Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=248877
No honors just means below a 3.6. I just think it's a better strategy to get as many screeners with realistic firms as possible than to use bids on hail marys.runinthefront wrote:I just took a random sample of 15 cornell alum at Latham (searching cornell law). 5/15 graduated with no honors. It's definitely a reach but I wouldn't drop them if you know you're a good interview OP
I didn't check for LR tho
OP's GPA about the same distance from latham than strook lol. But your point's valid. I think that with the changes on the last page, OP could probably afford a hail mary if OP's a good interviewerKing Cayuga wrote:No honors just means below a 3.6. I just think it's a better strategy to get as many screeners with realistic firms as possible than to use bids on hail marys.runinthefront wrote:I just took a random sample of 15 cornell alum at Latham (searching cornell law). 5/15 graduated with no honors. It's definitely a reach but I wouldn't drop them if you know you're a good interview OP
I didn't check for LR tho
Will firms not give you a serious look if you're considerably above their top callback GPA? I've actually been wondering about that.runinthefront wrote:OP's GPA about the same distance from latham than strook lol. But your point's valid. I think that with the changes on the last page, OP could probably afford a hail mary if OP's a good interviewerKing Cayuga wrote:No honors just means below a 3.6. I just think it's a better strategy to get as many screeners with realistic firms as possible than to use bids on hail marys.runinthefront wrote:I just took a random sample of 15 cornell alum at Latham (searching cornell law). 5/15 graduated with no honors. It's definitely a reach but I wouldn't drop them if you know you're a good interview OP
I didn't check for LR tho
From my anecdotal experience re: big law recruiting, it's highly doubtful firms will spend $1,000 (plus the time the interviewers could be billing instead) on candidates who they think will end up at cravath anyway.King Cayuga wrote:Will firms not give you a serious look if you're considerably above their top callback GPA? I've actually been wondering about that.runinthefront wrote:OP's GPA about the same distance from latham than strook lol. But your point's valid. I think that with the changes on the last page, OP could probably afford a hail mary if OP's a good interviewerKing Cayuga wrote:No honors just means below a 3.6. I just think it's a better strategy to get as many screeners with realistic firms as possible than to use bids on hail marys.runinthefront wrote:I just took a random sample of 15 cornell alum at Latham (searching cornell law). 5/15 graduated with no honors. It's definitely a reach but I wouldn't drop them if you know you're a good interview OP
I didn't check for LR tho
Yes, there is a biglaw version of yield-protect going on if you're obviously going to have offers from better firms. But you can get around it if you're convincing enough. Having some special connection with the firm, or having a reason to want to do work unique to that firm helps. For example, I have a friend with a 3.75 + LR get an offer with a firm that had a 3.33 high the year before because he somehow convinced them that he was more interested in firm culture than prestige.runinthefront wrote:From my anecdotal experience re: big law recruiting, it's highly doubtful firms will spend $1,000 (plus the time the interviewers could be billing instead) on candidates who they think will end up at cravath anyway.King Cayuga wrote:Will firms not give you a serious look if you're considerably above their top callback GPA? I've actually been wondering about that.
I can say that firsthand because I've heard that and seen that firsthand
A firm with a 3.45 high isn't likely to callback a 3.95 non-weirdo w/ LR
Don't ask about partner compensation at a screener; don't pick your boogers and eat it while the interviewer's asking Q's; don't be that person with the rainbow tie and socks; try not to make passes at your screener...I mean these are just all things I've heard happenAnonymous User wrote:Can someone explain what it means to be a weirdo for the purposes of AJF?
No.runinthefront wrote:But our class is the best class (sorry lavitz)
I bet you could move down both DE firms a few slots and get away with itAnonymous User wrote:Just throwing together initial thoughts on a bid list, thought I'd ask for the board's thoughts on it. I'm at a 3.6, nothing outstanding on my resume that would give me helium but not a total void so as to drag me down. Did the writing competition, and completed it with a reasonably good feeling, but I wouldn't hold my breath for law review. Probably more interested in Philadelphia and DE firms than in NYC for ties reasons, but I still bid NY first to try to maximize screeners. Mostly interested in litigation, but not opposed to corporate work if that's my best offer.
