Columbia EIP 2017

(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.
TheoO
Posts: 621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 1:28 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2017

Postby TheoO » Wed Jun 28, 2017 2:47 pm

JFO1833 wrote:
TheoO wrote:. I doubt a stone will be forced to cadwalader, fried frank or orrick. White & Case and Willkie are more reasonable.


I have mixed feelings about this sentiment. Even if this is true, having offers from these firms on the table is not necessarily a bad thing. In some cases, the right firm may not be the highest vault ranked and the chance to consider different offers may be valuable. In doing the call back process and giving a lower ranked firm a chance you may find you like it better.

Additional offers might also be helpful if you have unusual interests and may want to split firms or offices. Different firms have different policies on these kinds of things and the more options on the table, the more likely you can find a combination that will work.


There a lot of situations in which I'd say you're right. If someone says they want to go to Ropes over, say, Simpson, because something they just seem to click or really "liked the people" (they are unlikely to even end up working with 2 years from now) or something else just appealed to them: yea, sure. This is not one of those cases, though.

Anonymous User
Posts: 298292
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:06 pm

.
Last edited by Anonymous User on Fri Jun 30, 2017 1:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 298292
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 28, 2017 6:46 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Hey, question.

So I'm doing pre-EIP bidding for a number of offices in my home market. I'm scheduling callbacks at a couple, but waiting on others. For the ones I'm waiting on: should I avoid bidding their New York offices? I worry that I'll look flaky if I do so, and end up torching myself at both places.


The chances that their offices are 1. communicating about applicants and 2. would hold this against you are very slim. Also, there's a good chance that your situation will be resolved at the places you're waiting on before the New York firms even know who bid on them.

Anonymous User
Posts: 298292
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 28, 2017 9:14 pm

TheoO wrote:Try and see what OCS says, then. You may be able to inform their recruiting that you are interested in both the NY and Chicago offices. Typically, firms will specify if they only accept bidding for one or multiple offices.

Also, maybe I am less risk-averse for stone people, but I feel like stone don't strike out (in that havn't seen any who has). I've seen underperformance, but recruiting continues for a while after and firms often have more need, so if you don't get your right firm now, it's not the end. Give yourself some breathing room. I doubt a stone will be forced to cadwalader, fried frank or orrick. White & Case and Willkie are more reasonable.


Thanks to all the 2Ls/3Ls/alums for all the help on here. Would be lost without you all.

Is this too conservative? Also low stone (3.41-3.43), secondary journal, non-urm, k-jd. Leaning corporate. Really would like to land one of the better corporate firms - DPW, Skadden, Cleary, Debevoise etc, but even a slight possibility of striking out scares me and makes me want to bid more conservative.

All NY.

1. Weil (4)
2. Milbank (6)
3. Ropes & Gray (6)
4. Paul, Weiss (9)
5. Cleary Gottlieb (10)
6. Akin Gump (11)
7. Davis Polk (11)
8. Latham & Watkins (13)
9. Fried Frank (13)
10. Paul Hastings (19)
11. Jones Day (19)
12. Linklaters (17)
13. Shearman & Sterling (20)
14. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett (22)
15. Kirkland & Ellis (28)
16. Clifford Chance (27)
17. Cadwalader (26)
18. Mayer Brown (26)
19. Schulte (27)
20. Hogan Lovells (24)
21. Freshfields (28)
22. Arnold & Porter (26)
23. Hunton & Williams (23)
24. Pryor Cashman (27)
25. Norton Rose Fulbright (29)
26. McDermott Will & Emery (30)
27. Greenburg Traurig (*)
28. Stroock & Stroock & Levin (*)
29. (Not sure)
30. (Not sure)

Would like to make room for firms like Skadden/Debevoise, but I'm apprehensive about getting rid of less grade sensitive firms like Milbank/Akin Gump/Ropes & Gray since I'm very low Stone.

Please help!

Anonymous User
Posts: 298292
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jun 29, 2017 11:10 am

Anonymous User wrote:Low Stone grades; 3.44; Secondary Journal; Non-URM

I'm below SullCrom's hard floor, but I went to two events, including an affinity event, and had a follow up phone call with a senior associate I know was filed with recruiting. And then I figured I might as well take a flier on Cravath.



What is SullCrom's hard GPA floor?

