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: 273553
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 15, 2015 3:13 pm

Not sure if this is helpful, but if I heard correctly Kirkland has everyone (or very close to it) in their summer class doing corporate this year. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought I spoke to a Kirkland person recently who told me that (and it really surprised me). Might impact your focus if you want litigation.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273553
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 15, 2015 4:24 pm

Early goings still. I feel I am trying a bit to predict which firms will have higher or lower FFBs and I can't decide how at all to do that.

Anyway: 3.62
Bidding NYC and CA (bid is for NY unless otherwise noted). I know I might not be able to interview for multiple locations for some of these. I haven't tried to resolve that. More curious if anything on here is a reach with a 3.6.

1. Proskauer
2. Paul Hastings
3. Boies
4. Debevoise
5. White & Case
6. Arnold & Porter
7. Jenner & Block
8. Paul Hastings (LA)
9. Paul Weiss
10. Ropes & Gray
11. Cleary
12. Akin Gump
13. Skadden (LA)
14. Covington
15. Williams & Connolly (DC) (ANY SHOT AT AN OFFER HERE?)
16. Sheppard Mullin (LA)
17. Wilson Sonsini (Palo Alto)
18. Akin Gump (DC)
19. Cravath
20. Sidley Austin (LA)
21. Kirkland & Ellis (SanFran)
22. Proskauer Rose (LA)
23. Kirkland & Ellis (LA)
24. O'Melveny & [deleted] (LA)
25. Simpson Thacher
26. Weil (Redwood)
27. K&L Gates (LA)
28. Munger (LA)
29. Irell (LA)
30. Gibson Dunn (LA)
31. MoFo (SanFran)
32. Akin Gump (LA)
33. Ropes & Gray (Palo Alto)

Anonymous User
Posts: 273553
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 15, 2015 4:30 pm

Alright, here's my bid list as it currently stands. 3.66 GPA, regulatory litigation focused, would prefer DC over NY but I understand the need to bid NY high to secure a job during EIP. Bold are high preferences.

1. Kirkland and Ellis (NY) (2)
2. Gibson Dunn (NY) (4)
3. Skadden (NY) (4)
4. Mayer Brown (NY) (5)
5. Debevoise (NY) (6)
6. Hogan Lovells (DC) (6)
7. WilmerHale (NY) (8)
8. Sidley Austin (DC) (9)
9. Clifford Chance (NY + DC) (9)
10. Jenner and Block (NY) (12)
11. Paul Weiss (NY) (14)
12. Cahill (NY) (16)
13. Davis Polk (NY) (19)
14. Akin Gump (NY) (17)
15. Arnold and Porter (DC) (21)
16. Williams and Connolly (DC) (21)
17. Covington and Burling (NY) (20)
18. Covington and Burling (DC) (25)
19. Akin Gump (DC) (25)
20. Crowell and Moring (DC) (25)
21. Cravath (NY) (26)
22. Jones Day (DC) (28)
23. Wachtell (NY) (28)
24. Paul Weiss (DC) (*)
25. Kirkland and Ellis (DC) (30)
26. Winston and Strawn (DC) (*)
27. WilmerHale (DC) (*)
28. Bracewell and Giuliani (NY) (30)
29. Hunton and Williams (NY + DC) (*)
30. O'Melveny and [deleted] (DC) (*)

In addition to this list I will be mass mailing Quinn Emmanuel- NY and DC, Cahill- DC, Jenner and Block- DC, Boeis Schiller- NY and DC, Gibson-DC, and Skadden-DC.

Any and all comments, thoughts, critiques, and suggestions are welcome.

-Crutcher

Anonymous User
Posts: 273553
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 15, 2015 4:37 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Early goings still. I feel I am trying a bit to predict which firms will have higher or lower FFBs and I can't decide how at all to do that.

Anyway: 3.62
Bidding NYC and CA (bid is for NY unless otherwise noted). I know I might not be able to interview for multiple locations for some of these. I haven't tried to resolve that. More curious if anything on here is a reach with a 3.6.

