Columbia EIP 2016 Forum

[stoopkid13]

If the Harvard thread is saying not to do pre-EIP interviews (i.e. insta-callbacks), they're ether parroting their career services office (which has a vested interest in keeping EIP robust), purposefully giving out bad advice, or truly ignorant regarding how the job search process is changing for students at top schools.

Wouldn't claim to be speaking for every HLS poster, but my take is that telling someone to hustle pre-EIP isn't bad advice, it's just unnecessary in most cases. Let's assume you're median or slightly higher (3-4 Hs) and aiming for NY biglaw: by all means go ahead and snag that K&E pre-offer so you can head into EIP with some peace of mind, but since you're probably going to get multiple V10 offers anyway -- there's a decent case for "why bother."

This would be my guess too. I think advice here tends to wax conservative/neurotic, but what do I know...

[John_Luther1989]

Or, you could hustle pre-EIP, get multiple V10 offers, and potentially dodge EIP entirely (which is starting to happen more and more at CLS).

If you want to tell people to not to waste time hustling for pre-EIP offers from safety firms, I agree. However, once people know what their top preferred firms are, they should be hustling to get in there before EIP starts. Pre-EIP decisions happen faster and many firms play a little more fast/loose with cutoffs because (1) they still have an entire class to fill and (2) you're putting forward more effort and--usually--are demonstrating a more specific interest in the firm than "we had to pick 30, you have a large class size, and vault thinks highly of you."

[Anonymous User]

So is the cover letter template on the Career Services website usable for doing pre-EIP emails to recruitment staff, or is there a better format to be using? Should it just be 'I'm very interested in XYZ firm and would be interested in learning more about opportunities, btw here's my resume and transcript'? Or should it be a more full cover letter (in the body of the email)?

My guess would be it doesn't matter all that much, but just wondering if there any major things to avoid doing or saying. Wouldn't want to screw myself with firms I'm really interested in because of a bad email in July.

[Anonymous User]

I'm just starting to put together a bid list and am looking for some help. I'm going to either be Kent or just miss it (waiting on one more grade). Want to do litigation and am targeting LA and NYC, probably slight edge to LA right now. My only LA ties are my current summer job, but I think I can sell it pretty well because I do genuinely want to be here.

What are the firms I need to make sure I get an interview with?

[bayareabruin]

For lit. in LA, I would prioritize the following: Munger, Irell (for IP), Gibson > Latham, O'Melveny, Skadden. I would also send in an app. to Hueston Hennigan, can't hurt to try.

I bid mostly LA last year, with a few NorCal/NY firms thrown in.

[iamgeorgebush]

Thanks so much in advance! You guys are awesome.

GPA: 3.66. Targeting SF Bay. Fairly significant ties in norcal and socal. Targeting tax but would be happy to work in corp if that is the only offer I get. Litigation would probably not be my thing but I'm trying to keep an open mind because there aren't that many jobs in the area period.

4 years of W/E relevant to tax, semi relevant to corporate.

Are there any big NY firms with satellite offices in SF that I missed? Should I bid multiple offices of the same firm (I did this with a couple of the big NY firms).

