Chicago OCI 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.
Anonymous User
Posts: 299640
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Chicago OCI 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Jul 23, 2017 9:03 pm

2014 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
chicago-gunner123 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Hi all! I'd appreciate any suggestions for rounding out my bid list because it's a little on the short side. I have ties to both SV and SoCal, and a couple CA-based firms are noticeably absent from my bidlist because I have pre-OCI CBs (SoCal market). I chose SF firms only where no SV option and/or corp group located in SF.

Grades: 178-78.5
URM/Female: Female
Work Exp: 3+ yrs paralegal
Preferred Market: SV/SF >>>>>>> NY
Practice Area: Corp
Misc: Secondary Journal


You should have more of the big class New York firms higher on your list (STB, Sullcrom, Cravath,Debevoise, etc.). They are more grade selective, but they take more people so it balances out, and your grades put you in range for them. Those are often more likely CBs for someone with your grades than FF, Sidley NY, or Proskauer which take fewer people (others might disagree)


That makes sense. I was worried my grades were too marginal, but maybe I can squeak through on a good screener performance. Does this look any better?


I'd bump 2 of Milbank, Proskauer and Fenwick all the way up to 3rd and move everything else down, i don't think you miss Skadden at 9 or STB at 10 in that scenario but you most likely miss all three of Milbank, Proskauer and Fenwick as you have it now. I'd also somehow get Skadden ahead of Cravath - Cravath is perceived as both (a) grade conscious and (b) harder working than it's peers (FYI - both perceptions are flawed) and both of those tend to make it fill later than the other 42 slot firms.

My knowledge gets stale by the year, someone should feel free to tell me i'm an idiot if this is wrong in light of either of the last two OCIs.


Ok, thanks a lot! The Cravath advice sounds right to me. Lowest successful bid last year was 23 vs 18 for Skadden.

If anyone else has any suggestions, I'd be most appreciative :D

**Revised** Bid List:
1. Shearman NY (21)
2. Fenwick SV (21*)
3. Milbank NY (21)
4. White & Case NY (21)
5. Sullcrom NY (42)
6. Cooley SD (42*)
7. Skadden NY (42)
8. Cooley PA (42*)
9. Cravath NY (42)
10. STB NY (63*)
11. Proskauer NY
12. Sidley NY (21)
13. GDC SV (84*)
14. Foley SV (21*)
15. Jones Day SV (21*)
16. Fried Frank NY (21)
17. Debevoise NY (63)
18. Jones Day NY (21)
19. Ropes & Gray SF (63*)
20. Paul, Weiss NY (42)
21. Gunderson NY (21*)
22. PH SV (63*)
23. Mayer Brown SV (126*)
24. Cleary NY (42)
25. K&E SF (21)
26. Sidley SF (21)
27. WSGR SV (21)
28. OMM SF/SV (21)
29. Goodwin NY (21)
30. Davis Polk SV (21)
31. Goodwin SV (21*)
32. Rutan & Tucker OC (10)

WheninLaw
Posts: 618
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:35 pm

Re: Chicago OCI 2017

Postby WheninLaw » Mon Jul 24, 2017 7:12 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Grades: 180.1, no LR or journal
URM/Female: URM
Preferred Market: CA, SF>PA=LA, strong ties to Northern California,
Practice Area: Interested in securities litigation/enforcement/regulatory work, also financial services-related transactional work to some extent.
Work Exp: Strong corporate experience

Callback scheduled with STB Palo Alto

1. Covington SF 10
2. Gibson Dunn SF 42
3. Kirkland and Ellis SF 21
4. Morrison and Foerster SF 21
5. Latham and Watkins LA 21
6. Mayer Brown LA 10
7. Paul Hastings LA 9
8. Jones Day SF 21
9. Wilson Sonsini Palo Alto 21
10. Fenwick and West Mountain View 21
11. Cooley SF 42
12. Irell LA 21
13. O'Melveny & Myers LA 21
14. Sidley Austin LA 21
15. Orrick SF 21
16. Davis Polk Menlo Park 21
17. Munger, Tolles & Olson LA 21
18. Ropes and Gray SF 42
19. Pillsbury SF 21
20. Proskauer Rose LA 21
21. Skadden LA 21
22. Perkins Coie SF 21
23. Kirkland and Ellis LA 21

Thanks!


