UChicago OCI Alums Answering Questions About the Job Hunt Forum

[Anonymous User]

First, idk why Wachtell is getting so much love in this thread. 1Ls please aim for firms based on more than their Vault rankings and consider what you are in for when you sign up for these jobs.

Second, Law Review is, I strongly suspect, near-mandatory at Wachtell. If you go to that firm you are signing up to work every waking 3,000+ hours/year of your life in those poorly-lit halls. You think they're going to hire somebody to do that who wasn't also willing or able to hack the far-less severe (though still extant) soul-sucking drudgery of cite checking? Doubt it.

Source: did a callback at Wachtell (no offer though, thank God).

You sound incredibly bitter.

[Anonymous User]

1Ls: this is a no-judgment zone. I know people gave you crap about asking OCI questions in the ask a law student forum, but we were all in your shoes once. Law school is stressful, we're not going to make it any more stressful (ITT)

[Anonymous User]

1Ls: this is a no-judgment zone. I know people gave you crap about asking OCI questions in the ask a law student forum, but we were all in your shoes once. Law school is stressful, we're not going to make it any more stressful (ITT)

You sound incredibly bitter.

[Anonymous User]

1Ls: this is a no-judgment zone. I know people gave you crap about asking OCI questions in the ask a law student forum, but we were all in your shoes once. Law school is stressful, we're not going to make it any more stressful (ITT)

You sound incredibly bitter.

Wasn't a 1L asking OCI questions. It was some non-1L nonsensically thanking the baby jesus that he hadn't received a Wachtell offer and getting MAF that people were paying attention to the firm that didn't give him an offer. Good for him and all.

Okay, let's get this thread back on track.

[Anonymous User]

Another 1L here. To add to the chorus, thanks to everyone for the great advice so far.

Since none of us know grades yet, I'm curious if anyone has advice for those of us who will end up below median. I guess OCS will probably give us some info about cutoffs, but what are some good firms that are less grade selective? Has anyone had really good success with lower grades?

On a different note, has anyone been able to crack a secondary market they only have weak ties to? Would awesome grades or LR make that move more viable? I'd really like to get into CA, but it seems like a combination of it just being a hard market plus my only real ties being an uncle that I've visited a few times means it would be plain stupid for me to waste any bids on CA firms/branches. My home market is rural midwest and I'm not looking to go back there. No IP degree either.

-Sick of the cold

[Anonymous User]

Looking forward to OCI, you won't have to worry too much about balancing your odds because you will probably be mass mailing the majority of your secondary and bidding all of Chicago so they aren't mutually exclusive. You shouldn't worry yet, but when OCI comes closer be sure to ask here or elsewhere for tips on successfully mass mailing your secondary because it isn't as easy as firms lining up to hire you, though we still do very well in all secondaries.

Also it is a good idea to sprinkle NYC firms into your bid list since you can get some of them down into the teens and twenties where Chicago firms have all filled, but always keep in mind what narrative you are going to give to Chicago firms about how NYC sucks because like was talked about earlier in this thread, the instant you disclose "Oh I'm interviewing at a few New York firms" they are going to be instantly skeptical.

Which markets have enough firms come to fill 1/2 of a bidlist, anyway?

There are only 3-4 Texas firms represented on the Who Worked Where list. How much of this is self-selection into the "best" firms there, and how much is only a few TX firms showing up? Will someone bidding on TX only end up using a handful of bid slots, leaving the majority for (say) both Chicago and NYC as well?

[Anonymous User]

Another 1L here. To add to the chorus, thanks to everyone for the great advice so far.

Since none of us know grades yet, I'm curious if anyone has advice for those of us who will end up below median. I guess OCS will probably give us some info about cutoffs, but what are some good firms that are less grade selective? Has anyone had really good success with lower grades?

On a different note, has anyone been able to crack a secondary market they only have weak ties to? Would awesome grades or LR make that move more viable? I'd really like to get into CA, but it seems like a combination of it just being a hard market plus my only real ties being an uncle that I've visited a few times means it would be plain stupid for me to waste any bids on CA firms/branches. My home market is rural midwest and I'm not looking to go back there. No IP degree either.