Bid Employer FFB
1 Baker & McKenzie LLP (Palo Alto, CA/San Francisco, CA) 2 DOES BAKER & MCKENZIE EVEN HAVE A GOOD CORPORATE PRACTICE IN THE BAY AREA? MAYBE THEY DO, BUT IT'S NEWS TO ME.
2 Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP (Palo Alto, CA) 3
3 DLA Piper US LLP (Palo Alto, CA) 10
4 Sullivan & Cromwell LLP (New York/PA) 12 I WOULD REMOVE THE PALO ALTO OFFICE. S&C IS A JOKE OUT THERE (AND I'D BE SURPRISED IF THEY EVEN HAVE ANY TAX ASSOCIATES IN THAT OFFICE---THEY PROBABLY JUST TALK TO THE LAWYERS IN NYC), BUT THE NYC OFFICE IS HIGHLY REGARDED AND SHOULD BE A SAFE BET FOR YOU WITH A 3.66.
5 Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (Palo Alto, CA) 14
6 Shearman & Sterling LLP (Bay Area, CA) 15
7 Paul Weiss NY 10
8 Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton NY 14
9 Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP (New York, NY) 15
10 Latham & Watkins LLP (Silicon Valley, CA, aka Menlo Park) 17
11 O'Melveny & Myers LLP (Silicon Valley, CA) 19
12 Morrison & Foerster LLP (San Francisco, CA) 21
13 Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP (San Francisco, CA) 23 REMOVE EITHER THIS ONE OR THE PA OFFICE. PROBABLY BEST TO REMOVE THE ONE WITH A SMALLER CORPORATE PRACTICE.
14 Paul Hastings LLP (San Francisco, CA) 23 DOES PAUL HASTINGS HAVE A GOOD CORPORATE PRACTICE IN SF? I DIDN'T THINK SO. LOOK INTO IT.
15 Kirkland & Ellis LLP (San Francisco, CA) 24
16 Fenwick & West LLP (Mountain View, CA) 25
17 Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP (New York, CA) 27
18 Cravath Swaine & Moore 23
19 Winston & Strawn LLP (San Francisco, CA) 27 DOES WINSTON & STRAWN HAVE A GOOD CORPORATE PRACTICE IN SF? I DIDN'T THINK SO. LOOK INTO IT.
20 Cooley LLP (Palo Alto, CA) 30
21 Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP New York 29 WHY IS THIS ON YOUR BIDLIST? YOUR GPA IS HIGH ENOUGH SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO WASTE SPOTS WITH A SAFETY LIKE THIS.
22 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP (San Francisco, CA) 30
23 Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP (Menlo Park, CA) * CONSIDER REMOVING EITHER THIS OR DPW NYC. THEN AGAIN, I KNOW SOMEONE WHO IS SPLITTING THEIR SUMMER BETWEEN DPW NYC AND DPW MENLO PARK, SO MAYBE THAT COULD BE OKAY FOR DPW. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, I ALSO KNOW SOMEONE WHO CLAIMS NOT TO HAVE GOTTEN A DPW OFFER FOR SAYING THEY WERE BIDDING CA DURING A CB, SO WHO KNOWS.
24 Dechert LLP (San Francisco, CA) * SAME QUESTION AS FOR PAUL HASTINGS AND WINSTRONG.
25 Gunderson Dettmer Stough Villeneuve Franklin & Hachigian LLP (Redwood City, CA) *
26 Morrison & Foerster, LLP (Palo Alto, CA) * HAVE YOU CONSIDERED MOFO SF INSTEAD? THEY HAVE A BIGGER CORPORATE PRACTICE.
27 Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP (Palo Alto, CA) *
28 Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher, & Flom (Palo Alto, CA) *
29 Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP (Redwood Shores, CA) *

Bumping for new page. I talked to OCS and they are recommending I take off the no failed bid firms and just add them in later. Does this seem like good advice? Frankly I'm not confident enough in the FFB to risk that. Any insights would be greatly appreciated.

Looks like a decent start, but here are my thoughts. I am a rising 3L who got CA offers, so I feel like I know the market somewhat well. But then again, I decided to stay in NYC, so maybe you can take what I'm saying with a grain of salt.

I highly recommend (1) replacing all the no-failed-bid firms with NYC firms BUT only if they had no failed bids for the previous two years (get the info from an upperclass person; you can PM me and I think I have the previous two years) and (2) not bidding multiple offices for any firm. CA firms are so strange with their hiring that even with good grades like yours, bidding exclusively or almost exclusively CA (especially NorCal) is a very risky proposition, and bidding multiple offices makes both offices think you're not committed to the market. I've heard stories about people not getting an offer from a firm just because they told the firm that they had applied to firms in multiple markets, and applying to multiple offices for a single firm gives them that info without even having to ask.

