V15 Partner/OCI Interviewer Answering Questions... Forum

[itbdvorm]

For a 1L or 2L applying to a firm that requires an undergraduate transcript/GPA, if their UG GPA was abysmal (like <3.0), would it be in their best interest to email a hiring partner with a concise message about it? Something with a message like "Hey I know my UG GPA was really bad, but I've changed and please look at my law school performance/activity instead." (worded a lot more cleanly of course)

I get the idea that you don't want to call attention to weaknesses but if it's going to come up at some point (since they're asking for it), is there any harm to doing so?

Probably not great no matter how you try it - not a bad idea to try a cover note but you should assume you are going to have some difficulty with a firm requiring that...

Got it; is there any other way/better way of tackling this?

None I can think of. Option B might be no note at all and it all would speak for itself.

[Anonymous User]

Does your firm hire laterals? How much do grades matter for lateral hiring? can you speak to in-house?

We do (so I guess spoiler, I'm not at Cravath). Grades do matter (we still have standards) but criteria not as stringent as to get hired initially. Performance at firm and rationale for lateralling much more important

In-house probably has a similar analysis

How do you measure this? I assume it is some combination of prior firm's general reputation and matters worked (as evidenced by résumé). Do you ask what kind of billables they had? Do you look for other indicia of the applicant's performance?

[Anonymous User]

Thanks for fielding so many questions--seriously.

I'm trying to gauge how competitive I am for big firms in major markets (pretty broad range, I know). I took a weird path: summa at a T20; two years of general lit at a small firm in a small, midwest market; currently doing a midwest COA clerkship. I thought I would like being a big fish in a small pond, but I didn't. I want to give a major market a shot (and I wouldn't mind the clerkship bonus). I'd probably prefer Chicago, because I'm a midwest person, but I don't really care which major market.

Will anyone look at me, given my first job? And do I need a better explanation than the above (sans the bonus, obviously)?

Finishing a COA clerkship? Competitive almost anywhere. You won't need much explanation - people will know you want to do "top-tier work" or equivalent. Good luck.

Thanks for your response.

I don't know if this is within the scope of your experience, but would you recommend that I work with a recruiter in each market that I target? Or would a firm like yours rather receive an unsolicited resume?

To me, the benefit of a recruiter is that I don't have to guess about timing, and the recruiter could potentially do some negotiating on my behalf (class year, etc.). But I realize firms don't always like to work with recruiters.

[Anonymous User]

So for people didn't grad with summa, with grades possibly just hit the lowest cutoff of magna (right outside 10%) at BC/BU... with term bankruptcy clerkship (non DE or SDNY) out of law school- what's his or her shots at biglaw litigation afterwards? Talking about kirkland/ Weil/ Ropes, target market NYC or boston
I'm under the impression that even if I can stack on clerkship- a fancy clerkship still doesn't change my underlying competitiveness- given that I don't have stellar credentials on my resume like summa, big law SAs. . .

[itbdvorm]

Does your firm hire laterals? How much do grades matter for lateral hiring? can you speak to in-house?

We do (so I guess spoiler, I'm not at Cravath). Grades do matter (we still have standards) but criteria not as stringent as to get hired initially. Performance at firm and rationale for lateralling much more important

In-house probably has a similar analysis

How do you measure this? I assume it is some combination of prior firm's general reputation and matters worked (as evidenced by résumé). Do you ask what kind of billables they had? Do you look for other indicia of the applicant's performance?

Can you talk the talk? People ask about billables but generally want people to be able to talk about what they did, issues, etc.

[itbdvorm]

Thanks for fielding so many questions--seriously.

I'm trying to gauge how competitive I am for big firms in major markets (pretty broad range, I know). I took a weird path: summa at a T20; two years of general lit at a small firm in a small, midwest market; currently doing a midwest COA clerkship. I thought I would like being a big fish in a small pond, but I didn't. I want to give a major market a shot (and I wouldn't mind the clerkship bonus). I'd probably prefer Chicago, because I'm a midwest person, but I don't really care which major market.