1. Proskauer
2. Paul Hastings
3. Boies
4. Debevoise
5. White & Case
6. Arnold & Porter
7. Jenner & Block
8. Paul Hastings (LA)
9. Paul Weiss
10. Ropes & Gray
11. Cleary
12. Akin Gump
13. Skadden (LA)
14. Covington
15. Williams & Connolly (DC) (ANY SHOT AT AN OFFER HERE?)
16. Sheppard Mullin (LA)
17. Wilson Sonsini (Palo Alto)
18. Akin Gump (DC)
19. Cravath
20. Sidley Austin (LA)
21. Kirkland & Ellis (SanFran)
22. Proskauer Rose (LA)
23. Kirkland & Ellis (LA)
24. O'Melveny & [deleted] (LA)
25. Simpson Thacher
26. Weil (Redwood)
27. K&L Gates (LA)
28. Munger (LA)
29. Irell (LA)
30. Gibson Dunn (LA)
31. MoFo (SanFran)
32. Akin Gump (LA)
33. Ropes & Gray (Palo Alto)


Since Boies's FFB is 1 and you have it at 3 and need to cut 3 firms down anyway, I'd take that out. Don't know anything about CA firms, but I would probably cut the remaining 2 extra from LA and keep as many NY since there are more offers made by NY firms. Then again, I'm a bit risk-averse when it comes to making sure I can secure a job, so if you're feeling a bit bolder or know something more about CA firms that I'm overlooking, ignore me.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273553
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 15, 2015 5:21 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Early goings still. I feel I am trying a bit to predict which firms will have higher or lower FFBs and I can't decide how at all to do that.

Anyway: 3.62
Bidding NYC and CA (bid is for NY unless otherwise noted). I know I might not be able to interview for multiple locations for some of these. I haven't tried to resolve that. More curious if anything on here is a reach with a 3.6.

1. Proskauer
2. Paul Hastings
3. Boies
4. Debevoise
5. White & Case
6. Arnold & Porter
7. Jenner & Block
8. Paul Hastings (LA)
9. Paul Weiss
10. Ropes & Gray
11. Cleary
12. Akin Gump
13. Skadden (LA)
14. Covington
15. Williams & Connolly (DC) (ANY SHOT AT AN OFFER HERE?)
16. Sheppard Mullin (LA)
17. Wilson Sonsini (Palo Alto)
18. Akin Gump (DC)
19. Cravath
20. Sidley Austin (LA)
21. Kirkland & Ellis (SanFran)
22. Proskauer Rose (LA)
23. Kirkland & Ellis (LA)
24. O'Melveny & [deleted] (LA)
25. Simpson Thacher
26. Weil (Redwood)
27. K&L Gates (LA)
28. Munger (LA)
29. Irell (LA)
30. Gibson Dunn (LA)
31. MoFo (SanFran)
32. Akin Gump (LA)
33. Ropes & Gray (Palo Alto)


I'm assuming you're lit-oriented, since you have firms like Williams & Connolly, Irell, Munger, Boies on your list.

A few comments with that in mind: (1) why Proskauer and not Boies first? Something special about Proskauer to you? unlike the poster above I think you should swap it and place Boies first.
(2) for lit, since you are bidding NY and you're an honors student, you should definitely make sure you secure interviews with Band 1 and most of Band 2 lit firms: http://www.chambersandpartners.com/1280 ... ion_376083. Use that list as a guide (I don't see all of the NY offices there). Same for California: you've got most of them (Munger, Gibson) but you're missing Latham for reasons unclear. These top firms might have more value to you than flinging bids at places like W&C. Your grades are strong enough that you don't need to hold back from bidding the CLS bread and butter, but not insane enough that you can spread yourself too thin over too many markets.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273553
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 15, 2015 5:24 pm

Anon from a bit previously, duly chastised for doing things backwards. GPA is between 3.8 and 3.9. Same bid list as previously with Susman Godfrey added at the bottom. I'd appreciate any feedback. Thanks.

Boies 1
Gibson Dunn 2
Debevoise 3
Wilmer Hale 4
Arnold and Porter 5
Paul Weiss 6
Ropes and Gray 7
Sullivan and Cromwell 8
Cahill Gordon 9
Cleary Gottlieb 10
Davis Polk 11
Covington 12
Williams and Connolly (DC) 13
Gibson Dunn (DC) 14
Hughes Hubbard 15
Covington (DC) 16
Cravath 17
Wachtell 18
Simpson Thacher 19
Perkins Coie (SF) 20
Munger Tolles (LA) 21
Gibson Dunn (SF) 22
Latham (SF) 23
Morgan Lewis (SF) 24
MoFo (SF) 25
Paul Hastings (SF) 26
Susman Godfrey 27

User avatar
smaug
Posts: 12669
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 8:31 pm

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby smaug » Mon Jun 15, 2015 5:24 pm

re: the scattershot bidlist with Proskauer at 1

someone who knows better than I should confirm/deny this (jbagelboy I think you fit the bill here)

but I think W&C DC, Munger, and Irell are a touch aggressive even with a 3.62

That's a pretty aggressive bidlist. I don't have access to your data, so I can't talk about relative placement other than that Deb. and Jenner seem high to me, off hand.

