Columbia EIP 2014 Forum

[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.

I really really don't think they care unless they share an interest in the topic. Journals are a known joke. It is there so you can prove you understand that you should do a journal/can tolerate mindless, pointless work.

Really doubt someone is going to think "yes he checked footnotes about international commercial law, he definitely is the candidate we want!"

[Anonymous User]

Journals are a known joke. It is there so you can prove you understand that you should do a journal/can tolerate mindless, pointless work.

Really doubt someone is going to think "yes he checked footnotes about international commercial law, he definitely is the candidate we want!"

But the same holds true for LR and that is universally acknowledged as a huge plus. Why the difference?

[Anonymous User]

Journals are a known joke. It is there so you can prove you understand that you should do a journal/can tolerate mindless, pointless work.

Really doubt someone is going to think "yes he checked footnotes about international commercial law, he definitely is the candidate we want!"

But the same holds true for LR and that is universally acknowledged as a huge plus. Why the difference?

I think it's just a prestige thing. They know that students, regardless of their personal interests, prioritize Law Review over other journals, so in a way it means that someone else besides the firm vetted a few students and decided that those people were qualified enough. Might reassure them that they're picking a good candidate given the second layer of "vetting".

Also, it's the journal with the most weekly work, by a wide margin. I think the packet's estimate was 12-18 hours per week? The next was 3-5 or something like that. So even if all it is is about proving you can tolerate mindless, pointless work, being on LR means you've proven you can tolerate the most mindless, pointless work.

[jbagelboy]

Journals are a known joke. It is there so you can prove you understand that you should do a journal/can tolerate mindless, pointless work.

Really doubt someone is going to think "yes he checked footnotes about international commercial law, he definitely is the candidate we want!"

But the same holds true for LR and that is universally acknowledged as a huge plus. Why the difference?

Exclusivity? Maybe clients know what it is sometimes? Also, LR involves a massive time commitment - 3-4 times another journal, which employers like to see.

We probably overplay it's importance a lot too, but this is law school where everything seems super important until you realize it kinda wasn't.

[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.

I really really don't think they care unless they share an interest in the topic. Journals are a known joke. It is there so you can prove you understand that you should do a journal/can tolerate mindless, pointless work.

Really doubt someone is going to think "yes he checked footnotes about international commercial law, he definitely is the candidate we want!"

Also, you apply to firms before you've even begun to do work for the journal (unless it is law review in which case you have 1-2 weeks of experience) so all journal membership is is an indication that you thought to apply to a journal and made it onto one.

Does anyone (looking to any upperclassmen lurking on this thread) have a sense of whether any secondary journals are particularly appealing to judges looking to hire clerks? And, if so, which ones?

[Anonymous User]

Re: above poster, I think Science & Tech Journal reflects well for Federal Circuit, ED Texas, ect. where patent fluency makes a difference. I know several of the editors last year had federal clerkships lined up, which is relatively rare for non-law review. (Of course this assumes some other important UG qualifications)

[Anonymous User]

Maybe CBLR for Chancery. That's just part of demonstrating interest, though. It pales in comparison to your grades and professor connections.

[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.

I really really don't think they care unless they share an interest in the topic. Journals are a known joke. It is there so you can prove you understand that you should do a journal/can tolerate mindless, pointless work.

Really doubt someone is going to think "yes he checked footnotes about international commercial law, he definitely is the candidate we want!"

Yea. I meant if you are telling a firm strong in corporate practice that you are interested in that type of work, CBLR probably helps a little in making that case (for example)

[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

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

This is outrageously bad advice!

[Anonymous User]

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.

If you actually read what was written, you'll see that the point was not whether an individual may be pushed out the door (as a side note, attorneys are almost never "laid off" from the firms you mentioned), but about firm stability and, more importantly, clients' perception thereof. Also, what's your point? You have more job security working at Wachtell than DPW, STB, or Skadden. Ok, cool, that is great and useful advice to about 6 people at CLS.

For the 99% of the class that does not have W&C or WLRK as a choice, stability in terms of the size of a summer class is an imperfect but useful data point.

[Anonymous User]

Anyone else do the early application process for journals and then have a heart attack when they got Anne Green's email about not matching with a journal? Good god woman.

