Clerkship Competitiveness for Lit Boutiques Forum

[Anonymous User]

Clerk in an adjacent DC/NY district (D.N.J., D. Conn, D. Md., E.D. Va.). I’m interested in lit boutiques, but I'm not sure I will get a serious look with only a clerkship in one of the above-mentioned districts.

Most (not all) of the associate profiles on the firm websites I have seen (Susman, Kellogg, Kaplan, Hueston, Molo, etc.) are usually (i) somebody that clerked on DDC/SDNY/EDNY; (ii) clerked on a COA; (iii) clerked on DDC/SDNY/EDNY + COA; clerked on DDC/SDNY/EDNY + COA; clerked in a non-DDC/SDNY/EDNY district but also did COA.

Basically, I want to know if, to get a strong look from one of these firms, I would need to add a COA clerkship assuming my law school stuff is otherwise competitive. Part of the issue is that I ended up with a two-year district court clerkship (which I have some regrets about), and so I am reluctant to clerk for another year.

Does it matter which district exactly I am in now and which firm/office I am interested in? Is the competitiveness of the clerkship just a proxy for other metrics that boutiques care more about, like grades?

Any thoughts would be helpful.

[Anonymous User]

I don't think this is necessarily true at all. I'm looking at susman right now and i see some people with just a district court clerkship in a district that is not DDC/SDNY/EDNY. So its not an auto ding if that's what you're asking.

[The Lsat Airbender]

Inter-district prestige ranking is highly overrated; there's some correlation with elite-firm outcomes but mainly because both things are heavily dictated by school/grades. And that's before getting into the presence of highly-regarded judges all over the country.

[mardash]

ED Va is great litigation experience.

[Anonymous User]

Elite district/circuit thing is a correlation/causation issue. The top candidates think it matters, so they filter into SDNY or 2/9/DC. Then on the job market, they have the top credentials clerkship aside and get the best jobs.

Two candidates of identical backgrounds, one who chased the prestige and clerked on CA9 and the other who decided to spend a year back home on CA6 or something, will have identical job prospects IME.

So I think OP has flagged the exact issue by calling these factors a "proxy" for other qualifications.

[Anonymous User]

I work at an elite DC litigation litigation firm (think W&C/Kellogg/Munger) type place. I will have to buck the trend here: the prestige of your court does matter. The overwhelming majority of our candidates have clerked COA, ideally for a competitive circuit judge. For folks without a circuit clerkship, I think the prestige of the district (especially ddc, SDNY, ndcal) can matter. It may not be fair but we get so many applications from people with good grades from HYSC etc that we need a mechanism to filter. Often the more prestigious judges and courts are better known to our partners too, who seem to gravitate to those candidates during the hiring process. Now, we’re an appellatey shop in DC. Maybe the trial focused elite boutiques like Susman may have a different approach, but I haven’t necessarily seen that (including when I was applying post clerkship). You’re not dead in the water by any means, but it will be something to overcome.

[Anonymous User]

I work at an elite DC litigation litigation firm (think W&C/Kellogg/Munger) type place. I will have to buck the trend here: the prestige of your court does matter. The overwhelming majority of our candidates have clerked COA, ideally for a competitive circuit judge. For folks without a circuit clerkship, I think the prestige of the district (especially ddc, SDNY, ndcal) can matter. It may not be fair but we get so many applications from people with good grades from HYSC etc that we need a mechanism to filter. Often the more prestigious judges and courts are better known to our partners too, who seem to gravitate to those candidates during the hiring process. Now, we’re an appellatey shop in DC. Maybe the trial focused elite boutiques like Susman may have a different approach, but I haven’t necessarily seen that (including when I was applying post clerkship). You’re not dead in the water by any means, but it will be something to overcome.

I feel like a lot of this is actually focusing on the judge rather than the jurisdiction. Is that the case? I think most people who disagree with you would issue a caveat that individual judges can/do matter, compared to jurisdictions. (Like there's a big difference between clerking for Thapar and clerking on the 6th Cir.) Is it possible that the partners in your appellate shop are the top candidates who self-selected into the "prestigious" jurisdictions because they thought it mattered, and who are now perpetuating that? Because I'd agree with the comment above yours that this is a proxy. But I'm also not in elite DC litigation, so, you know, my opinion is of limited weight here.

