Does the #1 student at Harvard Law...

(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.
ernie

Bronze
Posts: 169
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2017 12:34 am

Re: Does the #1 student at Harvard Law...

Postby ernie » Sun May 07, 2017 6:34 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
lawlorbust wrote:
hlsperson1111 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:The two 1L Sears Prize winners my year worked at Jenner and Ropes after their 2L year. I think one of the 2L Sears Prize winners worked at DPW (I am not 100% sure but I know it was a NYC V5 and not WLRK). I can think of other examples but this seems to prove the point well enough.


2L Sears doesn't count. No idea why you brought it up.
About Ropes, it's the best firm in Boston and so if the person wanted to work in Boston then that was his or her best option. That was his/her Wachtell.
I think by Jenner you mean DC. Even then there are better firms in DC. That example may prove the point that perfect grades don't guarantee anything. But then we don't really know. Jenner DC may have offered some unique opportunities given that person's preferences.
I mean, in the context of NYC Wachtell and others, think about it. Nobody is stupid enough to decide to work the same hours but get paid less.

Having perfect grades lets you do anything you want unless you are a poor interviewer. You all know this.


Nah, the better explanation is that culture matters and firms aren't fungible. But you don't get that because you're clearly a dick.


And also a retard, if 2L Sears "doesn't count."


"Doesn't count" in the sense that the question was about "no.1 at Harvard." Obviously you cannot claim you are number 1 when many folks were checked out. This is frankly a retarded thread and I replied because I had plenty of time. What a bunch of sick cunts.

Wow get a grip dude

cheaptilts

Bronze
Posts: 405
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 11:29 pm

Re: Does the #1 student at Harvard Law...

Postby cheaptilts » Sun May 07, 2017 6:38 pm

When you're #1, it doesn't matter that many or most students are checked out because you're not competing against many or most students. You're competing against ~10% of the class within range of your GPA. It's quite apparent that you've never been anywhere near #1 at H or any other school to make such an idiotic claim like "2L Sears doesn't count"

I agree that this is a really, really bad thread tho

Anonymous User
Posts: 314096
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Does the #1 student at Harvard Law...

Postby Anonymous User » Sun May 07, 2017 6:44 pm

cheaptilts wrote:When you're #1, it doesn't matter that many or most students are checked out because you're not competing against many or most students. You're competing against ~10% of the class within range of your GPA. It's quite apparent that you've never been anywhere near #1 at H or any other school to make such an idiotic claim like "2L Sears doesn't count"


Yeah I have never been near #1 but unlike you, I am happy about it and accept that fact.

stoopkid13

Bronze
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2014 5:31 am

Re: Does the #1 student at Harvard Law...

Postby stoopkid13 » Mon May 08, 2017 4:32 am

I suppose arguably, the real metric for #1 isn't Sears Prize, but Fay Diploma, but that aside I agree with the general sentiment that firms aren't totally fungible and people, including top students, make some idiosyncratic decisions. FWIW I know one Fay Diploma recipient who ended up never taking a JD job... go figure (HLS was not very happy with him lol).

unitball

New
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 12:37 am

Re: Does the #1 student at Harvard Law...

Postby unitball » Mon May 08, 2017 8:08 am

stoopkid13 wrote:I suppose arguably, the real metric for #1 isn't Sears Prize, but Fay Diploma, but that aside I agree with the general sentiment that firms aren't totally fungible and people, including top students, make some idiosyncratic decisions. FWIW I know one Fay Diploma recipient who ended up never taking a JD job... go figure (HLS was not very happy with him lol).


"Thanks Harvard, that was cute. I'm gonna go do big boy work now. Take care."

User avatar
Mickfromgm

Bronze
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:40 pm

Re: Does the #1 student at Harvard Law...

Postby Mickfromgm » Mon May 08, 2017 9:03 pm

unitball wrote:Know what it's like to not get called back?


