Bidding CA with no ties

(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: 273128
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Bidding CA with no ties

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 24, 2015 3:45 pm

I have no ties to CA, but I am committed to working there. I have been trying to move out west since graduating college, but not having ties has always seemed to be a barrier. Does anyone have any tips or success stories for effectively conveying this desire to employers at interviews? I feel I am in a strange position where I do not want to apply only to a firm's CA office if I really like the firm (because I understand that targeting that market is riskier and I don't really mind NYC), but if I do apply to NY and CA it will seem like I am uncommitted to moving west.

If it helps I am at T14 (East Coast), well above median (probably around top 15-20%), ties to NY and no where else. I like both LA and SF for different reasons, but probably a slight preference for LA.

User avatar
bruinfan10
Posts: 510
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 12:25 am

Re: Bidding CA with no ties

Postby bruinfan10 » Wed Jun 24, 2015 3:52 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I have no ties to CA, but I am committed to working there. I have been trying to move out west since graduating college, but not having ties has always seemed to be a barrier. Does anyone have any tips or success stories for effectively conveying this desire to employers at interviews? I feel I am in a strange position where I do not want to apply only to a firm's CA office if I really like the firm (because I understand that targeting that market is riskier and I don't really mind NYC), but if I do apply to NY and CA it will seem like I am uncommitted to moving west.

If it helps I am at T14 (East Coast), well above median (probably around top 15-20%), ties to NY and no where else. I like both LA and SF for different reasons, but probably a slight preference for LA.

your lack of ties and grades could be an appreciable problem for san francisco. the firms there have very small class sizes by and large, and they pull from both Boalt and Stanford over random east coast T14s. Gibson SF and Latham SF might screen you out based on grades outright if you're top 20%ish at a lower T14. I interviewed at just about all the major SF firms other than KVN and Boies, and every single one asked me a ties question despite the fact that I was born and raised in the Bay.

LA is much less grade selective on the whole, has larger class sizes, pulls less from Boalt and Stanford, and is less ties conscious. I would concentrate your bidding there and come up with a reason why you really like x firm's LA office if you seriously have zero ties to LA. Also, despite the hellish traffic, LA has some advantages over the real estate nightmare that all the techdrones have created in San Francisco. SF is pretty unliveable these days; attorneys and accountants are essentially blue collar workers there now. Good luck.
Last edited by bruinfan10 on Wed Jun 24, 2015 4:14 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273128
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Bidding CA with no ties

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 24, 2015 3:59 pm

Thanks to above. Not lower T14 and I might be a bit conservative with my class rank. School doesn't release ranks but I think 15% is actually a safe bet, might be higher.

Good to know that LA is less "ties" conscious. I do have a story for some of the firm offices there (really like particular practice groups or clients).

I am also curious, are there any firms particular in SoCal that I should avoid - either because they are strongly "ties" conscious or have very high grade requirements? I have heard Munger and Irell are sticklers for grades, I might be strong enough for Irell, but probably not at Munger. Anyone know more about Gibson Dunn LA, Paul Hastings LA, Quinn Emanuel LA, Latham LA, (again in terms of grades and "tie" requirements)? Is any firm known to be particularly ambivalent about ties to the area?

User avatar
rpupkin
Posts: 3864
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:32 pm

Re: Bidding CA with no ties

Postby rpupkin » Wed Jun 24, 2015 4:06 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Thanks to above. Not lower T14 and I might be a bit conservative with my class rank. School doesn't release ranks but I think 15% is actually a safe bet, might be higher.

For the California market, I don't think there is a meaningful difference between, say, Penn and GULC. In my opinion, Bruinfan10's assessment also applies to the "middle" T14.

User avatar
bruinfan10
Posts: 510
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 12:25 am

Re: Bidding CA with no ties

Postby bruinfan10 » Wed Jun 24, 2015 4:06 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Thanks to above. Not lower T14 and I might be a bit conservative with my class rank. School doesn't release ranks but I think 15% is actually a safe bet, might be higher.

