UChicago 2L Firm Stats, C/O 2016

(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.
User avatar
skers
Posts: 4950
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:33 am

Re: UChicago 2L Firm Stats, C/O 2016

Postby skers » Mon Jun 22, 2015 11:07 pm

People decide where to go for various reasons and honestly a large part of it just seems to be institutional relationships. For w/e reason there are a number of firms that a number of UofC kids tend to go to and it's not just b/c they give out more offers or w/e. Paul, Weiss is a good example actually of a place that for some reason doesn't seem to have a lot of people accept despite being a pretty damn good firm, and it's definitely disproportionate to the recruiting at Columbia or NYU. My year we had probably 25 or so people get a Paul, Weiss offer, and 1 accepted. There are definitely firms like Weil that don't really seem to hire heavily, but it seems like the number of offers given at a lot of firms are relatively similar and some just have a lot better conversion rates, for reasons that don't fully track vault #'s.

RightorRight
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 5:56 pm

Re: UChicago 2L Firm Stats, C/O 2016

Postby RightorRight » Tue Jun 23, 2015 5:18 am

beepboopbeep wrote:
WheninLaw wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Just FYI (useful here and in other threads) - everyone lies about where they got offers, even to their closest friends. Two people swore to me they had offers I later learned they didn't have.
This is not to say that folks never pick firms against Vault - because of course they do. But generally, folks DO pick firms that you'd expect them to pick - i.e your corporate friends following vault and litigation friends following a different but equally well known, if unwritten, pecking order. If someone is talking about how they passed up Cravath for Millbank because of fit and Milbank's amazing projects practice, generally, that person is lying.

Seriously I have friends who have kept up this lie for 4 years. No one cares anymore - as if they ever cared in the first place - and STILL they talk about offers they never received.


I think these things are more like taking Paul Weiss over S&C for litigation, or taking Simpson over Cravath for Private Equity. I did one of these, but it wasn't 100% for culture. Most of the time, when people are taking a "lower ranked" vault firm instead, it's because of a specific practice area interest where the lower ranked firm is stronger. I agree that taking another firm for culture is unlikely, though. No one takes Milbank over Cravath for culture. Most culture-driven decisions are made within the same chambers band and aren't that extreme. The only other reason I can think of someone doing this is for location - for example: if you want Chicago it's not crazy to take K&E over DPW (in fact, it's probably smart, depending on practice area interest).


I definitely agree, although culture/prestige can play a 100% part. For instance, I strongly considered Munger, not only because they are an "elite boutique," but because they have a pretty lax culture that includes low hourly requirements. I think the same goes for W&C, etc. (admittedly amazing at regulatory work).


Same understanding of MTO, but have heard the opposite w/r/t W&C--though tbh if you're getting W&C, I'd suspect work is more of a way of life than a negative.

But I also think this fits anon's description of an unwritten pecking order for lit, and probably regulatory, too. Those are top-tier places for non-corporate; I don't think it's necessarily unexpected that someone lit-inclined or reg-inclined would pick an MTO over a Quinn or a W&C over a Covington or something, despite Vault.

edit: sorry, missed the /prestige. Think we're on the same page.


What is this "unwritten pecking order" for lit firms?

WheninLaw
Posts: 546
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:35 pm

Re: UChicago 2L Firm Stats, C/O 2016

Postby WheninLaw » Tue Jun 23, 2015 11:31 am

RightorRight wrote:
beepboopbeep wrote:
WheninLaw wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Just FYI (useful here and in other threads) - everyone lies about where they got offers, even to their closest friends. Two people swore to me they had offers I later learned they didn't have.
This is not to say that folks never pick firms against Vault - because of course they do. But generally, folks DO pick firms that you'd expect them to pick - i.e your corporate friends following vault and litigation friends following a different but equally well known, if unwritten, pecking order. If someone is talking about how they passed up Cravath for Millbank because of fit and Milbank's amazing projects practice, generally, that person is lying.

Seriously I have friends who have kept up this lie for 4 years. No one cares anymore - as if they ever cared in the first place - and STILL they talk about offers they never received.


I think these things are more like taking Paul Weiss over S&C for litigation, or taking Simpson over Cravath for Private Equity. I did one of these, but it wasn't 100% for culture. Most of the time, when people are taking a "lower ranked" vault firm instead, it's because of a specific practice area interest where the lower ranked firm is stronger. I agree that taking another firm for culture is unlikely, though. No one takes Milbank over Cravath for culture. Most culture-driven decisions are made within the same chambers band and aren't that extreme. The only other reason I can think of someone doing this is for location - for example: if you want Chicago it's not crazy to take K&E over DPW (in fact, it's probably smart, depending on practice area interest).


I definitely agree, although culture/prestige can play a 100% part. For instance, I strongly considered Munger, not only because they are an "elite boutique," but because they have a pretty lax culture that includes low hourly requirements. I think the same goes for W&C, etc. (admittedly amazing at regulatory work).


Same understanding of MTO, but have heard the opposite w/r/t W&C--though tbh if you're getting W&C, I'd suspect work is more of a way of life than a negative.

But I also think this fits anon's description of an unwritten pecking order for lit, and probably regulatory, too. Those are top-tier places for non-corporate; I don't think it's necessarily unexpected that someone lit-inclined or reg-inclined would pick an MTO over a Quinn or a W&C over a Covington or something, despite Vault.

edit: sorry, missed the /prestige. Think we're on the same page.


What is this "unwritten pecking order" for lit firms?


Primarily, that small "boutiques" are more prestigious/desirable than large firms. Think Keker, Susman, Munger, HH, BB, Irell (now for IP), Kellog, etc. Law students will almost to a fault choose one of them over a place like Gibson Dunn, which is a fantastic firm.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.