-Sick of the cold

You cannot consider California as one market. It has three what I'd consider major markets - San Francisco, SV, and Los Angeles. It also has smaller markets, such as OC and San Diego. In my experience, San Francisco cared significantly about ties. SV also did, but to a much lesser extent (and if you are IP, it doesn't matter). Los Angeles/OC, on the other hand, cared much less. Evidence going into OCI told me to expect that, and it was true - maybe a couple of firms asked me why LA/OC, and I felt they asked just to ask, rather than the Bay Area firms that were genuinely interested. I have no experience with SD, but I'd imagine ties are important.

The bigger issue would be your first problem (being below median). The Los Angeles office of some excellent firms come to OCI, and I'm sure someone below median has a shot. However, many of the L.A. firms are very grade snobby (Munger, Gibson, Irell, etc) where grades are important.

[Anonymous User]

I didn't end up with a Wachtell offer either. Thank god who wants options and stuff or to take callbacks and get some validation by converting them?

Re: Below median - it kind of depends how far below we are talking. 176.X is looked at basically as median given how our transcript looks and most firms will dip that low. Below that it might get more hairy. The way our grades work there are going to be more than half of the class with 177+ and of the 30 or 40% or whatever that is 176.X or lower, the majority of those are probably going to be in the 176s. Now the lower your grades are, the better you have to interview to compensate, so for those who are interview challenged you might be well served avoiding some theoretical grade selective firms. For those who are good interviewers, you pretty much have a chance wherever except Wachtell, Cravath, W&C, Covington, Irell, Munger, etc. Problem is you have no idea if you are a good interviewer at this point, no one does haha. Come back and ask this again when you have some/more grades and with your market and I'm happy to help more. For now don't worry too much.

Re: Texas - I think all Texas firms with a sizable summer class were represented. Some do multi-office interviews though, so the Texas interviewer might be someone who works in their LA office or something and is just covering all non-NYC or Chicago offices. Chicago or NYC fill up 1/2 to 2/3 of a bidlist, any other combination of markets and you can probably fit in 3.

[Anonymous User]

Another 1L here. To add to the chorus, thanks to everyone for the great advice so far.

...

On a different note, has anyone been able to crack a secondary market they only have weak ties to? Would awesome grades or LR make that move more viable? I'd really like to get into CA, but it seems like a combination of it just being a hard market plus my only real ties being an uncle that I've visited a few times means it would be plain stupid for me to waste any bids on CA firms/branches. My home market is rural midwest and I'm not looking to go back there. No IP degree either.

CA is hard, and the previous poster was right to distinguish SF/SV/LA. The best way to get laughed out of a CA firm interview is to think these markets are the same, even as between SF/SV. At the end of the day, if you can tell a convincing story about why that firm and that office make sense for you, you'll be fine. Obviously its easier to tell the story if you went to high school in the same city, but there are other creative ways to make it happen. If you're bidding SV, talk about how excited you are to work with startups because you don't want to paper deals for I-Banks in NYC for the rest of your life, and working with entrepreneurs really excites you. Or whatever. But be convincing.

Also, note that not all firms and not all offices have every practice. I saw people with amazing grades + LR strike out in the Bay Area because they emphasized an interest in general lit -- turns out, not that many bay area firms have hiring needs in that practice (and not everyone can go to Keker). If you want to go to a particular region, you'd better want to do the work that's available there. In SV, that means IP lit and general corp with start ups (or, for the NYC firms with offices there, outgoing capital markets, generally repping underwriters). If you don't have actual ties to the region, selling a firm on your interest in their work is likely the best story you can tell.

[Anonymous User]

Great thread! I hope this helps the 1Ls. OCI is stressful but there are many, many alumni who are more than happy to help.

[Anonymous User]

Re: Below median - it kind of depends how far below we are talking. 176.X is looked at basically as median given how our transcript looks and most firms will dip that low. Below that it might get more hairy. The way our grades work there are going to be more than half of the class with 177+ and of the 30 or 40% or whatever that is 176.X or lower, the majority of those are probably going to be in the 176s. Now the lower your grades are, the better you have to interview to compensate, so for those who are interview challenged you might be well served avoiding some theoretical grade selective firms. For those who are good interviewers, you pretty much have a chance wherever except Wachtell, Cravath, W&C, Covington, Irell, Munger, etc. Problem is you have no idea if you are a good interviewer at this point, no one does haha. Come back and ask this again when you have some/more grades and with your market and I'm happy to help more. For now don't worry too much.

