Michigan OCI 2015 Forum

[UnamSanctam]

What about 3.5? Could u do secondary and then big firms in nyc and Chicago?

Depends on the secondary, but yes. I'd cut Chicago instead of splitting over three markets though. Would go NYC + secondary, given that the secondary isn't like Atlanta/Seattle without ties.

[Anonymous User]

I had 3.5+ coming into OCI and snagged a v5 offer and multiple CBs.. had to cancel half of them... I think people in this range should include picky firms in the bid list, although some people might tell you to not include them at all or in the last few spots. I included my top pick high enough to be sure I would get it and the other picky firms were pretty low but high enough to know I would get half of them. Good luck.

[Anonymous User]

Should bottom 25% bid just bid NY firms with big classes and mass-mail like crazy? Want transactional only.

Strong ties to CA. 3+ years of semi-relevant corporate WE. Not diverse or IP qualified.

Strong networker (with strong network) and decent interviewer.

[UnamSanctam]

Should bottom 25% bid just bid NY firms with big classes and mass-mail like crazy? Want transactional only.

Yes

Strong ties to CA. 3+ years of semi-relevant corporate WE. Not diverse or IP qualified.

Mass mail hard in CA. When you run out of unselective NYC firms, start bidding less selective CA firms. You might not get an interview due to bid list positioning, but you're also not likely getting the CB in CA.

Strong networker (with strong network) and decent interviewer.

Use it to get CA interviews outside of OCI. You can get CA if you get the right bounces, but I'd use that as your back up plan and NYC as your OCI focus.

[mvp99]

Should bottom 25% bid just bid NY firms with big classes and mass-mail like crazy? Want transactional only.

Strong ties to CA. 3+ years of semi-relevant corporate WE. Not diverse or IP qualified.

Strong networker (with strong network) and decent interviewer.

you want anything that will get you a job.. forget about what you want except to build a narrative

[Anonymous User]

[quote] you want anything that will get you a job.. forget about what you want except to build a narrative/ [quote]

Thanks. So don't emphasize corp?

[mvp99]

you want anything that will get you a job.. forget about what you want except to build a narrative/

Thanks. So don't emphasize corp?

My point is to be strategic about it. If the partner is corp maybe corp is the way to go but talk about it honestly that you don't know shit but that the side of contracting has interested you some way for some time.. if the firm is truly lit only then don't go in talking about corp. a the same time have some good story to back up your interest in lit.. e.g. "I like to invest myself on case and breath it.. I don't mind waiting months or years for things to pick up or trial to start..I'm that type of person etc. but most importantly I would like to gain skills and I understand that I can do this at your firm blahblah"

[Anonymous User]

There are like 3 big firms that are really lit firms: QE, BS, JB (and two of those haven't historically interviewed at OCI).

If you want to do corporate, that's great and you shouldn't run from it. Litigation is down; M&A, other corporate, and financial institutions work is what's carrying firms. If you've got a corporate background, run with it.

Also, on the 3.5 issue (I know a guy who had ~3.2 and ended up at one of the best firms in Chicago), Chicago is absolutely doable with a 3.5. It helps if you have ties. You should make it very clear that Chicago is your first choice if you want to succeed in getting an offer.

Edit: it is true that there are a few others, e.g. MTO. This post is not intended to imply that no one does litigation. It is meant to respond to above posts suggesting a person who is 100 percent corporate might want to fake an interest in litigation at OCI. The firms that do exclusively (or nearly exclusively) litigation and have substantial summer classes are really difficult places to end up. No one who is 100 percent corporate should end up with an interview at one of these firms. There's no safety there, and it's not worth lying. The only possible exception would be if your geographic preferences surpassed your corporate preference and you ran out of other places to interview.

[scaliaantics]

There are like 3 big firms that are really lit firms: QE, BS, JB (and two of those haven't historically interviewed at OCI).

If you want to do corporate, that's great and you shouldn't run from it. Litigation is down; M&A, other corporate, and financial institutions work is what's carrying firms. If you've got a corporate background, run with it.

Also, on the 3.5 issue (I know a guy who had ~3.2 and ended up at one of the best firms in Chicago), Chicago is absolutely doable with a 3.5. It helps if you have ties. You should make it very clear that Chicago is your first choice if you want to succeed in getting an offer.

I know you're trying to be helpful but I would really caution people not to listen to this advice.

There are more than 3 big litigation firms in the country. Just because a firm has a booming corporate practice doesn't mean they aren't also focused on litigation. In New York, Cravath, Davis Polk, Gibson Dunn, Simpson, S&C, Paul Weiss, and Skadden all have better litigation practices than QE or BS. In Chicago, Kirkland runs the table. In LA, Gibson, Keker, and Munger are three of the four best litigation firms.