Will anyone look at me, given my first job? And do I need a better explanation than the above (sans the bonus, obviously)?

Finishing a COA clerkship? Competitive almost anywhere. You won't need much explanation - people will know you want to do "top-tier work" or equivalent. Good luck.

Thanks for your response.

I don't know if this is within the scope of your experience, but would you recommend that I work with a recruiter in each market that I target? Or would a firm like yours rather receive an unsolicited resume?

To me, the benefit of a recruiter is that I don't have to guess about timing, and the recruiter could potentially do some negotiating on my behalf (class year, etc.). But I realize firms don't always like to work with recruiters.

I would generally not recommend working with a recruiter at first blush. It's a serious incremental cost to the firm as opposed to reaching out directly. Best bet stage 1 is always someone you know - maybe ask co-clerks for recs?

[itbdvorm]

So for people didn't grad with summa, with grades possibly just hit the lowest cutoff of magna (right outside 10%) at BC/BU... with term bankruptcy clerkship (non DE or SDNY) out of law school- what's his or her shots at biglaw litigation afterwards? Talking about kirkland/ Weil/ Ropes, target market NYC or boston
I'm under the impression that even if I can stack on clerkship- a fancy clerkship still doesn't change my underlying competitiveness- given that I don't have stellar credentials on my resume like summa, big law SAs. . .

This is so specific I'm afraid I just don't know. Everything's a maybe.

[Anonymous User]

So for people didn't grad with summa, with grades possibly just hit the lowest cutoff of magna (right outside 10%) at BC/BU... with term bankruptcy clerkship (non DE or SDNY) out of law school- what's his or her shots at biglaw litigation afterwards? Talking about kirkland/ Weil/ Ropes, target market NYC or boston
I'm under the impression that even if I can stack on clerkship- a fancy clerkship still doesn't change my underlying competitiveness- given that I don't have stellar credentials on my resume like summa, big law SAs. . .

This is so specific I'm afraid I just don't know. Everything's a maybe.

sure- let's more it more broad-based then: for white shoe v20 firms, how likely are they to hire laterals with non-article III fed clerskships, who don't quiet otherwise qualify for their general hiring standards? If that's not very likely just given their clerkship experience, do you think stacking on article III clerkships afterwards can change the game?

[Anonymous User]

Mid-level attorney in a niche DC regulatory field. I know grass is not always greener (though in some $en$e it is), I'm just curious about lateralling:
1.) what are the chances if I have zero private sector experience but other marketable skills and accomplishments that made headlines
2.) I see quite a few government attorneys who jumped over as counsels. I'm sure it varies by firms, but what are the prospects when one becomes counsel

[itbdvorm]

So for people didn't grad with summa, with grades possibly just hit the lowest cutoff of magna (right outside 10%) at BC/BU... with term bankruptcy clerkship (non DE or SDNY) out of law school- what's his or her shots at biglaw litigation afterwards? Talking about kirkland/ Weil/ Ropes, target market NYC or boston
I'm under the impression that even if I can stack on clerkship- a fancy clerkship still doesn't change my underlying competitiveness- given that I don't have stellar credentials on my resume like summa, big law SAs. . .

This is so specific I'm afraid I just don't know. Everything's a maybe.

sure- let's more it more broad-based then: for white shoe v20 firms, how likely are they to hire laterals with non-article III fed clerskships, who don't quiet otherwise qualify for their general hiring standards? If that's not very likely just given their clerkship experience, do you think stacking on article III clerkships afterwards can change the game?

I don't do litigation, but I have to assume a non-Article III Fed clerkship will only be appealing to the specific area. Not going to lie - your level of typos makes me worry about your ability to succeed at a white shoe firm anyway.