Good to know that LA is less "ties" conscious. I do have a story for some of the firm offices there (really like particular practice groups or clients).

I am also curious, are there any firms particular in SoCal that I should avoid - either because they are strongly "ties" conscious or have very high grade requirements? I have heard Munger and Irell are sticklers for grades, I might be strong enough for Irell, but probably not at Munger. Anyone know more about Gibson Dunn LA, Paul Hastings LA, Quinn Emanuel LA, Latham LA, (again in terms of grades and "tie" requirements)? Is any firm known to be particularly ambivalent about ties to the area?

Quinn thinks they're super grade conscious, which in reality just pans out to them being really obnoxious to anyone who's not like top quarter at a T14 I think. Pretty sure Urquhart went to an unranked school or something, but that's a tangent...anyway if you want an interview there you'll probs get one. you may have to parade around in flip flops at some weird mixer first, but it's doable, especially in LA compared to SF.

Are you CCN? Because everything below that is lower-T14 in terms of hiring, the grade cutoffs don't vary a ton below those schools. And even CCN doesn't get a huge bump in SF hiring.

I've never heard of Paul Hastings (LA or elsewhere) as being grade selective.

Irell and Munger require very strong grades. If you're at CC, and you're top 15%, you might be able to get an interview, but I'd consider it a reach or target bid. Gibson, although I wasn't aware of this when I was interviewing, apparently does care about grades an awful lot. Might also be a reach for you, but probably not an auto-ding in LA especially--pretty big class down there. Gibson SF is real small, 4-8 kids the last few years, and it'd be a reach for you most likely. Not auto-ding but more of a reach than LA. I know slightly less about Latham's requirements, but they're a CA powerhouse like Gibson, and you wouldn't be too far off if you considered them as equals in terms of selectivity in both LA and SF--probably a little below Irell and Munger, but still highly selective in SF and relatively selective in LA.
Last edited by bruinfan10 on Wed Jun 24, 2015 4:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273128
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Bidding CA with no ties

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 24, 2015 4:09 pm

As someone from LA who bid LA, and spoke to others at a T6 about the process:

Munger and Irell are the least ties-selective. Gibson and Latham are picky. Paul Hastings I don't know about ties but they're anything but grade-selective at my T6. Quinn I had a friend get a callback with zero ties but I don't have more firsthand knowledge, because I didn't apply myself (I'm corporate-focused).

LA's definitely easier than SF for you.

User avatar
bruinfan10
Posts: 510
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 12:25 am

Re: Bidding CA with no ties

Postby bruinfan10 » Wed Jun 24, 2015 4:19 pm

rpupkin wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Thanks to above. Not lower T14 and I might be a bit conservative with my class rank. School doesn't release ranks but I think 15% is actually a safe bet, might be higher.

For the California market, I don't think there is a meaningful difference between, say, Penn and GULC. In my opinion, Bruinfan10's assessment also applies to the "middle" T14.

I think that's right. I was a little lazy with my terminology--in my experience HYS and to a lesser extent CC have an easier time with grade cutoffs, and then there's everybody else--but I do understand that people split up the rest of the T14 into more categories.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273128
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Bidding CA with no ties

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 24, 2015 4:22 pm

CCN

Any thoughts on Wilson Sonsini?

oblig.lawl.ref
Posts: 232
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 10:28 pm

Re: Bidding CA with no ties

Postby oblig.lawl.ref » Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:26 pm

Anonymous User wrote:CCN

Any thoughts on Wilson Sonsini?


They're not particularly grade selective (you'll be above their grade cut-off) but are looking for people that are serious about doing their kind of work. Same for Cooley/Fenwick/Gunderson. Four kids from my non-boalt lower T-14 went to Wilson. Three had strong ties to CA, the fourth did not. The fourth was not born there or go to school there or ever work there. That's all I know about them. Idk what that tells you but Wilson did seem interested in my ties when I interviewed.

