Columbia EIP 2014 Forum

[Anonymous User]

if haven't heard back yet from journals are we out? also, is there any second chance to apply to journals?

I remember them saying that if there were spots unfilled on other journals, you'd get the chance to apply.

[Anonymous User]

Heard from CBLR an hour ago or so. I don't think you are out.

[Anonymous User]

Here's my initial bid list, 3.37, K-JD, very minor diversity, solid interviewer (but then again, everyone says that). Would prefer lit. All NYC. Trying to make as conservative of a bid list as possible. Thanks everyone!

1) Kirkland
2) Sherman
3) Sidley
4) Paul Hastings
5) Hogan
6) Kaye Scholer
7) White and Case
8 Clifford Chance
9) Jones Day
10) Weil
11) Allen Overy
12) Milbank
13) Willkie
14) Ropes and Gray
15) Shulte Roth
16) Cahill
17) Akin Gump
18) Fried Frank
19) K&L Gates
20) Caldwalader
21) Kramer
22) Chadbourne
23) O'Melveny
24) Orrick
25) Dechert
26) Strook
27) Hughes Hubbard
28) Curtis, Mallet-Prevost
29) Dentons
30) Vinson-Elkins

This is a good and safe bid list. Personally, I think you could throw in a couple more reaches on there since you're pretty close to Stone and targeting all NYC. I'm not sure which ones exactly (I see Weil). Overall you seem to be in a solid position.

Thanks for the feedback! Any firms you would recommend? And also importantly, where to bid them? A fear of mine is that I would have to bid "reach" firms higher up, and might miss out on my target firms. Thanks!

-Joseph Anton

I'm not positive which ones would be a good reach. You should find reasonable ones that you like and consider adding them (Debevoise? Paul Weiss?). One reach or two can't hurt since your GPA is pretty good & you have plenty of target firms. Obviously doing this adds some risk, so you have to decide if it's worth it. Your current list is a safe one.

Ok so I think I'm going to add one or two "reach" firms to my list. My plan was to replace K&L Gates with Paul Weiss, and maybe add Skadden towards the top. Is there ANY reason to add either of those two firms (or other reaches) to this bid list, or am I taking unnecessary risks? Thanks again for the feedback.

-Joseph Anton

[Anonymous User]

Hmm, don't know how to answer that question. Both firms are "possible" with your grades but they are reaches regardless based on the honors report. You need to decide if this is "unnecessary" risk (the primary risk being you might get an offer at the safer firms you replace with).

[Anonymous User]

Hmm, don't know how to answer that question. Both firms are "possible" with your grades but they are reaches regardless based on the honors report. You need to decide if this is "unnecessary" risk (the primary risk being you might get an offer at the safer firms you replace with).

Yeah, it's definitely a crossroads I'm at lol. I guess what I'm trying to ask is whether my bid list is safe enough to accommodate either firm (and which one, if I had to pick one, or any other top firms that are possible just below Stone), or if there's no such thing as "safe enough" when it comes to EIP bidding, event at CLS. Thanks!

-Joseph Anton

[Anonymous User]

Hmm, don't know how to answer that question. Both firms are "possible" with your grades but they are reaches regardless based on the honors report. You need to decide if this is "unnecessary" risk (the primary risk being you might get an offer at the safer firms you replace with).

Yeah, it's definitely a crossroads I'm at lol. I guess what I'm trying to ask is whether my bid list is safe enough to accommodate either firm (and which one, if I had to pick one, or any other top firms that are possible just below Stone), or if there's no such thing as "safe enough" when it comes to EIP bidding, event at CLS. Thanks!

-Joseph Anton

i would do this, but it's much easier to say after having done OCI

[Anonymous User]

3L editor on a secondary here. We're not finished making calls, don't worry

[Anonymous User]

do you know when all these calls will end?

