thanks!

List


Weird placement of Weil at 1 (Given placement of Weil and K&E, are you interested in restructuring?).


I think it's because they're a firm that a lot of people think they have a shot at, but it only has 21 interview slots. That being said, they have taken on practically no UChicago students as summer associates over the past couple years (although it's hard to say whether this is because they're not giving out many offers, or whether UChicago students self-select away).

Anonymous User
Posts: 273581
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago OCI 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jul 27, 2013 5:52 pm

Helmholtz wrote:
2013applicant wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I'm the top 1%, WUSTL/GW/USC transfer from above. Any feedback on this draft of a bid list would be super helpful. Thanks!

List


Weird placement of Weil at 1 (Given placement of Weil and K&E, are you interested in restructuring?).


I think it's because they're a firm that a lot of people think they have a shot at, but it only has 21 interview slots. That being said, they have taken on practically no UChicago students as summer associates over the past couple years (although it's hard to say whether this is because they're not giving out many offers, or whether UChicago students self-select away).


1 still seems pretty high considering ppl have gotten them at 12 in years past + layoffs.

I have them around 10 and they're one of my #1 firms.

User avatar
Helmholtz
Posts: 4394
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:48 pm

Re: UChicago OCI 2013

Postby Helmholtz » Sat Jul 27, 2013 6:07 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Helmholtz wrote:
2013applicant wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I'm the top 1%, WUSTL/GW/USC transfer from above. Any feedback on this draft of a bid list would be super helpful. Thanks!

List


Weird placement of Weil at 1 (Given placement of Weil and K&E, are you interested in restructuring?).


I think it's because they're a firm that a lot of people think they have a shot at, but it only has 21 interview slots. That being said, they have taken on practically no UChicago students as summer associates over the past couple years (although it's hard to say whether this is because they're not giving out many offers, or whether UChicago students self-select away).


1 still seems pretty high considering ppl have gotten them at 12 in years past + layoffs.

I have them around 10 and they're one of my #1 firms.


Eh, if it's one of your top firms, it probably make sense to have them higher than probably required. Things can vary from year to year in terms of how far down your bid list a firm can be. I had a couple "must-have firms" when I was doing OCI and I put them in my top five, when I probably could have gotten them at the 10 to 15 range.

I feel like you can say, "#1 on your bidlist is too high" for practically every firm, but somebody has to be there.

User avatar
Haymarket
Posts: 438
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: UChicago OCI 2013

Postby Haymarket » Sat Jul 27, 2013 6:08 pm

Helmholtz wrote:
2013applicant wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I'm the top 1%, WUSTL/GW/USC transfer from above. Any feedback on this draft of a bid list would be super helpful. Thanks!

List


Weird placement of Weil at 1 (Given placement of Weil and K&E, are you interested in restructuring?).


I think it's because they're a firm that a lot of people think they have a shot at, but it only has 21 interview slots. That being said, they have taken on practically no UChicago students as summer associates over the past couple years (although it's hard to say whether this is because they're not giving out many offers, or whether UChicago students self-select away).

Weil also layed off 60 associates last month.

User avatar
Helmholtz
Posts: 4394
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:48 pm

Re: UChicago OCI 2013

Postby Helmholtz » Sat Jul 27, 2013 6:12 pm

Haymarket wrote:
Helmholtz wrote:
2013applicant wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I'm the top 1%, WUSTL/GW/USC transfer from above. Any feedback on this draft of a bid list would be super helpful. Thanks!

List


Weird placement of Weil at 1 (Given placement of Weil and K&E, are you interested in restructuring?).


I think it's because they're a firm that a lot of people think they have a shot at, but it only has 21 interview slots. That being said, they have taken on practically no UChicago students as summer associates over the past couple years (although it's hard to say whether this is because they're not giving out many offers, or whether UChicago students self-select away).

Weil also layed off 60 associates last month.


Eh, not sure how much that will matter when it comes to OCI interest, especially since a lot of the laid-off attorneys were in the Boston and Houston offices. It seems a lot different than Latham.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273581
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago OCI 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jul 27, 2013 6:19 pm

Thoughts on my bid list? Right around median, interested in transactional, but flexible of course.

1 Baker & McKenzie
2 K&L Gates LLP
3 Jones Day
4 Sidley Austin LLP
5 Mayer Brown LLP
6 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
7 Schiff Hardin LLP
8 Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
9 Paul Weiss (NYC)
10 Shearman & Sterling (NYC)
11 Winston & Strawn LLP
12 Simpson Thacher & Bartlett (NYC)
13 Jenner & Block LLP
14 McGuireWoods LLP
15 Greenberg Traurig
16 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft (NYC)
17 Latham & Watkins LLP
18 Kirkland & Ellis LLP
19 Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson (NYC)
20 Dechert LLP (NYC)
21 Foley & Lardner LLP
22 Ropes & Gray
23 Reed Smith LLP
24 Vedder Price PC
25 Barack Ferrazzano Kirschbaum & Nagelberg LLP

User avatar
Emma.
Posts: 2401
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:57 pm

Re: UChicago OCI 2013

Postby Emma. » Sat Jul 27, 2013 6:23 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Thoughts on my bid list? Right around median, interested in transactional, but flexible of course.