I would somewhat disagree w/ other posters re selectivity of CA firms from east coast T14s. Personally, I think the selectivity/ties-focus of CA firms gets a little overblown. I had one interviewer say they thought the ties thing was BS they used for when they didn't like a candidate (I think maybe at Kirkland SF). I don't think everyone in the recruiting process would agree with that but it's a thing. My school has a decent amount of kids without ties going to CA firms every year it seems. But that may slightly be a function of the school.

ETA: NYC is much easier than CA h/e, don't want to mislead you. I did both and grades and not fucking up any interviews seemed to be the keys to the kingdom in NYC. In CA the standards on the interview process were higher in my experience. So definitely make sure you put yourself in a good position in NYC. A couple tips: I have been told Skadden doesn't mind applications to multiple offices and had a few friends confirm this and I knew a guy deciding between Kirkland NYC and a CA office so those two may be better choices if you're going to apply to two offices.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273128
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Bidding CA with no ties

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:20 am

Thanks. This is helpful. Unfortunately it probably won't be possible to get interviews at both Skadden and KE offices based on their bid positions at my school. I am targeting both on the west coast though.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273128
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Bidding CA with no ties

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:25 am

Any firm suggestions for median at Penn?

oblig.lawl.ref
Posts: 232
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 10:28 pm

Re: Bidding CA with no ties

Postby oblig.lawl.ref » Thu Jun 25, 2015 10:00 am

Anonymous User wrote:Thanks. This is helpful. Unfortunately it probably won't be possible to get interviews at both Skadden and KE offices based on their bid positions at my school. I am targeting both on the west coast though.


I would recommend you send your application materials via email outside the OCI process (i.e. "mass mail") to any office you'd really want to work at but don't think you'll get an interview with out of OCI. This is especially important when you're interviewing in two markets. Some people may be turned off by applicants interviewing in two markets but in my experience if you are upfront and honest (with the California firms) for your reasons for doing so, they will understand. Probably best not to mention to the NYC firms that you are also interviewing in CA. Obviously you have to do what you think is best if you're concerned about looking like a flight risk by applying to multiple offices of the same firm. But some people have done that successfully. One of my friends had a few offers in both NYC and CA and he was very honest about how he was open as going home to CA or living in NYC (a city he had never lived in). Doing it that way, with ties to CA, is probably a little easier to pull off though.

Check out the mass mailing threads if you're interested in how to approach. They're often very long and relevant info is somewhat buried but they can be very helpful. Might be able to find some stuff with some in depth searches. Mass mailing really isn't just for people who struck out. I had just about as good credentials as you and struck out at OCI but was saved by mass mailing. Probably would have had a lot more doors open if I had mass mailed earlier.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273128
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Bidding CA with no ties

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jun 25, 2015 10:04 am

Came into this thread expecting to post, bruinfan covered everything super well. Mostly split my bids between LA/SF, had no ties, top ~10%ish at CCN. Got butchered in SF, did well in LA. I think Munger might dip a little lower depending on how many other people in your class are wanting to go out there - they lose a lot after clerkships, and care a lot about maintaining institutional relationships with top law schools. I would say if you're top 25% with law review it's worth throwing a bid out, but I wouldn't expect anything if not top 5-10%.

Thoughts on Wilson Sonsini: it was the only PA callback I got, no tech background but decent interest in the industry/VC, they weren't buying it one bit. Got kind of a hardcore vibe and am more of a laidback person, so it was one of those where you walk out knowing immediately you aren't going to get it. At the same time, they were willing to CB someone from a non-CA school with no CA ties, so there is that.

oblig.lawl.ref wrote:I would somewhat disagree w/ other posters re selectivity of CA firms from east coast T14s. Personally, I think the selectivity/ties-focus of CA firms gets a little overblown. I had one interviewer say they thought the ties thing was BS they used for when they didn't like a candidate (I think maybe at Kirkland SF). I don't think everyone in the recruiting process would agree with that but it's a thing. My school has a decent amount of kids without ties going to CA firms every year it seems. But that may slightly be a function of the school.