[Anonymous User]

3.75, corporate in NYC, K-JD. Any comments would be much appreciated! Any glaring issues with the order of bids? Is this too aggressive/should I include more 'safe' options?

[Bid List]

~ Neymeria

Same stats, lack of work experience, and goals here. Any reason you didn't include Cravath?

-Ned Stark

She might be cutting it close on a few firms, too. The "first failed bid" chart is tough because this is the first year we all have it, so naturally people who really want certain firms are going to bid them higher. I'd guess that Paul Weiss is going to go a bit higher than last year's "FFB", and Davis Polk could fluctuate since it has 40 less screener spots than last year.

Are there firms that you'd particularly want to work at? Might be worth bidding them a couple slots higher.

Thanks all for the responses!

Will definitely look at pushing a couple of firms up. Davis Polk is a big worry actually, seeing they're offering much less screener spots. As a rough gauge, how is everyone using the FFB list? I'm trying to position firms that I really want 2 spots ahead this year; is that too risky still?

~ Nymeria

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

3.75, corporate in NYC, K-JD. Any comments would be much appreciated! Any glaring issues with the order of bids? Is this too aggressive/should I include more 'safe' options?

[Bid List]

~ Neymeria

Same stats, lack of work experience, and goals here. Any reason you didn't include Cravath?

-Ned Stark

What'd you mean goals? Well, OCS advised against Cravath/Wachtell/Sullcrom together since there're pretty much 100% offered to honours; I was told to remove 2/3 but thought I'd try for one more.

~ Neymeria

I already thought OCS should be fired, all of them. This confirms it. You can and should put absolutely any NY corporate firm on your list that you'd like a chance to attend a callback with. Wachtell will be tough, but no easier for anyone else. Maybe Munger and Williams and Connelly are out but those don't affect you. Stop going to OCS now.

MTO and W&C are both well within range for a 3.75. All the top DC places, best boutiques, MTO and WLRK become realistic at about 3.7.

OCS really told you not to bid what many people regard as the three best firms with a top ~5% GPA? That's crazy. That's a shoot-for-the-moon GPA. You may want to have some safeties on there to feel comfortable, but as I've posted before, if you have even average social skills, I think the odds of a SullCrom offer alone are quite high.

[Anonymous User]

On an EIP note, to what extent is "yield protection" a thing with law firms? If your grades are high, will firms like Milbank or Sheppard Mullin be skeptical or welcoming? Is there are super high burden of showing that you truly do want to work there?

My experience from last year was that firms did "yield protect"—I was significantly more likely to get callbacks from some of the more grade-selective firms that I interviewed with. (Of course, sample size of 1. Maybe I was just off my game in some of the other interviews. But I think there was something.)

I think it's reasonable, too—it's less about protecting some yield statistic and more not wanting to waste a half-day interviewing you if there's little chance you'll come. Looking at billing rates, callbacks are pretty pricy for firms.

-B

[Anonymous User]

3.75, corporate in NYC, K-JD. Any comments would be much appreciated! Any glaring issues with the order of bids? Is this too aggressive/should I include more 'safe' options?

[Bid List]

~ Neymeria

Same stats, lack of work experience, and goals here. Any reason you didn't include Cravath?

-Ned Stark

She might be cutting it close on a few firms, too. The "first failed bid" chart is tough because this is the first year we all have it, so naturally people who really want certain firms are going to bid them higher. I'd guess that Paul Weiss is going to go a bit higher than last year's "FFB", and Davis Polk could fluctuate since it has 40 less screener spots than last year.

Are there firms that you'd particularly want to work at? Might be worth bidding them a couple slots higher.

Thanks all for the responses!

Will definitely look at pushing a couple of firms up. Davis Polk is a big worry actually, seeing they're offering much less screener spots. As a rough gauge, how is everyone using the FFB list? I'm trying to position firms that I really want 2 spots ahead this year; is that too risky still?

~ Nymeria

OCS said 2 spots should be safe. They also said our goal should be 14-15 interviews, which seems low. So take it with a grain of fault I suppose.

