Northwestern OCI 2015 Forum

[Anonymous User]

. . . inflating the median CB GPA tremendously (i.e., Jones Day will CB 20 people and only 2 (all below median CB GPA) will accept the JD offer).

FWIW, the several people I know who decided on Jones Day in recent years were all 3.7+. They may not have a firm GPA cutoff, but implying they readily hire below median from NU is misleading and will likely lead to poor bidding choices.

[Cobretti]

. . . inflating the median CB GPA tremendously (i.e., Jones Day will CB 20 people and only 2 (all below median CB GPA) will accept the JD offer).

FWIW, the several people I know who decided on Jones Day in recent years were all 3.7+. They may not have a firm GPA cutoff, but implying they readily hire below median from NU is misleading and will likely lead to poor bidding choices.

He wasn't saying below median GPA for the class. He was saying that when the median CB GPA data is released for firms by OCS, the number you see will most likely be higher than the median GPA of people that accepted offers there, because firms always try to attract the best candidates and will throw CBs to "reaches" for them with stellar GPAs.

[Anonymous User]

I just want a job (preferably at a firm that's not a total sweatshop).

You will be interviewing with great firms with the grades that you have. Depending on whether you're interested in litigation or not, you'll probably end up interviewing with some great boutiques as well. Every firm you interview with (except for the NYC firms who just stopped fighting this battle) will sugar coat things and explain to you how they are, for reasons X, Y, and Z, not a sweatshop.

This is a false flag operation. Beware! Past a certain GPA, firms are suiting you as much as you are suiting them.

I'm not interested in litigation. But I guess I could give it a(nother) shot next summer to confirm it's not for me. (My summer job is lit-oriented, and I like drafting motions and such (and doing research and interacting with clients), but the thought of drafting briefs makes me wanna pull my hair out.) I also guess I should say I'm open to giving lit a shot in my interviews? Or should I emphasize I'm really interested in area X (think bankruptcy/real estate/tax), which I am? Or say both things (as they're not mutually exclusive and are not lies)? Or does it entirely depend on the firm and/or interviewer?

Re sweatshops: I'll research firms beforehand, of course, but what would be some good ways to spot a sweatshop/assess fit at actual OCI/callbacks?

You grades and level of stress at this point scream NYC V5, which are all complete and total sweatshops. If you are serious about not wanting to be in that environment, start internalizing that now because it's going to be really hard for you to turn down that S&C or Skadden callback/offer when OCI rolls around.

I couldn't be more serious. QoL* matters to me far more than impressing anyone/a V5 name on my business card (which means next to nothing to me). (I know it may be hard to believe, but I'm pretty chill... just in a biglaw-or-bust situation.) So... same question as above: Any good ways to spot sweatshops/assess fit at OCI/callbacks?

*I know, I know... QoL & BL are not friends...

[cookiejar1]

. . . inflating the median CB GPA tremendously (i.e., Jones Day will CB 20 people and only 2 (all below median CB GPA) will accept the JD offer).

FWIW, the several people I know who decided on Jones Day in recent years were all 3.7+. They may not have a firm GPA cutoff, but implying they readily hire below median from NU is misleading and will likely lead to poor bidding choices.

He wasn't saying below median GPA for the class. He was saying that when the median CB GPA data is released for firms by OCS, the number you see will most likely be higher than the median GPA of people that accepted offers there, because firms always try to attract the best candidates and will throw CBs to "reaches" for them with stellar GPAs.

Sorry, I meant to use them as merely an example. Jones Day's Chicago office is quite competitive, as the median CB GPA data will suggest. What I'm trying to say, however, is that that number--as are all the other numbers--are slightly inflated due to the fact that the same high GPA players are gathering CBs across the board (for example, a top Chicago candidate will probably score CBs at KE/Sidley/MB/Jenner/JD/Winston/etc but say the candidate chooses Barack instead. His/her 4.0+ GPA is skewing the median CB at KE/Sidley/MB/Jenner/JD/Winston even though these firms don't typically land 4.0+ students from NU). Of course this is only meaningful in aggregate (its a median, not an average) and it's impossible to truly quantify exactly how much the cb median data should be discounted. It's just something to note. Also consider that some firms tend to keep hiring to a narrow brand of grades -- in this case the cb gpa number is a considerably better proxy.

