Columbia EIP 2015

(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: 273137
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Jun 19, 2015 11:48 am

Anonymous User wrote:It's annoying that we don't have greater information on the range of grades, but just honors or not. Debevoise for instance seems reasonable to bid on since they are 50% honors, but I imagine that those that don't have honors should be around median to have a shot?


I second this question.

Also i've had some people tell me that all non-honors people are treated the same but I'm just skeptical that a 3.1 would have the same shot as someone who has a 3.3, and as someone on the lower end of that spectrum, I don't wanna bid out of my league.

Another question, why do people care if they're above or below median? isn't that an arbitrary distinction given the fact that we don't have GPAs, there won't be GPAs on our transcripts, and the firms won't be told what "median" is. There no way for a firm to distinguish between someone who is slightly below or above median, all they will know if that the person doesn't have honors. Unless i'm mistaken and the firms are given this information?

User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 9635
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby jbagelboy » Fri Jun 19, 2015 1:55 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:It's annoying that we don't have greater information on the range of grades, but just honors or not. Debevoise for instance seems reasonable to bid on since they are 50% honors, but I imagine that those that don't have honors should be around median to have a shot?


I second this question.

Also i've had some people tell me that all non-honors people are treated the same but I'm just skeptical that a 3.1 would have the same shot as someone who has a 3.3, and as someone on the lower end of that spectrum, I don't wanna bid out of my league.

Another question, why do people care if they're above or below median? isn't that an arbitrary distinction given the fact that we don't have GPAs, there won't be GPAs on our transcripts, and the firms won't be told what "median" is. There no way for a firm to distinguish between someone who is slightly below or above median, all they will know if that the person doesn't have honors. Unless i'm mistaken and the firms are given this information?


It's pretty easy to tell whether your "grades" net out to a B+ just by counting up to seven. Interviewers will just eyeball it and see whether you have a mix of A-/B+/B (median/"above median") or more like all B/B+ ("below median"). I'd wager there are some firms that will plunge below honors but when they do so they stick around "median." E.g., A-/A-/A-/B+/B+/B/B is technically not stone (its like 3.3 something), but if they really like you for some other reason, a firm that normally sticks to honors like Simpson or Paul Weiss might just say whatever, it looks just like the "stone" guy who had one extra B+ instead of B, close enough. They aren't actually calculating your GPA since we don't have GPAs but they are looking at your transcript and an "honors" and "non-honors" transcript can appear like basically the same thing.

Then of course there are firms that aren't grade selective at all and as long as you're above 3.0 you just need to impress people in interviews.

User avatar
MCFC
Posts: 8499
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 6:46 pm

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby MCFC » Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 pm

Not an essential point obviously, but since it's Friday...

The idea that Columbia doesn't have GPAs always sounds a little weird to me, given that the two academic awards are literally awarded on the basis of GPA (Kent backdoor aside). And if an employer wants to calculate it too, they won't have any trouble. (I know one recruiting person told our pre EIP panel last year that one interviewer literally pulled out the calculator in front of applicants.)

I agree on the larger points of course.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273137
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Jun 19, 2015 5:19 pm

So Paul Hastings, Sidley, Kirkland, Shearman, Proskauer, and Boies all have FFB at either 1 or 2. Does that mean it's impossible to get screeners at more that 2 of these firms? Is it likely that Kirkland, Sidley, PH, and Shearman and mutually exclusive 2-bids? (With proskauer at 1 for example)

-captain fire

Anonymous User
Posts: 273137
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Jun 19, 2015 5:28 pm

Anonymous User wrote:So Paul Hastings, Sidley, Kirkland, Shearman, Proskauer, and Boies all have FFB at either 1 or 2. Does that mean it's impossible to get screeners at more that 2 of these firms? Is it likely that Kirkland, Sidley, PH, and Shearman and mutually exclusive 2-bids? (With proskauer at 1 for example)

-captain fire


yes.

you can try to pick these screeners up while at EIP or through mass mail, but you won't be able to bid and receive all four. Select the two you most want to get into the room with and mail the others. I don't suggest bidding them lower than 2 in the hopes of getting them, since that will take up a bid from another firm. I wound up bidding Boies first and got it, but then missed my 2nd - 5th bids (including Kirkland and Sidley).