[Anonymous User]

On an EIP note, to what extent is "yield protection" a thing with law firms? If your grades are high, will firms like Milbank or Sheppard Mullin be skeptical or welcoming? Is there are super high burden of showing that you truly do want to work there?

My experience from last year was that firms did "yield protect"—I was significantly more likely to get callbacks from some of the more grade-selective firms that I interviewed with. (Of course, sample size of 1. Maybe I was just off my game in some of the other interviews. But I think there was something.)

I think it's reasonable, too—it's less about protecting some yield statistic and more not wanting to waste a half-day interviewing you if there's little chance you'll come. Looking at billing rates, callbacks are pretty pricy for firms.

-B

OP. Yeah, it definitely makes sense, thanks for that. It just sucks as a student because there's no truly effective way to manage risk, if both the higher- and lower-ranked firms I want are uphill battles.

Time to sell my enthusiasm hard, I guess.

OCS said 2 spots should be safe. They also said our goal should be 14-15 interviews, which seems low. So take it with a grain of fault I suppose.

14-15? Damn. I was hoping for at least 20, I hear 25's godly if you're all-in on New York. You might get a couple more though if you're looking at secondary markets, since you can bid them lower for the most part.

[Anonymous User]

What'd you mean goals? Well, OCS advised against Cravath/Wachtell/Sullcrom together since there're pretty much 100% offered to honours; I was told to remove 2/3 but thought I'd try for one more.

Neymeria, just needed to echo what was said. OCS is FUCKED and it's shocking that they are giving this kind of advice. You said you are interested in corporate. With that kind of GPA, I think it is bordering on impossible for you to not get at least a few offers out of (in order of your bidlist): Kirkland, Skadden, Weil, S&C, DPW, Cleary, STB (who you should definitely move up BTW), WLRK. I would also definitely add Cravath. If you want a few safer options, Milbank / Willkie / Fried Frank are ok, but I would definitely not waste bids on DLA Piper, Goodwin, or Latham (see Lathaming). You have the GPA, now make absolutely certain that you get screeners at the top NY corporate firms (WLRK, CSM, S&C, Cleary, DPW, STB, Skadden).

I was going to cabin my advice by saying "if you aren't a psycho" or socially brain dead, but that's not really even true. I'm a 3L at a v5 this summer and there are a few people from CLS at my firm that are super bizarre (and who likely had similar or lower GPAs).

On an EIP note, to what extent is "yield protection" a thing with law firms? If your grades are high, will firms like Milbank or Sheppard Mullin be skeptical or welcoming? Is there are super high burden of showing that you truly do want to work there?

This is definitely a thing. Firms can only call back a certain number of applicants, and they aren't going to waste slots on people who are obviously out of their league.

[Anonymous User]

Latham (see Lathaming)

How much do you think Lathaming should be taken account? For other offices such as LA (where layoffs definitely also happened)?

[Anonymous User]

Latham (see Lathaming)

How much do you think Lathaming should be taken account? For other offices such as LA (where layoffs definitely also happened)?

3L here

I built my bid list almost entirely around perceived firm health and trying to avoid firms that made serious cutbacks during the financial crisis. I wouldn't advise a similar strategy. It means ignoring a number of good firms that likely have taken steps to remedy those problems.

[Anonymous User]

Latham (see Lathaming)

How much do you think Lathaming should be taken account? For other offices such as LA (where layoffs definitely also happened)?

3L here

I built my bid list almost entirely around perceived firm health and trying to avoid firms that made serious cutbacks during the financial crisis. I wouldn't advise a similar strategy. It means ignoring a number of good firms that likely have taken steps to remedy those problems.

Yeah Latham (LA) is likely my top choice (as I want corporate in LA) and I love everything about the firm except its behavior after the crisis. They have definitely been hiring smaller classes recently, and I suppose Lathaming would only be catastrophic if a recession coincided with my first (maybe second) year as an associate (or the year after my SA). I'm just not sure if completely writing off a firm with people/practices I like for "Lathaming' is a good call.