GoneSouth
Posts: 308
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2015 10:00 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2017

Postby GoneSouth » Thu Jun 29, 2017 11:27 am

Does SullCrom really have a hard floor for CLS students? That would be surprising

Anonymous User
Posts: 298292
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jun 29, 2017 11:29 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Low Stone grades; 3.44; Secondary Journal; Non-URM

I'm below SullCrom's hard floor, but I went to two events, including an affinity event, and had a follow up phone call with a senior associate I know was filed with recruiting. And then I figured I might as well take a flier on Cravath.



What is SullCrom's hard GPA floor?


Rumor is a 3.6, but there's rumors that they'll take lower (I'm guessing for URMs, or people with good reasons for being at the firm)

User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 10170
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: Columbia EIP 2017

Postby jbagelboy » Thu Jun 29, 2017 1:36 pm

GoneSouth wrote:Does SullCrom really have a hard floor for CLS students? That would be surprising


The only "hard floor" is honors, although most people with offers do tend to have very strong grades.

TheoO
Posts: 621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 1:28 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2017

Postby TheoO » Thu Jun 29, 2017 3:14 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
TheoO wrote:
Would like to make room for firms like Skadden/Debevoise, but I'm apprehensive about getting rid of less grade sensitive firms like Milbank/Akin Gump/Ropes & Gray since I'm very low Stone.

Please help!


Keep Akin and Ropes. But I feel like it would be a waste to not be able to interview with Skadden and Deb. I don't know where those fall in the FFB list, though.

Strike out should not really be a fear for you (unless you have some deep personality issues). Yea, you're low stone. That's still at least top 40% of the class at one of the T6 law schools... For those firms you don't get or can't fit in ultimately: email! If you really want to interview with Milbank to be safe, I would be shocked if they got an email from a stone person and said "Pass!"

Anonymous User
Posts: 298292
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jun 29, 2017 6:53 pm

TheoO wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
TheoO wrote:
Would like to make room for firms like Skadden/Debevoise, but I'm apprehensive about getting rid of less grade sensitive firms like Milbank/Akin Gump/Ropes & Gray since I'm very low Stone.

Please help!


Keep Akin and Ropes. But I feel like it would be a waste to not be able to interview with Skadden and Deb. I don't know where those fall in the FFB list, though.

Strike out should not really be a fear for you (unless you have some deep personality issues). Yea, you're low stone. That's still at least top 40% of the class at one of the T6 law schools... For those firms you don't get or can't fit in ultimately: email! If you really want to interview with Milbank to be safe, I would be shocked if they got an email from a stone person and said "Pass!"


Thanks TheoO!

Deb FFB is 3, Skadden is 10 (but, in previous years, it was much lower). So, Deb would be a natural swap with Milbank. Unless I swapped Skadden with Akin at 6, not sure I could make room for them. Already worried I won't get Davis Polk at 7 (FFB was 11), and to have a shot at grabbing Skadden I'd have to move DPW to 8. I think I saw someone say you should shoot for FFB - 5 at a minimum. Could maybe swap out PW at 4 and add Skadden there.

Any other thoughts?

If I do swap Milbank out for Deb, when is the appropriate time to e-mail Milbank/other firms not on my bidlist? Now? After schedules come out?

Thanks everyone.

Anonymous User
Posts: 298292
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jun 29, 2017 7:12 pm

If I already have an offer from a V3, what other firms would people recommend that I bid in order to hopefully have a small range of "fit" options for New York litigation?

Low-Stone, non-LR.

GoneSouth
Posts: 308
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2015 10:00 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2017

Postby GoneSouth » Thu Jun 29, 2017 7:22 pm

Anonymous User wrote:If I already have an offer from a V3, what other firms would people recommend that I bid in order to hopefully have a small range of "fit" options for New York litigation?

Low-Stone, non-LR.


I don't see what you have to lose by bidding all of the V10. All of them have good lit practices. I'd also bid Paul Weiss and Cleary, maybe Debevoise, WilmerHale, Covington, and Jones Day. Boies if you have the grades. I'm sure I'm probably missing a few.

Anonymous User
Posts: 298292
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jun 29, 2017 7:49 pm

For those of us outside NYC for the summer, are firms there at all willing to conduct pre-EIP interviews (if they do at all) over Skype/FaceTime/phone? I can imagine that being a turnoff.

