Michigan 2014 OCI Thread!!!!!!! Forum

[Anonymous User]

Just below 3.9 looking exclusively at socal with strong ties.

If I'm thinking purely transactional, what do you guys think of the top of my bid list?

1) Gibson
2) Munger
3) Latham
4) Skadden
5) Irell (small group of transactional)
6) O'Melveny
7) Mofo

Am I missing anything at the top?

No reason to rank Munger or Irell that high: last year there were more interviews than bids (for obvious reasons), and both are signed up for one full interview schedule (21 interviews) again this year. Consider raising up your other bids that might be harder to get. Same might be true of Skadden, but I did not take the time to look.

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone know what it means when certain firms are listed as coming to OCI but there is no information about the historical GPA offer information at UM? Does it mean that those firms just haven't extended an offer to any MLaw students in the past 4 years (or whatever period the information is for)?

Also, vice versa, there are quit a few firms lists as having given offers that aren't listed as coming to OCI. Does that mean those offers were through mass mailing? Or just that those firms no longer come to OCI here?

[Anonymous User]

Just below 3.9 looking exclusively at socal with strong ties.

If I'm thinking purely transactional, what do you guys think of the top of my bid list?

1) Gibson
2) Munger
3) Latham
4) Skadden
5) Irell (small group of transactional)
6) O'Melveny
7) Mofo

Am I missing anything at the top?

No reason to rank Munger or Irell that high: last year there were more interviews than bids (for obvious reasons), and both are signed up for one full interview schedule (21 interviews) again this year. Consider raising up your other bids that might be harder to get. Same might be true of Skadden, but I did not take the time to look.

Thanks for the reply.

Which firms would you consider putting above them? I'm struggling to think of other LA firms with a strong transactional practice.

[Anonymous User]

Just below 3.9 looking exclusively at socal with strong ties.

If I'm thinking purely transactional, what do you guys think of the top of my bid list?

1) Gibson
2) Munger
3) Latham
4) Skadden
5) Irell (small group of transactional)
6) O'Melveny
7) Mofo

Am I missing anything at the top?

No reason to rank Munger or Irell that high: last year there were more interviews than bids (for obvious reasons), and both are signed up for one full interview schedule (21 interviews) again this year. Consider raising up your other bids that might be harder to get. Same might be true of Skadden, but I did not take the time to look.

Thanks for the reply.

Which firms would you consider putting above them? I'm struggling to think of other LA firms with a strong transactional practice.

Assuming you are completely wedded to SoCal, that would really only the leave satellite offices of firms with big transactional practices overall (i.e. K&E, Simpson Thacher?) that are also doing a few interviews for LA offices. It really depends on whether you want to maximize your bids for the sake of maximization.

[Anonymous User]

Just below 3.9 looking exclusively at socal with strong ties.

If I'm thinking purely transactional, what do you guys think of the top of my bid list?

1) Gibson
2) Munger
3) Latham
4) Skadden
5) Irell (small group of transactional)
6) O'Melveny
7) Mofo

Am I missing anything at the top?

No reason to rank Munger or Irell that high: last year there were more interviews than bids (for obvious reasons), and both are signed up for one full interview schedule (21 interviews) again this year. Consider raising up your other bids that might be harder to get. Same might be true of Skadden, but I did not take the time to look.

Thanks for the reply.

Which firms would you consider putting above them? I'm struggling to think of other LA firms with a strong transactional practice.

Assuming you are completely wedded to SoCal, that would really only the leave satellite offices of firms with big transactional practices overall (i.e. K&E, Simpson Thacher?) that are also doing a few interviews for LA offices. It really depends on whether you want to maximize your bids for the sake of maximization.

That makes sense. And I agree. I just don't know if I want to put a firm I wouldn't want to work at (K&E LA) over a firm I really would want to work at (MTO) just because of open interview spots.

Good food for thought though.

LA's transactional practice is pretty slim. Wish there were boutiques like Susman for transactional work.

[Anonymous User]

1) Gibson
2) Munger
3) Latham
4) Skadden
5) Irell (small group of transactional)
6) O'Melveny
7) Mofo

A few years ago, I bid Irell 29 and Munger 30 and got both interviews. You do not need to put them that far down, but there is no need to have them in your top 5. And just keep in mind that for Munger at least, they only hire a few summers who want to exclusively do transactional work.