DAY 1
Jones Day
WilmerHale
Fried Frank
Shearman
Morris Nichols
Richards Layton
Morrison
Kasowitz
Davis Polk
Akin Gump
Freshfields
Schulte
Chadbourne
Milbank
Proskauer
Lowenstein Sandler
Also, try to come prepared with good questions and be ready to talk about yourself. This probably goes without saying, but there must be something interesting about you as a person, and some interviewers will make small talk with you about what you like to do besides go to law school. That's a great time to connect with your interviewer and try to highlight the things about you that make you interesting.runinthefront wrote:Don't ask about partner compensation at a screener; don't pick your boogers and eat it while the interviewer's asking Q's; don't be that person with the rainbow tie and socks; try not to make passes at your screener...I mean these are just all things I've heard happenAnonymous User wrote:Can someone explain what it means to be a weirdo for the purposes of AJF?
But our class is the best class (sorry lavitz) so it basically goes without being said
Solid work, this is a very good bid list. On day 2 I would put Willkie somewhere between 4-6. They have a really solid corporate department (more M&A focused than Capital Markets, but Cadwalader and Dechert are not stronger in cap markets, hence my thinking). Linklaters does a fair amount of cap markets, but I think its in the right place and that the other firms would be better high bids because of their larger classes and also generally strong corporate practices. Really, this is just playing around at the edges. You are otherwise good to go.jasonredranger wrote:Here's an update: 3.63, shooting for NY corporate (with an interest in cap markets).
Monday
1. Latham & Watkins (London) 3.41 - 3.64 - 3.86 (19)
2. Cahill, Gordon & Reindel 3.19 - 3.44 - 3.65 (60)
3. Shearman & Sterling 3.02 - 3.48 - 3.77 (60)
4. Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson 3.35 - 3.58 - 3.78 (40)
5. Jones Day 3.24 - 3.55 - 3.88 (40)
6. Akin Gump 3.57 - 3.64 - 3.73 (40)
7. Schulte Roth & Zabel 3.29 - 3.46 - 3.75 (40)
8. Davis Polk & Wardell 3.24 - 3.73 - 4.01 (60)
9. Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer 3.43 - 3.64 - 3.92 (20)
10. Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy 3.43 - 3.60 - 3.88 (20)
11. Morrison & Foerster 3.28 - 3.58 - 3.71 (20)
12. Seward & Kissel 3.05 - 3.49 - 3.97 (20)
13. Proskauer Rose 3.38 - 3.55 - 3.67 (20)
14. Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman 3.34 - 3.58 - 3.85 (20)
15. Stroock Stroock & Lavan 3.15 - 3.28 - 3.39 (20)
Tuesday
1. Kirkland & Ellis 3.42 - 3.67 - 3.91 (20)
2. Weil, Gotshal & Manges 3.24 - 3.57 - 3.91 (40)
3. White & Case 3.35 - 3.57 - 3.81 (40)
4. Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft 3.21 - 3.51 - 3.81 (80)
5. Dechert 3.16 - 3.54 - 3.90 (60)
6. Linklaters 3.24 - 3.49 - 3.88 (40)
7. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett 3.05 - 3.73 - 4.01 (60)
8. Paul Hastings 3.29 - 3.61 - 4.01 (80)
9. Hogan Lovells 3.38 - 3.45 - 3.65 (40)
10. Willkie Farr & Gallagher 3.37 - 3.56 - 3.91 (40)
11. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 3.25 - 3.53 - 3.81 (40)
12. King & Spalding - 20
13. Hughes Hubbard
14. K&L Gates 3.43 - 3.57 - 3.67 (20)
15. Kaye Scholer 3.24 - 3.35 - 3.48 (20)
Wednesday
1. Clifford Chance 3.24 - 3.56 - 3.92 (80)
2. Cooley 3.28 - 3.40 - 3.48 (20)
3. Perkins Coie (LA) - (20)
4. Ropes & Gray 3.60 - 3.80 - 4.03 (20)
I think a lot of the advice you have already gotten is solid (so good job, crowd!), but I just wanted to offer my $0.02.Anonymous User wrote:Hi all,
Wondering if anyone could help me with my bid list. I'm interested in multiple fields but am aiming towards transactional. Currently, I'm looking at corporate or real estate. Definitely open to other areas. GPA is 3.425. (How worried should I be? I'm seeing so many high GPAs posted here...).
