UChicago OCI 2016 Forum

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
bill_swerski

New
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 6:53 pm

Re: UChicago OCI 2016

Post by bill_swerski » Sun Jul 10, 2016 10:58 pm

Though people with 178+ and Chicago ties are probably going to get something in Chicago, it is highly advisable you bid some NY firms with large class sizes (especially since a 178+ puts most of the V10 firms into play).

User avatar
Eldon Tyrell

Silver
Posts: 1370
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 10:22 pm

Re: UChicago OCI 2016

Post by Eldon Tyrell » Sun Jul 10, 2016 11:01 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Grades: ~178
URM/Female: Female
Work Exp: Strong work experience
Preferred Market: Chicago & home market
Practice Area: Leaning lit
Misc: 1L SA this summer

Bid list - all offices are Chicago & I haven't included home market bids here:
(Firm, # of slots)
1. Skadden, 84
2. Sidley, 84
3. Kirkland, 84
4. Jones Day, 42
5. Winston & Strawn, 63
6. Jenner & Block, 63
7. Mayer Brown, 73
8. Greenberg Traurig, 21
9. Katten, 42
10. Ropes & Gray, 21
11. McDermott Will & Emery, 63
12. Reed Smith, 21
13. K&L Gates, 21
14. Locke Lord, 21
15. Dechert, 21
16. Steptoe & Johnson, 21
17. Sheppard Mullin, 21
18. Baker & McKenzie, 31
19. Proskauer Rose, 21
20. Barack Ferrazzano, 32
21. Schiff Hardin, 42
22. Vedder Price, 21
23. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, 13
24. Holland & Knight, 10
25. Shook, Hardy & Bacon, 19
26. DLA Piper, 21
27. Drinker Biddle Reath, 36
28. Foley & Lardner, 21
29. Bryan Cave, 21
30. Dentons, 21
31. Perkins Coie, 34
32. Edelson, 21
33. Eimer Stahl, 21
You'll have plenty of good options, but it's hard to critique the bid list if you'll be replacing some of the firms with other ones from your home market. You definitely don't need Skadden, Sidley or K&E 1-3. I would make K&E and Sidley 3/4. Jones Day, Jenner or maybe Perkins Coie should be numero uno. Skadden can be in the 4-5 range I would venture. I would take out Greenberg and Winston. You'll have better options than Greenberg and fuck Winston - these might be good places to put your home market.
12. Reed Smith, 21
13. K&L Gates, 21
14. Locke Lord, 21
15. Dechert, 21
16. Steptoe & Johnson, 21
17. Sheppard Mullin, 21
18. Baker & McKenzie, 31
19. Proskauer Rose, 21
20. Barack Ferrazzano, 32
21. Schiff Hardin, 42
22. Vedder Price, 21
23. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, 13
24. Holland & Knight, 10
25. Shook, Hardy & Bacon, 19
26. DLA Piper, 21
27. Drinker Biddle Reath, 36
28. Foley & Lardner, 21
29. Bryan Cave, 21
30. Dentons, 21
31. Perkins Coie, 34
32. Edelson, 21
33. Eimer Stahl, 21
You probably won't be getting any of these firms. Remember everyone, the fewer interview slots a firm has, the higher up on the bid list they need to be. So any firms with 10-30 slots needs to be fairly high up there.

Anon, you should prioritize some of these firms by practice area strength and incorporate a few into your top ten. But I'm fairly certain any of the big firms will be better at litigation than the smaller ones, e.g. Kirkland, Sidley, Jenner, Latham, Skadden, etc. Again, Chambers Partners will help you prioritize strength of practice in the city. I would use number of interview slots and strength of practice area as two of the largest factors in organizing the list. If you want to work at one of the smaller Chicago firms, that may be advisable, but you'll need to learn more information about the lifestyle of the firm, its financial strength, and other soft factors from verifiable sources - like 2/3Ls and graduates before I would take one of them over the better names. Otherwise you run the risk of working the same soul crushing hours at a less stable firm. Your bid list doesn't indicate to me that you've thought about this issue, so let me know if you have any thoughts and we can work on it.

