UChicago 2011 OCI Discussion and Results Forum

[Anonymous User]

has anyone officially struck out yet? i kind of want to be the first...

Don't be dumb. Seriously, you could swing plenty of firms that haven't finalized their classes, and don't come to Chicago's OCI.

well i was talking about striking out at OCI, not life.

[Anonymous User]

anyone know where this greenbooks thing is in the law school for buying/selling books?

[Anonymous User]

basement, by vending machines

[Anonymous User]

Which Locke Lord office?

Chicago

Anybody heard anything from Locke Lord Dallas?

[Anonymous User]

Dinged from Paul Weiss NY after CB.

[Anonymous User]

Katten offer (chi). Accepting.

[Anonymous User]

Dinged from Paul Weiss NY after CB.

I would be interested to know what their CB:offer ratio is this year for UChicago. It seems like everybody I knew with a callback got a rejection.

[Anonymous User]

Dinged from Paul Weiss NY after CB.

I would be interested to know what their CB:offer ratio is this year for UChicago. It seems like everybody I knew with a callback got a rejection.

.....do we have a cb:offer ratio for ANYWHERE?

[Anonymous User]

Dinged from Paul Weiss NY after CB.

I would be interested to know what their CB:offer ratio is this year for UChicago. It seems like everybody I knew with a callback got a rejection.

.....do we have a cb:offer ratio for ANYWHERE?

No, I don't think that number is ever given to us by OCS. I would still be interested in knowing, even if we'll never know for certain (unless we track down every single one of the people with callbacks and then ask if they got an offer, which might be awkward). I know for a fact that Paul Weiss rejected multiple callback people with V5 offers elsewhere. Not sure what they were looking for this year and why they were so damn picky.

[Anonymous User]

Dinged from Paul Weiss NY after CB.

I would be interested to know what their CB:offer ratio is this year for UChicago. It seems like everybody I knew with a callback got a rejection.

.....do we have a cb:offer ratio for ANYWHERE?

No, I don't think that number is ever given to us by OCS. I would still be interested in knowing, even if we'll never know for certain (unless we track down every single one of the people with callbacks and then ask if they got an offer, which might be awkward). I know for a fact that Paul Weiss rejected multiple callback people with V5 offers elsewhere. Not sure what they were looking for this year and why they were so damn picky.

(read: Paul Weiss is hedging bets in the current economy. Yes, they are high-powered litigation, but it seems like the firms that have the best models right now are firms like S&C, STB, and Cleary, who have a ton of corporate work and a litigation practice that is partially derivative of the institutional corporate clients the firm has).

Feel free to disagree with me, but that is my own unscientific assessment. I just think that companies don't want to pay for litigation right now, and firms like Paul Weiss, that have to constantly get results and make pitches to clients are suffering, while firms that have JPMorgan, Barclays, etc. generate enough institutional work on the corporate and litigation side to keep the wheels of the firm's business model generating.

[Anonymous User]

Feel free to disagree with me, but that is my own unscientific assessment. I just think that companies don't want to pay for litigation right now, and firms like Paul Weiss, that have to constantly get results and make pitches to clients are suffering, while firms that have JPMorgan, Barclays, etc. generate enough institutional work on the corporate and litigation side to keep the wheels of the firm's business model generating.

I may be wrong, but I get the impression that Quinn is doing very well right now, and they of course only do litigation.

[Anonymous User]

Feel free to disagree with me, but that is my own unscientific assessment. I just think that companies don't want to pay for litigation right now, and firms like Paul Weiss, that have to constantly get results and make pitches to clients are suffering, while firms that have JPMorgan, Barclays, etc. generate enough institutional work on the corporate and litigation side to keep the wheels of the firm's business model generating.

I may be wrong, but I get the impression that Quinn is doing very well right now, and they of course only do litigation.

That's a good point.

The following is pure speculation.

It would be interesting to see if Quinn and Paul Weiss are direct competitors in NYC. And I wonder if Quinn's "run" (it may not be fair to call it that -- good lawyers get repeat business, period, and if they have enough rainmakers, they may be fine) is sustainable if the economy continues to lag. If Quinn does remain, then it seems they have put a flag in the ground in BigLaw and will be the next "Skadden" of BigLaw (relative newcomer, initially aggressive marketing strategy that can become business-generating and also self-fulfilling). Maybe the same is true for Paul Weiss.