Another thing to keep in mind is that tax is generally a support practice, meaning that the tax groups support the corporate teams (i.e., the M&A, securities, or banking guys will call up the tax guys, but the tax guys aren't bringing in much of their own business). This has two implications: (1) oftentimes, there won't be any (or there will be few) tax lawyers in a firm's satellite offices, with the corporate guys just relying on the tax laywers from the firm's main office; and (2) the tax group's success is tied to the success of the corporate/securities/banking groups. So make sure there are actually tax lawyers in each of those offices, and to the extent that you're looking at Chambers or some other guide to get a sense of prestige, you'd probably be better off looking at firms' ratings for general corporate work than for tax work.

As for specific firms to add, I would put in Latham & Watkins SF (or Silicon Valley if they have an office there; can't remember which would be better, though I suspect SF) and Orrick (either SF or SV).

Additional comments of mine in the quote box.

[iamgeorgebush]

I would appreciate any thoughts on my very tentative bid list, which is listed below. I am hoping to pick up some pre-oci interviews as well.

Low stone, with 2 HPs (for whatever they are worth). 2 years of work experience and probably above average softs. Solely interested in litigation/arbitration.

* Bids = New York offices unless otherwise noted

1. Sidley Austin (2)
2. Skadden (3)
3. Debevoise (4)
4. White & Case (5)
5. Clifford Chance (6)
6. Weil (6)
7. Allen & Overy (8)
8. Ropes & Gray (9)
9. Paul Weiss (11)
10. Cahill (12)
11. Wilkie Farr (11)
12. Cleary Gottlieb (14)
13. Davis Polk (15)
14. Freshfields (17)
15. Latham (17)
16. Fried Frank (17)
17. Covington (18)
18. O’Melveny (19)
19. Cravath (23)
20. Hughes Hubbard (21)
21. Baker Botts (21)
22. Dechert (22)
23. Jones Day (24)
24. Simpson Thacher (27)
25. Shearman & Sterling (*)
26. Hunton Williams (27)
27. Wilmerhale (DC) (27)
28. Shepard Mullins (29)
29. Hebert Smith Freehils (*)
30. Foley Hoag (Boston) (*)

nix wilmerhale

not sure if CSM is in the box either

Cravath is possible with low stoane

Cravath is possible, but highly unlikely, with low Stone. Please don't spread misinformation. A person with a sub-3.5 GPA generally shouldn't waste a bid on Cravath (unless the person is a URM or has really solid WE like iBanking analyst). And while we're at it, don't bid S&C without at least a 3.5 (or even 3.6) or Wachtell without at least a 3.6 (or even 3.7).

[Anonymous User]

Sent an email to a partner and realized after I clicked sent that there was a typo in my resume - should I resend an updated version?

[Anonymous User]

I highly recommend (1) replacing all the no-failed-bid firms with NYC firms BUT only if they had no failed bids for the previous two years (get the info from an upperclass person; you can PM me and I think I have the previous two years) and (2) not bidding multiple offices for any firm. CA firms are so strange with their hiring that even with good grades like yours, bidding exclusively or almost exclusively CA (especially NorCal) is a very risky proposition, and bidding multiple offices makes both offices think you're not committed to the market. I've heard stories about people not getting an offer from a firm just because they told the firm that they had applied to firms in multiple markets, and applying to multiple offices for a single firm gives them that info without even having to ask.

Another thing to keep in mind is that tax is generally a support practice, meaning that the tax groups support the corporate teams (i.e., the M&A, securities, or banking guys will call up the tax guys, but the tax guys aren't bringing in much of their own business). This has two implications: (1) oftentimes, there won't be any (or there will be few) tax lawyers in a firm's satellite offices, with the corporate guys just relying on the tax laywers from the firm's main office; and (2) the tax group's success is tied to the success of the corporate/securities/banking groups. So make sure there are actually tax lawyers in each of those offices, and to the extent that you're looking at Chambers or some other guide to get a sense of prestige, you'd probably be better off looking at firms' ratings for general corporate work than for tax work.