Also just an FYI about Schiff: they had a major partner desertion last year. AND they start graduates in like January or something. So consider that when all of your peers will be starting their jobs in September and October, you'll have to wait an extra three months in order to start getting paid.

User avatar
Eldon Tyrell

Silver
Posts: 1370
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 10:22 pm

Re: UChicago OCI 2016

Post by Eldon Tyrell » Sun Jul 10, 2016 11:02 pm

bill_swerski wrote:Though people with 178+ and Chicago ties are probably going to get something in Chicago, it is highly advisable you bid some NY firms with large class sizes (especially since a 178+ puts most of the V10 firms into play).
Yeah, if I didn't make this clear, this is what I have been trying to get across. If you have a 178+ you're in a great spot, but you should still back that up with some conservative bids also.

User avatar
Eldon Tyrell

Silver
Posts: 1370
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 10:22 pm

Re: UChicago OCI 2016

Post by Eldon Tyrell » Sun Jul 10, 2016 11:12 pm

Also, just a general tip about bidding for those unfamiliar. Do not order your bid list based on how much you want to work at each firm. You need to be ordering your bid list with an eye towards maximizing the number of screeners you get. So, if a firm can be gotten at spot 10, do not rank them in your top 5. Consult at least the last two OCI threads and see where people hit and missed the same firms you want to bid on. If you want to be ultra conservative, you can always bump a firm up a slot or two higher than where someone got it last year. But make sure you aren't putting Perkins Coie Chicago anywhere but #1-3, if you actually want a screener there. They have 34 interview slots and they are a fairly chill and desirable firm, meaning other students will be bidding them pretty highly.

Anonymous User
Posts: 432521
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago OCI 2016

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Jul 10, 2016 11:17 pm

Grades: 179.5-180
URM/Female: Nope.
Work Exp: Two yrs
Preferred Market: DC or Chicago
Practice Area: Leaning lit
Misc: Non-profit

Bid List. I would like to get a mix of Chicago and DC screeners. I have been reading that the DC and Chicago markets can be tough. Should I be safe bidding these two markets? Can I add more Chicago firms above 15 without jeopardizing any of the DC firms?

1 Latham and Watkins DC 29
2 Schiff Hardin Chicago 42
3 Sidley Austin Chicago 84
4 Baker Botts DC 8
5 Kirkland and Ellis Chicago 84
6 Jenner and Block Chicago 63
7 Mayer Brown Chicago 63
8 Jones Day DC 21
9 Arnold and Porter DC 21
10 Sidley Austin DC 21
11 Crowell and Moring DC 21
12 Bryan Cave Chicago 21
13 Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom Chicago 84
14 Covington and Burling DC 18
15 Eimer Stahl Chicago 21
16 Kirkland and Ellis DC 21
17 Steptoe & Johnson DC 21
18 McDermott Will & Emery Chicago 64
19 King and Spalding DC 10
20 Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom DC 21
21 Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton DC 38
22 Harris Wiltshire & Grannis DC 21
23 Winston & Strawn DC 21
24 Edelson PC Chicago 21
25 White & Case DC 21
26 Cadwaleder Wickersham and Taft DC 21
27 Gibson Dunn & Crutcher DC 19
28 Cooley DC 42
29 Vinson & Elkins DC 21
30 Foley & Lardner DC 21

Want to continue reading?

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Absolutely FREE!


User avatar
Eldon Tyrell

Silver
Posts: 1370
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 10:22 pm

Re: UChicago OCI 2016

Post by Eldon Tyrell » Sun Jul 10, 2016 11:27 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Grades: 179.5-180
URM/Female: Nope.
Work Exp: Two yrs
Preferred Market: DC or Chicago
Practice Area: Leaning lit
Misc: Non-profit

Bid List. I would like to get a mix of Chicago and DC screeners. I have been reading that the DC and Chicago markets can be tough. Should I be safe bidding these two markets? Can I add more Chicago firms above 15 without jeopardizing any of the DC firms?