[Anonymous User]

The CLR publishable notes program is a joke right? As in, they don't publish any non-LR persons stuff basically ever.

[Anonymous User]

Do you guys think Sullcrom is safe at 13? First failed bid last year was 15. I know someone said that their OCS counselor said that 2 spots about last year's first failed bids should be fine, but my counselor (who's been very good with her advice) basically told me that she has no idea how bidding strategies might change now that everyone has the first failed bid info. Thoughts?

~Tom Haverford.

[Anonymous User]

Do you guys think Sullcrom is safe at 13? First failed bid last year was 15. I know someone said that their OCS counselor said that 2 spots about last year's first failed bids should be fine, but my counselor (who's been very good with her advice) basically told me that she has no idea how bidding strategies might change now that everyone has the first failed bid info. Thoughts?

~Tom Haverford.

I think distributing the failed bid information will actually cause the bids to remain remarkably consistent, since everyone will place the same firms high and others low based on last years' data.

[Anonymous User]

For firms in LA like Skadden, Sheppard Mullin, and Sidley, kent/stone scholars only account for 25%-33% of their offers. Then again, these are incredibly small sample sizes, like one out of three or one out of four. Is it safe to assume that the non-stoke/kent people who got offers there were diverse/incredible/abnormal? I'm just a touch above median and considering taking them off my list.

My counselor said usually only kent people apply to CA offices, but that I was fine leaving them there because I had a lot of safeties. All the same, I don't want to waste spots if there's a 0% shot.

[Anonymous User]

For firms in LA like Skadden, Sheppard Mullin, and Sidley, kent/stone scholars only account for 25%-33% of their offers. Then again, these are incredibly small sample sizes, like one out of three or one out of four. Is it safe to assume that the non-stoke/kent people who got offers there were diverse/incredible/abnormal? I'm just a touch above median and considering taking them off my list.

My counselor said usually only kent people apply to CA offices, but that I was fine leaving them there because I had a lot of safeties. All the same, I don't want to waste spots if there's a 0% shot.

Geez. What. If only kent students applied to CA offices they would stop showing up to EIP a decade ago.

Those firms don't have particularly grade selective LA offices. Others will: munger tolles, irell, gibson dunn, latham watkins, sullivan, paul hastings, ect.

What those kids probably do have at sheppard, sidley, ect are solid SoCal ties. I know a couple of them and they are from LA/OC or went to college & worked there. Without the advantage of being local, you will need competitive grades.

[Anonymous User]

Why is OCS giving us such bad advice??

[Anonymous User]

Is Davis Polk worth a bid if ur Stone? Or is it like Sull Crom (needs higher Stone)? Trying to cut down on some tougher firms to make my bid list safer.

[Anonymous User]

Just got back from OCS. I was told to remove at least some of the bolded firms because they were too much of a stretch or too hard to get an interview, and pushed the idea of adding firms from a secondary market that I have ties to.

3.3ish GPA, solid WE. I thought my bidlist was pretty conservative. My overwhelming goal is to get a job, so I'm fine with taking out some of the fancy places if it will help me. Any thoughts are appreciated.

proskauer rose llp (New York)
Kirkland & Ellis LLP (New York)
sidley austin llp (New York)
paul hastings llp
Kaye Scholer LLP
White & Case LLP (New York)
Arnold & Porter LLP (New York)
Milbank Tweed Hadley & McCloy LLP (New York)
Linklaters
Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP
Ropes & Gray
Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP (New York)
Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP
Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP
Winston & Strawn LLP
King & Spalding (New York)
Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson LLP (New York)
Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP
Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP
Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP (New York)
Dechert LLP (NYC)
cooley llp
Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP (New York)
Seward & Kissel LLP
Arent Fox PLLC
Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP
pryor cashman llp
troutman sanders llp
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

- Walt Jr.

[Anonymous User]

Just got back from OCS. I was told to remove at least some of the bolded firms because they were too much of a stretch or too hard to get an interview, and pushed the idea of adding firms from a secondary market that I have ties to.

3.3ish GPA, solid WE. I thought my bidlist was pretty conservative. My overwhelming goal is to get a job, so I'm fine with taking out some of the fancy places if it will help me. Any thoughts are appreciated.