[Anonymous User]

Latham (see Lathaming)

How much do you think Lathaming should be taken account? For other offices such as LA (where layoffs definitely also happened)?

OP here. My point is not that everyone should avoid Latham, only that someone with a 3.75 will have better options. It's also not even so much about the individual risk of being fired, as what it means about the type of firm you are working at. Law firms =/= start ups. Clients value stability.

When I was going through the process, I found this chart to be interesting. It seems to correlate pretty well with quality / strength: http://abovethelaw.com/2013/08/the-char ... terrified/

[Anonymous User]

Latham (see Lathaming)

How much do you think Lathaming should be taken account? For other offices such as LA (where layoffs definitely also happened)?

OP here. My point is not that everyone should avoid Latham, only that someone with a 3.75 will have better options. It's also not even so much about the individual risk of being fired, as what it means about the type of firm you are working at. Law firms =/= start ups. Clients value stability.

When I was going through the process, I found this chart to be interesting. It seems to correlate pretty well with quality / strength: http://abovethelaw.com/2013/08/the-char ... terrified/

If the concern were being individually axed, as opposed to getting an SA, wouldn't smaller summer classes theoretically be better because the firm is less likely to be overleveraged? Sorry if I completely misunderstand, I am just trying to figure everything out at this point.

[Anonymous User]

I know after law review secondarys don't really have prestige rankings. However are there generally more respected/reputable ones than others? CBLR? HRLR?

[Anonymous User]

I know after law review secondarys don't really have prestige rankings. However are there generally more respected/reputable ones than others? CBLR? HRLR?

I would think CBLR, HRLR and JTL are a slight notch above the rest but this is based on very little and someone else should jump in on this one.

[itbdvorm]

Latham (see Lathaming)

How much do you think Lathaming should be taken account? For other offices such as LA (where layoffs definitely also happened)?

OP here. My point is not that everyone should avoid Latham, only that someone with a 3.75 will have better options. It's also not even so much about the individual risk of being fired, as what it means about the type of firm you are working at. Law firms =/= start ups. Clients value stability.

When I was going through the process, I found this chart to be interesting. It seems to correlate pretty well with quality / strength: http://abovethelaw.com/2013/08/the-char ... terrified/

Of course, that chart is also incredibly misleading, as it ignores stealth layoffs, etc.

Only because there continues to be such mis-information - the reality is that, other than a handful of hyper-elite boutiques (Wachtell, Williams & Connolly, et al) I am aware of people who were laid off, fired, pushed out unceremoniously, etc., at EVERY "safe" firm described. If you closely compare NALP numbers at DPW (a particular offender), STB, Skadden, etc. for times during that period you will see MASSIVE movements (i.e., same or reduced number of associates despite an influx of 100+ new associates).

Please, please do not confuse PR of handling economic recessions with reality. Abovethelaw reports on easily available information about firms who are experts in keeping things confidential.

[Anonymous User]

I know after law review secondarys don't really have prestige rankings. However are there generally more respected/reputable ones than others? CBLR? HRLR?

I would think CBLR, HRLR and JTL are a slight notch above the rest but this is based on very little and someone else should jump in on this one.

All secondaries prob look similar to firms in terms of prestige and what not but it would probably help to be on CBLR if NYC corporate or JTL for some international interest, for example.

[Anonymous User]

Resume Question: can we include specific magazines/publications under Interests (ex: "The Economist"), or should it be more general ("current events"), or neither because they assume you don't live under a rock?

[Anonymous User]

Resume Question: can we include specific magazines/publications under Interests (ex: "The Economist"), or should it be more general ("current events"), or neither because they assume you don't live under a rock?

I'm no OCS counselor, but I think the latter. Find a better interest.