1 Latham and Watkins DC 29
2 Schiff Hardin Chicago 42
3 Sidley Austin Chicago 84
4 Baker Botts DC 8
5 Kirkland and Ellis Chicago 84
6 Jenner and Block Chicago 63
7 Mayer Brown Chicago 63
8 Jones Day DC 21
9 Arnold and Porter DC 21
10 Sidley Austin DC 21
11 Crowell and Moring DC 21
12 Bryan Cave Chicago 21
13 Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom Chicago 84
14 Covington and Burling DC 18
15 Eimer Stahl Chicago 21
16 Kirkland and Ellis DC 21
17 Steptoe & Johnson DC 21
18 McDermott Will & Emery Chicago 64
19 King and Spalding DC 10
20 Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom DC 21
21 Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton DC 38
22 Harris Wiltshire & Grannis DC 21
23 Winston & Strawn DC 21
24 Edelson PC Chicago 21
25 White & Case DC 21
26 Cadwaleder Wickersham and Taft DC 21
27 Gibson Dunn & Crutcher DC 19
28 Cooley DC 42
29 Vinson & Elkins DC 21
30 Foley & Lardner DC 21
I think you will have a lot of good options, assuming you are an average or above average interviewer. You have great grades and you'll see a URM boost for sure. I would say you are fine bidding DC/Chicago, but hopefully others will chime in to confirm that assessment.

The tougher part for your bid list is that a lot of these DC firms have very few interview slots. I can't speak to when DC firms go - again, I would check previous threads to verify. But a 21 spot DC firm after your top ten will likely be tough to get. Same goes for Skadden Chicago at 13. For you, I would guess you might miss some firms that you should be interviewing at, which means you'll have to pick up some of these DC firms during open sign ups closer to OCI. Or you'll need to knock on doors and see whether the firms you miss can fit you in on the day of.

Hopefully some DC people will add their thoughts, as I'm a bit out of the loop for that market when it comes to bidding strategy.

Anonymous User
Posts: 432521
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago OCI 2016

Post by Anonymous User » Mon Jul 11, 2016 9:35 am

Does anyone else think that bidding from former years may be off given that now some firms are at 180 and many others are not? I tried to factor that into my bid list (178 female) but maybe that's ill-advised.

Thanks for all the tips though; obviously have some re-working to do.

User avatar
Eldon Tyrell

Silver
Posts: 1370
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 10:22 pm

Re: UChicago OCI 2016

Post by Eldon Tyrell » Mon Jul 11, 2016 9:52 am

Anonymous User wrote:Does anyone else think that bidding from former years may be off given that now some firms are at 180 and many others are not? I tried to factor that into my bid list (178 female) but maybe that's ill-advised.

Thanks for all the tips though; obviously have some re-working to do.
Probably not, since the firms that raised were probably the high demand firms anyway. Maybe there are a few firms that didn't raise that can be lowered in favor of others that raised. But those firms are probably secondary markets where cost of living will keep demand for $160k firms high. All else being equal I'd leave your bid list where it is based on previous years.

Which firms are you specifically concerned about?

Anonymous User
Posts: 432521
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago OCI 2016

Post by Anonymous User » Mon Jul 11, 2016 10:12 am

Not so much concerned as curious as I suspect your analysis may be on point.

But many of the firms listed 8-20 on my bid list (again, 178 female) are there mostly because they're at 180 while firms below 20 are not. Is this a dumb strategy?

Want to continue reading?

Register for access!

Did I mention it was FREE ?


User avatar
Eldon Tyrell

Silver
Posts: 1370
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 10:22 pm

Re: UChicago OCI 2016

Post by Eldon Tyrell » Mon Jul 11, 2016 10:22 am

Anonymous User wrote:Not so much concerned as curious as I suspect your analysis may be on point.

But many of the firms listed 8-20 on my bid list (again, 178 female) are there mostly because they're at 180 while firms below 20 are not. Is this a dumb strategy?
No not at all. But I doubt it makes much difference because those 8-20 firms would probably have been there anyway. The ones after 20 don't seem like they would have been in crazy high demand prior to the raises.

Anonymous User
Posts: 432521
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago OCI 2016

Post by Anonymous User » Mon Jul 11, 2016 10:35 am

Eldon Tyrell wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Not so much concerned as curious as I suspect your analysis may be on point.