I mean, look, at the end of the day, firms in BigLaw have the following human capital: (1) partners who have solid, long-lasting relationships with companies' in-house counsel and executives (2) partners that have significant expertise to pull in business for nuanced matters either independently or through parters in category (1) who can sell the "service partner" thing for a series of matters, and if the service partner performs well, then for repeat business (3) performance partners who have good relationships and have enough clout to bring in work to the firm, typically as the good-natured partner who in-house counsel knows will be coordinating strategy and making sure good results are likely.

With this reductive paradigm in mind, it seems that if litigation decreases overall as firms begin to think about settling earlier or not suing when they have potential claims, then firms with the most of category (1) are the most stable.

This is all food for thought, as most of the firms in this conversation are going to be just fine, and undoubtedly they will generate tons of revenue. But it's interesting to think about the model and how individual firms carve out a place for themselves in a prolonged economic downturn.

[Anonymous User]

Feel free to disagree with me, but that is my own unscientific assessment. I just think that companies don't want to pay for litigation right now, and firms like Paul Weiss, that have to constantly get results and make pitches to clients are suffering, while firms that have JPMorgan, Barclays, etc. generate enough institutional work on the corporate and litigation side to keep the wheels of the firm's business model generating.

I may be wrong, but I get the impression that Quinn is doing very well right now, and they of course only do litigation.

That's a good point.

The following is pure speculation.

It would be interesting to see if Quinn and Paul Weiss are direct competitors in NYC. And I wonder if Quinn's "run" (it may not be fair to call it that -- good lawyers get repeat business, period, and if they have enough rainmakers, they may be fine) is sustainable if the economy continues to lag. If Quinn does remain, then it seems they have put a flag in the ground in BigLaw and will be the next "Skadden" of BigLaw (relative newcomer, initially aggressive marketing strategy that can become business-generating and also self-fulfilling). Maybe the same is true for Paul Weiss.

I mean, look, at the end of the day, firms in BigLaw have the following human capital: (1) partners who have solid, long-lasting relationships with companies' in-house counsel and executives (2) partners that have significant expertise to pull in business for nuanced matters either independently or through parters in category (1) who can sell the "service partner" thing for a series of matters, and if the service partner performs well, then for repeat business (3) performance partners who have good relationships and have enough clout to bring in work to the firm, typically as the good-natured partner who in-house counsel knows will be coordinating strategy and making sure good results are likely.

With this reductive paradigm in mind, it seems that if litigation decreases overall as firms begin to think about settling earlier or not suing when they have potential claims, then firms with the most of category (1) are the most stable.

This is all food for thought, as most of the firms in this conversation are going to be just fine, and undoubtedly they will generate tons of revenue. But it's interesting to think about the model and how individual firms carve out a place for themselves in a prolonged economic downturn.

(2Ls who know nothing about anything, and yet feel free to speculate on the business models of private corporations)

[Anonymous User]

(2Ls who know nothing about anything, and yet feel free to speculate on the business models of private corporations)

Not the dude who waxed on about shit a couple of posts back, but I wanted to point out that the firms are partnerships, not corporations.

[Anonymous User]

(2Ls who know nothing about anything, and yet feel free to speculate on the business models of private corporations)

Not the dude who waxed on about shit a couple of posts back, but I wanted to point out that the firms are partnerships, not corporations.

Some are corporations dude. LLC, PC, etc.

[Anonymous User]

(2Ls who know nothing about anything, and yet feel free to speculate on the business models of private corporations)

Not the dude who waxed on about shit a couple of posts back, but I wanted to point out that the firms are partnerships, not corporations.

Some are corporations dude. LLC, PC, etc.

I stand corrected. Cheers.

[quakeroats]

(2Ls who know nothing about anything, and yet feel free to speculate on the business models of private corporations)

Not the dude who waxed on about shit a couple of posts back, but I wanted to point out that the firms are partnerships, not corporations.

Some are corporations dude. LLC, PC, etc.

There's at least one major firm that still hasn't become an LLP/LLC: http://www.theconglomerate.org/2011/09/ ... s-day.html

[Anonymous User]

Feel free to disagree with me, but that is my own unscientific assessment. I just think that companies don't want to pay for litigation right now, and firms like Paul Weiss, that have to constantly get results and make pitches to clients are suffering, while firms that have JPMorgan, Barclays, etc. generate enough institutional work on the corporate and litigation side to keep the wheels of the firm's business model generating.

I may be wrong, but I get the impression that Quinn is doing very well right now, and they of course only do litigation.

That's a good point.

The following is pure speculation.