I think I agree with this for LA, but not SF. I got along famously with one of my SF screeners - one of the best interviews I'd ever had. Got the ties question at the end, didn't knock it out of the park, no CB. There's a million reasons not to get a CB and I don't mean to pin it on that when I may just be an awkward fuck, but it definitely didn't feel like a question just being asked for token reasons. Screener interviewers usually have to go back and justify who they want to call back to another group (in my understanding), and I can see it being hard to fight for someone if they can't give you enough to present to whatever committee.

Massmail CA definitely credited. Just anecdata, but like half the people I know from my CCN who got CA offers got them through massmail.

oblig.lawl.ref
Posts: 232
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 10:28 pm

Re: Bidding CA with no ties

Postby oblig.lawl.ref » Thu Jun 25, 2015 10:13 am

Anonymous User wrote:Any firm suggestions for median at Penn?


I don't think there are any special tips for your situation other than applying to the less selective firms and those with large classes. Paul Hastings always comes to mind. Maybe Sheppard Mullins. Depends on your career goals. If looking LA may want to try Proskauer as they have a decent sized office out there. Sidley Austin's grade cut-off is much lower in the LA office than in Chicago so that may be in play. Maybe O'Melveny, not sure though. Note they have two offices and I think Century City may be a bit more competitive (again not sure) because they do a lot of studio transactional work which can be popular. Could try Milbank. Bryan Cave has a decent sized litigation focused office in Santa Monica. Check out and mass mail some of the local firms like Manatt in LA. Irell, Munger, Gibson Dunn, Skadden, Quinn, Latham, and Kirkland would probably all range from steep uphill battles to impossible.If you're looking in SF different stuff applies.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273128
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Bidding CA with no ties

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jun 25, 2015 10:17 am

Would people recommend mailing even when most of the big LA firms come to campus for screeners? Does it just strengthen that "interest?"

Also, when is it appropriate to start mailing... mid-july? Still waiting on journal results. I would assume not before journal results right?

One more quick question, if we do mail, is actual post better than email?

User avatar
J9ofDiamonds
Posts: 3367
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 9:06 pm

Re: Bidding CA with no ties

Postby J9ofDiamonds » Thu Jun 25, 2015 10:23 am

oblig.lawl.ref wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Any firm suggestions for median at Penn?


I don't think there are any special tips for your situation other than applying to the less selective firms and those with large classes. Paul Hastings always comes to mind. Maybe Sheppard Mullins. Depends on your career goals. If looking LA may want to try Proskauer as they have a decent sized office out there. Sidley Austin's grade cut-off is much lower in the LA office than in Chicago so that may be in play. Maybe O'Melveny, not sure though. Note they have two offices and I think Century City may be a bit more competitive (again not sure) because they do a lot of studio transactional work which can be popular. Could try Milbank. Bryan Cave has a decent sized litigation focused office in Santa Monica. Check out and mass mail some of the local firms like Manatt in LA. Irell, Munger, Gibson Dunn, Skadden, Quinn, Latham, and Kirkland would probably all range from steep uphill battles to impossible.If you're looking in SF different stuff applies.


check out reed smith too

oblig.lawl.ref
Posts: 232
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 10:28 pm

Re: Bidding CA with no ties

Postby oblig.lawl.ref » Thu Jun 25, 2015 11:21 am

Anonymous User wrote:Would people recommend mailing even when most of the big LA firms come to campus for screeners? Does it just strengthen that "interest?"

Also, when is it appropriate to start mailing... mid-july? Still waiting on journal results. I would assume not before journal results right?

One more quick question, if we do mail, is actual post better than email?


Maybe wait until you see which interviews you get. Idk how it is done at your school but I knew like 3 weeks in advance of interviews I think. Then mass mail any firm you are interested in at all but did not get an interview with. In my cover letters I would say things like "while I did bid for your firm at OCI, unfortunately, due to the popularity of your firm, I did not receive an interview but would still very much appreciate the chance to interview." The wording of that is a bit awkward but I just typed that on the fly, you can probably reformat better. I think only one firm straight up said they weren't interested unless I got a bid. Many others offered me interviews despite maybe guessing it meant I didn't bid them very high.