But many of the firms listed 8-20 on my bid list (again, 178 female) are there mostly because they're at 180 while firms below 20 are not. Is this a dumb strategy?
No not at all. But I doubt it makes much difference because those 8-20 firms would probably have been there anyway. The ones after 20 don't seem like they would have been in crazy high demand prior to the raises.
Thanks; that makes sense.

bill_swerski

New
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 6:53 pm

Re: UChicago OCI 2016

Post by bill_swerski » Mon Jul 11, 2016 12:09 pm

Just a heads up: I would recommend using last year's bid results as a guide to get an idea on how to maximize interview spots. However, keep in mind that it fluctuates from year to year based on the relative interests of the student body, so it is impossible to predict 100%. For instance, last year's class had a heavy NY focus, which caused people to miss out on certain firms that would normally be obtainable at much higher bid spots.

User avatar
Danny Mothers

Bronze
Posts: 129
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 1:25 pm

Re: UChicago OCI 2016

Post by Danny Mothers » Mon Jul 11, 2016 1:14 pm

bill_swerski wrote:Though people with 178+ and Chicago ties are probably going to get something in Chicago, it is highly advisable you bid some NY firms with large class sizes (especially since a 178+ puts most of the V10 firms into play).
This is right, but you could take this even further. Everyone should bid in NY, regardless of your grades. Firms up and down the selectivity scale in NY have large class sizes and make tons of UChi callbacks and offers every year, and even the top firms tend to be more lenient with grades than peer firms in Chicago or D.C. or anywhere else. Also, this will not hurt your bidding strategy for your target markets--the very NY firms you'll want to target for safety's sake usually don't need high bids, and even if you don't get them out of the gate, screeners at these firms can often be picked up during OCI if you're diligently checking.

Of the people who I know struck out at OCI, or at least came very close, every single one focused on other markets and scoffed at NY. This is anecdotal evidence, to be sure, but at this point in the process interviewing at big NY firms is probably the single best way to increase your chances at avoiding the K.

Register now!

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.

It's still FREE!


User avatar
2014

Platinum
Posts: 6028
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:53 pm

Re: UChicago OCI 2016

Post by 2014 » Mon Jul 11, 2016 6:00 pm

Schiff deferred and then laid off several members of c/o 2015 less than 3 months into their careers, just know that before you bid and sign up for them - it's a really really shitty thing for them to have done.

WheninLaw

Silver
Posts: 620
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:35 pm

Re: UChicago OCI 2016

Post by WheninLaw » Mon Jul 11, 2016 6:39 pm

2014 wrote:Schiff deferred and then laid off several members of c/o 2015 less than 3 months into their careers, just know that before you bid and sign up for them - it's a really really shitty thing for them to have done.
Did not know that happened. Wow. They end up okay?

User avatar
Eldon Tyrell

Silver
Posts: 1370
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 10:22 pm

Re: UChicago OCI 2016

Post by Eldon Tyrell » Mon Jul 11, 2016 6:46 pm

WheninLaw wrote:
2014 wrote:Schiff deferred and then laid off several members of c/o 2015 less than 3 months into their careers, just know that before you bid and sign up for them - it's a really really shitty thing for them to have done.
Did not know that happened. Wow. They end up okay?
Yeah that's pretty messed up. I just heard about the partner exodus and deferred start dates.

User avatar
2014

Platinum
Posts: 6028
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:53 pm

Re: UChicago OCI 2016

Post by 2014 » Tue Jul 12, 2016 9:58 am

WheninLaw wrote:
2014 wrote:Schiff deferred and then laid off several members of c/o 2015 less than 3 months into their careers, just know that before you bid and sign up for them - it's a really really shitty thing for them to have done.
Did not know that happened. Wow. They end up okay?
I think at least one is still looking but admittedly not positive. It wasn't only UChi people either they gutted their (already somewhat small) first year class.

E - Context: http://abovethelaw.com/2016/03/nationwi ... curb/?rf=1

Get unlimited access to all forums and topics

Register now!

I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...