Anonymous User
Posts: 298292
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:51 pm

Missed kent by half a grade, not on LR. Mainly interested in litigation. Mainly New York or DC, but open to anywhere. Decent/unique WE+ugrad , strong-ish interviewer (I think?), non-URM. Not sure what to put to fill in all these blanks, only have half of a list right now.

1 Boies Schiller Flexner (FFB: 1)
2 Weil (FFB: 4)
3 MoFo (FFB: 5)
4. Paul Weiss (FFB: 9)
5. Gibson Dunn and Crutcher DC (FFB: 11)
6. Skadden NY (FFB: 10)
7. Sullivan and Cromwell (FFB: 10)
8. Davis Polk (FFB: 11)
9. Cravath (FFB: 19)
10. O'Melveny and Myers (FFB:14)
11. Covington DC (FFB: 16)
12. Williams and Connoly (FFB: 19)
13. Arnold and Porter DC (FFB: 18)
14. Wachtell (FFB: 21)
20. Munger Tolles Olson (FFB: 29)
25. Susman Godfrey (FFB: X)

User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 10170
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: Columbia EIP 2017

Postby jbagelboy » Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:57 pm

Anonymous User wrote:If I already have an offer from a V3, what other firms would people recommend that I bid in order to hopefully have a small range of "fit" options for New York litigation?

Low-Stone, non-LR.


Vault doesn't correspond to anything in litigation (it reflects little of anything, but that little is corporate practice in New York). The "V3" (I'm assuming this means V5 since I don't know what v3 stands for) don't have a premium on quality or prestige of lit groups so you aren't just looking at "fit" options. So I'd go for the firms with the best litigation depts like Boies and Jenner and Gibson and Paul Weiss and Wilmer, in addition to some firms with broad strengths like Davis Polk, Cravath, Debevoise, and Kirkland.

TheoO
Posts: 621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 1:28 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2017

Postby TheoO » Thu Jun 29, 2017 9:07 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
TheoO wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
TheoO wrote:
Would like to make room for firms like Skadden/Debevoise, but I'm apprehensive about getting rid of less grade sensitive firms like Milbank/Akin Gump/Ropes & Gray since I'm very low Stone.

Please help!


Keep Akin and Ropes. But I feel like it would be a waste to not be able to interview with Skadden and Deb. I don't know where those fall in the FFB list, though.

Strike out should not really be a fear for you (unless you have some deep personality issues). Yea, you're low stone. That's still at least top 40% of the class at one of the T6 law schools... For those firms you don't get or can't fit in ultimately: email! If you really want to interview with Milbank to be safe, I would be shocked if they got an email from a stone person and said "Pass!"


Thanks TheoO!

Deb FFB is 3, Skadden is 10 (but, in previous years, it was much lower). So, Deb would be a natural swap with Milbank. Unless I swapped Skadden with Akin at 6, not sure I could make room for them. Already worried I won't get Davis Polk at 7 (FFB was 11), and to have a shot at grabbing Skadden I'd have to move DPW to 8. I think I saw someone say you should shoot for FFB - 5 at a minimum. Could maybe swap out PW at 4 and add Skadden there.

Any other thoughts?

If I do swap Milbank out for Deb, when is the appropriate time to e-mail Milbank/other firms not on my bidlist? Now? After schedules come out?

Thanks everyone.



Yea, that's tight. Yea, it's possible to email them either way, especially a firm that is on the less selective side, like Milbank. Email any firm you're interested in, whether you get to bid or not. Saying something more neutral like "I wasn't able to get a screeber with you through the bidding process, but would be interested in the firm." Maybe others here can give some consensus on that, or OCS can advise.

RE: PW/Skadden. That depends on which firm you'd prefer. If there is anything in particular drawing you in outside of concern re: locking an offer. I'm not certain, so others here can perhaps comment, but I've gotten the sense that PW is less selective than Skadden. And they also hire a lot for corporate (they do 3L EIP every year for that group).

Anonymous User
Posts: 298292
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jun 29, 2017 9:12 pm

jbagelboy wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:If I already have an offer from a V3, what other firms would people recommend that I bid in order to hopefully have a small range of "fit" options for New York litigation?

Low-Stone, non-LR.


