Anonymous User wrote:Asking the question means I'm probably already out, but is there a solid explanation of "SV work" somewhere?
Not sure how in depth of an explanation you need but I'm basically saying startup work. I'm not exactly an expert on what that entails but I know enough to have gotten an offer from one of the SV firms. On the corporate side they do a lot of venture capital financing. Some of the firms also do some M&A for their larger "startup" clients (all the way up to Google and Twitter) as well as securities/IPO work. So basically, for OCI interviewing purposes, it means having familiarity w/ Silicon Valley, startups, and tech as an industry. On the litigation side, which seems to be much smaller but may be a growing market, you see some IP litigation (probably mostly copyright related) and various corporate law litigations (derivative suits, securities class actions, fiduciary duties suits, merger-related lawsuits).
buddhabelly wrote:Would a firm understand that you're applying to both their CA and NY office because NY is a safety, while CA is your dream? Or would they find that a shitty explanation?
Also how about applying to LA and another California office (SF or PA)? Is that okay under the "I want Cali so badly" explanation?
I'm worried because I'm not in a comfortable position with my grades to be bidding only CA, but I would go anywhere in CA over NYC and a lot of the firms at my OCI overlap
Also, I have a interview set up with MOFO SF and they know that I also applied to/am interested in MOFO LA (they don't do multiples so I was only ever going to get it with one of the offices anyway). MOFO LA seems more in my league grades-wise...but since the interview is in the SF office am I screwed?
First, you may not want to use terms like "safety" in my opinion. I think you want to put forth a positive image--they're all great firms you'd love to work for but the firm you're currently interviewing for just happens to be ideal. Depends, as always, on your practice area interest. You might say you really want to do corporate law and you realize NYC is a huge market for that but that CA has some great and interesting work and you'd much rather be living/practicing in CA than NYC. Put in those terms, if genuine, I doubt someone will see that as a shitty explanation. Maybe you can even make the same argument in terms of legal markets generally (NYC is a huge legal market with interesting work but CA has plenty of interesting work too and you'd rather live there).
Second, re interviewing in multiple offices, I generally avoided that. I generally picked the office with the largest summer class and went for that. That being said, I know people who did it with success. So I wouldn't say I was right to avoid applying to multiple offices of the same firm. Just know they may ask you what your preference is and you probably should have a definitive answer. I waffled on one question re LA or SF and basically said I hadn't decided yet. I don't think they liked that at all. Other than that, I don't have much advice on the two offices thing really.
I don't think you're screwed they gave you the interview (congrats!). I would say just be yourself and be genuine. Tell them that you really have always wanted to live and practice in California. If they ask why tell them you love it and it's a fucking awesome place to be. Tell them you don't even mind paying the rent. If they ask if you prefer LA or SF, say no offense, SF is a great place to be and it would be awesome to live there but you think you'd like LA a tad bit more. I always found interviews w/ people from other offices and practice areas awkward but you just have to make the best of it.