Some firms are known for being very flexible with students who do not receive an interview through the bidding process. For example, Skadden NY is a very popular bid so a lot of people miss it, but they will definitely still interview you at EIP (either before your first interview or between other interviews -- note that adding interviews like this can make your days very packed so be careful). Sidley Austin, on the other hand, would not give me and another person I know an interview when we bid them high but missed. Of course, this is anecdotal, and by the time EIP rolled around I didn't try to snag an interview with Sidley because it wasn't worth it.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273137
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Jun 19, 2015 6:41 pm

What should a bid list for someone at median look like? Like 5 "reach" firms w/honors over 70%, 15 "target" w/honors around 50%, 10 "safety" w/honors <40%?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273137
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Jun 19, 2015 8:15 pm

3.1x gpa looking for advice on how to fill out to 30 most effectively:

1. Paul Hastings (2)
2. Sidley Austin (2)
3. Mayer Brown (5)
4. Hogan Lovells (6)
5. Kaye Scholer (8)
6. Clifford Chance (9)
7. Allen & Overy (10)
8. Milbank (11)
9. Ropes & Gray (14)
10. Willkie, Farr & Gallagher (14)
11. Schulte, Roth & Zabel (15)
12. Cadwalader (17)
13. Cahill & Gordon (16)
14. Akin, Gump, Strauss & Feld (17)
15. Greenberg Traurig (18)
16. Fried Frank (19)
17. Kramer Levin (20)
18. Goodwin Procter (21)
19. K&L Gates (21)
20. O'Melveny & [deleted] LLP (22)
21. Pillsbury Shaw (23)
22. Hughes, Hubbard & Reed (24)
23. Crowell & Moring (26)
24. Dechert (26)
25. Seward
26. TBA
27. TBA
28. TBA
29. TBA
30. TBA

Anonymous User
Posts: 273137
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jun 20, 2015 2:38 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I'm sure this has been discussed at length in prior threads, but what's our consensus as to where median actually falls? I've always assumed somewhere in the 3.25-3.3 range, or maybe a bit higher, though I'm pulling that number from basically nowhere


It's 3.3-3.33, give or take. Some potential fluctuation but around straight B+s. Stone's not that much higher at 3.41, which could be anywhere from top third to top 40%.

To the other guy asking about Debevoise, given how high their offers by honors has been before this year, I'd assume you'd need to be around median at least to have a chance. I don't think their 50% offers by honors indicates a willingness to accept any Columbia student.

I thought Stone was around top 30%-33% for 1Ls?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273137
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jun 20, 2015 2:54 am

Hey guys, 3.55 GPA. I am biding mostly NYC with a few spots at the end for offices in Boston. Two questions: Is my list too aggressive, and should I use my 26-30 bids on firms that had no failed bids last year?

Kirkland & Ellis 1 (1)
Skadden 2 (4)
Gibson Dunn 3 (4)
Debevoise 4 (6)
Weil Gotshal 5 (8)
Jones Day 6 (9)
Clifford Chance 7 (9)
Paul Weiss 8 (14)
Milbank Tweed 9 (11)
S&C 10 (14)
Davis Polk 11 (19)
Ropes & Gray 12 (14)
Schulte 13 (15)
Willkie Farr 14 (14)
Cleary 15 (17)
Latham 16 (20)
Freshfields 17 (19)
Fried Frank 18 (19)
K&L Gates 19 (21)
Cooley LLP 20 (22)
Cravath 21 (26)
Dechert LLP 22 (26)
Boies(Corporate) 23 (24)
Wachtell 24 (28)
Simpson Thacher 25 (30)
Choate(Boston) 26(*)
Latham & Watkins(Boston) 27 (*)
Dechert LLP(Boston) 28 (*)
Foley Hoag LLP(Boston) 29 (*)
Goodwin Procter LLP(Boston) 30 (*)

Some dude

TheoO
Posts: 536
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 1:28 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby TheoO » Sat Jun 20, 2015 4:49 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I'm sure this has been discussed at length in prior threads, but what's our consensus as to where median actually falls? I've always assumed somewhere in the 3.25-3.3 range, or maybe a bit higher, though I'm pulling that number from basically nowhere


It's 3.3-3.33, give or take. Some potential fluctuation but around straight B+s. Stone's not that much higher at 3.41, which could be anywhere from top third to top 40%.