Honestly, not even sure about that conventional wisdom anymore. I know a couple of firms on that list with below median UChicago SA's. Not saying below median has a good chance, but it's definitely within the realm of possibility for some of them.

[Anonymous User]

Re: Below median - it kind of depends how far below we are talking. 176.X is looked at basically as median given how our transcript looks and most firms will dip that low. Below that it might get more hairy. The way our grades work there are going to be more than half of the class with 177+ and of the 30 or 40% or whatever that is 176.X or lower, the majority of those are probably going to be in the 176s. Now the lower your grades are, the better you have to interview to compensate, so for those who are interview challenged you might be well served avoiding some theoretical grade selective firms. For those who are good interviewers, you pretty much have a chance wherever except Wachtell, Cravath, W&C, Covington, Irell, Munger, etc. Problem is you have no idea if you are a good interviewer at this point, no one does haha. Come back and ask this again when you have some/more grades and with your market and I'm happy to help more. For now don't worry too much.

Honestly, not even sure about that conventional wisdom anymore. I know a couple of firms on that list with below median UChicago SA's. Not saying below median has a good chance, but it's definitely within the realm of possibility for some of them.

I can second the fact that Cravath has absolutely given offers to below-median people over the past few years. Cravath has had a tough time recruiting at UChicago lately, and probably for good reason. Don't know about the rest though. Wachtell certainly hasn't, and I kind of doubt that W&C would, but the others might be game.

[Anonymous User]

Re: Below median - it kind of depends how far below we are talking. 176.X is looked at basically as median given how our transcript looks and most firms will dip that low. Below that it might get more hairy. The way our grades work there are going to be more than half of the class with 177+ and of the 30 or 40% or whatever that is 176.X or lower, the majority of those are probably going to be in the 176s. Now the lower your grades are, the better you have to interview to compensate, so for those who are interview challenged you might be well served avoiding some theoretical grade selective firms. For those who are good interviewers, you pretty much have a chance wherever except Wachtell, Cravath, W&C, Covington, Irell, Munger, etc. Problem is you have no idea if you are a good interviewer at this point, no one does haha. Come back and ask this again when you have some/more grades and with your market and I'm happy to help more. For now don't worry too much.

Honestly, not even sure about that conventional wisdom anymore. I know a couple of firms on that list with below median UChicago SA's. Not saying below median has a good chance, but it's definitely within the realm of possibility for some of them.

Median has very very slim chance at Wachtell, W&C, Irell, and Munger (and everyone going to these firms this summer is on LR, from what I recall). Covington may dip, but it will likely be for IP. Cravath probably would (and considering how deep they go into Columbia's class, this is not surprising). I'm not sure why conventional wisdom would change and make it easier to nab these firms - with summer classes being cut, there are not going to be a lot of extra opportunities.

[Anonymous User]

Re: Below median - it kind of depends how far below we are talking. 176.X is looked at basically as median given how our transcript looks and most firms will dip that low. Below that it might get more hairy. The way our grades work there are going to be more than half of the class with 177+ and of the 30 or 40% or whatever that is 176.X or lower, the majority of those are probably going to be in the 176s. Now the lower your grades are, the better you have to interview to compensate, so for those who are interview challenged you might be well served avoiding some theoretical grade selective firms. For those who are good interviewers, you pretty much have a chance wherever except Wachtell, Cravath, W&C, Covington, Irell, Munger, etc. Problem is you have no idea if you are a good interviewer at this point, no one does haha. Come back and ask this again when you have some/more grades and with your market and I'm happy to help more. For now don't worry too much.

Honestly, not even sure about that conventional wisdom anymore. I know a couple of firms on that list with below median UChicago SA's. Not saying below median has a good chance, but it's definitely within the realm of possibility for some of them.