(Certainly COA is always going to be more prestigious for an appellate shop.)

[Anonymous User]

I work at an elite DC litigation litigation firm (think W&C/Kellogg/Munger) type place. I will have to buck the trend here: the prestige of your court does matter. The overwhelming majority of our candidates have clerked COA, ideally for a competitive circuit judge. For folks without a circuit clerkship, I think the prestige of the district (especially ddc, SDNY, ndcal) can matter. It may not be fair but we get so many applications from people with good grades from HYSC etc that we need a mechanism to filter. Often the more prestigious judges and courts are better known to our partners too, who seem to gravitate to those candidates during the hiring process. Now, we’re an appellatey shop in DC. Maybe the trial focused elite boutiques like Susman may have a different approach, but I haven’t necessarily seen that (including when I was applying post clerkship). You’re not dead in the water by any means, but it will be something to overcome.

I feel like a lot of this is actually focusing on the judge rather than the jurisdiction. Is that the case? I think most people who disagree with you would issue a caveat that individual judges can/do matter, compared to jurisdictions. (Like there's a big difference between clerking for Thapar and clerking on the 6th Cir.) Is it possible that the partners in your appellate shop are the top candidates who self-selected into the "prestigious" jurisdictions because they thought it mattered, and who are now perpetuating that? Because I'd agree with the comment above yours that this is a proxy. But I'm also not in elite DC litigation, so, you know, my opinion is of limited weight here.

(Certainly COA is always going to be more prestigious for an appellate shop.)

Sure, of course specific judges matter a great deal. But competitive districts are themselves signals and often, especially for older partners who might not know current most competitive judges etc, they are pretty valuable signals. I also don't know that many exceptionally competitive district judges outside of the conventionally most competitive districts. Circuits? Of course. But circuit is almost always better than a district alone and certainly a competitive circuit judge even more so. I do agree that it's all a proxy, absolutely. But, for better or worse, the classically competitive districts -- except where the lawyers know a specific judge is an exception -- tend to suggest the strongest proxy for the things we look for. Or, maybe it's all just correlation etc. All I do know is that we don't often interview candidates with only a less competitive district court clerkship standing alone, and I think that holds true for the most sought after trial boutiques that I'm familiar with.

[Anonymous User]

Do lit boutiques care about having both federal district and circuit. I am a circuit clerk for a semi-feeder and also clerked for my states state supreme court. I do not want to clerk a third time if I can avoid it. Will clerk again if it will raise my chances.

[Anonymous User]

Do lit boutiques care about having both federal district and circuit. I am a circuit clerk for a semi-feeder and also clerked for my states state supreme court. I do not want to clerk a third time if I can avoid it. Will clerk again if it will raise my chances.

You probably don't need to in order to be competitive, but the details are going to matter here. Assuming you have traditional semi-feeder credentials, doesn't this hinge a lot on whether you want to apply to appellate-focused or trial boutiques? Places like Hueston/Susman may place more emphasis on the district clerkship, while places like Kellogg/Molo (which according to my sources handles a fair amount of appellate work) might care more about your varied appellate experience and the semi-feeder clerkship credential.

[Anonymous User]

Do lit boutiques care about having both federal district and circuit. I am a circuit clerk for a semi-feeder and also clerked for my states state supreme court. I do not want to clerk a third time if I can avoid it. Will clerk again if it will raise my chances.

You probably don't need to in order to be competitive, but the details are going to matter here. Assuming you have traditional semi-feeder credentials, doesn't this hinge a lot on whether you want to apply to appellate-focused or trial boutiques? Places like Hueston/Susman may place more emphasis on the district clerkship, while places like Kellogg/Molo (which according to my sources handles a fair amount of appellate work) might care more about your varied appellate experience and the semi-feeder clerkship credential.

Honestly I wanted to apply to both, but I guess you're saying maybe I should pick one lane? If I was applying to appellate I assumed my "sell" would be I can argue both state and federal appeals and understand the nuances of federalism and whatever. For a place like Susman I assume that type of argument won't get as much traction and I would probably need some sort of federal district. My concern would be if I clerk a third time it would sort of make my SSC null and void insofar as I'll just be at the same place I would have been at had I just done the classic COA/DC.

Also for the purposes of this question (rightfully) assume i have zero chance on SCOTUS. My judge likes me, but he very clearly has some other stars in the chamber with way better credentials and I do not really have an interest in going for SCOTUS.