I also guess I should say I'm open to giving lit a shot in my interviews? Or should I emphasize I'm really interested in area X (think bankruptcy/real estate/tax), which I am? Or say both things (as they're not mutually exclusive and are not lies)? Or does it entirely depend on the firm and/or interviewer?

Okay, I think you should be honest but I also think you shouldn't be above "playing the game" so to speak when it comes to interviews. So, for example, if you're really into bankruptcy but you're interviewing with a firm with a tiny creditor-side bankruptcy practice . . . ehhhh I don't know if I'd tell them that I'm particularly interested in bankruptcy.

What I did is that I researched each form thoroughly (internet, networking, going to those weird market legal series). I figured out what each major firm's bread and butter practices were. I tried to guess which practice areas were in need of bodies. And I hit them. I hit them hard. It helped too when explaining "why this firm?" It helped with my narrative.

So... same question as above: Any good ways to spot sweatshops/assess fit at OCI/callbacks?

So, by and large, every "top" firm is more or less a sweatshop. That's why I don't think that ranking firms by sweatshopiness is necessarily a good way to go about planning your career. Granted, the sweatshopiness of firms are on somewhat of a spectrum and you'll definitely have firms that expect much more work on one end. However, if you're going into OCI with top grades you'd be surprised how much prestige (whether you admit or not) will end up becoming a factor. And if you your top choices post-OCI end up being "top" firms (using TLS prestige as a proxy), I think that comparing sweatshops on the basis of their sweatshopiness is pretty stupid. When you make your decision, consider everything else. Your impression of a firm's sweatshopiness will be meaningful but I think other factors should be much, much more important. Location, the culture, the type of people you may be working with (provided, of course, that they're still there when you start work) are important. The WORK is important too. Your exit options might be most important as well if you're already questioning how our service-oriented profession demands work past dinner daily.

Just don't be the person who chooses to work at DPW based solely on the impression that DPW somehow works associates less than other firms. Don't be the person who chooses to go to KE Chicago because of all the sweatshoppy things you've heard about Skadden. Etc, etc. Go to a firm for much more tangible reasons than, "I think I'll work less there!" But this is just me. Maybe I, personally, don't give sweatshopiness enough credit.

[Anonymous User]

I also guess I should say I'm open to giving lit a shot in my interviews? Or should I emphasize I'm really interested in area X (think bankruptcy/real estate/tax), which I am? Or say both things (as they're not mutually exclusive and are not lies)? Or does it entirely depend on the firm and/or interviewer?

Okay, I think you should be honest but I also think you shouldn't be above "playing the game" so to speak when it comes to interviews. So, for example, if you're really into bankruptcy but you're interviewing with a firm with a tiny creditor-side bankruptcy practice . . . ehhhh I don't know if I'd tell them that I'm particularly interested in bankruptcy.

What I did is that I researched each form thoroughly (internet, networking, going to those weird market legal series). I figured out what each major firm's bread and butter practices were. I tried to guess which practice areas were in need of bodies. And I hit them. I hit them hard. It helped too when explaining "why this firm?" It helped with my narrative.

So... same question as above: Any good ways to spot sweatshops/assess fit at OCI/callbacks?

So, by and large, every "top" firm is more or less a sweatshop. That's why I don't think that ranking firms by sweatshopiness is necessarily a good way to go about planning your career. Granted, the sweatshopiness of firms are on somewhat of a spectrum and you'll definitely have firms that expect much more work on one end. However, if you're going into OCI with top grades you'd be surprised how much prestige (whether you admit or not) will end up becoming a factor. And if you your top choices post-OCI end up being "top" firms (using TLS prestige as a proxy), I think that comparing sweatshops on the basis of their sweatshopiness is pretty stupid. When you make your decision, consider everything else. Your impression of a firm's sweatshopiness will be meaningful but I think other factors should be much, much more important. Location, the culture, the type of people you may be working with (provided, of course, that they're still there when you start work) are important. The WORK is important too. Your exit options might be most important as well if you're already questioning how our service-oriented profession demands work past dinner daily.

Just don't be the person who chooses to work at DPW based solely on the impression that DPW somehow works associates less than other firms. Don't be the person who chooses to go to KE Chicago because of all the sweatshoppy things you've heard about Skadden. Etc, etc. Go to a firm for much more tangible reasons than, "I think I'll work less there!" But this is just me. Maybe I, personally, don't give sweatshopiness enough credit.