And I believe email is actually preferred by most recruiters.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273128
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Bidding CA with no ties

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jun 25, 2015 11:25 am

Do firms know if you bid them or not? Can I leave a firm off my bidlist and then "pretend" my bid didn't succeed in a mailing? I assume they can see who bid, but maybe not where you rank them?

oblig.lawl.ref
Posts: 232
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 10:28 pm

Re: Bidding CA with no ties

Postby oblig.lawl.ref » Thu Jun 25, 2015 11:28 am

Anonymous User wrote:Do firms know if you bid them or not? Can I leave a firm off my bidlist and then "pretend" my bid didn't succeed in a mailing? I assume they can see who bid, but maybe not where you rank them?


Can't remember to be honest and your system may vary. I would probably look into this through your school. I would think this info would be available somewhere. But I do think I did that with a few firms if I remember correctly :lol:

User avatar
bruinfan10
Posts: 510
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 12:25 am

Re: Bidding CA with no ties

Postby bruinfan10 » Thu Jun 25, 2015 11:29 am

oblig.lawl.ref wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:CCN

Any thoughts on Wilson Sonsini?


They're not particularly grade selective (you'll be above their grade cut-off) but are looking for people that are serious about doing their kind of work. Same for Cooley/Fenwick/Gunderson. Four kids from my non-boalt lower T-14 went to Wilson. Three had strong ties to CA, the fourth did not. The fourth was not born there or go to school there or ever work there. That's all I know about them. Idk what that tells you but Wilson did seem interested in my ties when I interviewed.

I would somewhat disagree w/ other posters re selectivity of CA firms from east coast T14s. Personally, I think the selectivity/ties-focus of CA firms gets a little overblown. I had one interviewer say they thought the ties thing was BS they used for when they didn't like a candidate (I think maybe at Kirkland SF). I don't think everyone in the recruiting process would agree with that but it's a thing. My school has a decent amount of kids without ties going to CA firms every year it seems. But that may slightly be a function of the school.

ETA: NYC is much easier than CA h/e, don't want to mislead you. I did both and grades and not fucking up any interviews seemed to be the keys to the kingdom in NYC. In CA the standards on the interview process were higher in my experience. So definitely make sure you put yourself in a good position in NYC. A couple tips: I have been told Skadden doesn't mind applications to multiple offices and had a few friends confirm this and I knew a guy deciding between Kirkland NYC and a CA office so those two may be better choices if you're going to apply to two offices.

You're correct about Wilson and the other SV homegrown firms caring about your interest in the work they do. I think Wilson was the only firm I interviewed with that didn't give me a callback (I was way above their grade cutoffs), and it's because I just couldn't bring myself to fake the appropriate level of interest in their particular brand of work, read the Recorder for a few weeks to fake familiarity, etc etc.

You're also not completely wrong about people sometimes overblowing the importance of ties because you said "in CA," not "in SF," and you can land an LA offer with a firm that has a big class (or with Munger/Irell if you otherwise have the grades/LR/etc) even if you don't have ties. But if you think SF doesn't ding otherwise qualified people because they don't have Bay Area ties or a compelling reason to be there, you're wrong.

I didn't interview at Kirkland SF because I didn't take satellite and outpost offices that seriously (just hit a couple of the NYC outposts because as a 2L I hadn't 100% figured out what a flame Vault rankings are), and yeah, it's conceivable some interviewer from a Chicago satellite would put less emphasis on ties, but that's certainly not true for the historical big-3 CA firms (GDC, L&W, OMM). I also got ties questions at DPW, Weil, and Simpson Thacher in SV. Even the less selective SF non-outpost shops like MoFo will ding people if they don't have a reason for being in SF.

oblig.lawl.ref
Posts: 232
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 10:28 pm

Re: Bidding CA with no ties

Postby oblig.lawl.ref » Thu Jun 25, 2015 11:44 am

bruinfan10 wrote:
oblig.lawl.ref wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:CCN

Any thoughts on Wilson Sonsini?