Median has very very slim chance at Wachtell, W&C, Irell, and Munger (and everyone going to these firms this summer is on LR, from what I recall). Covington may dip, but it will likely be for IP. Cravath probably would (and considering how deep they go into Columbia's class, this is not surprising). I'm not sure why conventional wisdom would change and make it easier to nab these firms - with summer classes being cut, there are not going to be a lot of extra opportunities.

I thought that Irell hasn't been super choosy lately.

[Anonymous User]

I thought that Irell hasn't been super choosy lately.

Their class this coming summer is 4 or 5 LR kids I believe. Of course that doesn't necessarily mean high grades, but it's a reasonable assumption. Idk of anyone with an Irell or Munger offer who went somewhere else.

Also keep in mind for people saying that even the most selective firms will drop to median. This is true, but hiring is not a pure numbers game. Interviewing, work experience, diversity, etc matter. It's only evidence that their cutoffs are not hard, but the firms the anon earlier listed plus a few others almost certainly traditionally have very strong preferences for high grades (of course you could argue every firm would prefer high grades but let's not go down that road).

[Anonymous User]

I thought that Irell hasn't been super choosy lately.

Their class this coming summer is 4 or 5 LR kids I believe. Of course that doesn't necessarily mean high grades, but it's a reasonable assumption. Idk of anyone with an Irell or Munger offer who went somewhere else.

Also keep in mind for people saying that even the most selective firms will drop to median. This is true, but hiring is not a pure numbers game. Interviewing, work experience, diversity, etc matter. It's only evidence that their cutoffs are not hard, but the firms the anon earlier listed plus a few others almost certainly traditionally have very strong preferences for high grades (of course you could argue every firm would prefer high grades but let's not go down that road).

I know of multiple people who turned them down, but usually for top firms in other markets (Kirkland, WLRK, W&C)

[Anonymous User]

Also keep in mind for people saying that even the most selective firms will drop to median. This is true, but hiring is not a pure numbers game. Interviewing, work experience, diversity, etc matter. It's only evidence that their cutoffs are not hard, but the firms the anon earlier listed plus a few others almost certainly traditionally have very strong preferences for high grades (of course you could argue every firm would prefer high grades but let's not go down that road).

Not really sure if you are actually trying to pull a straw man argument here, or if you just didn't read the posts above:

Re: Below median - it kind of depends how far below we are talking. 176.X is looked at basically as median given how our transcript looks and most firms will dip that low. Below that it might get more hairy. The way our grades work there are going to be more than half of the class with 177+ and of the 30 or 40% or whatever that is 176.X or lower, the majority of those are probably going to be in the 176s. Now the lower your grades are, the better you have to interview to compensate, so for those who are interview challenged you might be well served avoiding some theoretical grade selective firms. For those who are good interviewers, you pretty much have a chance wherever except Wachtell, Cravath, W&C, Covington, Irell, Munger, etc. Problem is you have no idea if you are a good interviewer at this point, no one does haha.

Honestly, not even sure about that conventional wisdom anymore. I know a couple of firms on that list with below median UChicago SA's. Not saying below median has a good chance, but it's definitely within the realm of possibility for some of them.

See the bolded? The entire discussion re: these firms occasionally hiring median/below students was already taking into account your "caveat."

[Anonymous User]

but even free-market Kirkland had everyone labeled as Corporate, Restructuring, or Lit by their offer dinner.

Just to be clear, free market at Kirkland does not mean you can bounce around between different departments. Although that is allowed -- if not encouraged -- during the summer, once you join full-time you are expected to join a group. What free market means at KE is that you're free to work on whatever projects and partners you want within your own department.

[Anonymous User]

but even free-market Kirkland had everyone labeled as Corporate, Restructuring, or Lit by their offer dinner.

Just to be clear, free market at Kirkland does not mean you can bounce around between different departments. Although that is allowed -- if not encouraged -- during the summer, once you join full-time you are expected to join a group. What free market means at KE is that you're free to work on whatever projects and partners you want within your own department.

It's also not impossible to switch among Restructuring, Corporate, and Litigation after you've started as a junior associate. Granted, it has to be very early on, and it's still quite rare, but it's possible. I was at a V5 in NYC before lateraling to Kirkland, and I never heard of anybody doing that at my old firm.