Thank you; this was super helpful! But I think I used "sweatshopiness" incorrectly! I know I'll be working long hours anywhere, and I knew that when I was applying to law schools. What I mean is: I don't want to work at a place where they expect you to spend a large portion of your vacation glued to a phone/laptop, where new parents are not-so-subtly encouraged to return to work full-time after only a few weeks... I want a place where they fully expect you to pull your weight but also acknowledge the fact that you have a life outside of work (because they have one too!). (Also, people who think they are geniuses/extremely important because they work at a V# firm don't sit well with me, so I'd like to avoid a place full of such people.) I'm sleep-deprived, so I hope this makes sense.

Re the culture & fit in general: So far, talking to people who work at a firm hasn't really helped me gauge how comfortable I'd feel there--yes, I like these two attorney from Firm X and their work sounds super interesting, but I still have no idea what working at X would actually be like, what interactions between associates (and partners) are like day-to-day... What would be some good ways to assess the fit before you start as an SA, i.e., during OCI/callbacks? E.g., any tells that people actually loathe their coworkers and their job in general? (I feel like I'd be able to tell this for any other job but, for whatever reason, lawyers seem to like pretending everything is peachy.)

[feralinfant]

Thank you; this was super helpful! But I think I used "sweatshopiness" incorrectly! I know I'll be working long hours anywhere, and I knew that when I was applying to law schools. What I mean is: I don't want to work at a place where they expect you to spend a large portion of your vacation glued to a phone/laptop, where new parents are not-so-subtly encouraged to return to work full-time after only a few weeks... I want a place where they fully expect you to pull your weight but also acknowledge the fact that you have a life outside of work (because they have one too!). (Also, people who think they are geniuses/extremely important because they work at a V# firm don't sit well with me, so I'd like to avoid a place full of such people.) I'm sleep-deprived, so I hope this makes sense.

Re the culture & fit in general: So far, talking to people who work at a firm hasn't really helped me gauge how comfortable I'd feel there--yes, I like these two attorney from Firm X and their work sounds super interesting, but I still have no idea what working at X would actually be like, what interactions between associates (and partners) are like day-to-day... What would be some good ways to assess the fit before you start as an SA, i.e., during OCI/callbacks?

I definitely understand what you're getting at but I really think Cookie's advice is solid. There are a few places that are notorious (ie Skadden NY, Quinn) but outside of that your experience is going to be shaped to a large degree by who you work with. And pretty much every big law firm will have you working way more than is compatible with a lot of the things you are describing as important to you. Given that, you should probably be thinking about more substantive things that will affect you and your career more in the long term. While these places can all seem really similar, there are differences in the kinds of work they do and the approaches they generally take. Even when you're talking about something as monolithic as "litigation" places like Skadden Chicago do A LOT of securities litigation where you will probably spend a lot of time arguing over class certification to decide whether there will be a settlement or not. Other places have more varied practices, staff leaner, come in later and closer to trial (allegedly-PW, QE, Boies). Some places have more active investigatory practices (Latham Chi pushed this narrative, not sure how true, Skadden Chi and Jenner both do some big stuff but I'm not sure how feasible it is to plan on doing it). The point is that you already are describing yourself in a way where you aren't going to make partner because you don't want to. Which is completely rational. But you should be thinking about what skill you want to develop in the next two years rather than who will call you back from vacation because there's probably little to distinguish between firms in this regard.

If you really just want some of the consensus rough places to work from my anecdotal experiences (which makes no claims to comprehensiveness or accuracy):

Cravath-The rotation system means you are probably less replaceable as an associate. But if you work here you probably are hoping to work on your vacation.

Skadden NY-Seems to produce really unhappy associates. Met refugees from there at Chicago who looked like they'd come up for air for the first time in 3 years.

Quinn-Hard to say how much is self inflicted, but people here work a lot. Though I'm not sure its the sort of place that wouldn't respect a vacation-most places do.

Other people should chime in but I think that you should 1) think about what you want out of big law 2) go somewhere that offers that and is huge so you can hide out for two to three years, be just one cog in the machine and then peace out to your next gig. The bigger and more leveraged the firm you go to the less likely there will be a need to recall you from a vacation etc. But that probably has downsides too.

I'll also add that given how slow firms are to push you out realize that a lot of "sweatshoppiness" may in fact be something you can avoid if you give few fucks. People work a lot at Kirkland, but people have a hard time saying no, or want to. You can probably go to a lot of places considered "sweatshops" and not give a fuck for two years and say no before they cut you loose I would think. Or else I would be looking a lot at smaller secondary markets (ie Kansas City etc) where people probably really only work till 6 or 7 and go home.