[Anonymous User]

Do lit boutiques care about having both federal district and circuit. I am a circuit clerk for a semi-feeder and also clerked for my states state supreme court. I do not want to clerk a third time if I can avoid it. Will clerk again if it will raise my chances.

You probably don't need to in order to be competitive, but the details are going to matter here. Assuming you have traditional semi-feeder credentials, doesn't this hinge a lot on whether you want to apply to appellate-focused or trial boutiques? Places like Hueston/Susman may place more emphasis on the district clerkship, while places like Kellogg/Molo (which according to my sources handles a fair amount of appellate work) might care more about your varied appellate experience and the semi-feeder clerkship credential.

Honestly I wanted to apply to both, but I guess you're saying maybe I should pick one lane? If I was applying to appellate I assumed my "sell" would be I can argue both state and federal appeals and understand the nuances of federalism and whatever. For a place like Susman I assume that type of argument won't get as much traction and I would probably need some sort of federal district. My concern would be if I clerk a third time it would sort of make my SSC null and void insofar as I'll just be at the same place I would have been at had I just done the classic COA/DC.

Also for the purposes of this question (rightfully) assume i have zero chance on SCOTUS. My judge likes me, but he very clearly has some other stars in the chamber with way better credentials and I do not really have an interest in going for SCOTUS.

YMMV but know several of my friends / co-clerks who have landed spots at the prestigious trial oriented boutiques you're thinking about (including Susman) with only a semi-feeder circuit clerkship and excellent academic credentials. I don't know how many firms necessarily prize the district court clerkship for candidates with solid circuit clerkships. It might help if academic creds are weak or something, but I certainly don't think it's a pre-req.

[Anonymous User]

Do lit boutiques care about having both federal district and circuit. I am a circuit clerk for a semi-feeder and also clerked for my states state supreme court. I do not want to clerk a third time if I can avoid it. Will clerk again if it will raise my chances.

You probably don't need to in order to be competitive, but the details are going to matter here. Assuming you have traditional semi-feeder credentials, doesn't this hinge a lot on whether you want to apply to appellate-focused or trial boutiques? Places like Hueston/Susman may place more emphasis on the district clerkship, while places like Kellogg/Molo (which according to my sources handles a fair amount of appellate work) might care more about your varied appellate experience and the semi-feeder clerkship credential.

Honestly I wanted to apply to both, but I guess you're saying maybe I should pick one lane? If I was applying to appellate I assumed my "sell" would be I can argue both state and federal appeals and understand the nuances of federalism and whatever. For a place like Susman I assume that type of argument won't get as much traction and I would probably need some sort of federal district. My concern would be if I clerk a third time it would sort of make my SSC null and void insofar as I'll just be at the same place I would have been at had I just done the classic COA/DC.

Also for the purposes of this question (rightfully) assume i have zero chance on SCOTUS. My judge likes me, but he very clearly has some other stars in the chamber with way better credentials and I do not really have an interest in going for SCOTUS.

YMMV but know several of my friends / co-clerks who have landed spots at the prestigious trial oriented boutiques you're thinking about (including Susman) with only a semi-feeder circuit clerkship and excellent academic credentials. I don't know how many firms necessarily prize the district court clerkship for candidates with solid circuit clerkships. It might help if academic creds are weak or something, but I certainly don't think it's a pre-req.

So my academic credentials are very strong. Top magna cum laude equivalent, so it seems like I don't need it. Would a third clerkship even make me stronger if ever so slightly or would it start to seem like overkill. I guess also I'm sort of out of luck for any competitive districts until at least 2025. Would like to maximize my chances and I'm not the best interviewer.

[Anonymous User]

I'm an associate at one of the lit boutiques mentioned above and I think you shouldn't be overly worried about your competitiveness for boutiques. Magna with clerkships at the state level and federal district court should get you interviews as long as you aren't applying too late in the hiring cycle. If you're aiming for the most competitive landing spots/offices like Susman NYC or Kellogg, then of course it will be harder as you'll be competing with other Summas/Magnas and applicants with more competitive clerkships (including SCOTUS clerks). But that certainly doesn't mean you're out of the running. And speaking as someone who has interviewed candidates with similar credentials, the more prestigious your law school, the more you blend in than you think with these top candidates.