User avatar
chicago-gunner123

New
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2015 10:27 am

Re: UChicago OCI 2016

Post by chicago-gunner123 » Wed Jul 13, 2016 6:22 pm

2014 wrote:Schiff deferred and then laid off several members of c/o 2015 less than 3 months into their careers, just know that before you bid and sign up for them - it's a really really shitty thing for them to have done.

Anonymous User
Posts: 432521
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago OCI 2016

Post by Anonymous User » Sat Jul 16, 2016 9:36 am

.
Last edited by Anonymous User on Wed Jul 20, 2016 12:10 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Eldon Tyrell

Silver
Posts: 1370
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 10:22 pm

Re: UChicago OCI 2016

Post by Eldon Tyrell » Sat Jul 16, 2016 11:50 am

If you're URM and/or AA female I think you'll be ok. You're bid list looks pretty solid and conservative but three markets is a bit much. I would suggest narrowing it to two.

bill_swerski

New
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 6:53 pm

Re: UChicago OCI 2016

Post by bill_swerski » Sat Jul 16, 2016 1:22 pm

I would bid Fried Frank higher since it is a less grade selective NYC firm that has a fairly large SA class.
Last edited by bill_swerski on Sat Jul 16, 2016 1:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.

Register now, it's still FREE!


Anonymous User
Posts: 432521
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago OCI 2016

Post by Anonymous User » Sat Jul 16, 2016 1:23 pm

Does anybody know relatively how firm Allen & Overy 's grade preferences are? I am trying to decide if they are a worth the high bid I am giving them (only 10 slots).

bill_swerski

New
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 6:53 pm

Re: UChicago OCI 2016

Post by bill_swerski » Sat Jul 16, 2016 1:39 pm

Although there is often no specific grade cutoff for alot if firms (since other factors like interview skills will come into play), I found that in general if your GPA is above the 25th percentile for CB then you are competitive.

User avatar
Eldon Tyrell

Silver
Posts: 1370
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 10:22 pm

Re: UChicago OCI 2016

Post by Eldon Tyrell » Sat Jul 16, 2016 3:03 pm

The callback report is still very helpful, but it can be deceiving, since everybody with a 180+ is much more likely to get a callback. But those special snowflakes can only go to one firm at the end of day. So don't get discouraged when you look at it.

Anonymous User
Posts: 432521
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago OCI 2016

Post by Anonymous User » Mon Jul 18, 2016 1:29 am

Alright, definitely don't have an amazing handle on the strategy of bidding, but here's my rough go at it based on previous years. I'm not opposed to throwing in some NY, but no idea what firms and where to place them.

Grades: ~179
URM/Female: No
Work Experience: Very little
Preferred Market: Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego (Ties should be fine for LA and SD)
Practice Area: Leaning litigation

1. Mayer Brown (LA) (7)
2. Gibson Dunn (LA) (13)
3. Perkins Coie (LA) (12)
4. Latham (LA) (12 shared)
5. Jones Day (LA/Irvine/SD) (21 shared)
6. O’Melveny & Myers (LA-century city) (8)
7. Holland & Knight LLP (11 shared)
8. Skadden (LA) (21)
9. Kirkland & Ellis (LA) (21)
10. Cooley (LA/SD) (42 shared)
11. Paul Hastings (LA) (8)
12. Norton Rose Fulbright (LA) (21 shared)
13. Pillsbury (LA) (2)
14. polsinelli pc (LA) (13 shared)
15. Sidley Austin (LA) (21)
16. Covington (LA) (21 shared)
17. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (LA) (21 shared)
18. Morrision and Foerster (LA?) (21 shared)
19. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (LA/SD/Austin) (21)
20. Foley and Lardner (LA/SD) (21 shared)
21. Perkins Coie LLP (LA) (7 shared)
22. fox rothschild llp (LA) (9 shared)
23. polsinelli pc (LA) (13 shared)
24. proskauer rose llp (LA) (21)
25. Munger (LA) (21)
26. Irell (LA) (21)
27. Susman Godfrey (LA)(19 shared)
28. fox rothschild llp (LA) (9 shared)

Seriously? What are you waiting for?

Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!


Post Reply Post Anonymous Reply  

Return to “Legal Employment”