In general, your bid list should not be arranged by where you would to prefer to work. (Firms do not have access to where you ranked them.) Instead, your bid list should seek to maximize interviews and so keep in mind that less people will bid on extremely grade selective firms. Of course, with a 3.9, you can afford to be a little bit more choosey.

Just saw your later post. I would also bid the big NY transactional firms. You might realize that you want to spend the first few years there. Or at the very least, it gives you a little bit of a safety net and gives you more interview practice.

[Anonymous User]

Just reviewed the law reform email. Someone should tell them that there was nothing "exceptional" about the mass of entries they accepted. I guess it's better than the alternative (in terms of being accepted, not the issue of actually being on the thing). The 70+ people they made offers to were, on average, above average.

[Anonymous User]

Just reviewed the law reform email. Someone should tell them that there's nothing "exceptional" about being on their journal. I guess it's better than the alternative (in terms of being accepted, not the issue of actually being on the thing). The 70+ people they made offers to were, on average, above average.

Relax

[Anonymous User]

Just reviewed the law reform email. Someone should tell them that there's nothing "exceptional" about being on their journal. I guess it's better than the alternative (in terms of being accepted, not the issue of actually being on the thing). The 70+ people they made offers to were, on average, above average.

Wat?

Relax bro.

[Anonymous User]

The JLR letter I got in an email was attached as "JLR 2014 Letter_A.pdf." Anybody get Letter B?

[Anonymous User]

Haha, just making fun of the wording. My application was crap. I meant to make light of the classification of the application, not the journal as a whole. That's all I'm saying. Edited for accuracy.

[Anonymous User]

Is there anyone on here who has been on a journal and who wants to step up and say it was a worthwhile experience. Everyone so far seems to be hating on journals, and hating on them uniformly.

[Anonymous User]

Is there anyone on here who has been on a journal and who wants to step up and say it was a worthwhile experience. Everyone so far seems to be hating on journals, and hating on them uniformly.

I think it's just something that you have to do. I'm hoping I can get onto MLR, and completely assume that I would hate every minute of it.

[Anonymous User]

Just reviewed the law reform email. Someone should tell them that there was nothing "exceptional" about the mass of entries they accepted. I guess it's better than the alternative (in terms of being accepted, not the issue of actually being on the thing). The 70+ people they made offers to were, on average, above average.

Where are you getting the info that they accept 70+ ppl? That would make
0 sense since they have a waitlist....

[Anonymous User]

Yeah, 70 is almost certainly a guess. Does anyone know how many people are on it per year? I would assume they know they'll lose a majority of the initial acceptances, and it seems likely that they accept more than they plan to get in total. It seems like there are some 3Ls and grads looking at this, can anyone comment?

Go blue!

[Anonymous User]

Yeah, 70 is almost certainly a guess. Does anyone know how many people are on it per year? I would assume they know they'll lose a majority of the initial acceptances, and it seems likely that they accept more than they plan to get in total. It seems like there are some 3Ls and grads looking at this, can anyone comment?

Go blue!

Masthead indicates that 50 AEs per year... But I'm incoming 2L so
no idea about how many they initially accept... But it would make sense to me that they would never accept 50+ just in case lightning strikes and 50+ join JLR.. Plus there are no stats on this so no need to yield protect or anything.

Any 3Ls/grads know more about this?

[Anonymous User]

Maybe, but if they want 50, they've gotta lose 20+ to MLR and people who would rather do another journal. They probably want to minimize the number of people who are second choices. I would guess they have a pretty good historical sense. I would guess if MLR takes 50 and JLR takes 50, then the initial acceptance from JLR would be 70-80. I figure 210-240 apply. Does that seem off to anyone?

[Anonymous User]

Why the fuck does everyone care which secondary they are on? If you're not on law review, literally nobody anywhere gives a shit if you're on law reform or of i you're on gender and law. The work you do is going to be exactly the same your first year substantively and the amount of that awful work increases if you're on Law Reform and decreases if you're on Race and Law. Choose a journal based on the amount of work you have to do, not the type of journal, unless its law review, because literally nobody cares if you're not on law review.