1 Baker & McKenzie
2 K&L Gates LLP
3 Jones Day
4 Sidley Austin LLP
5 Mayer Brown LLP
6 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
7 Schiff Hardin LLP
8 Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
9 Paul Weiss (NYC)
10 Shearman & Sterling (NYC)
11 Winston & Strawn LLP
12 Simpson Thacher & Bartlett (NYC)
13 Jenner & Block LLP
14 McGuireWoods LLP
15 Greenberg Traurig
16 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft (NYC)
17 Latham & Watkins LLP
18 Kirkland & Ellis LLP
19 Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson (NYC)
20 Dechert LLP (NYC)
21 Foley & Lardner LLP
22 Ropes & Gray
23 Reed Smith LLP
24 Vedder Price PC
25 Barack Ferrazzano Kirschbaum & Nagelberg LLP


STB is maybe a stretch for someone at median. Chi seems to be your first choice so those NY firms should be safeties. K&E is almost certainly a wasted bid at #18.

User avatar
Haymarket
Posts: 438
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: UChicago OCI 2013

Postby Haymarket » Sat Jul 27, 2013 6:39 pm

Helmholtz wrote:
Haymarket wrote:Weil also layed off 60 associates last month.


Eh, not sure how much that will matter when it comes to OCI interest, especially since a lot of the laid-off attorneys were in the Boston and Houston offices. It seems a lot different than Latham.


It's important information if you have a choice of firms, if only as an indication of how strong the firm is, since it came at the same time as a drop in PPP. If you have a choice between Weil and its peers, you would want to know that the firm fired a bunch of associates after going on a lateral-partner shopping spree.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273581
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago OCI 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jul 27, 2013 8:16 pm

right below 178 no LR.

What are "safeties?"

Are non-super-selective NYC firms okay to mix in(Skadden, Weil, Latham, Jones Day, Milbank), or do I need more firms like Sheppard Mullin in my top 15?

So far I've tried to have a healthy dose of reaches (Sidley Chi, K&E Chi/NY, cleary) mixed in with mostly well-regarded, non-super-selective NYC.

Is this appropriate?

RamblinBoyofPleasure
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 8:22 pm

Re: UChicago OCI 2013

Postby RamblinBoyofPleasure » Sun Jul 28, 2013 10:40 am

I have two sort of basic questions that have been bothering me:

I read somewhere (either this thread or elsewhere) that "offices with smaller SA classes are less selective." Is that true? If so, why? Is it that firms with bigger classes can't take softs into account, so they just look at the GPA?

OCS said that limiting the number of markets you bid on increase the number of interviews you get, but why? Is the idea that every market has a discrete set of people focusing on that market? I get why limiting markets is good to make callbacks easier and demonstrate you aren't a flight risk, but I don't get the relationship with bidding.

User avatar
Emma.
Posts: 2401
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:57 pm

Re: UChicago OCI 2013

Postby Emma. » Sun Jul 28, 2013 10:51 am

RamblinBoyofPleasure wrote:
OCS said that limiting the number of markets you bid on increase the number of interviews you get, but why? Is the idea that every market has a discrete set of people focusing on that market? I get why limiting markets is good to make callbacks easier and demonstrate you aren't a flight risk, but I don't get the relationship with bidding.


I think the answer to this would be that if you have a first and second choice market, you are going to divide your top bids among those two, and probably get interviews from most of your top 15 or so bids. But if you add in a third market you are probably ranking offices from that market what, #11, #14 etc, while people for whom that market is their first or second choice are bidding the same firms much lower.

choculamaviva
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: UChicago OCI 2013

Postby choculamaviva » Sun Jul 28, 2013 11:48 am

Anonymous User wrote:right below 178 no LR.

What are "safeties?"

Are non-super-selective NYC firms okay to mix in(Skadden, Weil, Latham, Jones Day, Milbank), or do I need more firms like Sheppard Mullin in my top 15?

So far I've tried to have a healthy dose of reaches (Sidley Chi, K&E Chi/NY, cleary) mixed in with mostly well-regarded, non-super-selective NYC.

Is this appropriate?


Skadden and Weil(maybe Jones too) are not safeties for someone with your numbers. They are reaches, albeit reaches that you may be able to get if you are lucky. My earlier point was that, despite their ranking, Skadden,Simpson Thatcher, etc are not super selective, i.e. you don't need a 180. This doesn't mean a medianish person is a prime candidate. Safeties would be firms that hire lots of people and are a little lower on the food chain. Off the top of my head I can't give examples. While I like Sheppard and think they would be a good bid, I think the NYC office is small-ish (maybe 40-50) and therefore probably won't have a huge summer class. Short point: almost all the firms you listed are (attainable) reaches. Please don't base your bidding on the Vault rankings. Terms like V20 don't really exist outside of the Law school/TLS/K-JD world and you will not be compensated more for V20 than V40.

User avatar
Mad Hatter
Posts: 655
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 10:38 pm

Re: UChicago OCI 2013

Postby Mad Hatter » Sun Jul 28, 2013 12:35 pm

choculamaviva wrote:Skadden and Weil(maybe Jones too) are not safeties for someone with your numbers. They are reaches, albeit reaches that you may be able to get if you are lucky. My earlier point was that, despite their ranking, Skadden,Simpson Thatcher, etc are not super selective, i.e. you don't need a 180. This doesn't mean a medianish person is a prime candidate. Safeties would be firms that hire lots of people and are a little lower on the food chain. Off the top of my head I can't give examples. While I like Sheppard and think they would be a good bid, I think the NYC office is small-ish (maybe 40-50) and therefore probably won't have a huge summer class. Short point: almost all the firms you listed are (attainable) reaches. Please don't base your bidding on the Vault rankings. Terms like V20 don't really exist outside of the Law school/TLS/K-JD world and you will not be compensated more for V20 than V40.

This is why I posted the NY SA #s above. I think the firms you (or, rather, anon) are looking for are Milbank, Cahill (mass mail), Shearling, Willkie (mass mail), White & Case (mass mail), Ropes, Cadwalader, etc. (just keep going down the list). It's unfortunate that so many of these firms aren't coming to OCI, but so it goes.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.