They're not particularly grade selective (you'll be above their grade cut-off) but are looking for people that are serious about doing their kind of work. Same for Cooley/Fenwick/Gunderson. Four kids from my non-boalt lower T-14 went to Wilson. Three had strong ties to CA, the fourth did not. The fourth was not born there or go to school there or ever work there. That's all I know about them. Idk what that tells you but Wilson did seem interested in my ties when I interviewed.

I would somewhat disagree w/ other posters re selectivity of CA firms from east coast T14s. Personally, I think the selectivity/ties-focus of CA firms gets a little overblown. I had one interviewer say they thought the ties thing was BS they used for when they didn't like a candidate (I think maybe at Kirkland SF). I don't think everyone in the recruiting process would agree with that but it's a thing. My school has a decent amount of kids without ties going to CA firms every year it seems. But that may slightly be a function of the school.

ETA: NYC is much easier than CA h/e, don't want to mislead you. I did both and grades and not fucking up any interviews seemed to be the keys to the kingdom in NYC. In CA the standards on the interview process were higher in my experience. So definitely make sure you put yourself in a good position in NYC. A couple tips: I have been told Skadden doesn't mind applications to multiple offices and had a few friends confirm this and I knew a guy deciding between Kirkland NYC and a CA office so those two may be better choices if you're going to apply to two offices.

You're correct about Wilson and the other SV homegrown firms caring about your interest in the work they do. I think Wilson was the only firm I interviewed with that didn't give me a callback (I was way above their grade cutoffs), and it's because I just couldn't bring myself to fake the appropriate level of interest in their particular brand of work, read the Recorder for a few weeks to fake familiarity, etc etc.

You're also not completely wrong about people sometimes overblowing the importance of ties because you said "in CA," not "in SF," and you can land an LA offer with a firm that has a big class (or with Munger/Irell if you otherwise have the grades/LR/etc) even if you don't have ties. But if you think SF doesn't ding otherwise qualified people because they don't have Bay Area ties or a compelling reason to be there, you're wrong.

I didn't interview at Kirkland SF because I didn't take satellite and outpost offices that seriously (just hit a couple of the NYC satellites because as a 2L I hadn't 100% figured out what a flame Vault rankings are), and yeah, it's conceivable some interviewer from a Chicago satellite would put less emphasis on ties, but that's certainly not true for the historical big-3 CA firms (GDC, L&W, OMM). I also got ties questions at DPW and Simpson Thacher in Palo Alto. Even the less selective SF non-outpost shops like MoFo will ding people if they don't have a reason for being in SF.


Yeah, I agree. I didn't mean to imply ties are irrelevant. One dude told me that but I kind of thought it was an overstatement. They probably matter everywhere in CA to a certain extent. I think LA is more willing to believe that people just want to live that life. It's kind of a city of transplants anyways.

Obviously, and I don't think you'd disagree, people without significant ties can still get jobs at most firms in CA though (SF included). It's not an absolute bar, just an appreciably higher one. Someone in the class below me who was not from California, did not go to UG or law school there, or work there is working at one of the three traditional CA firms you mentioned in SF this summer. They probably had a real good pitch and some weaker ties (relatives, etc.). It happens but probably is not super common.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273128
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Bidding CA with no ties

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jun 25, 2015 11:45 am

OP: I think the consensus is that I should focus on LA, which I am happy to do. I guess at this point I am just a little worried about spreading myself too thin by focusing on two markets. I will have to lean on career services to see what I can find out about applying to multiple offices for some of these firms (OMM, Paul Hastings, Proskauer, Sheppard Mullin, Akin, Sidley). Also I will take the mass mailing bit to heart. I figure it can't hurt to mail if I don't get a shot at screening with them initially. I am sure bidding on the west coast might cause scheduling headaches during callbacks, but that's a step too far right now.

Thanks everyone!