[itbdvorm]

Mid-level attorney in a niche DC regulatory field. I know grass is not always greener (though in some $en$e it is), I'm just curious about lateralling:
1.) what are the chances if I have zero private sector experience but other marketable skills and accomplishments that made headlines
2.) I see quite a few government attorneys who jumped over as counsels. I'm sure it varies by firms, but what are the prospects when one becomes counsel

So assuming from your post that you are currently in government? What I would say is:

1) excellent chances - if you are in a relevant field, always looking for folks with significant / relevant experience. all the top DC regulatory shops are chock-full of ex-government folks

2) varies WIDELY by firm and group. really goes to ambition/skillset on some level. plenty of specialist counsels who work in a particular area, know it super-well, work on relevant deals, etc. those folks can actually have a great work/life balance if they find the right fit. others want to become partner, and may indeed do so, if they can find the right path forward. all in all a very logical stepping stone for ex-government folks - you get a title which demonstrates you know your stuff and an opportunity to prove your partnership worth if applicable

this response of course assumes you are a regulatory counsel, not a M&A/corp fin/banking/etc. counsel. those folks usually have many, but not all, of the tools to make partner and the question is whether they'll develop them (some will and move up, some won't and will stay counsel, some will go be partner elsewhere, etc.)

[Anonymous User]

Mid-level attorney in a niche DC regulatory field. I know grass is not always greener (though in some $en$e it is), I'm just curious about lateralling:
1.) what are the chances if I have zero private sector experience but other marketable skills and accomplishments that made headlines
2.) I see quite a few government attorneys who jumped over as counsels. I'm sure it varies by firms, but what are the prospects when one becomes counsel

So assuming from your post that you are currently in government? What I would say is:

1) excellent chances - if you are in a relevant field, always looking for folks with significant / relevant experience. all the top DC regulatory shops are chock-full of ex-government folks

2) varies WIDELY by firm and group. really goes to ambition/skillset on some level. plenty of specialist counsels who work in a particular area, know it super-well, work on relevant deals, etc. those folks can actually have a great work/life balance if they find the right fit. others want to become partner, and may indeed do so, if they can find the right path forward. all in all a very logical stepping stone for ex-government folks - you get a title which demonstrates you know your stuff and an opportunity to prove your partnership worth if applicable

this response of course assumes you are a regulatory counsel, not a M&A/corp fin/banking/etc. counsel. those folks usually have many, but not all, of the tools to make partner and the question is whether they'll develop them (some will and move up, some won't and will stay counsel, some will go be partner elsewhere, etc.)

Apologies. Correct, I'm a current bureaucrat. Receiving constant flow of pings from recruiters do make me feel good about myself, but makes me somewhat regret for not having the courage to make that leap to part ways with this cushy job of mine. Don't get me wrong, I'm super passionate about the field And I'm glad I'm where I'm at right now.

[itbdvorm]

Mid-level attorney in a niche DC regulatory field. I know grass is not always greener (though in some $en$e it is), I'm just curious about lateralling:
1.) what are the chances if I have zero private sector experience but other marketable skills and accomplishments that made headlines
2.) I see quite a few government attorneys who jumped over as counsels. I'm sure it varies by firms, but what are the prospects when one becomes counsel

So assuming from your post that you are currently in government? What I would say is:

1) excellent chances - if you are in a relevant field, always looking for folks with significant / relevant experience. all the top DC regulatory shops are chock-full of ex-government folks

2) varies WIDELY by firm and group. really goes to ambition/skillset on some level. plenty of specialist counsels who work in a particular area, know it super-well, work on relevant deals, etc. those folks can actually have a great work/life balance if they find the right fit. others want to become partner, and may indeed do so, if they can find the right path forward. all in all a very logical stepping stone for ex-government folks - you get a title which demonstrates you know your stuff and an opportunity to prove your partnership worth if applicable

this response of course assumes you are a regulatory counsel, not a M&A/corp fin/banking/etc. counsel. those folks usually have many, but not all, of the tools to make partner and the question is whether they'll develop them (some will and move up, some won't and will stay counsel, some will go be partner elsewhere, etc.)