Hmmm, I wonder. Let me call my pal Barack tonight. I don't know if he was #1, but he was magna cum laude, President of HLS Law Review, and had a recommendation from Laurence Tribe that he is the best student Laurence ever had. But then he goes to Sidley for SA and then public interest? What was he thinking? He coulda been at Wachtell under the tutelage of the Great Marty Lipton. Lost opportunities.

ballouttacontrol

Silver
Posts: 678
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:00 pm

Re: Does the #1 student at Harvard Law...

Postby ballouttacontrol » Mon May 08, 2017 11:55 pm

I would definitely not recommend an offer to the #1 HLS person or anyone similarly credentialed. Not even joking/trolling. I don't think many/most of my colleagues would either. Not the kinda ppl we want here

User avatar
Mickfromgm

Bronze
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:40 pm

Re: Does the #1 student at Harvard Law...

Postby Mickfromgm » Tue May 09, 2017 11:19 pm

ballouttacontrol wrote:I would definitely not recommend an offer to the #1 HLS person or anyone similarly credentialed. Not even joking/trolling. I don't think many/most of my colleagues would either. Not the kinda ppl we want here


I see your point. I have always been amazed that so many people with super elite credentials are useless as junior associates and they invariably quit to go do something else after a year or two. People that smart often consider themselves above doc reviews or due diligence from Day 1 at the firm. . . It's good to be mediocre, let me tell ya.

ballouttacontrol

Silver
Posts: 678
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:00 pm

Re: Does the #1 student at Harvard Law...

Postby ballouttacontrol » Wed May 10, 2017 12:42 am

Mickfromgm wrote:
ballouttacontrol wrote:I would definitely not recommend an offer to the #1 HLS person or anyone similarly credentialed. Not even joking/trolling. I don't think many/most of my colleagues would either. Not the kinda ppl we want here


I see your point. I have always been amazed that so many people with super elite credentials are useless as junior associates and they invariably quit to go do something else after a year or two. People that smart often consider themselves above doc reviews or due diligence from Day 1 at the firm. . . It's good to be mediocre, let me tell ya.


tbh more for the reason that they just simply would not fit in socially. from an associate's POV. from the partners' POV, yea, they would probably also decline b/c of what u said

User avatar
nealric

Moderator
Posts: 2812
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:53 am

Re: Does the #1 student at Harvard Law...

Postby nealric » Wed May 10, 2017 10:50 am

Mickfromgm wrote:
ballouttacontrol wrote:I would definitely not recommend an offer to the #1 HLS person or anyone similarly credentialed. Not even joking/trolling. I don't think many/most of my colleagues would either. Not the kinda ppl we want here


I see your point. I have always been amazed that so many people with super elite credentials are useless as junior associates and they invariably quit to go do something else after a year or two. People that smart often consider themselves above doc reviews or due diligence from Day 1 at the firm. . . It's good to be mediocre, let me tell ya.


This is why being "overqualified" is a thing in hiring.

If you have the credentials to get a job that does not involve doc review/diligence, what is your motivation to slog through it? It's also worth noting that firms can vary quite a bit in how much of that stuff a junior has to do. Some do it basically 24/7, some only have to touch it on occasion- how much can depend a bit on luck of the draw. It's not unreasonable for someone with the credentials to go anywhere to bounce if they find the firm they've chosen expects them to be a doc review monkey.

1styearlateral

Silver
Posts: 833
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 3:55 pm

Re: Does the #1 student at Harvard Law...

Postby 1styearlateral » Wed May 10, 2017 2:20 pm

nealric wrote:
Mickfromgm wrote:
ballouttacontrol wrote:I would definitely not recommend an offer to the #1 HLS person or anyone similarly credentialed. Not even joking/trolling. I don't think many/most of my colleagues would either. Not the kinda ppl we want here


I see your point. I have always been amazed that so many people with super elite credentials are useless as junior associates and they invariably quit to go do something else after a year or two. People that smart often consider themselves above doc reviews or due diligence from Day 1 at the firm. . . It's good to be mediocre, let me tell ya.


This is why being "overqualified" is a thing in hiring.