Might be anecdotal but a state clerkship in the right state could also be a slight leg up if the firm has a docket of cases there or the state is a popular forum for a class of cases the firm often litigates. I know there are states like this to some extent for each of the top lit boutiques. Certainly not the equivalent of a coveted COA feeder clerkship but that state clerkship could set you apart in interviews with the right folks if you know about the firm's cases.

[Anonymous User]

I'm an associate at one of the lit boutiques mentioned above and I think you shouldn't be overly worried about your competitiveness for boutiques. Magna with clerkships at the state level and federal district court should get you interviews as long as you aren't applying too late in the hiring cycle. If you're aiming for the most competitive landing spots/offices like Susman NYC or Kellogg, then of course it will be harder as you'll be competing with other Summas/Magnas and applicants with more competitive clerkships (including SCOTUS clerks). But that certainly doesn't mean you're out of the running. And speaking as someone who has interviewed candidates with similar credentials, the more prestigious your law school, the more you blend in than you think with these top candidates.

Might be anecdotal but a state clerkship in the right state could also be a slight leg up if the firm has a docket of cases there or the state is a popular forum for a class of cases the firm often litigates. I know there are states like this to some extent for each of the top lit boutiques. Certainly not the equivalent of a coveted COA feeder clerkship but that state clerkship could set you apart in interviews with the right folks if you know about the firm's cases.

Could you clarify what you mean by this. Is "blending in" the goal or is that bad. I assume these places gets tons of top applicants so shouldn't the goal be to not blend in (in a positive way of course). Or, alternatively, maybe there are so many qualified positions that absent a SCOTUS clerkship its basically impossible to stand out and the best you can hope for is to blend in.

[Anonymous User]

the more prestigious your law school, the more you blend in than you think with these top candidates.

Could you clarify what you mean by this. Is "blending in" the goal or is that bad. I assume these places gets tons of top applicants so shouldn't the goal be to not blend in (in a positive way of course). Or, alternatively, maybe there are so many qualified positions that absent a SCOTUS clerkship its basically impossible to stand out and the best you can hope for is to blend in.

I meant "blending in" as a proxy for competitiveness. In other words, if a hiring committee/interviewer came across your resume, I think they'd see you as another competitive applicant and someone worth considering. You can be missing a COA clerkship or competitive district court clerkship (DDC/SDNY/EDNY/etc.) and still be a competitive applicant. If you're Magna from a good school with a federal district court clerkship, I think most interviewers at these boutiques would still give you a serious look. Sure clerking COA next would make you more competitive, but the additional gold star might not be worth yet another year of clerking. If you grind hard applying, networking, and interviewing, I think you can land at a boutique. If you're an August clerk, I hope you're knee-deep in the application process as it is kind of late in the hiring cycle for some firms/offices. If you want to maximize your chances of landing at boutique, then sure get a COA clerkship. With your grades and experience clerking, you shouldn't have a problem nabbing one somewhere.

[Anonymous User]

How much can a clerkship "repair" a transcript? Like, for example, if you're merely above-norm at HYS but also lock down a solid COA, does that start to make you more appealing to these shops?

[Anonymous User]

the more prestigious your law school, the more you blend in than you think with these top candidates.

Could you clarify what you mean by this. Is "blending in" the goal or is that bad. I assume these places gets tons of top applicants so shouldn't the goal be to not blend in (in a positive way of course). Or, alternatively, maybe there are so many qualified positions that absent a SCOTUS clerkship its basically impossible to stand out and the best you can hope for is to blend in.

I meant "blending in" as a proxy for competitiveness. In other words, if a hiring committee/interviewer came across your resume, I think they'd see you as another competitive applicant and someone worth considering. You can be missing a COA clerkship or competitive district court clerkship (DDC/SDNY/EDNY/etc.) and still be a competitive applicant. If you're Magna from a good school with a federal district court clerkship, I think most interviewers at these boutiques would still give you a serious look. Sure clerking COA next would make you more competitive, but the additional gold star might not be worth yet another year of clerking. If you grind hard applying, networking, and interviewing, I think you can land at a boutique. If you're an August clerk, I hope you're knee-deep in the application process as it is kind of late in the hiring cycle for some firms/offices. If you want to maximize your chances of landing at boutique, then sure get a COA clerkship. With your grades and experience clerking, you shouldn't have a problem nabbing one somewhere.