It would be interesting to see if Quinn and Paul Weiss are direct competitors in NYC. And I wonder if Quinn's "run" (it may not be fair to call it that -- good lawyers get repeat business, period, and if they have enough rainmakers, they may be fine) is sustainable if the economy continues to lag. If Quinn does remain, then it seems they have put a flag in the ground in BigLaw and will be the next "Skadden" of BigLaw (relative newcomer, initially aggressive marketing strategy that can become business-generating and also self-fulfilling). Maybe the same is true for Paul Weiss.

I mean, look, at the end of the day, firms in BigLaw have the following human capital: (1) partners who have solid, long-lasting relationships with companies' in-house counsel and executives (2) partners that have significant expertise to pull in business for nuanced matters either independently or through parters in category (1) who can sell the "service partner" thing for a series of matters, and if the service partner performs well, then for repeat business (3) performance partners who have good relationships and have enough clout to bring in work to the firm, typically as the good-natured partner who in-house counsel knows will be coordinating strategy and making sure good results are likely.

With this reductive paradigm in mind, it seems that if litigation decreases overall as firms begin to think about settling earlier or not suing when they have potential claims, then firms with the most of category (1) are the most stable.

This is all food for thought, as most of the firms in this conversation are going to be just fine, and undoubtedly they will generate tons of revenue. But it's interesting to think about the model and how individual firms carve out a place for themselves in a prolonged economic downturn.

Quinn's model is pretty strong and not repeatable. They are strong because all but top partners do not specialize, and the firm practices nearly every type of litigation. They are able to staff cases very lean and remain flexible in economic downturns t throw resources at almost an burgeoning area. The only problem is they have such a broad clientbase and smaller size that they can't take on all of the cases they are offered.

[Anonymous User]

Feel free to disagree with me, but that is my own unscientific assessment. I just think that companies don't want to pay for litigation right now, and firms like Paul Weiss, that have to constantly get results and make pitches to clients are suffering, while firms that have JPMorgan, Barclays, etc. generate enough institutional work on the corporate and litigation side to keep the wheels of the firm's business model generating.

I may be wrong, but I get the impression that Quinn is doing very well right now, and they of course only do litigation.

That's a good point.

The following is pure speculation.

It would be interesting to see if Quinn and Paul Weiss are direct competitors in NYC. And I wonder if Quinn's "run" (it may not be fair to call it that -- good lawyers get repeat business, period, and if they have enough rainmakers, they may be fine) is sustainable if the economy continues to lag. If Quinn does remain, then it seems they have put a flag in the ground in BigLaw and will be the next "Skadden" of BigLaw (relative newcomer, initially aggressive marketing strategy that can become business-generating and also self-fulfilling). Maybe the same is true for Paul Weiss.

I mean, look, at the end of the day, firms in BigLaw have the following human capital: (1) partners who have solid, long-lasting relationships with companies' in-house counsel and executives (2) partners that have significant expertise to pull in business for nuanced matters either independently or through parters in category (1) who can sell the "service partner" thing for a series of matters, and if the service partner performs well, then for repeat business (3) performance partners who have good relationships and have enough clout to bring in work to the firm, typically as the good-natured partner who in-house counsel knows will be coordinating strategy and making sure good results are likely.

With this reductive paradigm in mind, it seems that if litigation decreases overall as firms begin to think about settling earlier or not suing when they have potential claims, then firms with the most of category (1) are the most stable.

This is all food for thought, as most of the firms in this conversation are going to be just fine, and undoubtedly they will generate tons of revenue. But it's interesting to think about the model and how individual firms carve out a place for themselves in a prolonged economic downturn.

(2Ls who know nothing about anything, and yet feel free to speculate on the business models of private corporations)

Yeah, the problem with Anon posting is that people feel free to post stuff like this.

Look, not all litigation is the same nor is all transactional work the same and different firms have different specialties within those broad categories. The extent to which their services are needed are largely dependent upon the economy and various trends in business, changes in various laws, etc. As such, it's hard to compare these firm's practices and predict their success based on your "reductive paradigm". There's ways for them to structure their practices to shield them from fluctuations in the economy, but at the end of the day there's going to be a large amount of speculation and a large amount of luck involved in trying to figure out which are going to be the most successful practices going forward.

[Anonymous User]

Any employer reading this thread would not want to hire any of us.

[Anonymous User]

Offer at Mayer Brown Chicago

[Anonymous User]

Offer at Mayer Brown Chicago

+1, CB last week

[Anonymous User]

When was the offer?

[Anonymous User]

When was the offer?

CB late last week and offer yesterday evening.

[Anonymous User]

Any employer reading this thread would not want to hire any of us.

Don't worry, there are already plenty of people in this thread they don't want to hire.