[Anonymous User]

I think people would definitely agree with that in many ways. I think what PPL are trying to find out is how many people are initially ACCEPTED to JLR (vs. waitlisted or flat out denied) so they can assess their chances for MLR (full well knowing that it's not exactly a 1:1 correlation. But if there were 70 initial acceptances to JLR, it may not mean as much as if there were 40 (and the rest WLs).

[Anonymous User]

Speaking of journals, do you guys know how selective the non-MJLR secondaries will be this year? I'm really concerned I won't get on one. I did Gender, Race, and Private Equity, but all very poorly I fear. My citations were fine I think, but I'm worried about my essays. I had to write them in like 15 minutes each. Is there any chance I won't get on any of them?

[Anonymous User]

Why the fuck does everyone care which secondary they are on? If you're not on law review, literally nobody anywhere gives a shit if you're on law reform or of i you're on gender and law. The work you do is going to be exactly the same your first year substantively and the amount of that awful work increases if you're on Law Reform and decreases if you're on Race and Law. Choose a journal based on the amount of work you have to do, not the type of journal, unless its law review, because literally nobody cares if you're not on law review.

I will agree partly and disagree partly.

I'm a rising 3L on two journals. It makes no sense to me why anyone would do Law reform. It has almost as much work as law review without any of the resume bump. People who say "oh it's the second most prestigious journal" are idiots. If you're not on law review, either pick a journal based on least amount of work or focused interest.

Which gets me to my second point. I do think secondary journals can be of value. For one, they can be tied to a specific interest to help tell a story at OCI. If you're 100% set on transactional, for example, and you don't get MLR, you should probably do MJPVL and it might help you pitch transactional in interviews. Might.

[Anonymous User]

Why the fuck does everyone care which secondary they are on? If you're not on law review, literally nobody anywhere gives a shit if you're on law reform or of i you're on gender and law. The work you do is going to be exactly the same your first year substantively and the amount of that awful work increases if you're on Law Reform and decreases if you're on Race and Law. Choose a journal based on the amount of work you have to do, not the type of journal, unless its law review, because literally nobody cares if you're not on law review.

I will agree partly and disagree partly.

I'm a rising 3L on two journals. It makes no sense to me why anyone would do Law reform. It has almost as much work as law review without any of the resume bump. People who say "oh it's the second most prestigious journal" are idiots. If you're not on law review, either pick a journal based on least amount of work or focused interest.

Which gets me to my second point. I do think secondary journals can be of value. For one, they can be tied to a specific interest to help tell a story at OCI. If you're 100% set on transactional, for example, and you don't get MLR, you should probably do MJPVL and it might help you pitch transactional in interviews. Might.

LOL at you being on two journals

[Anonymous User]

Speaking of journals, do you guys know how selective the non-MJLR secondaries will be this year? I'm really concerned I won't get on one. I did Gender, Race, and Private Equity, but all very poorly I fear. My citations were fine I think, but I'm worried about my essays. I had to write them in like 15 minutes each. Is there any chance I won't get on any of them?

+1

[potted plant]

Speaking of journals, do you guys know how selective the non-MJLR secondaries will be this year? I'm really concerned I won't get on one. I did Gender, Race, and Private Equity, but all very poorly I fear. My citations were fine I think, but I'm worried about my essays. I had to write them in like 15 minutes each. Is there any chance I won't get on any of them?

+1

Collectively, I don't think the journals have the luxury of being selective. There are 8 journals. MLR and JLR take appx. 50 students. Each. I think MJIL and Private Equity each have around 40 AEs. Race is around 30, Gender 25? Environmental and MTTLR I'm not sure; maybe around 20 each? That's somewhere around 270 2Ls needed to fill the journals with a class of 315. Presuming that a number of people choose not to do journals, it's very possible that the journals will be understaffed this year. So I think it's pretty unlikely that if you want to be on a journal you won't be able to make that work. You might have to talk yourself off a waitlist if your applications were really sloppy, but I wouldn't worry that much about it.

[Anonymous User]

In sum: JLR sucks.

/conversation.

About OCI though...