To the other guy asking about Debevoise, given how high their offers by honors has been before this year, I'd assume you'd need to be around median at least to have a chance. I don't think their 50% offers by honors indicates a willingness to accept any Columbia student.

I thought Stone was around top 30%-33% for 1Ls?


It's supposed to be top 1/3, but with grade inflation it can come out to higher.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273137
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jun 20, 2015 12:11 pm

TheoO wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I'm sure this has been discussed at length in prior threads, but what's our consensus as to where median actually falls? I've always assumed somewhere in the 3.25-3.3 range, or maybe a bit higher, though I'm pulling that number from basically nowhere


It's 3.3-3.33, give or take. Some potential fluctuation but around straight B+s. Stone's not that much higher at 3.41, which could be anywhere from top third to top 40%.

To the other guy asking about Debevoise, given how high their offers by honors has been before this year, I'd assume you'd need to be around median at least to have a chance. I don't think their 50% offers by honors indicates a willingness to accept any Columbia student.

I thought Stone was around top 30%-33% for 1Ls?


It's supposed to be top 1/3, but with grade inflation it can come out to higher.

What do you mean "with grade inflation"? Everything is on a mandatory curve.

User avatar
smaug
Posts: 12580
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 8:31 pm

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby smaug » Sat Jun 20, 2015 12:14 pm

Anonymous User wrote:What do you mean "with grade inflation"? Everything is on a mandatory curve.

they changed the curve a bit back

Anonymous User
Posts: 273137
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jun 20, 2015 12:28 pm

Jason Taverner wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:What do you mean "with grade inflation"? Everything is on a mandatory curve.

they changed the curve a bit back

Right, but the current curve is still mandatory, with only a small amount of discretion to depart from the curve. Even if the current curve is easier than the previous curve, Stone shouldn't vary so widely as to be anywhere from 33% to 40%.

User avatar
smaug
Posts: 12580
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 8:31 pm

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby smaug » Sat Jun 20, 2015 12:35 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Jason Taverner wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:What do you mean "with grade inflation"? Everything is on a mandatory curve.

they changed the curve a bit back

Right, but the current curve is still mandatory, with only a small amount of discretion to depart from the curve. Even if the current curve is easier than the previous curve, Stone shouldn't vary so widely as to be anywhere from 33% to 40%.

poster above worded it poorly

part of what was previously mandatory (the B-) became discretionary

so yes, there's added variance that didn't exist before

moreover, making the B- discretionary probably inflated GPAs. before the CW was that it likely inflated lower GPAs more than higher ones, but it's hard to say.

but nobody really knows what the exact impact was

so, people now estimate that Stone is probably between 33% to 40%, but nobody really knows

moreover, there's added variance in that many 1Ls take a class with 2Ls—you're not going to have exact consistency in terms of how the 1Ls in those classes perform

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15464
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Tiago Splitter » Sat Jun 20, 2015 1:06 pm

No one has ever known exactly where Stone fell which is why the range is so large. It used to be that it was around top third and with the slightly easier curve it should be a little more now, but the top third thing might have been a little off in either direction. Combine that with the fact that professors don't all grade exactly the same way and the fact that the distribution of grades throughout the class isn't perfectly normal and 33-40% is probably fair.

@some dude: bidlist looks good but make sure you get all those interviews. Might be a good idea to knock out your least favorite firm in the top 10 to make it all a bit safer. Willkie especially looks risky given that it has been giving lots of offers and becoming more popular in recent years.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273137
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jun 20, 2015 2:01 pm

How risky is it to fill up my bidlist with LA offices if I have a 3.58? Heavy ties to SoCal, working in LA this summer, and very NY averse. If i have to, I guess I'll throw in a handful of large class NY firms to be safe but I really don't want to if I can avoid it.

-supahot

ETA: big increase in GPA 2nd semester if that matters at all

Anonymous User
Posts: 273137
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jun 20, 2015 10:48 pm

Hey guys, I'm a 3.33 (all B+s). I would prefer DC, but given how difficult of a market it is I am going more heavy on NY. I have deep ties to DC, so I am hoping that helps me. I have 2 years WE in DC (decent but not super impressive), and am fairly good at interviewing. Is this list too aggressive?

First Number is my bid. Second number is first failed from last year. New York unless otherwise noted.