I think you'd be well served by mixing in some less selective firms/firms with larger class sizes. For example, I think you'd probably be better served by bidding Latham than including Paul Hasting twice.

I also think you should reflect on where you want to live, because your bids are all over the place and just seem to say "I want what I perceive to be good lit firms."

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15520
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Tiago Splitter » Mon Jun 15, 2015 5:25 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I'm assuming you're lit-oriented, since you have firms like Williams & Connolly, Irell, Munger, Boies on your list.

A few comments with that in mind: (1) why Proskauer and not Boies first? Something special about Proskauer to you? unlike the poster above I think you should swap it and place Boies first.
(2) for lit, since you are bidding NY and you're an honors student, you should definitely make sure you secure interviews with Band 1 and most of Band 2 lit firms: http://www.chambersandpartners.com/1280 ... ion_376083. Use that list as a guide (I don't see all of the NY offices there). Same for California: you've got most of them (Munger, Gibson) but you're missing Latham for reasons unclear. These top firms might have more value to you than flinging bids at places like W&C. Your grades are strong enough that you don't need to hold back from bidding the CLS bread and butter, but not insane enough that you can spread yourself too thin over too many markets.

I agree with this and would note that the Band 1 and 2 Lit firms in NYC are the ones that hire the most people. With a 3.6 those should be your focus.

User avatar
smaug
Posts: 12669
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 8:31 pm

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby smaug » Mon Jun 15, 2015 5:32 pm

to the Kent anon, I think it makes sense though I wonder if you should pause for a bit and think about which firms your including/which you're excluding (and I again, can't comment on the order because I don't have those numbers)

for example HHR does good work, but I don't know that it makes tons of sense for you to be interviewing with them

even if you're not thrilled about Skadden I think they're probably worth bidding on (at least one of the offices), same with K&E, though maybe you can't get them and Boies at the same time based on what others were saying

Weil isn't super selective but they're still a good firm/give out a number of offers

otherwise if you're interested in boutiques, it might be worth looking into plans like Patterson Belknap (if they still do EIP) or other smaller firms (Crowell DC?)

Jenner is also strong in lit and probably worth a bid somewhere

Anonymous User
Posts: 273553
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 15, 2015 5:36 pm

re: the scattershot bidlist with Proskauer at 1

someone who knows better than I should confirm/deny this (jbagelboy I think you fit the bill here)

but I think W&C DC, Munger, and Irell are a touch aggressive even with a 3.62

That's a pretty aggressive bidlist. I don't have access to your data, so I can't talk about relative placement other than that Deb. and Jenner seem high to me, off hand.

I think you'd be well served by mixing in some less selective firms/firms with larger class sizes. For example, I think you'd probably be better served by bidding Latham than including Paul Hasting twice.

I also think you should reflect on where you want to live, because your bids are all over the place and just seem to say "I want what I perceive to be good lit firms."


I guess Proskauer over Boies was that I am worried about the firm after David Boies retires (which would almost assuredly happen while I am working there if I were to go there. But I guess its worth considering. Maybe I just take them both off and put PH number 1.

I put W&C on there because that is basically my number 1 firm that I want over anything else. I know they want top grades, but I don't know how top. I doubt my softs would impress them at all. I couldn't live with myself if I didn't at least bid them and give it a shot.

I like Munger a lot, especially for SoCal. Again, not sure how selective they are, so I would defer to someone who knows. Unfortunately CLS only gives an honors or no honors flag, but theres a ton of room between Stone (3.41) and some of these firms.

Irell, if they're too selective I could leave them off. I was a bit worried about them with the departures last year anyway. They seem like a cool place to work and I like the people I have met from there, but I don't have a strong connection to it.

I don't mind Latham, they just didn't hire much at EIP for California last year so I am not sure its worth the bid.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273553
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 15, 2015 5:51 pm

Anon from above with 3.8-3.9 Thanks for the feedback. I'm litigation focused (possibly evident from list). I hear Skadden lit is a terrible place to start a career so I just dropped them entirely; mistake? You think Weil is worth a bid for lit?

I bid HHR because I'd heard they have very nice people/generally are a friendly place to work. Thought it would be nice to have a firm like that on the list.