Those grades + URM will put you in a very envious position. The only place you may have trouble with is Munger because no journal, but even then, a decent shot. Thoughts:

1. What's up with these SV firms, do you want to do tech stuff?
2. Irell is almost exclusively IP now, FYI.
3. MOFO is sometimes insanely bid, other years not. I'd probably move it to 2 or 3.

Anonymous User
Posts: 299640
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Chicago OCI 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jul 24, 2017 10:38 pm

WheninLaw wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Grades: 180.1, no LR or journal
URM/Female: URM
Preferred Market: CA, SF>PA=LA, strong ties to Northern California,
Practice Area: Interested in securities litigation/enforcement/regulatory work, also financial services-related transactional work to some extent.
Work Exp: Strong corporate experience

Callback scheduled with STB Palo Alto

1. Covington SF 10
2. Gibson Dunn SF 42
3. Kirkland and Ellis SF 21
4. Morrison and Foerster SF 21
5. Latham and Watkins LA 21
6. Mayer Brown LA 10
7. Paul Hastings LA 9
8. Jones Day SF 21
9. Wilson Sonsini Palo Alto 21
10. Fenwick and West Mountain View 21
11. Cooley SF 42
12. Irell LA 21
13. O'Melveny & Myers LA 21
14. Sidley Austin LA 21
15. Orrick SF 21
16. Davis Polk Menlo Park 21
17. Munger, Tolles & Olson LA 21
18. Ropes and Gray SF 42
19. Pillsbury SF 21
20. Proskauer Rose LA 21
21. Skadden LA 21
22. Perkins Coie SF 21
23. Kirkland and Ellis LA 21

Thanks!


Those grades + URM will put you in a very envious position. The only place you may have trouble with is Munger because no journal, but even then, a decent shot. Thoughts:

1. What's up with these SV firms, do you want to do tech stuff?
2. Irell is almost exclusively IP now, FYI.
3. MOFO is sometimes insanely bid, other years not. I'd probably move it to 2 or 3.


Thanks!

1. I thought those were the larger flagship offices, so thought it made more sense to bid them regardless of interests. Not true? Should I try to swap to WSGR/Fenwich/Cooley SF?
2. I know HH left Irell, but Chambers seemed to think they're still well-regarded for securities lit. Not a deep enough specialty to focus on?
3. Good catch- Woo actually told me to swap up to 1st, so got that taken care of.

WheninLaw
Posts: 618
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:35 pm

Re: Chicago OCI 2017

Postby WheninLaw » Tue Jul 25, 2017 2:50 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
1. I thought those were the larger flagship offices, so thought it made more sense to bid them regardless of interests. Not true? Should I try to swap to WSGR/Fenwich/Cooley SF?
2. I know HH left Irell, but Chambers seemed to think they're still well-regarded for securities lit. Not a deep enough specialty to focus on?
3. Good catch- Woo actually told me to swap up to 1st, so got that taken care of.


1. They are (except for Davis Polk), but considering you can be selective, I would probably lower your bid (or drop altogether) unless you can see yourself doing tech stuff.
2. Probably not, and even the non-IP people get dragged into IP. Still worth a bid, I guess, but I doubt you'll end up there.
3. Validation.

