Anonymous User wrote:There are like 3 big firms that are really lit firms: QE, BS, JB (and two of those haven't historically interviewed at OCI).
If you want to do corporate, that's great and you shouldn't run from it. Litigation is down; M&A, other corporate, and financial institutions work is what's carrying firms. If you've got a corporate background, run with it.
Also, on the 3.5 issue (I know a guy who had ~3.2 and ended up at one of the best firms in Chicago), Chicago is absolutely doable with a 3.5. It helps if you have ties. You should make it very clear that Chicago is your first choice if you want to succeed in getting an offer.
I know you're trying to be helpful but I would really caution people not to listen to this advice.
There are more than 3 big litigation firms in the country. Just because a firm has a booming corporate practice doesn't mean they aren't also focused on litigation. In New York, Cravath, Davis Polk, Gibson Dunn, Simpson, S&C, Paul Weiss, and Skadden all have better litigation practices than QE or BS. In Chicago, Kirkland runs the table. In LA, Gibson, Keker, and Munger are three of the four best litigation firms.
And those firms are the tippy top of the mountain. Obviously there are a lot more firms than just those that pride and prioritize litigation.http://www.chambersandpartners.com/1205 ... dFirms_Tabhttp://www.chambersandpartners.com/1247 ... torial/5/1http://www.chambersandpartners.com/1280 ... ion_376083http://abovethelaw.com/2013/09/the-bigl ... tion-2014/http://www.btilitigationoutlook.com/fearsome-foursome/
Moreover, litigation is not "down." Its not carrying firms but this isn't 2009 where Lit associates are being fired left right and center and firms aren't hiring for litigation. That just isn't the world we are in. You can be successful aiming for litigation. Corporate is booming right now. Litigation is stagnant.
Now, completely switching tones, the advice you give about 3.2's succeeding in Chicago, once again while trying to be helpful, is just complete bullshit. I know a guy who had a 3.6 that had more offers than he had callbacks, all from v20 firms or higher. He's not the norm. Neither is your friend. I know someone with a 3.7 (on the old curve) that got 1 offer in Chicago. She also isn't the norm. The data suggests that Chicago is the hardest large market out there. The data suggests that you better be in the top 1/3rd of your class before you want to heavily bet on Chicago. The data suggests that if you're below median, your chances at Chicago, even with great ties and good work experience, are below 10%. Chicago is not "absolutely doable" with a 3.5. Chicago is an option with a 3.5, but its no where near a slam dunk. Its a city that you should hedge really hard with an easier market like NYC if your GPA is around a 3.5. A 3.2 getting Chicago isn't unheard of, but its so rare that it cannot be used as a measuring stick for helping someone figure out if they have a decent chance at Chicago.