User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 9651
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby jbagelboy » Mon Jun 15, 2015 6:31 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
re: the scattershot bidlist with Proskauer at 1

someone who knows better than I should confirm/deny this (jbagelboy I think you fit the bill here)

but I think W&C DC, Munger, and Irell are a touch aggressive even with a 3.62

That's a pretty aggressive bidlist. I don't have access to your data, so I can't talk about relative placement other than that Deb. and Jenner seem high to me, off hand.

I think you'd be well served by mixing in some less selective firms/firms with larger class sizes. For example, I think you'd probably be better served by bidding Latham than including Paul Hasting twice.

I also think you should reflect on where you want to live, because your bids are all over the place and just seem to say "I want what I perceive to be good lit firms."


I guess Proskauer over Boies was that I am worried about the firm after David Boies retires (which would almost assuredly happen while I am working there if I were to go there. But I guess its worth considering. Maybe I just take them both off and put PH number 1.

I put W&C on there because that is basically my number 1 firm that I want over anything else. I know they want top grades, but I don't know how top. I doubt my softs would impress them at all. I couldn't live with myself if I didn't at least bid them and give it a shot.

I like Munger a lot, especially for SoCal. Again, not sure how selective they are, so I would defer to someone who knows. Unfortunately CLS only gives an honors or no honors flag, but theres a ton of room between Stone (3.41) and some of these firms.

Irell, if they're too selective I could leave them off. I was a bit worried about them with the departures last year anyway. They seem like a cool place to work and I like the people I have met from there, but I don't have a strong connection to it.

I don't mind Latham, they just didn't hire much at EIP for California last year so I am not sure its worth the bid.


I didn't bid W&C, but I'd say they are probably the most selective firm you can bid at our EIP, or maybe equal to MTO. What both of these firms will essentially look for in summers are students who will be competitive COA clerkship applicants. The interviewer may ask explicitly whether you're planning on applying to clerk, and if so, to which circuits and judges.

I don't really know exactly what 3.62 means but I think it's theoretically above any firms' baseline; TBH you probably won't get Williams & Connolly since they give out <5 offers a year to students with killer grades, but if its a low enough placed bid on your list and it's really your #1 firm, why not go for it (as long as you have reasonably placed bids elsewhere). I think law review will be an important asset for W&C but you probably don't find that out for a while.

Munger is selective in a more comprehensive sense. Once you pass the screener/grades baseline and avoid embarrassing yourself at dinner, when you reach the callback stage you'll be judged and voted on by every attorney at the firm. It's a unique recruiting process in that sense. You're being judged on more than just your grades, and by a large number of people. Not sure if that helps you but that's the gist.

Irell will look for both grades and personality. The interviewers are more likely to play games and get a sense of how you react, not just boilerplate questions about stuff on your resume. However, I will say that the Irell callback is more of a formality than these other firms. Once you receive the CB to century city, traditionally it's been yours to lose. I would be wary of going there without a strong interest in IP litigation though until we see how the firm recovers.

Your reasons for disliking Boies Schiller -- that David Boies might retire -- are not strong ones IMO. There are reasons to fear BSF's model, but I don't think that's one of them.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273553
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 15, 2015 6:50 pm

Anyone (upperclassmen or rising 2Ls) have any insight into what it's like bidding on firms that typically give about 75%+ of their offers to Stone+? Decent internship this summer but other than that no W/E or URM.

I have a 3.42 and I'd like to practice antitrust, so I'm considering throwing some bids at Cleary, Gibson, and Davis Polk - also Simpson but based on their last failed bid I figure I can add them at the end. I'm concerned it'd be too risky, although I'm only bidding NY.

User avatar
smaug
Posts: 12669
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 8:31 pm

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby smaug » Mon Jun 15, 2015 6:52 pm

you're still stone right?

I don't think that's at all out of line, especially if you have some less grade selective firms mixed in (SRZ, Willkie, Cahill, Fried Frank, Milbank, &c.)

Anonymous User
Posts: 273553
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 15, 2015 7:03 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Anon from above with 3.8-3.9 Thanks for the feedback. I'm litigation focused (possibly evident from list). I hear Skadden lit is a terrible place to start a career so I just dropped them entirely; mistake? You think Weil is worth a bid for lit?

I bid HHR because I'd heard they have very nice people/generally are a friendly place to work. Thought it would be nice to have a firm like that on the list.