Vault doesn't correspond to anything in litigation (it reflects little of anything, but that little is corporate practice in New York). The "V3" (I'm assuming this means V5 since I don't know what v3 stands for) don't have a premium on quality or prestige of lit groups so you aren't just looking at "fit" options. So I'd go for the firms with the best litigation depts like Boies and Jenner and Gibson and Paul Weiss and Wilmer, in addition to some firms with broad strengths like Davis Polk, Cravath, Debevoise, and Kirkland.


Pretty sure V3 means skadden. They have been giving offers already. I bid pretty much what jbagelboy said.

GoneSouth
Posts: 308
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2015 10:00 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2017

Postby GoneSouth » Thu Jun 29, 2017 11:45 pm

Anonymous User wrote:For those of us outside NYC for the summer, are firms there at all willing to conduct pre-EIP interviews (if they do at all) over Skype/FaceTime/phone? I can imagine that being a turnoff.


Last year two NYC firms flew a friend of mine to NYC for pre-EIP interviews. I think she'd reached out to recruiting and asked if they could set up a phone call with an attorney to talk about the firm. And then after she talked to the attorney, they invited her for a callback.

GoneSouth
Posts: 308
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2015 10:00 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2017

Postby GoneSouth » Thu Jun 29, 2017 11:53 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Missed kent by half a grade, not on LR. Mainly interested in litigation. Mainly New York or DC, but open to anywhere. Decent/unique WE+ugrad , strong-ish interviewer (I think?), non-URM. Not sure what to put to fill in all these blanks, only have half of a list right now.

1 Boies Schiller Flexner (FFB: 1)
2 Weil (FFB: 4)
3 MoFo (FFB: 5)
4. Paul Weiss (FFB: 9)
5. Gibson Dunn and Crutcher DC (FFB: 11)
6. Skadden NY (FFB: 10)
7. Sullivan and Cromwell (FFB: 10)
8. Davis Polk (FFB: 11)
9. Cravath (FFB: 19)
10. O'Melveny and Myers (FFB:14)
11. Covington DC (FFB: 16)
12. Williams and Connoly (FFB: 19)
13. Arnold and Porter DC (FFB: 18)
14. Wachtell (FFB: 21)
20. Munger Tolles Olson (FFB: 29)
25. Susman Godfrey (FFB: X)


Off the top of my head, you should add WilmerHale (DC), Hogan Lovells (DC), Sidley (DC), Kirkland (DC), Jones Day (DC) (if you can deal with conservatives), Jenner (DC). There's someone earlier on the thread who posted a pretty good DC lit bid list. Scope that out.

Is there a reason you don't have Simpson, Latham, Kirkland, or Cleary on here?

GoneSouth
Posts: 308
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2015 10:00 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2017

Postby GoneSouth » Thu Jun 29, 2017 11:55 pm

TheoO wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
TheoO wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
TheoO wrote:
Would like to make room for firms like Skadden/Debevoise, but I'm apprehensive about getting rid of less grade sensitive firms like Milbank/Akin Gump/Ropes & Gray since I'm very low Stone.

Please help!


Keep Akin and Ropes. But I feel like it would be a waste to not be able to interview with Skadden and Deb. I don't know where those fall in the FFB list, though.

Strike out should not really be a fear for you (unless you have some deep personality issues). Yea, you're low stone. That's still at least top 40% of the class at one of the T6 law schools... For those firms you don't get or can't fit in ultimately: email! If you really want to interview with Milbank to be safe, I would be shocked if they got an email from a stone person and said "Pass!"


Thanks TheoO!

Deb FFB is 3, Skadden is 10 (but, in previous years, it was much lower). So, Deb would be a natural swap with Milbank. Unless I swapped Skadden with Akin at 6, not sure I could make room for them. Already worried I won't get Davis Polk at 7 (FFB was 11), and to have a shot at grabbing Skadden I'd have to move DPW to 8. I think I saw someone say you should shoot for FFB - 5 at a minimum. Could maybe swap out PW at 4 and add Skadden there.

Any other thoughts?

If I do swap Milbank out for Deb, when is the appropriate time to e-mail Milbank/other firms not on my bidlist? Now? After schedules come out?

Thanks everyone.



Yea, that's tight. Yea, it's possible to email them either way, especially a firm that is on the less selective side, like Milbank. Email any firm you're interested in, whether you get to bid or not. Saying something more neutral like "I wasn't able to get a screeber with you through the bidding process, but would be interested in the firm." Maybe others here can give some consensus on that, or OCS can advise.