[Anonymous User]

Noob questions:

With median-ish GPA, and only midwest ties, is it worth putting in any effort for SF/DC/LA? What are my chances, and how great would the opportunity cost be to go for those locations. If I do OTIP, is that enough to show interest/ties? Should I bid these areas for OCI? I would be just as happy in SF/DC/LA as I would in Chicago. I am scared of NY.

One of my concerns about NY is that I hear it is more sweatshop-like than even other big markets. Is there truth to this? I am willing to put in hard work and 50-60 hours per week, but not more than that. Should I not have signed up for this? Also, if I do work in NY for a couple years, how likely is it that I could transition to a different position/firm/job in a more desired location within 2-3 years?

[Anonymous User]

I definitely understand what you're getting at but I really think Cookie's advice is solid. There are a few places that are notorious (ie Skadden NY, Quinn) but outside of that your experience is going to be shaped to a large degree by who you work with. And pretty much every big law firm will have you working way more than is compatible with a lot of the things you are describing as important to you. Given that, you should probably be thinking about more substantive things that will affect you and your career more in the long term. While these places can all seem really similar, there are differences in the kinds of work they do and the approaches they generally take.

Great points! I really need to do a lot of research this summer--all I've got so far is this: I want good training, while working on interesting/complex deals (which means that the firm should be strong in the (sub-)area I'm interested in), and I don't want to be miserable. (To be fair, for all my emphasis on having a life outside of work, it's kind of hard to make me miserable. If I get some alone time, hear from/see my SO/family/friends (even if we only exchange a text or two), get a short workout/walk in every day, I'm good even if I'm working long hours and some of my work is not terribly interesting. Edit: I assume this may change when I have kids, but that's still far away. Also, all this assumes my coworkers are decent human beings, which just means 90% of them are not backstabbing screamers. )

If you really just want some of the consensus rough places to work from my anecdotal experiences (which makes no claims to comprehensiveness or accuracy)

Thank you!!

[cookiejar1]

With median-ish GPA, and only midwest ties, is it worth putting in any effort for SF/DC/LA? What are my chances, and how great would the opportunity cost be to go for those locations.

SF/DC/LA without ties is doable but it will depend on your ability to convince your interviewer in 20 minutes or less that you are genuinely interested in working / living / settling-down in that area.

With that being said, SF/DC/LA without ties and a median GPA will be difficult - especially for DC. DC tends to be quite competitive.

I like that you mentioned opportunity costs in your post. Bidding is about opportunity costs. Everyone has a finite amount of plausible bids. If a firm has 20 interview spots, you have to (and this is a generalization, yada yada, I know a hypothetical can be designed to make this not technically true) rank that firm's bid higher than, at minimum, 21 other people. Given how our curve's distribution works out, there are way more people at median and around median than there are people at other percentiles. As such, firms that often take people with median GPAs are going to go QUICK.

Feel free to pick up some SF/LA/maybe DC firms late in your bidlist but if you're spending a top 15 bid for Gibson Dunn LA then you're really shooting yourself in the foot—GDC is selective, LA is somewhat sensitive to ties and, most importantly, you could have bid for a firm that you would have otherwise had a better chance at in that top 15 position.

Knowing what firms will drop is an art and a fun game that you will play with yourself all summer. Mayer Brown LA had 11 interview slots last year but, for some reason, I managed to pick them up with my 39th bid. Super random but picking up a Mayer Brown LA interview with a 30+ vid is tremendous value for someone in your position. After bid . . . 18? 19? things get pretty dicey. Some people will over think things. I bid MoFo 3rd on my bidlist and I think others were picking them up way down the list. In some ways that was a wasted bid . . . but I really wanted MoFo and so I kind of just YOLO'd it for that one.

One of my concerns about NY is that I hear it is more sweatshop-like than even other big markets. Is there truth to this? I am willing to put in hard work and 50-60 hours per week, but not more than that. Should I not have signed up for this? Also, if I do work in NY for a couple years, how likely is it that I could transition to a different position/firm/job in a more desired location within 2-3 years?