You should definitely bid Skadden. It has a fantastic litigation practice all-around (http://www.chambersandpartners.com/1280 ... ion_376083). You could take out Ropes NY or Covington NY to get Weil in there, but not a bad decision to have those places in there either.

Your experience there will not be any worse/different from other major NY litigation shops. With your credentials, you will have plenty of options, including elite DC firms. Congrats.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273553
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 15, 2015 7:05 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Anyone (upperclassmen or rising 2Ls) have any insight into what it's like bidding on firms that typically give about 75%+ of their offers to Stone+? Decent internship this summer but other than that no W/E or URM.

I have a 3.42 and I'd like to practice antitrust, so I'm considering throwing some bids at Cleary, Gibson, and Davis Polk - also Simpson but based on their last failed bid I figure I can add them at the end. I'm concerned it'd be too risky, although I'm only bidding NY.


If you're dead set on antitrust, I'd be wary of what you're going into. Gibson does a great deal of antitrust, but as far as I can tell, not much at all in New York. Cleary will have relegated their antitrust capabilities to their DC office. Simpson does some, but not a lot and you practice as a generalist litigator. Davis does do some in NY.

I'm sure you have your reasons for wanting antitrust specifically and yet still all NY, but just realize it's not a flagship practice at the NY firms you're suggesting.

User avatar
Monochromatic Oeuvre
Posts: 1929
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Monochromatic Oeuvre » Mon Jun 15, 2015 7:22 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
I guess Proskauer over Boies was that I am worried about the firm after David Boies retires (which would almost assuredly happen while I am working there if I were to go there. But I guess its worth considering. Maybe I just take them both off and put PH number 1.

I put W&C on there because that is basically my number 1 firm that I want over anything else. I know they want top grades, but I don't know how top. I doubt my softs would impress them at all. I couldn't live with myself if I didn't at least bid them and give it a shot.

I like Munger a lot, especially for SoCal. Again, not sure how selective they are, so I would defer to someone who knows. Unfortunately CLS only gives an honors or no honors flag, but theres a ton of room between Stone (3.41) and some of these firms.

Irell, if they're too selective I could leave them off. I was a bit worried about them with the departures last year anyway. They seem like a cool place to work and I like the people I have met from there, but I don't have a strong connection to it.

I don't mind Latham, they just didn't hire much at EIP for California last year so I am not sure its worth the bid.


1. Being concerned about David Boies leaving is making a mountain out of a molehill IMO. The firm has amassed quite a cache at this point. Go ask Bingham associates how the long history of institutional work turned out. Also, people used to say the exact same thing about Edward Bennett Williams. Obviously that fear was overblown.

2. WLRK, MTO, W&C and Covington (DC) are the four most selective (non-boutique) firms at EIP. They are all majority Kent. Bidding them at 3.6 gives you...I don't want to say absolutely zero chance, but you'd need to hit the equivalent of a hole in one, unless you are the blood relative of somebody important.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273553
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 15, 2015 7:36 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Anyone (upperclassmen or rising 2Ls) have any insight into what it's like bidding on firms that typically give about 75%+ of their offers to Stone+? Decent internship this summer but other than that no W/E or URM.

I have a 3.42 and I'd like to practice antitrust, so I'm considering throwing some bids at Cleary, Gibson, and Davis Polk - also Simpson but based on their last failed bid I figure I can add them at the end. I'm concerned it'd be too risky, although I'm only bidding NY.


If you're dead set on antitrust, I'd be wary of what you're going into. Gibson does a great deal of antitrust, but as far as I can tell, not much at all in New York. Cleary will have relegated their antitrust capabilities to their DC office. Simpson does some, but not a lot and you practice as a generalist litigator. Davis does do some in NY.

I'm sure you have your reasons for wanting antitrust specifically and yet still all NY, but just realize it's not a flagship practice at the NY firms you're suggesting.


Thanks for the advice. I'm not 100% set on antitrust but I'm strongly leaning toward it and I'm pretty committed to NY. I'll have to look into which firms have big/significant antitrust practices in NY.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273553
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 15, 2015 7:39 pm

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
I guess Proskauer over Boies was that I am worried about the firm after David Boies retires (which would almost assuredly happen while I am working there if I were to go there. But I guess its worth considering. Maybe I just take them both off and put PH number 1.

I put W&C on there because that is basically my number 1 firm that I want over anything else. I know they want top grades, but I don't know how top. I doubt my softs would impress them at all. I couldn't live with myself if I didn't at least bid them and give it a shot.