RE: PW/Skadden. That depends on which firm you'd prefer. If there is anything in particular drawing you in outside of concern re: locking an offer. I'm not certain, so others here can perhaps comment, but I've gotten the sense that PW is less selective than Skadden. And they also hire a lot for corporate (they do 3L EIP every year for that group).


For what it's worth, Paul Weiss only got a few CLS students to accept last year and were worried enough about it that they had Petal call all the people who turned them down to find out why. So I have a feeling they may give a ton of CLS offers this year to try to yield more acceptances.

Anonymous User
Posts: 298292
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Jun 30, 2017 12:04 pm

Anyone have thoughts on why a firm would give a pre-EIP pre-screen interview to some (30 minutes) and straight to callback to others? I assume it is because they have concern they want to address through a pre-screen interview first?

FascinatedWanderer
Posts: 223
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 10:12 pm

Re: Columbia EIP 2017

Postby FascinatedWanderer » Fri Jun 30, 2017 1:22 pm

Depends on the strength of the candidate and how you come across during initial contact. For instance BSF did both screeners and straight to callback for people my year who missed interviews with them.

Anonymous User
Posts: 298292
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Jun 30, 2017 2:39 pm

Kent, secondary journal, want to do NYC transactional, especially public M&A and maybe some PE or activist work, but interested in anything corporate at this point. Really want at least one of Wachtell, Cravath, SullCrom, Simpson or DPW. Can anybody see anything wrong with this bid list or have any suggestions?

1. Kirkland (2)
2. Debevoise (3)
3. Paul, Weiss (9)
4. SullCrom (10)
5. Skadden (10)
6. Davis Polk (11)
7. Cleary (11)
8. Gibson (10)
9. Latham (11)
10. Cravath (19)
11. Jones Day (19)
12. Wachtell (21)
13. Simpson (22)
14. Fried Frank (13)
15. Vinson & Elkins (18)
16. Shearman (20)
17. Cadwalader (26)
18. Schulte Roth (26)
19. Freshfields (28)
20. Olshan (*)
21. Weil (4)
22. Sidley (2)
23. White & Case (5)
24. Willkie (9)
25. Milbank (6)

Anonymous User
Posts: 298292
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Jun 30, 2017 3:01 pm

Stone, secondary journal, want to do lit in NYC. Any suggestions or feedback?

1. Debevoise (3)
2. Proskauer (3)
3. Ropes (6)
4. PW (9)
5. Gibson Dunn (10)
6. Skadden (10)
7. Cleary (10)
8. Davis Polk (11)
9. Latham (13)
10. O’Melveny and Myers (14)
11. WilmerHale (15)
12. Orrick (15)
13. Cravath (19)
14. Paul Hastings (19)
15. Shearman Sterling (20)
16. Pillsbury (20)
17. Simpson Thacher (22)
18. Clifford Chance (22)
19. Hogan (24)
20. Cadwalader (26)
21. Kirkland (28)
22. Arnold and Porter (26)
23. Mayer Brown (26)
24. Schulte (27)
25. Pryor Cashman (27)
26. McDermott Will and Emery (30)
27. Reed Smith (n/a)
28. Greenberg Traurig (n/a)
29. Holland and Knight (n/a)
30. Weil Employment Lit (n/a)

Anonymous User
Posts: 298292
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Jun 30, 2017 3:37 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Stone, secondary journal, want to do lit in NYC. Any suggestions or feedback?

1. Debevoise (3)
2. Proskauer (3)
3. Ropes (6)
4. PW (9)
5. Gibson Dunn (10)
6. Skadden (10)
7. Cleary (10)
8. Davis Polk (11)
9. Latham (13)
10. O’Melveny and Myers (14)
11. WilmerHale (15)
12. Orrick (15)
13. Cravath (19)
14. Paul Hastings (19)
15. Shearman Sterling (20)
16. Pillsbury (20)
17. Simpson Thacher (22)
18. Clifford Chance (22)
19. Hogan (24)
20. Cadwalader (26)
21. Kirkland (28)
22. Arnold and Porter (26)
23. Mayer Brown (26)
24. Schulte (27)
25. Pryor Cashman (27)
26. McDermott Will and Emery (30)
27. Reed Smith (n/a)
28. Greenberg Traurig (n/a)
29. Holland and Knight (n/a)
30. Weil Employment Lit (n/a)


OP- GPA is 3.6, if that helps.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.