As for specific firms to add, I would put in Latham & Watkins SF (or Silicon Valley if they have an office there; can't remember which would be better, though I suspect SF) and Orrick (either SF or SV).

Additional comments of mine in the quote box.

Thank you so much! This advice was on point.I had a couple of followup questions:

1) How hard is it to get additional interviews in the add period? The reason I'm hesitant to take off some of the no failed bid firms is because they are better fits for me than a lot of the firms I have above them (DPW SV, Simpson SV, Gunderson) and I'm afraid I'll miss out on them in the add period. My class seems to have a higher than normal number of people targeting CA.

2) OCS is telling me I'm being too aggressive with my NYC picks, is this the case? From what I have read, a 3.66 should be able to snag something in the V10 right?

3) I'm also struggling to come up with more NY offices I'm interested in. I added Weil (dropped off their satellite) and Deb. but that's about it. Skadden's and K&E's FFB are both really high and I would rather bid their CA offices anyway. I guess I can add JD and W&C but people love to shit on them and I'm kind of turned off.

4) This might be super specific information, but what's the deal with Cooley SV? Do they just not hire from CLS? Their offer rate is terrible compared to WSGR/Fenwick/Gunderson and they seem to be a peer firm.

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone know when honors and any 1L class awards will post? And when do journal acceptances/dings go out?

[Tiago Splitter]

2) OCS is telling me I'm being too aggressive with my NYC picks, is this the case? From what I have read, a 3.66 should be able to snag something in the V10 right?

3) I'm also struggling to come up with more NY offices I'm interested in. I added Weil (dropped off their satellite) and Deb. but that's about it. Skadden's and K&E's FFB are both really high and I would rather bid their CA offices anyway. I guess I can add JD and W&C but people love to shit on them and I'm kind of turned off.

Yes you should be fine in the V10. I'd focus on the Chambers Band 1 and 2 corporate and tax practices. To the extent you can add more just keep moving down the bands.

4) This might be super specific information, but what's the deal with Cooley SV? Do they just not hire from CLS? Their offer rate is terrible compared to WSGR/Fenwick/Gunderson and they seem to be a peer firm.

Both my 2L and 3L years Cooley sent a dude from the Seattle office to interview for all of their non-NYC offices. I'm not totally sure what to make of that, but it's pretty clear they aren't looking to call a lot of people back.

[jbagelboy]

I'm not very comfortable with this notion of "safety" firms that's been bandied about on here a few times. I feel like that's an OCS myth to encourage high performing students to interview with firms that aren't grade-selective. In reality, someone with a 3.6 has a better chance at a Cleary or STB offer than a Milbank or FF offer. The phrase "reach firm" makes more sense for those firms that traditionally target students with higher grades than yours, but "safety firm" assumes that if you are stone, all the non-stone firms will just be easy offers you can collect in your back pocket (which certainly isn't true). This isn't to say you shouldn't fill up your bid list with good firms that accept people with lower grades, but just keep in mind that firm recruiting isn't like applying to law schools where you have set medians and can expect particular results depending on where you fall in relation to them.

[Anonymous User]

I'm not very comfortable with this notion of "safety" firms that's been bandied about on here a few times. I feel like that's an OCS myth to encourage high performing students to interview with firms that aren't grade-selective. In reality, someone with a 3.6 has a better chance at a Cleary or STB offer than a Milbank or FF offer. The phrase "reach firm" makes more sense for those firms that traditionally target students with higher grades than yours, but "safety firm" assumes that if you are stone, all the non-stone firms will just be easy offers you can collect in your back pocket (which certainly isn't true). This isn't to say you shouldn't fill up your bid list with good firms that accept people with lower grades, but just keep in mind that firm recruiting isn't like applying to law schools where you have set medians and can expect particular results depending on where you fall in relation to them.

I thought Milbank lit was a "reach" for most students? It's not grade selective?