1 Proskauer Rose (1)
2 Shearman & Sterling (2)
3 Skadden (4)
4 Hogan Lovells (DC) (6)
5 Debovoise (6)
6 Allen & Overy (10)
7 MoFo (12)
8 Willkie Farr (14)
9 Jenner Block (12)
10 Ropes & Gray (14)
11 Cahill (16)
12 Akin Gump (17)
13 DLA Piper (16)
14 Cleary (17)
15 Davis Polk (19)
16 Fried Frank (19)
17 Latham (20)
18 Kramer Levin (20)
19 Goodwin Proctor (21)
20 Chadbourne (22)
21 Hughes Hubbard (24)
22 Skadden(DC) (24)
23 Akin Gump(DC) (25)
24 Fried Frank (DC) (28)
25 Mayer Brown(DC) (28)
26 Steptoe Johnson (DC) (29)
27 Simpson Thatcher (30)
28 Perkins Coie (DC) (30)
29 White & Case (DC) (*)
30 Hughes Hubbard (DC) (*)

-Untappd Groupie

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15464
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Tiago Splitter » Sat Jun 20, 2015 10:55 pm

Anonymous User wrote:How risky is it to fill up my bidlist with LA offices if I have a 3.58? Heavy ties to SoCal, working in LA this summer, and very NY averse. If i have to, I guess I'll throw in a handful of large class NY firms to be safe but I really don't want to if I can avoid it.

-supahot

ETA: big increase in GPA 2nd semester if that matters at all

I'd call it moderately risky. You're likely to get something in LA if you're flexible about firm and practice area, but don't totally rule out NYC until you've got an LA offer. The nice thing is you should be able to get quite a few LA interviews with bids in the 20-30 range or no bid at all, leaving a solid number of bids for safer NYC offices.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273137
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Jun 21, 2015 2:19 am

Hey all 3.43 here (lowest stone?). Good interviewer, no softs. Interested in litigation, securities, and antitrust. All NYC.
Is my list too 'tight'? I am getting the sense that I have left too little breathing room between the FFB and my own. FFB on the right. Should I get rid of a firm or two in my top range to be safer? If so, which?

1. Kirkland & Ellis (2)
2. Sidley Austin (2)
3. Skadden, Arps, Meagher & Flom (4)
4. Gibson Dunn & Crutcher (4)
5. Debevoise & Plimpton (6)
6. Hogan Lovells (6)
7. Weil Gotshal & Manges (8)
8. Jones Day (9)
9. Milbank Tweed Hadley & Mcloy (11)
10. Morrison & Foerster (12)
11. Jenner & Block (12)
12. Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison (14)
13. Willkie Farr & Gallagher (14)
14. Ropes & Gray (14)
15. Cahill Gordon & Reindel (16)
16. Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton (17)
17. Davis Polk & Wardwell (19)
18. Freshfields Bruckhaus Derringer (19)
19. Latham & Watkins (20)
20. Covington & Burling (20)
21. O’Melveny & Meyers (22)
22. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe (22)
23. Norton Rose Fulbright (23)
24. Cravath Swaine & Moore (26)
25. Dechert (26)
26. Vinson & Elkins (26)
27. Perkins Coie (27)
28. Simpson Thatcher & Bartlett (30)
29. Winston & Strawn (*)
30. Hunton & Williams (*)

-Captain Fire

Anonymous User
Posts: 273137
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Jun 21, 2015 4:06 am

Below Median OP who posted bidlist above. What's the best strategy for firms that don't have a first fail on the list, like Shepard?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273137
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Jun 21, 2015 10:29 am

@ Below median poster above: If you mean firms with an asterisk (*) next to them, that means everyone who bid them got them, so I think the credited strategy would be to either put them very very low on your bid list or not put them on your bid list at all and just try to pick them up during Add/Drop.

(Disclosure: I am a rising 2L in the same boat as you.)