And those firms are the tippy top of the mountain. Obviously there are a lot more firms than just those that pride and prioritize litigation.
http://www.chambersandpartners.com/1205 ... dFirms_Tab
http://www.chambersandpartners.com/1247 ... torial/5/1
http://www.chambersandpartners.com/1280 ... ion_376083
http://abovethelaw.com/2013/09/the-bigl ... tion-2014/
http://www.btilitigationoutlook.com/fearsome-foursome/

Moreover, litigation is not "down." Its not carrying firms but this isn't 2009 where Lit associates are being fired left right and center and firms aren't hiring for litigation. That just isn't the world we are in. You can be successful aiming for litigation. Corporate is booming right now. Litigation is stagnant.

Now, completely switching tones, the advice you give about 3.2's succeeding in Chicago, once again while trying to be helpful, is just complete bullshit. I know a guy who had a 3.6 that had more offers than he had callbacks, all from v20 firms or higher. He's not the norm. Neither is your friend. I know someone with a 3.7 (on the old curve) that got 1 offer in Chicago. She also isn't the norm. The data suggests that Chicago is the hardest large market out there. The data suggests that you better be in the top 1/3rd of your class before you want to heavily bet on Chicago. The data suggests that if you're below median, your chances at Chicago, even with great ties and good work experience, are below 10%. Chicago is not "absolutely doable" with a 3.5. Chicago is an option with a 3.5, but its no where near a slam dunk. Its a city that you should hedge really hard with an easier market like NYC if your GPA is around a 3.5. A 3.2 getting Chicago isn't unheard of, but its so rare that it cannot be used as a measuring stick for helping someone figure out if they have a decent chance at Chicago.

[Anonymous User]

On the litigation firm issue, yes Gibson is also best known for the litigation side of things. The point of the above post was that if you're someone who wants to do corporate and knows that, you shouldn't feel a need to go around saying you're really interested in litigation at OCI.

The above post should not be understood to suggest that only a few firms do litigation. Almost everyone does litigation. But anyone who thinks that you have to fake an interest in litigation to get a job at OCI (or even that there are many circumstances in which it would be advantageous) is just flat wrong.

If you look at the firms that are litigation shops at there heart, places like Quinn or MTO or Boies Schiller, people going to those firms aren't struggling to get jobs. If you want to name a firm that's relatively easy to get a SA position with, is primarily a litigation shop, and for which it would be worth faking an interest in because it's easier to get a job on the litigation side, go right ahead. My advice if you're 100 percent corporate is to own that and to have reasons for it. I firmly believe firms are more starved for associates on the corporate side than the litigation side.

[Anonymous User]

Should bottom 25% bid just bid NY firms with big classes and mass-mail like crazy? Want transactional only.

Strong ties to CA. 3+ years of semi-relevant corporate WE. Not diverse or IP qualified.

Strong networker (with strong network) and decent interviewer.

What is bottom 25%? 3.1?

[Anonymous User]

Yes

[scaliaantics]

. If you want to name a firm that's relatively easy to get a SA position with, is primarily a litigation shop, and for which it would be worth faking an interest in because it's easier to get a job on the litigation side, go right ahead.

Mayer Brown is more lit focused than corp focused in NY. YWIA.
http://www.chambersandpartners.com/usa/ ... ayer-brown

Edit: to be clear, since we're somehow also talking about whether or not its worth faking an interest to get a job, I think its pretty clear that nobody really has any idea what they are talking about there. I'd recommend against it because it seems like if you're going to do that, you're making that decision based solely off a guess as to what a firm's hiring plans for that year look like. We don't have any knowledge about that so I don't think its a good idea to feign interest. Be genuine. That being said, the idea that there aren't easier to get lit firms in NYC is crazy.

[Anonymous User]

What percentage of the class is a 3.6 at? Trying to gauge some firms that don't have historical OCI data but have Symplicity percentage cutoffs.

[scaliaantics]

What percentage of the class is a 3.6 at? Trying to gauge some firms that don't have historical OCI data but have Symplicity percentage cutoffs.

Its hard to tell. Try using this: http://mylsn.info/rank-estimator/
Set the median to a 3.35 and assume a 3.8 is top 10%. Those are both conservative estimates (median is probably a touch lower and 3.8 is probably a touch higher). That should give you a decent guess as to where you are.