I like Munger a lot, especially for SoCal. Again, not sure how selective they are, so I would defer to someone who knows. Unfortunately CLS only gives an honors or no honors flag, but theres a ton of room between Stone (3.41) and some of these firms.

Irell, if they're too selective I could leave them off. I was a bit worried about them with the departures last year anyway. They seem like a cool place to work and I like the people I have met from there, but I don't have a strong connection to it.

I don't mind Latham, they just didn't hire much at EIP for California last year so I am not sure its worth the bid.


1. Being concerned about David Boies leaving is making a mountain out of a molehill IMO. The firm has amassed quite a cache at this point. Go ask Bingham associates how the long history of institutional work turned out. Also, people used to say the exact same thing about Edward Bennett Williams. Obviously that fear was overblown.

2. WLRK, MTO, W&C and Covington (DC) are the four most selective (non-boutique) firms at EIP. They are all majority Kent. Bidding them at 3.6 gives you...I don't want to say absolutely zero chance, but you'd need to hit the equivalent of a hole in one, unless you are the blood relative of somebody important.


there were definitely offers to non-kent students for covington DC last year. I wouldn't discourage anyone 3.6+ from bidding there if they want DC and can explain why

User avatar
MCFC
Posts: 8519
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 6:46 pm

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby MCFC » Mon Jun 15, 2015 7:43 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Anon from a bit previously, duly chastised for doing things backwards. GPA is between 3.8 and 3.9. Same bid list as previously with Susman Godfrey added at the bottom. I'd appreciate any feedback. Thanks.

I know it's tough to strike a balance between making absolutely sure you get certain firms and crafting an optimal bidlist, but S&C, Wachtell, and Simpson Thacher are probably ranked much higher than they need to be.

User avatar
Monochromatic Oeuvre
Posts: 1929
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Monochromatic Oeuvre » Mon Jun 15, 2015 7:53 pm

Anonymous User wrote:there were definitely offers to non-kent students for covington DC last year. I wouldn't discourage anyone 3.6+ from bidding there if they want DC and can explain why


Covington DC is more everrrrr so slightly attainable at 3.6-3.7. They're probably half Kent as compared to the other three, which are probably like 75% Kent. Still a real long shot at 3.6.

Not saying it isn't worth a bid if you really want it and the rest of the bidlist is sufficient conservative.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273553
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 15, 2015 11:16 pm

When do we find out if we're Stone or not? Is it listed on on the transcript somewhere?

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15520
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Tiago Splitter » Mon Jun 15, 2015 11:18 pm

Anonymous User wrote:When do we find out if we're Stone or not? Is it listed on on the transcript somewhere?

You can calculate it yourself or else yes eventually it will go on the transcript.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273553
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 15, 2015 11:24 pm

3.73 (A, A, A-, A-, A-, A-, B+)
WE (paralegal) at V5 firm

Looking exclusively at NYC, and prefer corporate.

This is my bidlist as I continue to work on it. Number on the right is first failed bid (most recent data):

1 Shearman & Sterling 2
2 Skadden 4
3 Gibson Dunn 4
4 Clifford Chance 9
5 Debevoise 6
6 White & Case 7
7 Weil 8
8 Linklaters 9
9 Jones Day 9
10 S&C 14
11 MoFo 12
12 Paul Weiss 14
13 Ropes & Gray 14
14 Schulte 15
15 Cahill Gordon 16
16 Cleary 17
17 Freshfields 19
18 Davis Polk 19
19 Latham 20
20 King & Spalding 20
21
22
23
24 Cravath 26
25 Dechert 26
26
27
28
29 Simpson Thatcher 30
30

Basically trying to bid one slot above FFB (is this good strategy?). Will probably adjust as I do more firm research and bid some firms even higher for added security.

For the empty slots, I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions. I really need to do more research and work on some safer picks.

-Fat Man Jungle

User avatar
smaug
Posts: 12669
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 8:31 pm

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby smaug » Mon Jun 15, 2015 11:30 pm

given your strong grades, it might be worth culling a firm or two from the top so you're safer in your bidding

i.e., i'd cut clifford chance and jones day and slide everyone else up

given that you have great grades and WE, I think you already have a number of good "safe" firms

i think you should be able to fill up your schedule with whatever firms you feel like, tbh. you're in a really good position with those grades and those ambitions.

more concretely, if you have a list of 20 or so firms you really like, i'd try to focus on getting interviews with those 20 and then would add safe filler; i shouldn't be concerned if you start having issues getting past that.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.