To clarify, I have the COA clerkship and the SSC clerkship, but not the district clerkship. So right now my resume says T14 magna + LR, SSC clerk, and semi-feeder COA. I don't know if this changes anything.

[Anonymous User]

To clarify, I have the COA clerkship and the SSC clerkship, but not the district clerkship. So right now my resume says T14 magna + LR, SSC clerk, and semi-feeder COA. I don't know if this changes anything.

Boutique associate here again. That makes you more competitive, if anything. You and OP should be worrying/posting less and applying more lol. You're both competitive applicants for lit boutiques that should/will get interviews. Break a leg.

[Anonymous User]

How much can a clerkship "repair" a transcript? Like, for example, if you're merely above-norm at HYS but also lock down a solid COA, does that start to make you more appealing to these shops?

Short answer: no. The top boutiques are looking for something like T14 magna + LR + COA clerkship and/or competitive district clerkship as a baseline. A solid COA clerkship is not going to "repair" a middling transcript.

Think about the signal that a middling Harvard transcript + solid COA clerkship sends, especially if you were on FedSoc board and/or JLPP. The signal it sends is "this person doesn't quite have the academic chops we typically look for but is good at networking with conservative judges or has a family connection." That's not a compelling reason to hire a candidate that falls below a firm's usual hiring guidelines.

[Anonymous User]

How much can a clerkship "repair" a transcript? Like, for example, if you're merely above-norm at HYS but also lock down a solid COA, does that start to make you more appealing to these shops?

Short answer: no. The top boutiques are looking for something like T14 magna + LR + COA clerkship and/or competitive district clerkship as a baseline. A solid COA clerkship is not going to "repair" a middling transcript.

Think about the signal that a middling Harvard transcript + solid COA clerkship sends, especially if you were on FedSoc board and/or JLPP. The signal it sends is "this person doesn't quite have the academic chops we typically look for but is good at networking with conservative judges or has a family connection." That's not a compelling reason to hire a candidate that falls below a firm's usual hiring guidelines.

Don't disagree but think you're overestimating how selective some of these places are. I know people from my HYS who have gone to Susman, W&C, MTO, etc. (so, admittedly, not necessarily the true boutiques like Bartlit or whatever) with no LR and good grades that are not magna (probably more like ~top 30%).

[Anonymous User]

How much can a clerkship "repair" a transcript? Like, for example, if you're merely above-norm at HYS but also lock down a solid COA, does that start to make you more appealing to these shops?

Short answer: no. The top boutiques are looking for something like T14 magna + LR + COA clerkship and/or competitive district clerkship as a baseline. A solid COA clerkship is not going to "repair" a middling transcript.

Think about the signal that a middling Harvard transcript + solid COA clerkship sends, especially if you were on FedSoc board and/or JLPP. The signal it sends is "this person doesn't quite have the academic chops we typically look for but is good at networking with conservative judges or has a family connection." That's not a compelling reason to hire a candidate that falls below a firm's usual hiring guidelines.

This is overstating it. Hiring is not an exact science. Some people get hired at top boutiques with resumes like the one described. And different offices/firms have different preferences that matter beyond just grades. E.g. many lit boutiques really like people with hard science degrees, national-level athletics, mock trial, or debate backgrounds, or military experience.

Also incidentally I think the "middling grades plus liberal COA" resume is becoming a lot more common than it used to be with the new Biden judges, many of whom hire for background and demonstrated commitment to the cause just like Fed Soc judges have historically.

[Anonymous User]

How much can a clerkship "repair" a transcript? Like, for example, if you're merely above-norm at HYS but also lock down a solid COA, does that start to make you more appealing to these shops?

Short answer: no. The top boutiques are looking for something like T14 magna + LR + COA clerkship and/or competitive district clerkship as a baseline. A solid COA clerkship is not going to "repair" a middling transcript.

Think about the signal that a middling Harvard transcript + solid COA clerkship sends, especially if you were on FedSoc board and/or JLPP. The signal it sends is "this person doesn't quite have the academic chops we typically look for but is good at networking with conservative judges or has a family connection." That's not a compelling reason to hire a candidate that falls below a firm's usual hiring guidelines.