[smaug]

I'm not very comfortable with this notion of "safety" firms that's been bandied about on here a few times. I feel like that's an OCS myth to encourage high performing students to interview with firms that aren't grade-selective. In reality, someone with a 3.6 has a better chance at a Cleary or STB offer than a Milbank or FF offer. The phrase "reach firm" makes more sense for those firms that traditionally target students with higher grades than yours, but "safety firm" assumes that if you are stone, all the non-stone firms will just be easy offers you can collect in your back pocket (which certainly isn't true). This isn't to say you shouldn't fill up your bid list with good firms that accept people with lower grades, but just keep in mind that firm recruiting isn't like applying to law schools where you have set medians and can expect particular results depending on where you fall in relation to them.

I thought Milbank lit was a "reach" for most students? It's not grade selective?

That would be news to me? though maybe this is mainly a disagreement for "most students" — wouldn't shock me if they like stone or something

jbagelboy's advice is excellent. Larger class sizes at "higher ranked" firms = safer for students with the grades for them. There aren't really "safety" firms. In fact, many of the less grade selective firms are more fit selective.

I think it's misguided to look at job hunting the way you look at law school admissions.

[TheoO]

Sent an email to a partner and realized after I clicked sent that there was a typo in my resume - should I resend an updated version?

No. There's a strong chance the partner or recruiting won't see it unless it's glaring. Don't draw attention to it.

[Anonymous User]

1. Is there anything like a yield protection with firms? Kent people getting callbacks but no offers at V50 firms but cleaning up among Cravath/STB/etc.?

2.

Does anyone know when honors and any 1L class awards will post? And when do journal acceptances/dings go out?

OCS told me they expect honors calculations to show up on Lawnet by the end of this week, but I'm not holding my breath. Law Review calls I'm told are the week of July 11, probably earlier in the week, and I assume (but don't know for sure) that other journals follow.

[Anonymous User]

I would appreciate any thoughts on my very tentative bid list, which is listed below. I am hoping to pick up some pre-oci interviews as well.

Low stone, with 2 HPs (for whatever they are worth). 2 years of work experience and probably above average softs. Solely interested in litigation/arbitration.

* Bids = New York offices unless otherwise noted

1. Sidley Austin (2)
2. Skadden (3)
3. Debevoise (4)
4. White & Case (5)
5. Clifford Chance (6)
6. Weil (6)
7. Allen & Overy (8)
8. Ropes & Gray (9)
9. Paul Weiss (11)
10. Cahill (12)
11. Wilkie Farr (11)
12. Cleary Gottlieb (14)
13. Davis Polk (15)
14. Freshfields (17)
15. Latham (17)
16. Fried Frank (17)
17. Covington (18)
18. O’Melveny (19)
19. Cravath (23)
20. Hughes Hubbard (21)
21. Baker Botts (21)
22. Dechert (22)
23. Jones Day (24)
24. Simpson Thacher (27)
25. Shearman & Sterling (*)
26. Hunton Williams (27)
27. Wilmerhale (DC) (27)
28. Shepard Mullins (29)
29. Hebert Smith Freehils (*)
30. Foley Hoag (Boston) (*)

nix wilmerhale

not sure if CSM is in the box either

Cravath is possible with low stoane

Cravath is possible, but highly unlikely, with low Stone. Please don't spread misinformation. A person with a sub-3.5 GPA generally shouldn't waste a bid on Cravath (unless the person is a URM or has really solid WE like iBanking analyst). And while we're at it, don't bid S&C without at least a 3.5 (or even 3.6) or Wachtell without at least a 3.6 (or even 3.7).

I'm the anon that said cravath is possible with low stoane. Without divulging too much about myself, I got cravath with 3.4x despite being a K-JD non-URM. I am also not traditionally a good interviewer and did not get a ton of offers, but I clicked with everyone I interviewed with at cravath, so they gave me a job.

[Anonymous User]

2) OCS is telling me I'm being too aggressive with my NYC picks, is this the case? From what I have read, a 3.66 should be able to snag something in the V10 right?