Listen, my own perspective is very warped by my own experiences but this is biglaw. You're going to work your ass off, at least for a couple of years. Before coming to law school I looked at biglaw the same way I looked at top-tier consulting and investment banking. I don't think I know anyone coming out of undergrad who choose between bulge bracket IBD analyst positions or M/B/B on the basis of their "work life balance." But maybe I'm being too cynical. I spend too much time on these message boards.

[Anonymous User]

Greetings,

Thank you for making this thread!

For someone with deep Chicago roots and a GPA over 4.00, how Chicago heavy would you suggest making an oci bidlist for transactional?
Chicago offices of:
KE/Sidley/MB/JD/WS/Latham/Jenner/Skadden/Baker&McKenzie/McDermott/DLA

Am I missing anyone?

[Fitz51]

Noob questions:

With median-ish GPA, and only midwest ties, is it worth putting in any effort for SF/DC/LA? What are my chances, and how great would the opportunity cost be to go for those locations. If I do OTIP, is that enough to show interest/ties? Should I bid these areas for OCI? I would be just as happy in SF/DC/LA as I would in Chicago. I am scared of NY.

One of my concerns about NY is that I hear it is more sweatshop-like than even other big markets. Is there truth to this? I am willing to put in hard work and 50-60 hours per week, but not more than that. Should I not have signed up for this? Also, if I do work in NY for a couple years, how likely is it that I could transition to a different position/firm/job in a more desired location within 2-3 years?

My thought would be that SF or DC at median with no ties is a non-starter and you would be wasting your time. SF is just small and there's plenty of Cali schools to fill their classes. DC is not as small but probably the most competitive market in the country, so you don't have the grades for it and with no ties it's a hard sell. LA might be more worth it a try.

I would forget about what you're "willing" to do, and realize what you will "have" to do. I would venture to guess that in most big city markets (which is what you're mentioning), at most reputable firms, 50-60 will not really be cutting it in the first few years.

[Fitz51]

Greetings,

Thank you for making this thread!

For someone with deep Chicago roots and a GPA over 4.00, how Chicago heavy would you suggest making an oci bidlist for transactional?
Chicago offices of:
KE/Sidley/MB/JD/WS/Latham/Jenner/Skadden/Baker&McKenzie/McDermott/DLA

Am I missing anyone?

As long as you're not a weirdo, you'll get offers at any Chicago firm you want. Make it as Chicago heavy as you want. Unless you were talking about also trying to balance NYC firms and getting Chicago interviews outside of OCI. In that case, might be worth bidding some of the lower-tier Chicago firms at 20+, where you probably won't get them, then immediately emailing your resume to their recruiting people when lists come out. With a 4.0+, you'll get bites on the strength of your resume alone.

If you're very interested in transactional, I don't think Jenner has much of a place on your list. The only major one you're missing is Katten.

http://www.chambersandpartners.com/1247 ... torial/5/1

[cookiejar1]

Greetings,

Thank you for making this thread!

For someone with deep Chicago roots and a GPA over 4.00, how Chicago heavy would you suggest making an oci bidlist for transactional?
Chicago offices of:
KE/Sidley/MB/JD/WS/Latham/Jenner/Skadden/Baker&McKenzie/McDermott/DLA

Am I missing anyone?

I'd add Barack Ferrazzano to this list. They're a pretty unique firm and are extremely selective at OCI so you should be able to pick up an interview with your 25+ bid probably.

Also, if you're really interested in transactional I'd recommend that you at least try out WLRK if/when you receive an invitation to interview with them. Even if you hate NYC you can always come back - I know of a CCN (heh) grad who did WLRK 2L summer, hated it, and came back to open arms at KE Chicago.

[Micdiddy]

This point is painfully obvious but just to save you all some time: Some places split their interviewers into cities and some lump them all in one. A place like Mayer Brown LA can go super late, because only people bidding just LA or just CA would ever put it in their top 20. Whereas a less attractive firm that has 25 slots for NY, LA, Chi, etc. All combined is going to go super high. So if you want to reach for other geography but not waste top bids, the former types of places are the ones to look for. (Note, make sure to check if they allow multiple interviews with the same firm).

[homestyle28]

Oi, how are you all at the end of page 2 and no one has just yelled at you to start mass mailing? Everyone should be applying outside of OCI. full stop.

All big firms are sweatshops by and large. The only real difference is the personality type of the people you're sweating with. Jenner and K&E trend towards different types of personalities, etc. Ask yourself if you like the people you meet. Email/call younger NU alums and get a sense of the places you're really interested in.