[Anonymous User]

3.6 is probably top 20 percent, maybe even a bit better, but it's in that range, not top 10 percent. Don't trust the percentages if they don't make sense. Some smaller firms will put down that they prefer top half or whatever. If Jones Day says they have a 3.5 minimum, that makes sense, if random firm in Detroit does, just ignore it.

[Anonymous User]

The clerkship class rank memo can be used as a guide. Obviously grades tend to go up in the second and third years, and they go up a lot (note the higher median than for 1L classes).

https://www.law.umich.edu/careers/types ... mo2015.pdf

3.6 after 1L is better than top 20 percent--a very solid GPA that puts you in contention at all but 10 or so firms.

[scaliaantics]

The clerkship class rank memo can be used as a guide. Obviously grades tend to go up in the second and third years, and they go up a lot (note the higher median than for 1L classes).

https://www.law.umich.edu/careers/types ... mo2015.pdf

3.6 after 1L probably a bit better than top 20 percent.

This is also using the old curve for some of the years, so the data isn't really all that reliable.

[Anonymous User]

The clerkship class rank memo can be used as a guide. Obviously grades tend to go up in the second and third years, and they go up a lot (note the higher median than for 1L classes).

https://www.law.umich.edu/careers/types ... mo2015.pdf

3.6 after 1L probably a bit better than top 20 percent.

This is also using the old curve for some of the years, so the data isn't really all that reliable.

I thought the consensus was that the higher 2L/3L grades reflected kind of washed out w the lower pre 2013 1L curve?

[scaliaantics]

The clerkship class rank memo can be used as a guide. Obviously grades tend to go up in the second and third years, and they go up a lot (note the higher median than for 1L classes).

https://www.law.umich.edu/careers/types ... mo2015.pdf

3.6 after 1L probably a bit better than top 20 percent.

This is also using the old curve for some of the years, so the data isn't really all that reliable.

I thought the consensus was that the higher 2L/3L grades reflected kind of washed out w the lower pre 2013 1L curve?

They definitely help, but I don't think its enough to actually rely on that data, especially not for figuring out where you stand as a 1L.

[Anonymous User]

I believe UVA uses the same curve as Michigan. And they're top 10% after 1L is ~3.72, which they know for grade on law review.

Edited, found the right numbers:

" wrote:
Someone asked about 1L GPA cutoffs and then edited, but here they are:

Generally, at the end of 1L:

3.75 = top 5%
3.65 = top 10%
3.48 = top 25%
3.42 = top 33%
3.3ish = median
3.18 = bottom 33%
3.11 = bottom 25%
2.95 = bottom 10%"

[scaliaantics]

I believe UVA uses the same curve as Michigan. And they're top 10% after 1L is ~3.72, which they know for grade on law review.

Edited, found the right numbers:

" wrote:
Someone asked about 1L GPA cutoffs and then edited, but here they are:

Generally, at the end of 1L:

3.75 = top 5%
3.65 = top 10%
3.48 = top 25%
3.42 = top 33%
3.3ish = median
3.18 = bottom 33%
3.11 = bottom 25%
2.95 = bottom 10%"

While it may be true that they have the same median, are you sure that they have the same normal distribution? Also the numbers you proposed for top 10% are different by almost a whole GPA point. Is it a 3.72 or a 3.65? And does that even matter for michigan?

[Anonymous User]

Someone above mentioned Symplicity grade info, so it bears mentioning that you should not, under any circumstances, use the gpa/law review information listed on a firm's profile on Symplicity.

Some of it is accurate, a lot of it's not. As you might guess, the problem is you don't know what info is accurate and what isn't.

Use the info OCP gives you on historic GPA info and callback info from recent years.

[Anonymous User]

Scalia... That is why I edited and said found the right numbers... My first post was based off of memory...

And no I'm not sure it's exactly the same distribution, was just trying to help and assuming so. I can't imagine it would be too different but maybe you could check for me?

[Anonymous User]

I believe UVA uses the same curve as Michigan. And they're top 10% after 1L is ~3.72, which they know for grade on law review.

Edited, found the right numbers:

" wrote:
Someone asked about 1L GPA cutoffs and then edited, but here they are:

Generally, at the end of 1L:

3.75 = top 5%
3.65 = top 10%
3.48 = top 25%
3.42 = top 33%
3.3ish = median
3.18 = bottom 33%
3.11 = bottom 25%
2.95 = bottom 10%"

I would love for this to be true. If so, I've been doing way better than I thought, haha!

But, without any real basis besides Baum's letter, this feels a little...low. Are there really only 15-20 people at UM who have 3.75+?