[Anonymous User]

I thought that Irell hasn't been super choosy lately.

Their class this coming summer is 4 or 5 LR kids I believe. Of course that doesn't necessarily mean high grades, but it's a reasonable assumption. Idk of anyone with an Irell or Munger offer who went somewhere else.

Also keep in mind for people saying that even the most selective firms will drop to median. This is true, but hiring is not a pure numbers game. Interviewing, work experience, diversity, etc matter. It's only evidence that their cutoffs are not hard, but the firms the anon earlier listed plus a few others almost certainly traditionally have very strong preferences for high grades (of course you could argue every firm would prefer high grades but let's not go down that road).

I know of multiple people who turned them down, but usually for top firms in other markets (Kirkland, WLRK, W&C)

Irell takes a shotgun approach to Chicago OCI. Assuming top 10-15% type grades, you'll get a CB (and likely an offer) with an average personality. I know people that turned down all of those firms for Irell, which makes sense considering how many people got a CB.

[Anonymous User]

"Why Law?" was probably one of my weaker questions, but I'm going to try to give some advice since it will inevitably be asked in 1L interviews.



I hate this question. I think most answers are bullshit and attorneys are just looking for an ice-breaker/filler to get the ball rolling and see who you are and what you're about. As a result, I didn't figure this question out until OCI - this is your opportunity to tell your story. I read somewhere on TLS that you want the interviewer to think your life has led up to THIS profession, THIS law school, THIS firm, etc etc etc--essentially the goal is to tie together your life into a coherent story about why you want to be a lawyer for their firm. This answer is a big piece of that.

Here's what you do: think about what you like most about the prospect of being a lawyer. Is it communicating with clients? Is it working collaboratively on a team ? Do you love solving puzzles (I've heard a tax lawyer explain that's why he loved his practice area)? Do you love thinking of multiple perspectives of an argument? Do you find law intellectually stimulating (why?)? etc etc etc.

Grab one life story that demonstrates one of these things. IMO, the best way to do this is mention a previous employment scenario and talk about why you loved that particular aspect of it ("I loved working with clients because I could develop relationships that made it enjoyable to go to work etc etc").

If you're really good--tie it into a reason why you want to work at X firm. For example, "[Experience about working collaboratively] Being a lawyer really gives you an opportunity to work collaboratively on a team.. and I think that's especially present in Kirkland's free market system because [ass kissing here]"

Caveats:
-Try to stay away from high school debate stories w/ litigation. I did this during 1L and my (firm) interviewer stopped me and explained that in future interviews, I should avoid it because 1) everyone was in debate so it's not original and 2) debate doesn't equal litigation, it's actually mostly memos, briefs, etc.
-Don't talk bad about previous employment ex:"X profession wasn't intellectually stimulating enough." Keep it positive.

IMO if you can make it unique and have a great answer, you absolutely should. But my answer was just average and it certainly wasn't a dealbreaker.

If other 2Ls can contribute with what they found to be successful, that'd be great.

[Anonymous User]

"Why Law?" was probably one of my weaker questions, but I'm going to try to give some advice since it will inevitably be asked in 1L interviews.



I hate this question. I think most answers are bullshit and attorneys are just looking for an ice-breaker/filler to get the ball rolling and see who you are and what you're about.

I'm the V10 alum/interviewer from earlier in the thread. It is definitely a dumb question, but I think most interviewers like to use it because it's the one that you should definitely be prepared for. Interviewers expect you to be able to hit softballs.

The answer itself doesn't matter all that much as long as it can be plausibly tied to what you've done so far and to private practice, and as long as it doesn't sound too juvenile or hokey ("as a kid I always liked arguing with my mom"). My advice is to spend some time thinking about and practicing your honest answer, and then if your honest answer is too tied to academia or public interest or something, find a way to tie it more to the business of law.

One of the pitfalls I've seen in answers to this question is an answer that comes across like, "I'm interested in law because I want to argue before the Supreme Court," or, "I'm interested in law because I want to be sitting next to the CEO when we ink a multi billion-dollar merger." Obviously you wouldn't have said those exact words, but the point is that you don't want to sound too big for your britches, a prima donna who thinks that the grudge work of being an associate is beneath them.

