New NALP numbers updated today Forum

[Action Jackson]

There is no particular reason why they would have been unable to properly estimate their yield this year compared to others. The fact they didn't make additional call backs is a reduction in hiring.

I hope you're kidding...

This year was crazy in terms of hiring on both sides of the fence. Every firm had a particular goal for their summer program, and it's incredibly difficult to meet that target, especially in this economy. There's always the risk of under-hiring and over-hiring. The fact that Skadden was continuing to recruit into November shows that they didn't handle the recruiting process as well as their "peer" firms did. The fact is that the students they called in in November were probably less "talented" than the people they rejected in September, when they were super-selective.

My firm did things a little weirdly this year too.

There are thousands of qualified applicants that would kill to have firm jobs and would pick up an offer from skadden et al. in a heartbeat. Whether they are as "talented" (i.e. gpa/school) as their September-hired brethren is not the issue. The fact hiring was crazy on both sides of the fence does not change the fact that this is unequivocally a law firm controlled market and they can get the numbers they want, if they want them.
If there was a bar to hiring after a certain date then I would agree with you. But there isn't. And thus, I don't. I am not kidding.

+1.

[krogers]

There are thousands of qualified applicants that would kill to have firm jobs and would pick up an offer from skadden et al. in a heartbeat. Whether they are as "talented" (i.e. gpa/school) as their September-hired brethren is not the issue. The fact hiring was crazy on both sides of the fence does not change the fact that this is unequivocally a law firm controlled market and they can get the numbers they want, if they want them.
If there was a bar to hiring after a certain date then I would agree with you. But there isn't. And thus, I don't. I am not kidding.

Uhhh.. the fact that firms were expecting a yield rate completely out of proportion with previous years pretty much guaranteed that they couldn't predict how things would occur this year, as compared to one or two years ago. The fact that Skadden hired in November is certainly relevant. It shows that they had one strategy for recruiting students while keeping yield in tow, and they failed.

There is no particular reason why they would have been unable to properly estimate their yield this year compared to others.

There's no other reason for the dramatically different recruiting processes that firms employed other than the fact that they couldn't estimate their yield and thus needed tighter control on offers given.

And it doesn't mean squat that there are "thousands of qualified candidates." My firm fell just short of their target and I know they still had plenty of "qualified" candidates in the pipeline to whom they could've given offers, but they chose to end it there and get their remainders from other sources. Those thousands of students might be "qualified" to you and me, but clearly other firms have a different conception of what "qualified" is for them.

[rando]

There are thousands of qualified applicants that would kill to have firm jobs and would pick up an offer from skadden et al. in a heartbeat. Whether they are as "talented" (i.e. gpa/school) as their September-hired brethren is not the issue. The fact hiring was crazy on both sides of the fence does not change the fact that this is unequivocally a law firm controlled market and they can get the numbers they want, if they want them.
If there was a bar to hiring after a certain date then I would agree with you. But there isn't. And thus, I don't. I am not kidding.

Uhhh.. the fact that firms were expecting a yield rate completely out of proportion with previous years pretty much guaranteed that they couldn't predict how things would occur this year, as compared to one or two years ago. The fact that Skadden hired in November is certainly relevant. It shows that they had one strategy for recruiting students while keeping yield in tow, and they failed.

There is no particular reason why they would have been unable to properly estimate their yield this year compared to others.

There's no other reason for the dramatically different recruiting processes that firms employed other than the fact that they couldn't estimate their yield and thus needed tighter control on offers given.

And it doesn't mean squat that there are "thousands of qualified candidates." My firm fell just short of their target and I know they still had plenty of "qualified" candidates in the pipeline to whom they could've given offers, but they chose to end it there and get their remainders from other sources. Those thousands of students might be "qualified" to you and me, but clearly other firms have a different conception of what "qualified" is for them.

Ok. this is a stupid debate. Your argument just doesn't line up.

Even though their first yield didn't line up does not mean that their subsequent yields would fail to meet expectations. And the fact that Skadden did go until November to get their yield goes to my argument that "if they want the numbers, they are clearly there for the taking."

It means a lot that there are "thousands of qualified candidates." Because unless there is a significant difference in the quality of applicants from past years or what firms expect out of applicants, then those thousands of candidates are the same ones who are perfectly suitable before the recession hit. Seriously, what are you on? I feel like I am taking crazy pills.

And god I hope you are not the douche walking around school saying "my firm" all the time. Don't be "that guy."

[krogers]

It means a lot that there are "thousands of qualified candidates." Because unless there is a significant difference in the quality of applicants from past years or what firms expect out of applicants, then those thousands of candidates are the same ones who are perfectly suitable before the recession hit.

You're just using a narrower conception of "qualified." For you, that means anyone with certain grades from a certain law school. For firms, there's another category: Fit. Again, it doesn't matter what's "qualified" to you and me. What matters is what's "qualified" to firms.

And god I hope you are not the douche walking around school saying "my firm" all the time. Don't be "that guy."

Interesting non-sequitur. I use that expression to preserve my anonymity.