I can answer JD-Chicago Qs in PM. Can vouch that they go to 3.5, or have in years past.

[bananasplit19]

Tagging just to get in on that creamy cookie/feral/diddy wisdom.

I don't have much to add other than to advocate for non-OCI interviews (whether it be diversity fairs or OTIP or good ol' fashioned mass mailing). You can prep and study all you want, but the first time you're in a screener is going to be uncharted territory. The more real-game experience you can have in an interview, the better. I biffed my first set of interviews pretty hard at diversity fairs/OTIP, and was an old pro by the last week of OCI (and then subsequently biffed my first set of callbacks, but I got better at those too ).

[NYC-WVU]

Tagging just to get in on that creamy cookie/feral/diddy wisdom.

I don't have much to add other than to advocate for non-OCI interviews (whether it be diversity fairs or OTIP or good ol' fashioned mass mailing). You can prep and study all you want, but the first time you're in a screener is going to be uncharted territory. The more real-game experience you can have in an interview, the better. I biffed my first set of interviews pretty hard at diversity fairs/OTIP, and was an old pro by the last week of OCI (and then subsequently biffed my first set of callbacks, but I got better at those too ).

Can you give examples of what you did poorly in your first set of interviews that you did well after practice? Much appreciated.

[Calvin Murphy]

Tagging just to get in on that creamy cookie/feral/diddy wisdom.

I don't have much to add other than to advocate for non-OCI interviews (whether it be diversity fairs or OTIP or good ol' fashioned mass mailing). You can prep and study all you want, but the first time you're in a screener is going to be uncharted territory. The more real-game experience you can have in an interview, the better. I biffed my first set of interviews pretty hard at diversity fairs/OTIP, and was an old pro by the last week of OCI (and then subsequently biffed my first set of callbacks, but I got better at those too ).

Can you give examples of what you did poorly in your first set of interviews that you did well after practice? Much appreciated.

I'm sure dancing banana can give you a better answer, but I wanted to echo the sentiment.

For me it was maybe 70% nerves, 30% figuring out how to answer the same questions over and over. Everyone will ask you "Why [our firm]?" "Why NU?" and a handful of other simple questions...you figure out what the best answers are for you, given your résumé. As for the nerves, for me they just went away with more experience.

[Micdiddy]

Mistakes I have made in interviews:

Too much honesty:
"Why did you apply to x?" "Well I applied to every firm in CA, but the reason I like X is..." Learned very quickly to cutout that part before the comma.

In my first callback I didn't understand the concept of "conversation." I thought that people would ask me questions and i would answer them. Whereas, in fact, most people just want to chat. So, when the managing partner described to me the summer events of baseball and poker nights, etc. Instead of saying "that sounds fun, I think it's great to get to know colleagues away from work yadda yadda..." I just sat and smiled waiting for a question.

One of the greater moments of my life: I told the MoFo screener I believed I had the "MoFo mojo." Honestly, using firm catchphrases back at them is probably a legit strategy, just not such a stupid one that makes you sound like a child when you say it.

I'm sure there's more, but getting on bus now.

[Anonymous User]

What's the gpa cutoff for the top New York firms (a la cravath). Would a 3.87 do it?

[Anonymous User]

What's the gpa cutoff for the top New York firms (a la cravath). Would a 3.87 do it?

I had similar numbers and interviewed with all of the top NY firms (with the exception of just one notable firm). You're not necessarily a "lock" but I'd still be somewhat confident with a 3.87 for transactional NYC. Interviews will begin in your favor.

[Anonymous User]

Will the effect of that gpa be diminished if you bombed the write on and didn't make law review?

[Anonymous User]

I wasn't on LR. It definitely hurt me at munger, w&c, wlrk and lit boutiques. I didn't get MoFo and GDC even tho my GPA was around their target but that might have been my fault. Other than that ... no meaningful effect on my outcomes. Your mileage may vary. You prob made law review anyways. Relax!

[Anonymous User]

General question, if you had a 4.3 and could go to any firm in the country, where would you go and why?

[NYC-WVU]

General question, if you had a 4.3 and could go to any firm in the country, where would you go and why?

If I could go to any firm in the country, I'd go to Hamlin, Hamlin and McGill. If I had a 4.3, I'd probably think I could go to any firm in the country. If I had a 4.3 and I could go to any firm in the country, I'd probably end up at some sweatshop.