Apologies. Correct, I'm a current bureaucrat. Receiving constant flow of pings from recruiters do make me feel good about myself, but makes me somewhat regret for not having the courage to make that leap to part ways with this cushy job of mine. Don't get me wrong, I'm super passionate about the field And I'm glad I'm where I'm at right now.

Seniority from government is a plus when you make the jump, so long as you don't become too institutionalized.

[Anonymous User]

I don't do litigation, but I have to assume a non-Article III Fed clerkship will only be appealing to the specific area. Not going to lie - your level of typos makes me worry about your ability to succeed at a white shoe firm anyway.

This is incredibly obnoxious.

[existentialcrisis]

^Accidental Anon.

[Anonymous User]

How do you feel above grades playing such a big part in the hiring process? As a dude with no relevant work experience and a humanities degree from a shitty state school, i'm kind of blown away that I did so much better an OCI than kids with econ degrees from Ivies and years of real work experience based on performing better on a few frenzied exams. In your experience, are grades a good proxy for biglaw aptitude?

[jbagelboy]

I don't do litigation, but I have to assume a non-Article III Fed clerkship will only be appealing to the specific area. Not going to lie - your level of typos makes me worry about your ability to succeed at a white shoe firm anyway.

This is incredibly obnoxious.

there's regular unavoidable smartphone typos and carelessness in an online forum, and then there's evidence of lack of a sufficient grasp of basic grammatical and syntax principles. pointing out the former is plainly obnoxious, but pointing out the latter is more of a word to the wise IMHO. This was more of the latter.

[Danger Zone]

I don't do litigation, but I have to assume a non-Article III Fed clerkship will only be appealing to the specific area. Not going to lie - your level of typos makes me worry about your ability to succeed at a white shoe firm anyway.

This is incredibly obnoxious.

there's regular unavoidable smartphone typos and carelessness in an online forum, and then there's evidence of lack of a sufficient grasp of basic grammatical and syntax principles. pointing out the former is plainly obnoxious, but pointing out the latter is more of a word to the wise IMHO. This was more of the latter.

Lol ok j bagel

[smaug]

I don't do litigation, but I have to assume a non-Article III Fed clerkship will only be appealing to the specific area. Not going to lie - your level of typos makes me worry about your ability to succeed at a white shoe firm anyway.

This is incredibly obnoxious.

there's regular unavoidable smartphone typos and carelessness in an online forum, and then there's evidence of lack of a sufficient grasp of basic grammatical and syntax principles. pointing out the former is plainly obnoxious, but pointing out the latter is more of a word to the wise IMHO. This was more of the latter.

I know you like this guy, but the comment was a silly jab.

Whether or not you think anon above demonstrated a ""lack of a sufficient grasp of basic grammatical and syntax principles,"" you should know by now that even at great firms there are lawyers whose writing is as clear as mud.

No need to be a dick. The world does enough of that.

[jbagelboy]

For what it's worth I make TONS of typos. I would never point out to anyone that they'd done so. But people do seem to be picky af

Then again, DF is a successful litigator, so who tf knows

[First Offense]

For what it's worth I make TONS of typos. I would never point out to anyone that they'd done so. But people do seem to be picky af

Then again, DF is a successful litigator, so who tf knows

Yeah but he's V42. We're talking preftigious V20 here.

Edit: Also - think I agree with Smaug here. Ragging on someone's posting style when we all post from phones and don't read over and don't pay attention to grammar and syntax and don't have secretaries look over it for grammar before submitting it is kind of shitty.

[FSK]

For what it's worth I make TONS of typos. I would never point out to anyone that they'd done so. But people do seem to be picky af

Then again, DF is a successful litigator, so who tf knows

Yeah but he's V42. We're talking preftigious V20 here.