If you have the credentials to get a job that does not involve doc review/diligence, what is your motivation to slog through it? It's also worth noting that firms can vary quite a bit in how much of that stuff a junior has to do. Some do it basically 24/7, some only have to touch it on occasion- how much can depend a bit on luck of the draw. It's not unreasonable for someone with the credentials to go anywhere to bounce if they find the firm they've chosen expects them to be a doc review monkey.

Except that those types of expectations should be ascertained during an interview. "What are your expections of me?" No one should go into a job and be surprised by the assignments if they've done proper vetting.

User avatar
Mickfromgm

Bronze
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:40 pm

Re: Does the #1 student at Harvard Law...

Postby Mickfromgm » Wed May 10, 2017 6:35 pm

Folks, I think we all have to recognize something. Nearly everyone at BigLaw is very smart and very accomplished academically. But as a first-year (and beyond), those smart people ALL have to do grease monkey stuff because (i) such menial tasks are one of the very few things that can be done by a person with zero experience and zero knowledge and with the lowest billing rate on the team (not many clients would pay $1,000 per hour to have someone do doc review, (ii) as you perform such mindless tasks, you actually learn more important stuff (e.g., a due diligence review of contracts would require the reviewer to understand contract laws and provisional interplay), and (iii) let's be honest, there is sort of a hazing aspect to this ("I had to do this when I was a junior, too") . . . . they'd rather call it a rite of passage, I am sure.

Law school doesn't teach you anything useful in real life, other than research, memo writing and such. Elite intelligence, without substantive knowledge and experience, is frankly useless. That's why even the second coming of Antonin Scalia (the valedictorian of each of his high school, Georgetown, and Harvard Law, never mind the SCOTUS Justice) would have to start as the lowest grunt on the totem pole at ANY BigLaw.

Laying bathroom tile is not that hard to master, but Scalia would have had trouble in the beginning if he had never done that before.

Don't be like this ding dong: http://abovethelaw.com/2011/08/lawsuit-of-the-day-ex-kasowitz-associate-with-superior-legal-mind-sues-the-firm-for-77-million/ lol

User avatar
Mickfromgm

Bronze
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:40 pm

Re: Does the #1 student at Harvard Law...

Postby Mickfromgm » Wed May 10, 2017 6:44 pm

1styearlateral wrote:Except that those types of expectations should be ascertained during an interview. "What are your expections of me?" No one should go into a job and be surprised by the assignments if they've done proper vetting.


Except that (i) no firm would admit during an interview that first-years would have to do mostly grunt work -- they would embellish a little to make sure you accept an offer, and they also figure most law students must know that, (ii) when you are just starting, you are not going to be doing only super substantive work at ANY BigLaw, regardless of what they tell you -- if they do, that's a scary thought. . . . think about it; can you imagine a fresh architecture school graduate designing your parents' house?, and (iii) we all have to recognize our limitations at the outset, and have to be willing pay our dues while learning a valuable skillset while they pay you $$$$$.

Sorry if I sound like THE MAN, but just trying to point out that none of us can be Marty Lipton, David Boise or Paul Clement on Day 1.

User avatar
nealric

Moderator
Posts: 2812
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:53 am

Re: Does the #1 student at Harvard Law...

Postby nealric » Thu May 11, 2017 10:21 am

1styearlateral wrote:
nealric wrote:
Mickfromgm wrote:
ballouttacontrol wrote:I would definitely not recommend an offer to the #1 HLS person or anyone similarly credentialed. Not even joking/trolling. I don't think many/most of my colleagues would either. Not the kinda ppl we want here


I see your point. I have always been amazed that so many people with super elite credentials are useless as junior associates and they invariably quit to go do something else after a year or two. People that smart often consider themselves above doc reviews or due diligence from Day 1 at the firm. . . It's good to be mediocre, let me tell ya.


This is why being "overqualified" is a thing in hiring.