As others have said, I do not like Latham that high. Move JD up to 3, followed by Cahill and Shearman. To be even more conservative, move Cahill and Shearman up to 3 and 4 and put JD below them because the former should be two of your prime targer firms. This is especially because you want corporate, and Cahill and Shearman are two of the better NY-centric corporate firms outside of the most elite firms. After these 3, I think Pillsbury and then Chadborne, because its very likely GT will be gone by then. Keep in mind that nationwide GT is very much known for real estate work, but you would have to bid them really high in order to guarantee getting them. Depending on how strong your interest in real estate is, you may consider swapping MoFo with them (as a sidenote, MoFo seems to be at the top of a lot of people's bidlists, and I'm curious why that is - did they do a reception or something this year?).Thanks for your time
1. Morrison and Foerster (20 slots; GPA: High: 3.71; Low: 3.28; Avg. 3.58)
2. Proskauer Rose LLP (20 slots)
3. Latham and Watkins (18 slots; GPA: High: 3.88; Low: 3.45; Avg. 3.63) -- Definitely a reach, but Career Offices told me to move it up from 7...
4. Jones Day (40 slots; GPA: High: 3.88; Low: 3.24; Avg. 3.55)
5. Pillsbury (20 slots)
6. Greenberg (20 slots; GPA: High: 3.59; Low: 3.12; Avg. 3.32)
7. Fried Frank (40 slots; GPA: High: 3.78; Low: 3.35; Avg. 3.58)
8. Cahill Gordon (60 slots, GPA: High: 3.65; Low: 3.19; Avg. 3.44)
9. Chadbourne (20 slots; GPA: High: 3.76; Low: 3.48; Avg. 3.55)
10. Stroock & Stroock (20 slots; GPA: High: 3.39; Low: 3.15; Avg. 3.28)
11. Shearman & Sterling LLP (60 slots; GPA: High: 3.77; Low: 3.02; Avg. 3.48)
12. Seward (20 slots; GPA: High: 3.97; Low: 3.05; Avg. 3.49)
13. Akin Gump (40 slots; GPA: High: 3.73; Low: 3.57)
14. Davis Polk (60 slots; GPA: High: 4.01; Low: 3.24; Avg. 3.73)
15. Carter Ledyard and Milburn (20 slots; GPA: High: 3.25; Low: 3.21; Avg. 3.23)
Paul Weiss is not going to happen that low. I would put Cadwalader 5th, maybe 4th. I also would put PH 2 and put one of the 2-4 20 slot flexible firms at number one, to make sure you get an interview. PH does not generally sell out at number one (though Lavitz, correct me if it did your year). Weil also will not happen that low, I would put Willkie right after Cadwalader, followed by Sidley, followed by A&B and K&L (like you have here). Otherwise, this is a solid day 2.DAY 2
1. Paul Hastings (80 slots; Moderately grades oriented (Low: 3.29)
2. Goodwin Proctor (20 slots; Flexible)
3. Holland & Knight (20 slots; Moderately grades oriented)
4. Foley and Lardner LLP (20 slots; Flexible)
5. Paul Weiss (40 slots; Very grades-oriented)
6. Sidley Austin (20 slots; Moderately grades oriented (Low: 3.43))
7. Weil (40 slots; Moderately grades-oriented (Low: 3.24))
8. Alston and Bird (20 slots)
9. K & L (20 slots)
10. O’Melveny and Myers (20 slots)
11. Cadawalder (80 slots; Flexible GPA)
12. Wilkie Farr (40 slots; Moderately grades-oriented)
13. Baker Botts (20 slots)
Ropes is a waste here. I would put CC 1 or 2, and put one of the flexible firms like Fox Rothschild in whichever slot you do not put CC in.DAY 3
1. Ropes & Gray (20 slots)
2. Cooley LLP (20 slots; Flexible)
3. Fox Rothschild (20 slots; Flexible)
4. Perkins Coie (20 slots)
5. Clifford Chance LLP (80 slots; moderately grades oriented)
6. Hunton & Williams (20 slots)
7. Haynes & Boone (20 slots)
Yes I think that is exactly right. Generally, its good to avoid thinking that you might be the exception. Being conservative is usually the right AJF answer.King Cayuga wrote:No honors just means below a 3.6. I just think it's a better strategy to get as many screeners with realistic firms as possible than to use bids on hail marys.runinthefront wrote:I just took a random sample of 15 cornell alum at Latham (searching cornell law). 5/15 graduated with no honors. It's definitely a reach but I wouldn't drop them if you know you're a good interview OP
I didn't check for LR tho
Curiously, I believe this is the one year they did not do a reception--at least during the academic year.ImNoScar wrote:(as a sidenote, MoFo seems to be at the top of a lot of people's bidlists, and I'm curious why that is - did they do a reception or something this year?).
I think Cadwalader should be safe at 5th.ImNoScar wrote: Paul Weiss is not going to happen that low. I would put Cadwalader 5th, maybe 4th.