Edit: Also - think I agree with Smaug here. Ragging on someone's posting style when we all post from phones and don't read over and don't pay attention to grammar and syntax and don't have secretaries look over it for grammar before submitting it is kind of shitty.

v37 actually.

Posting does not equal job success, I would know.

[Anonymous User]

but what are the prospects when one becomes counsel

varies WIDELY by firm and group. really goes to ambition/skillset on some level. plenty of specialist counsels who work in a particular area, know it super-well, work on relevant deals, etc. those folks can actually have a great work/life balance if they find the right fit. others want to become partner, and may indeed do so, if they can find the right path forward. all in all a very logical stepping stone for ex-government folks - you get a title which demonstrates you know your stuff and an opportunity to prove your partnership worth if applicable

not the same anon, but can you elaborate on this? i know you said it's very firm specific, but i'm curious about how do of counsel fit into the larger pyramid that is big law. for example, do they have books of business or do they work with partners on their clients' projects? what kinds of billables do they have to put up each year? can you be of counsel with the expectation that you will just stay of counsel instead of having to gun for partner? etc...

i'm IP and my current plan is to exit to in-house, but i always joke with my law school friends about trying to get on the "of-counsel track" as it seems like it can be decent good pay with (somewhat) decent work-life balance.

[Anonymous User]

In response to a PM (thought could be useful for others):

Yes, I think Brexit will seriously affect the Magic Circle firms, at least in the near-term (and possibly permanently). With so much of their revenues denominated in pounds, this will really put a hurt on the overseas/US expansion plans. If you're a UK firm trying to make inroads into NYC (as all of them except Slaughters are trying to do), your ability to invest in dollars with a seriously weakened pound is going to be drastically limited. So either you're going to cut back on US investment (leaving the people here out to dry) or stay the course (hurting your profitability and making it more likely that some top folks in the UK pursue other opportunities).

Great opportunity for the US firms with serious UK presences (Latham, Skadden, Cleary, etc.) to poach some of the top talent from the Magic Circle.

Thanks for the really useful insight, and the last line really caught my eye. I assumed that US firms with a serious presence in the UK would be hurt by a post-Brexit business slowdown just as much as the Magic Circle. As a US student heading into recruitment season and now reconsidering a London focus, I assumed any UK office of any nationality was in a bad place. Am I right that you think US firms won't really suffer?

I don't. I actually think those are the ones who may get a boost here (as clients will have loads of questions regarding potential issues, transitioning businesses, opening up new outposts in other parts of Europe, etc.)

I expect the US firms with roughly "self-sufficient" UK branches will be fine, as the hit to the exchange rate of the pound should defray almost any costs of having less work. The firms where the UK branches are really funding the rest of the operation (i.e., Magic Circle) are going to take a big hit, as suddenly the NY outpost is 20% more expensive and still not really sending $$$ back

It's been interesting to watch the beginning of the Brexit process play out, and it seems like your poaching predictions were spot on http://www.americanlawyer.com/home/id=1 ... curindex=2. There's even a subsection called "Latham Continues London Hiring Spree." I'm curious about the other half of the prediction too; are there any objective measures or information sources out there for comparing London offices and knowing which US firms are "self-sufficient"?

[itbdvorm]

How do you feel above grades playing such a big part in the hiring process? As a dude with no relevant work experience and a humanities degree from a shitty state school, i'm kind of blown away that I did so much better an OCI than kids with econ degrees from Ivies and years of real work experience based on performing better on a few frenzied exams. In your experience, are grades a good proxy for biglaw aptitude?

"Sometimes"

One of the smartest lawyers I know has an undergrad degree from a shitty state school. One of the dumbest lawyers I know graduated from a top Ivy.

Someone who knows things once told me that there was a decent correlation between law school GPA and firm success, but I frankly can't recall what metrics were used.