Anonymous User
Posts: 273128
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Bidding CA with no ties

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jun 25, 2015 11:58 am

oblig.lawl.ref wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Any firm suggestions for median at Penn?


I don't think there are any special tips for your situation other than applying to the less selective firms and those with large classes. Paul Hastings always comes to mind. Maybe Sheppard Mullins. Depends on your career goals. If looking LA may want to try Proskauer as they have a decent sized office out there. Sidley Austin's grade cut-off is much lower in the LA office than in Chicago so that may be in play. Maybe O'Melveny, not sure though. Note they have two offices and I think Century City may be a bit more competitive (again not sure) because they do a lot of studio transactional work which can be popular. Could try Milbank. Bryan Cave has a decent sized litigation focused office in Santa Monica. Check out and mass mail some of the local firms like Manatt in LA. Irell, Munger, Gibson Dunn, Skadden, Quinn, Latham, and Kirkland would probably all range from steep uphill battles to impossible.If you're looking in SF different stuff applies.


Thank you! Very helpful. Got any SF tips? I know it's gonna be nigh impossible but Im gonna try anyway.

oblig.lawl.ref
Posts: 232
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 10:28 pm

Re: Bidding CA with no ties

Postby oblig.lawl.ref » Thu Jun 25, 2015 12:25 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
oblig.lawl.ref wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Any firm suggestions for median at Penn?


I don't think there are any special tips for your situation other than applying to the less selective firms and those with large classes. Paul Hastings always comes to mind. Maybe Sheppard Mullins. Depends on your career goals. If looking LA may want to try Proskauer as they have a decent sized office out there. Sidley Austin's grade cut-off is much lower in the LA office than in Chicago so that may be in play. Maybe O'Melveny, not sure though. Note they have two offices and I think Century City may be a bit more competitive (again not sure) because they do a lot of studio transactional work which can be popular. Could try Milbank. Bryan Cave has a decent sized litigation focused office in Santa Monica. Check out and mass mail some of the local firms like Manatt in LA. Irell, Munger, Gibson Dunn, Skadden, Quinn, Latham, and Kirkland would probably all range from steep uphill battles to impossible.If you're looking in SF different stuff applies.


Thank you! Very helpful. Got any SF tips? I know it's gonna be nigh impossible but Im gonna try anyway.


I'm not quite so clear on SF, largely because it is a smaller market but if open to SV the indigenous firms (WSGR/Fenwick/Cooley/Gunderson) are generally less grade selective but have to demonstrate an interest in SV work. DLA Piper actually has a good presence in the Bay b/c they merged w/ an old firm out there. Pillsbury isn't too selective in SF but also doesn't take a ton of summers. Same for Orrick. Goodwin Proctor has a growing practice in SV and I don't think are super selective out there but still may be a slightly uphill battle at median. Sheppard Mullins has a decent sized SF office (for SF, still smallish in general). Maybe Baker McKenzie (SV?), Reed Smith (SF), and Perkins Coie (SV). Can try mass mailing local mid-law firms again, particularly Hanson Bridgett. Hanson probably only takes a handful of summer a year, though if that. For plaintiff's work Hagens Berman. Probably missing a lot of places. SF is a tougher nut to crack in general, and esp at median, with the exception of SV practices but you really have to have an interest in the work.

Jones Day, O'Melveny, and Latham have big presences up there but may be too selective (particularly Latham). MoFo, Kirkland, DPW, Gibson Dunn, Weil, Skadden, and Simpson all have sizable presences but I'm pretty sure would be too selective.

For mid-law firms to check out in general in CA, see: Hanson Bridgett, Manatt, Nossaman, Rutan & Tucker, Severson & Werson, Allen Matkin (for real estate), Jeffer Mangels, Mitchell Silberberg. There used to be a firm in OC called Stradling Yocca but when I looked it up it looks like they may have split?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273128
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Bidding CA with no ties

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:20 pm

Asking the question means I'm probably already out, but is there a solid explanation of "SV work" somewhere?




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.