[Anonymous User]

I thought that Irell hasn't been super choosy lately.

Their class this coming summer is 4 or 5 LR kids I believe. Of course that doesn't necessarily mean high grades, but it's a reasonable assumption. Idk of anyone with an Irell or Munger offer who went somewhere else.

Also keep in mind for people saying that even the most selective firms will drop to median. This is true, but hiring is not a pure numbers game. Interviewing, work experience, diversity, etc matter. It's only evidence that their cutoffs are not hard, but the firms the anon earlier listed plus a few others almost certainly traditionally have very strong preferences for high grades (of course you could argue every firm would prefer high grades but let's not go down that road).

I know of multiple people who turned them down, but usually for top firms in other markets (Kirkland, WLRK, W&C)

I turned Irell down, because I just wasn't ready to go to LA. But they were probably my favorite of all of my callbacks, including Wachtell and W&C. The people there were genuine and friendly to an extent I didn't find at those or a number of other firms I visited (or around our own school frankly lol). I felt at home there, and they were very difficult to turn down. The work they do (and trust junior people to do)* is also top-notch. I'm not sure about their pro-bono programs generally, but I met with associates who had devoted huge amounts of time to very very high profile pro-bono work (the kind you hear about on the news) and they said the firm was 100% behind it. It is difficult to make partner there, and doing so requires a lot of work, but I think exit options out of the firm are also very high quality. I would highly encourage anyone interested in LA to look for them and to try for them if you are at all competitive.

*a big thing for me, and something which I think/hope differentiates firms, is the kind of work they will let young associates do. We're all going to be pretty much useless when we graduate, but some of us will remain useless for a long time because the firms we go to won't let us do any shit that is at all important/challenging. There are plenty of firms where midlevels never see the courtroom or haven't even taken a deposition yet. Looking for firms where that isn't the case is something I would advise people to do at OCI. Asking associates about their coolest experiences at the firm, or whether they've taken depositions/been on a trial team/argued a motion in court, written the brief for a case, etc. is a good way to get some feel for how common those experiences are at whatever firm you're looking at. As the poster above notes, being an associate any any firm is probably going to involve a lot of work that isn't particularly glorious. But I really think some firms are better about letting associates find the occasional diamond in the coal mine than others are.

[Anonymous User]

What kind of grades do you need for a good shot at SF/SV?

I bid SF/SV. SF is tough, simply because it is a small legal market and they want to see ties to the area (I was asked more about my geographic connections in SF interviews than anywhere else, by far). Hardly anyone is working there this summer, but in general, the people that got CBs/offers in SF had 179+ grades.

SV is easier. If you are IP, a sparkling personality is likely enough unless you have awful grades. I know corporate people that got SV firms (Davis Polk, Jones Day, etc) with median grades (though they have wonderful personalities).

Happy to talk via PM if you want more specific advice.

Expanding on this, what should ties look like for LA/SF/SV? I went to school in California but I'm not from there. I'm from the west coast though.

[Anonymous User]

What kind of grades do you need for a good shot at SF/SV?

I bid SF/SV. SF is tough, simply because it is a small legal market and they want to see ties to the area (I was asked more about my geographic connections in SF interviews than anywhere else, by far). Hardly anyone is working there this summer, but in general, the people that got CBs/offers in SF had 179+ grades.

SV is easier. If you are IP, a sparkling personality is likely enough unless you have awful grades. I know corporate people that got SV firms (Davis Polk, Jones Day, etc) with median grades (though they have wonderful personalities).

Happy to talk via PM if you want more specific advice.

Expanding on this, what should ties look like for LA/SF/SV? I went to school in California but I'm not from there. I'm from the west coast though.

I interviewed in all three, also went to school in California but wasn't from there, and had the same experience as this person earlier:

In my experience, San Francisco cared significantly about ties. SV also did, but to a much lesser extent (and if you are IP, it doesn't matter). Los Angeles/OC, on the other hand, cared much less.

I didn't interview in OC, but my understanding was that ties matter more there than for LA. Happy to PM if you'd like more specific information.