If you have the credentials to get a job that does not involve doc review/diligence, what is your motivation to slog through it? It's also worth noting that firms can vary quite a bit in how much of that stuff a junior has to do. Some do it basically 24/7, some only have to touch it on occasion- how much can depend a bit on luck of the draw. It's not unreasonable for someone with the credentials to go anywhere to bounce if they find the firm they've chosen expects them to be a doc review monkey.

Except that those types of expectations should be ascertained during an interview. "What are your expections of me?" No one should go into a job and be surprised by the assignments if they've done proper vetting.


That's not how biglaw often works in entry level hiring. You interview as a 2L often with no clue of what practice area you even want. After the summer, you may be assigned to a broad group, but not a subgroup. For example, they may tell you that you will be in "Corporate", but not tell you if you are doing capital markets or M&A. Even if you are at a firm that assigns subgroups after the summer, you often don't know what partner(s) you will be working for and how that partner doles out assignments. Does the partner have a strict seniority system with 1st years exclusively getting grunt work, or does the partner spread things out? Do you have a partner who wants to develop junior associates, or a churn-and burn type? It can be very much pot-luck and impossible to ascertain at the interview stage. Things can also change in the two years between your 2L interviewing and when you start at the firm.

By contrast, at the lateral stage, you usually know exactly who you will be working with, you know what questions to ask, and you often have a professional network that can be used to get a handle on the specific individuals involved.

User avatar
nealric

Moderator
Posts: 2812
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:53 am

Re: Does the #1 student at Harvard Law...

Postby nealric » Thu May 11, 2017 10:28 am

Mickfromgm wrote:
1styearlateral wrote:Except that those types of expectations should be ascertained during an interview. "What are your expections of me?" No one should go into a job and be surprised by the assignments if they've done proper vetting.


(ii) when you are just starting, you are not going to be doing only super substantive work at ANY BigLaw, regardless of what they tell you -- if they do, that's a scary thought. . . . think about it; can you imagine a fresh architecture school graduate designing your parents' house?.


I doubt there's any firm where you do "only" super substantive work, but there can be a huge variation between how much grunt work you have to do. Some firms will have first and second years doing doc review an diligence almost exclusively. Other firms more heavily outsource that sort of work and/or spread it more evenly among associates. Firms also have different philosophies on stuff like diligence. Some firms will over-lawyer that stuff to churn fees, others will do the minimum necessary to handle the matter competently.

Besides that, Sears prize winner types often have the option to start in very rare roles within biglaw or elite boutiques. I guarantee the ex-SCOTUS clerks signing on with $300k bonuses and Jones Day aren't being loaded up with doc review in the same way that some median T14 1st year at Jones Day is.

delusional

Silver
Posts: 1200
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 7:57 pm

Re: Does the #1 student at Harvard Law...

Postby delusional » Thu May 11, 2017 12:20 pm

nealric wrote:
Mickfromgm wrote:
1styearlateral wrote:Except that those types of expectations should be ascertained during an interview. "What are your expections of me?" No one should go into a job and be surprised by the assignments if they've done proper vetting.


(ii) when you are just starting, you are not going to be doing only super substantive work at ANY BigLaw, regardless of what they tell you -- if they do, that's a scary thought. . . . think about it; can you imagine a fresh architecture school graduate designing your parents' house?.


I doubt there's any firm where you do "only" super substantive work, but there can be a huge variation between how much grunt work you have to do. Some firms will have first and second years doing doc review an diligence almost exclusively. Other firms more heavily outsource that sort of work and/or spread it more evenly among associates. Firms also have different philosophies on stuff like diligence. Some firms will over-lawyer that stuff to churn fees, others will do the minimum necessary to handle the matter competently.

Besides that, Sears prize winner types often have the option to start in very rare roles within biglaw or elite boutiques. I guarantee the ex-SCOTUS clerks signing on with $300k bonuses and Jones Day aren't being loaded up with doc review in the same way that some median T14 1st year at Jones Day is.
Eh. IME, the amount of grunt work you are required or allowed to do is much more client and partner driven than it is firm-driven. Sure, former SCOTUS clerks who hit it off with Paul Clement and end up at appellate places like Bancroft are not doing months-long doc review, but that's not biglaw. I cannot imagine that junior associates even at Wachtell are billing 3,000 hours to strategizing.