3) I'm also struggling to come up with more NY offices I'm interested in. I added Weil (dropped off their satellite) and Deb. but that's about it. Skadden's and K&E's FFB are both really high and I would rather bid their CA offices anyway. I guess I can add JD and W&C but people love to shit on them and I'm kind of turned off.

Yes you should be fine in the V10. I'd focus on the Chambers Band 1 and 2 corporate and tax practices. To the extent you can add more just keep moving down the bands.

4) This might be super specific information, but what's the deal with Cooley SV? Do they just not hire from CLS? Their offer rate is terrible compared to WSGR/Fenwick/Gunderson and they seem to be a peer firm.

Both my 2L and 3L years Cooley sent a dude from the Seattle office to interview for all of their non-NYC offices. I'm not totally sure what to make of that, but it's pretty clear they aren't looking to call a lot of people back.

Thanks! Cooley is ridiculous...

Does anyone know if Gibson's SV or SF office do more corporate work? Looking at firm bios it seems to be a wash?

[TheoO]

Did cooley give any offers last year? I remember the year before they offered like 1.

[Anonymous User]

Sent an email to a partner and realized after I clicked sent that there was a typo in my resume - should I resend an updated version?

No. There's a strong chance the partner or recruiting won't see it unless it's glaring. Don't draw attention to it.

It was actually a pretty glaring one - I put the wrong year for my current internship ...should I fix it or just let it be...?

[TheoO]

Sent an email to a partner and realized after I clicked sent that there was a typo in my resume - should I resend an updated version?

No. There's a strong chance the partner or recruiting won't see it unless it's glaring. Don't draw attention to it.

It was actually a pretty glaring one - I put the wrong year for my current internship ...should I fix it or just let it be...?

Still a fairly high chance that that wont be seen.

[Anonymous User]

Did cooley give any offers last year? I remember the year before they offered like 1.

0 in 2015. It's a total hail mary, but I'm going to bid anyway because I'm running out of big SV firms.

[pa1901]

Did cooley give any offers last year? I remember the year before they offered like 1.

Not in their in SV/SF offices, but they did give 3 offers for their NY office and 1 for San Diego.

[Anonymous User]

So is the cover letter template on the Career Services website usable for doing pre-EIP emails to recruitment staff, or is there a better format to be using? Should it just be 'I'm very interested in XYZ firm and would be interested in learning more about opportunities, btw here's my resume and transcript'? Or should it be a more full cover letter (in the body of the email)?

My guess would be it doesn't matter all that much, but just wondering if there any major things to avoid doing or saying. Wouldn't want to screw myself with firms I'm really interested in because of a bad email in July.

Would definitely like to know more about this too!

[John_Luther1989]

So is the cover letter template on the Career Services website usable for doing pre-EIP emails to recruitment staff, or is there a better format to be using? Should it just be 'I'm very interested in XYZ firm and would be interested in learning more about opportunities, btw here's my resume and transcript'? Or should it be a more full cover letter (in the body of the email)?

My guess would be it doesn't matter all that much, but just wondering if there any major things to avoid doing or saying. Wouldn't want to screw myself with firms I'm really interested in because of a bad email in July.

Would definitely like to know more about this too!

When I sent out emails, it was very brief. With slight variances depending on if I was sending it to recruiting or an attorney I'd met at an event, it would be something that hit most of these points:

"Paragraph" 1: (1) hi, thanks again for putting on/coming to such a great event, (2) something to jog the attorney's memory of speaking to you, which is easier if you discussed something not related to the law or, for recruiters, praise/recognition for the work they put in.

"Paragraph" 2: (3) i'm very interested in your firm for these SPECIFIC reasons - best are probably having spoken to former summers or other attorneys, (4) your firm is one of my top choices and would love to come into the office sometime in the coming weeks to interview,

"Paragraph" 3: (5) I'm attaching my resume and transcript and look forward to hearing from you.

Best,
Student
Columbia Law School, J.D. Candidate 2018
[Joural if you know] Columbia Business Law Review, Staffer 2016-2017
Email
Number

It doesn't need to be very long at all. Probably 15ish sentences total.