Don't disagree but think you're overestimating how selective some of these places are. I know people from my HYS who have gone to Susman, W&C, MTO, etc. (so, admittedly, not necessarily the true boutiques like Bartlit or whatever) with no LR and good grades that are not magna (probably more like ~top 30%).

This. Am an associate at one of the boutiques mentioned in this thread, and based on my experience of a) our hiring process; b) my HYS classmates’, there simply are sufficiently few HYS candidates (especially Y+S) on the market that a top 3 school plus a COA is typically plenty to at least get into a decent place in the interview process. Of course fit, interest, practice, personality can all matter when you interview. And also of course it’s worse to have a wall of Ps and clerkship with a judge nobody’s heard of versus mostly Hs and a circuit that’s local to where you’d be practicing. But you shouldn’t be intimidated by a huge line of YLJ gunners waiting to work at these firms because that doesn’t really exist.

[Anonymous User]

How much can a clerkship "repair" a transcript? Like, for example, if you're merely above-norm at HYS but also lock down a solid COA, does that start to make you more appealing to these shops?

Short answer: no. The top boutiques are looking for something like T14 magna + LR + COA clerkship and/or competitive district clerkship as a baseline. A solid COA clerkship is not going to "repair" a middling transcript.

Think about the signal that a middling Harvard transcript + solid COA clerkship sends, especially if you were on FedSoc board and/or JLPP. The signal it sends is "this person doesn't quite have the academic chops we typically look for but is good at networking with conservative judges or has a family connection." That's not a compelling reason to hire a candidate that falls below a firm's usual hiring guidelines.

Don't disagree but think you're overestimating how selective some of these places are. I know people from my HYS who have gone to Susman, W&C, MTO, etc. (so, admittedly, not necessarily the true boutiques like Bartlit or whatever) with no LR and good grades that are not magna (probably more like ~top 30%).

This. Am an associate at one of the boutiques mentioned in this thread, and based on my experience of a) our hiring process; b) my HYS classmates’, there simply are sufficiently few HYS candidates (especially Y+S) on the market that a top 3 school plus a COA is typically plenty to at least get into a decent place in the interview process. Of course fit, interest, practice, personality can all matter when you interview. And also of course it’s worse to have a wall of Ps and clerkship with a judge nobody’s heard of versus mostly Hs and a circuit that’s local to where you’d be practicing. But you shouldn’t be intimidated by a huge line of YLJ gunners waiting to work at these firms because that doesn’t really exist.

So, for example, roughly 50/50 H/P at YS with a DC and COA (and 1 year at a V10 in between) would likely get consideration at these shops?

[Anonymous User]

How much can a clerkship "repair" a transcript? Like, for example, if you're merely above-norm at HYS but also lock down a solid COA, does that start to make you more appealing to these shops?

Short answer: no. The top boutiques are looking for something like T14 magna + LR + COA clerkship and/or competitive district clerkship as a baseline. A solid COA clerkship is not going to "repair" a middling transcript.

Think about the signal that a middling Harvard transcript + solid COA clerkship sends, especially if you were on FedSoc board and/or JLPP. The signal it sends is "this person doesn't quite have the academic chops we typically look for but is good at networking with conservative judges or has a family connection." That's not a compelling reason to hire a candidate that falls below a firm's usual hiring guidelines.

Don't disagree but think you're overestimating how selective some of these places are. I know people from my HYS who have gone to Susman, W&C, MTO, etc. (so, admittedly, not necessarily the true boutiques like Bartlit or whatever) with no LR and good grades that are not magna (probably more like ~top 30%).

This. Am an associate at one of the boutiques mentioned in this thread, and based on my experience of a) our hiring process; b) my HYS classmates’, there simply are sufficiently few HYS candidates (especially Y+S) on the market that a top 3 school plus a COA is typically plenty to at least get into a decent place in the interview process. Of course fit, interest, practice, personality can all matter when you interview. And also of course it’s worse to have a wall of Ps and clerkship with a judge nobody’s heard of versus mostly Hs and a circuit that’s local to where you’d be practicing. But you shouldn’t be intimidated by a huge line of YLJ gunners waiting to work at these firms because that doesn’t really exist.

So, for example, roughly 50/50 H/P at YS with a DC and COA (and 1 year at a V10 in between) would likely get consideration at these shops?

Yeah obviously no guarantees, but knowing only that at my boutique I’d definitely say you should shoot your shot, and probably apply across the board.