I am not a corporate guy but in litigation doc review there is very little room to change the scope. Either the firm does it, or outside contract attorneys do it. But nobody ever says "oh, we just won't review those documents" because you either have a legal obligation to review them or you don't.

And with respect to ex-SCOTUS clerks (and the hate for them ITT) - it is more personality driven than pedigree driven. A friend of mine (well, acquaintance more) is a current SCOTUS clerk, and he is not an asshole and will not be perceived to be "above" grunt work. OTOH, he will get to a firm job as a highly regarded fourth year, so he would not have been doing first level review anyway. Meanwhile, I have worked with a former SCOTUS clerk who comports herself like the second coming of Oliver Wendell Holmes. I assume she doesn't do a lot of doc review, but even partners notice and dislike her.

User avatar
Mickfromgm

Bronze
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:40 pm

Re: Does the #1 student at Harvard Law...

Postby Mickfromgm » Thu May 11, 2017 12:46 pm

nealric wrote:
Mickfromgm wrote:
1styearlateral wrote:Except that those types of expectations should be ascertained during an interview. "What are your expections of me?" No one should go into a job and be surprised by the assignments if they've done proper vetting.


(ii) when you are just starting, you are not going to be doing only super substantive work at ANY BigLaw, regardless of what they tell you -- if they do, that's a scary thought. . . . think about it; can you imagine a fresh architecture school graduate designing your parents' house?.


I doubt there's any firm where you do "only" super substantive work, but there can be a huge variation between how much grunt work you have to do. Some firms will have first and second years doing doc review an diligence almost exclusively. Other firms more heavily outsource that sort of work and/or spread it more evenly among associates. Firms also have different philosophies on stuff like diligence. Some firms will over-lawyer that stuff to churn fees, others will do the minimum necessary to handle the matter competently.

Besides that, Sears prize winner types often have the option to start in very rare roles within biglaw or elite boutiques. I guarantee the ex-SCOTUS clerks signing on with $300k bonuses and Jones Day aren't being loaded up with doc review in the same way that some median T14 1st year at Jones Day is.


Fair enough, I don't disagree.

1styearlateral

Silver
Posts: 833
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 3:55 pm

Re: Does the #1 student at Harvard Law...

Postby 1styearlateral » Thu May 11, 2017 12:51 pm

Just to clarify: I was strictly speaking in terms of lateraling. I agree with everything all said about OCI interviewing and first-year expectations.

User avatar
Mickfromgm

Bronze
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:40 pm

Re: Does the #1 student at Harvard Law...

Postby Mickfromgm » Thu May 11, 2017 12:54 pm

delusional wrote:I cannot imagine that junior associates even at Wachtell are billing 3,000 hours to strategizing.


Very good post, too.

I have a high school friend who was identified a (super?) star early on in his career at Wachtell, and went on to become a superstar partner there. He did tons of grunt work in the first couple of years, too. It's just BigLaw . . . .

User avatar
Mickfromgm

Bronze
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:40 pm

Re: Does the #1 student at Harvard Law...

Postby Mickfromgm » Thu May 11, 2017 1:06 pm

1styearlateral wrote:Just to clarify: I was strictly speaking in terms of lateraling. I agree with everything all said about OCI interviewing and first-year expectations.


Ah, I see. Hence your user name! :)

I think it's hard to get straight, consistent answers from the interviewers, because every partner/senior partner you work with will have a different philosophy on stuff like this. It really depends on who you will be working for. I suppose there could be such a thing as firm culture or philosophy to a degree on stuff like this, but what they tell you during an interview is not necessarily reflective of that; it's reflective of the interviewer's own experience and thinking. But laterals definitely should ask anyway, if only to observe the consistency of the answers.



Return to “Legal Employment�

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.