- Original Toaster

User avatar
BizBro
Posts: 705
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 11:21 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby BizBro » Sun Jun 21, 2015 12:06 pm

Anonymous User wrote:GPA: ~3.15 (B, A-, B+, B, B, B, B)

I'm in utter disbelief that I could bomb so badly in the Spring after a (relatively) successful Fall that put me on the cusp of Stone, especially since I studied as much if not more than I did in the Fall and felt significantly more confident during exams, but this is the hand I've been dealt. I'm K-JD so I have no significant work experience prior to law school (though I have some softs that always turn a few heads). Feels like I'm staring down a double-barreled shotgun at point blank with GradPlus in one chamber and Stafford in the other. Probably a slight overreaction, but I just got bombarded with 3/4 of these grades yesterday so I'm still reeling; the thought of looking at lawnet still makes me sick. I met with OCS and got the standard advice that I should generally avoid the more grade-conscious firms (no shit), so I thought I'd run my first draft of my bid list by y'all to get some advice on firms to add, drop, rearrange, etc (FFB in parens, all are NYC offices because I'm from the area and would prefer to stay here):

1. Proskauer Rose (1)
2. Paul Hastings (2)
3. Sidley Austin (2)
4. Mayer Brown (5)
5. Debevoise (6)
6. Hogan Lovells (6)
7. Kaye Scholer (8)
8. Clifford Chance (9)
9. Milbank (11)
10. Ropes & Gray (14)
11. Willkie, Farr & Gallagher (14)
12. Schulte, Roth & Zabel (15)
13. Cadwalader (17)
14. Cahill & Gordon (16)
15. Cleary Gottlieb (17)
16. Akin, Gump, Strauss & Feld (17)
17. Greenberg Traurig (18)
18. Fried Frank (19)
19. Kramer Levin (20)
20. Goodwin Procter (21)
21. K&L Gates (21)
22. Pillsbury Shaw (23)
23. Hughes, Hubbard & Reed (24)
24. Crowell & Moring (26)
25. Dechert (26)
26. ?
27. ?
28. ?
29. ?
30. ?

Also: should one's URM status influence their bidding strategy? Does it have a measurable effect on interview/callback/offer chances? Don't mean to fan the flames of debate on this subject, but I genuinely don't know and the answer might influence my bidding strategy.


Bump - what do people think of this?

User avatar
smaug
Posts: 12580
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 8:31 pm

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby smaug » Sun Jun 21, 2015 12:14 pm

between sidley, proskauer, and PH, you need to choose two

ETA:

I guess Deb took fewer honors people last year? check their numbers historically—I wouldn't feel safe bidding them below median, and generally thought they preferred honors

Anonymous User
Posts: 273137
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Jun 21, 2015 2:28 pm

Yea, Debevoise took 50% honors, which seems amazingly low for the firm. I have to imagine the vast majority of the rest were those who were borderline Honors. The problem is that the Deb needs to be bid fairly high to actually get... it's risky...

W/R/T the Sidley/Proskauer/PH/KE: do you guys know from any anecdotes or experience which firms might be more receptive to emails asking for interview in lieu of getting them through the bidding process? I heard bad things about Sidley so far, but am wondering for others.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273137
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Jun 21, 2015 3:15 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Hey all 3.43 here (lowest stone?). Good interviewer, no softs. Interested in litigation, securities, and antitrust. All NYC.
Is my list too 'tight'? I am getting the sense that I have left too little breathing room between the FFB and my own. FFB on the right. Should I get rid of a firm or two in my top range to be safer? If so, which?

1. Kirkland & Ellis (2)
2. Sidley Austin (2)
3. Skadden, Arps, Meagher & Flom (4)
4. Gibson Dunn & Crutcher (4)
5. Debevoise & Plimpton (6)
6. Hogan Lovells (6)
7. Weil Gotshal & Manges (8)
8. Jones Day (9)
9. Milbank Tweed Hadley & Mcloy (11)
10. Morrison & Foerster (12)
11. Jenner & Block (12)
12. Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison (14)
13. Willkie Farr & Gallagher (14)
14. Ropes & Gray (14)
15. Cahill Gordon & Reindel (16)
16. Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton (17)
17. Davis Polk & Wardwell (19)
18. Freshfields Bruckhaus Derringer (19)
19. Latham & Watkins (20)
20. Covington & Burling (20)
21. O’Melveny & Meyers (22)
22. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe (22)
23. Norton Rose Fulbright (23)
24. Cravath Swaine & Moore (26)
25. Dechert (26)
26. Vinson & Elkins (26)
27. Perkins Coie (27)
28. Simpson Thatcher & Bartlett (30)
29. Winston & Strawn (*)
30. Hunton & Williams (*)

-Captain Fire


I think this looks like a pretty solid bid list. Some firms will be risks but that's how it is, and you give yourself a good shot at getting more bids - which is what you need. You can't bid each firm 10 places above the FFB because it's just not possible. This is a realistically good list.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.