Proskauer Rose LLP (New York)
Kirkland & Ellis LLP (New York)
Sidley Austin LLP (New York)
Paul Hastings LLP
Kaye Scholer LLP
White & Case LLP (New York)
Arnold & Porter LLP (New York)
Milbank Tweed Hadley & McCloy LLP (New York)
Linklaters
Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP
Ropes & Gray
Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP (New York)
Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP
Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP
Winston & Strawn LLP
King & Spalding (New York)
Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson LLP (New York)
Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP
Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP
Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP (New York)
Dechert LLP (NYC)
Cooley LLP
Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP (New York)
Seward & Kissel LLP
Arent Fox PLLC
Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP
Pryor Cashman LLP
Troutman Sanders LLP
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

- Walt Jr.

Don't agree, this looks fine. No super out of reach firms on here

[Anonymous User]

Is Davis Polk worth a bid if ur Stone? Or is it like Sull Crom (needs higher Stone)? Trying to cut down on some tougher firms to make my bid list safer.

Curious about this as well. Is DPW worth a bid if you're low stone? How likely is it for a low stone to get a callback from them?

-- David Luiz

[Anonymous User]

Is Davis Polk worth a bid if ur Stone? Or is it like Sull Crom (needs higher Stone)? Trying to cut down on some tougher firms to make my bid list safer.

Curious about this as well. Is DPW worth a bid if you're low stone? How likely is it for a low stone to get a callback from them?

-- David Luiz

I've heard of people with low Stone who got CBs and offers because they had 2+ years of industry WE (i.e. not paralegal experience) or did something interesting pre-law school (think Fulbright). Might be tougher for K-JDs, but honestly I think it's still worth a bid.

[Anonymous User]

Just got back from OCS. I was told to remove at least some of the bolded firms because they were too much of a stretch or too hard to get an interview, and pushed the idea of adding firms from a secondary market that I have ties to.

3.3ish GPA, solid WE. I thought my bidlist was pretty conservative. My overwhelming goal is to get a job, so I'm fine with taking out some of the fancy places if it will help me. Any thoughts are appreciated.

Proskauer Rose LLP (New York)
Kirkland & Ellis LLP (New York)
Sidley Austin LLP (New York)
Paul Hastings LLP
Kaye Scholer LLP
White & Case LLP (New York)
Arnold & Porter LLP (New York)
Milbank Tweed Hadley & McCloy LLP (New York)
Linklaters
Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP
Ropes & Gray
Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP (New York)
Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP
Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP
Winston & Strawn LLP
King & Spalding (New York)
Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson LLP (New York)
Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP
Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP
Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP (New York)
Dechert LLP (NYC)
Cooley LLP
Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP (New York)
Seward & Kissel LLP
Arent Fox PLLC
Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP
Pryor Cashman LLP
Troutman Sanders LLP
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

- Walt Jr.

If a 3.3 CLS GPA is a reach at your bolded firms, things really have gone downhill in the last year or two. This seems like awful advice.

[Anonymous User]

For firms in LA like Skadden, Sheppard Mullin, and Sidley, kent/stone scholars only account for 25%-33% of their offers. Then again, these are incredibly small sample sizes, like one out of three or one out of four. Is it safe to assume that the non-stoke/kent people who got offers there were diverse/incredible/abnormal? I'm just a touch above median and considering taking them off my list.

My counselor said usually only kent people apply to CA offices, but that I was fine leaving them there because I had a lot of safeties. All the same, I don't want to waste spots if there's a 0% shot.

Geez. What. If only kent students applied to CA offices they would stop showing up to EIP a decade ago.

Those firms don't have particularly grade selective LA offices. Others will: munger tolles, irell, gibson dunn, latham watkins, sullivan, paul hastings, ect.

What those kids probably do have at sheppard, sidley, ect are solid SoCal ties. I know a couple of them and they are from LA/OC or went to college & worked there. Without the advantage of being local, you will need competitive grades.

Wow, thanks. I might have taken my counselor at her word too- seems like they're phenomenal at giving bad advice.

I don't have SoCal ties but I do have really strong NorCal ties (but firms in that region seem more selective). Does that count for these LA firms or is it more tenuous? Counselor said that coming from NorCal or SoCal would have exactly the same effect, but now I'm beginning to doubt everything.

[Anonymous User]

My counselor said usually only kent people apply to CA offices

Un-fucking-believable