I didn't get it in bidding but that was back when it only had 40 slots and I put them down at #9. I can't imagine a firm like PH now with 80 slots selling out even in the top 3. And PH seems to be a perennial "open slots" grab, so there's always that possibility for anyone who misses it in bidding.ImNoScar wrote:I also would put PH 2 and put one of the 2-4 20 slot flexible firms at number one, to make sure you get an interview. PH does not generally sell out at number one (though Lavitz, correct me if it did your year).
I would drop Proskauer unless you have a particular reason for bidding it so high. You can move DPW down a slot or 2. I would put it right below WH, though if you want to up your chances at getting one of Shearman or Cahill you can put it below both of those as well. I also think that Akin is kind of a random bid there, and I would tend towards putting your block of elite firms one slot higher to make sure you get all or most of them. You are in play for those firms, especially if you get LR, and its very likely that Akin is gone by that slot, so I think there's more upside in dropping it.Anonymous User wrote:Just want to say a preemptive thank you to all you guys. Any thoughts/comments/suggestions on my bid list would really be appreciated. Looking at just above a 3.7, mainly focused on NY transaction but am trying to stay open to other work.
M
Latham
Proskauer Rose
Fried Frank
Jones Day
Davis Polk
WilmerHale
Shearman
Cahill
Akin
Cravath
Sullivan and Cromwell
Cleary
Gibson Dunn
Shulte
Freshfields
Good day 2 all around. You may want to swap PW and Skadden to make sure you get them, because they are a super popular bid at Cornell and Cornell tends to not have much love for Skadden (and vice versa). Otherwise, I really agree with W&C and Willkie (also random sidenote after doing a bunch of these - Willkie has 2 "Ls," and I think literally everyone has only used one "L" - and I know thats a stupid thing to nitpick, so perhaps thats a sign that bar review is getting to me). You should be able to get Debevoise and STB that low, and I think I would follow it with Kirkland. You probably will not get them that low, but you have a better shot than any of the other firms at that level due to their relative grade selectiveness.T
Skadden
Paul Weiss
White and Case
Wilkie Farr
Debevoise
Simpson Thatcher
Paul Hastings
Hogan
Kaye Scholer
Kirkland and Ellis
Cadwalader
You may want to put Ropes second just to see if you maybe get it. CC is a solid conservative pick at number 1.W
Clifford Chance
Cooley
Dentons
Crowell and Moring
Ropes and Gray
Pepper Hamilton
Bryan Cave
Fox Rothschild
Perkins Coie
All good to know, so thank you - and I agree with your points regarding OP's bid list.Lavitz wrote:Curiously, I believe this is the one year they did not do a reception--at least during the academic year.ImNoScar wrote:(as a sidenote, MoFo seems to be at the top of a lot of people's bidlists, and I'm curious why that is - did they do a reception or something this year?).
I think Cadwalader should be safe at 5th.ImNoScar wrote: Paul Weiss is not going to happen that low. I would put Cadwalader 5th, maybe 4th.I didn't get it in bidding but that was back when it only had 40 slots and I put them down at #9. I can't imagine a firm like PH now with 80 slots selling out even in the top 3. And PH seems to be a perennial "open slots" grab, so there's always that possibility for anyone who misses it in bidding.ImNoScar wrote:I also would put PH 2 and put one of the 2-4 20 slot flexible firms at number one, to make sure you get an interview. PH does not generally sell out at number one (though Lavitz, correct me if it did your year).
Also keep in mind that things shift around an awful lot grade-wise once people have job offers. Someone without latin honors could have easily been in latin honors territory when they were doing OCI.runinthefront wrote:I just took a random sample of 15 cornell alum at Latham (searching cornell law). 5/15 graduated with no honors. It's definitely a reach but I wouldn't drop them if you know you're a good interview OP
I didn't check for LR tho
You're at median and interested in lit, so why is Kasowitz not on this list?Anonymous User wrote:Hey guys, I'm sitting on a 3.43, interested in NYC lit (but open to corp as well). Hoping to get my top 4-6 on each day and try my luck at emailing/hospitality suites the rest. Would really appreciate any feedback.
What's the consensus on Kasowitz? Another earlier post from ImNoScar indicated some rather negative stuff on them. If you are gunning for lit does that analysis change?Lavitz wrote:You're at median and interested in lit, so why is Kasowitz not on this list?Anonymous User wrote:Hey guys, I'm sitting on a 3.43, interested in NYC lit (but open to corp as well). Hoping to get my top 4-6 on each day and try my luck at emailing/hospitality suites the rest. Would really appreciate any feedback.