Anonymous User
Posts: 299640
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Chicago OCI 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Aug 01, 2017 1:00 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Grades: 180.1, no LR or journal
URM/Female: URM
Preferred Market: CA, SF>PA=LA, strong ties to Northern California,
Practice Area: Interested in securities litigation/enforcement/regulatory work, also financial services-related transactional work to some extent.
Work Exp: Strong corporate experience

Callback scheduled with STB Palo Alto

1. Covington SF 10
2. Gibson Dunn SF 42
3. Kirkland and Ellis SF 21
4. Morrison and Foerster SF 21
5. Latham and Watkins LA 21
6. Mayer Brown LA 10
7. Paul Hastings LA 9
8. Jones Day SF 21
9. Wilson Sonsini Palo Alto 21
10. Fenwick and West Mountain View 21
11. Cooley SF 42
12. Irell LA 21
13. O'Melveny & Myers LA 21
14. Sidley Austin LA 21
15. Orrick SF 21
16. Davis Polk Menlo Park 21
17. Munger, Tolles & Olson LA 21
18. Ropes and Gray SF 42
19. Pillsbury SF 21
20. Proskauer Rose LA 21
21. Skadden LA 21
22. Perkins Coie SF 21
23. Kirkland and Ellis LA 21

Thanks!


For future year UChicago OCI-ers, got 20 interviews scheduled, only missed on PH (who I swapped with DPW Menlo Park per Paul Woo's guidance), Skadden LA, Proskauer Rose, and Ropes and Gray.

Anonymous User
Posts: 299640
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Chicago OCI 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Aug 01, 2017 1:35 pm

.

Anonymous User
Posts: 299640
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Chicago OCI 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:50 pm

OCI has started. Bumping this thread for those to share CB info.

Anonymous User
Posts: 299640
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Chicago OCI 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Aug 07, 2017 11:05 pm

CB w/Latham (Chi), call received tonight (8/7)

User avatar
beepboopbeep
Posts: 1318
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 7:36 pm

Re: Chicago OCI 2017

Postby beepboopbeep » Tue Aug 08, 2017 3:38 am

Alum checking in.

typed up a long thing on someone's bidlist and realized that OCI already started per recent posts. GLHF, guys. Happy to take PMs to discuss firms and callbacks; I summered in DC and LA and am wrapping up my first year as an associate in LA.

Anonymous User
Posts: 299640
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Chicago OCI 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Aug 08, 2017 8:04 pm

DLA CB (Chicago) received today

Anonymous User
Posts: 299640
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Chicago OCI 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Aug 09, 2017 4:02 pm

anyone heard from white and case (ny) or cadwalader?

Anonymous User
Posts: 299640
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Chicago OCI 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Aug 09, 2017 4:26 pm

Latham CH ding

Anonymous User
Posts: 299640
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Chicago OCI 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Aug 09, 2017 9:10 pm

steptoe DC ding

Anonymous User
Posts: 299640
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Chicago OCI 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Aug 09, 2017 10:15 pm

Schiff Hardin (Chi) CB

Anonymous User
Posts: 299640
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Chicago OCI 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Aug 10, 2017 12:21 pm

Latham and K&E LA CBs.

Anonymous User
Posts: 299640
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Chicago OCI 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:12 pm

Anybody hear from SF/SV firms yet?

Anonymous User
Posts: 299640
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Chicago OCI 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Aug 10, 2017 2:43 pm

Latham DC CB

Anonymous User
Posts: 299640
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Chicago OCI 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Aug 10, 2017 4:54 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Anybody hear from SF/SV firms yet?


Sidley SF CB yesterday over the phone

Anonymous User
Posts: 299640
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Chicago OCI 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Aug 10, 2017 4:55 pm

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett (NY) CB

Anonymous User
Posts: 299640
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Chicago OCI 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Aug 10, 2017 7:16 pm

Jenner (Chi) CB

Anonymous User
Posts: 299640
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Chicago OCI 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Aug 10, 2017 10:24 pm

Jenner (chi) CB
McGuireWoods (chi) cb

Anonymous User
Posts: 299640
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Chicago OCI 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Aug 11, 2017 11:20 am

Williams & Connolly CB

Anonymous User
Posts: 299640
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Chicago OCI 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Aug 11, 2017 3:31 pm

Katten (chi) CB

Anonymous User
Posts: 299640
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Chicago OCI 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Aug 11, 2017 3:52 pm

Davis Polk (DC) CB

Anonymous User
Posts: 299640
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Chicago OCI 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Aug 11, 2017 3:55 pm

S&C (NY) CB




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.