Even though their first yield didn't line up does not mean that their subsequent yields would fail to meet expectations.

Do you even remember the initial claim you made? I'll paste it here for posterity:

there is no particular reason why they would have been unable to properly estimate their yield this year compared to others.

If Skadden had been "properly" able to estimate their yield, they would not have needed to call back more people in November. If firms had "properly" been able to estimate their yield, they would have employed uniform recruiting strategies as they did in the past (i.e., no "callback days," no "offer days," etc.). Yet, for some reason, firms did employ different recruiting strategies. If you asked any hiring partner on the planet about what things were going to be like for fall 2009 OCI, every one would have said, "i have no freakin' clue." There's a reason for why they were saying that: They had no freakin' clue.

You're right. This is a stupid debate. You're denying a point that is so obviously true.

[BradyToMoss]

Stole this from an ATL commentor's efforts:

Wachtell 24/25 96.0%
Cravath 118/121 97.5%
Skadden 100/102 98.0%
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP 104/104 100.0%
Davis Polk & Wardwell 111/111 100.0%
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 86/95 90.5%
Simpson Thacher & bartlett llp 75/77 97.4%
Cleary Gottlieb 96/96 100.0%
Covington & Burling LLP 61/62 98.4%
Kirkland & Ellis LLP 47/52 90.4%
Williams & Connolly LLP ?/? ???
Debevoise & Plimpton LLP 108/109 99.1%
Paul Weiss 98/102 96.1%
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP 35/42 83.3%
sidley austin llp 33/41 80.5%
WilmerHale 45/47 95.7%
Latham & Watkins LLP 32/37 86.5%
Arnold & Porter LLP 32/33 97.0%
Jones Day 24/29 82.8%
White & Case LLP 56/59 94.9%
Shearman & Sterling LLP 51/52 98.1%
O'Melveny & Myers LLP 21/25 84.0%
Quinn Emanuel 34/41 82.9%
Ropes & Gray LLP 111/112 99.1%
Hogan & Hartson LLP 52/55 94.5%

At least at the top 25 firms, offer rates were not as bad as I had expected after seeing stories on firms like Fish, MB etc.

[rando]

Do you even remember the initial claim you made? I'll paste it here for posterity:

i think its worth pointing out that some drops are not simply because of a reduction in hiring. some firms simply didnt get as much yield as they though they would (dunno if this applies to williams and connolly) and they didnt bother calling back more in order to fill their spots (like skadden and latham and cadwalader and some others did).

Those drops are not based on Fall OCI first round hiring. It is an entire year. In which multiple callback rounds for determining yield are in consideration.
Look up non-sequitur. Your argument typifies it. Number drops across the board due to firms not bothering to call back more to fill their spots. That is a reduction in hiring. Seriously, how do you get around that point?

And I absolutely understand you keeping your anonymity with "my firm." But it is certainly not a non-sequitur to say that i hope you don't use it on a regular basis in face-to-face conversations. Because that would be douchey of you. It is good to hear that you don't.

You are sticking a little too firmly to your argument. I am not really one for the back and forth forum arguments so I will step down. Take it as you will, but no need to rebut. If you need the last word, take it.

[krogers]

I am not really one for the back and forth forum arguments so I will step down. Take it as you will, but no need to rebut. If you need the last word, take it.

Oh yay, dick-stroking at its best.

Your claim, again:

there is no particular reason why they would have been unable to properly estimate their yield this year compared to others.

That some firms resorted to multiple rounds of callbacks means something: They couldn't get a decent estimation of yield, therefore they chose to stagger things (or in Skadden's case, their poor response from initially offered candidates forced them to stagger things). That they resorted to recruiting up until November means something: They couldn't get their number from an initial round of callbacks. In an era of law firms actually saving money, it's actually in their best interests to end the 2L recruiting process as soon as possible.

Edit:

For convenience, I'll also copy and paste what I said previously:

If firms had "properly" been able to estimate their yield, they would have employed uniform recruiting strategies as they did in the past (i.e., no "callback days," no "offer days," etc.). Yet, for some reason, firms did employ different recruiting strategies.

You haven't really been able to account for this. Look at the claim you're defending above. Don't pin me to an argument I'm not making. Focus on what you're saying, and see whether that actually makes sense. It's pretty ludicrous.

[Action Jackson]

Can someone explain to me why what krogers and rando are arguing about matters?

[Renzo]

Can someone explain to me why what krogers and rando are arguing about matters?

No. It's a thousand times stupider than my W&C fiasco earlier.

[Action Jackson]

Can someone explain to me why what krogers and rando are arguing about matters?

No. It's a thousand times stupider than my W&C fiasco earlier.

Sweet. I was worried I was missing something important.

[RVP11]

I heard W&C (White & Case, of course) had a lot of trouble with their yield and had to do several rounds of callbacks. Then they just said WTF and gave up so they have fewer SAs than they set out for.

[krogers]

completely agreed on the stupidity. i feel like i lost a part of my life that i will never recover. god damn, i have the job of my dreams and im on stupid forums arguing for trivial points. i really need to see someone.

[XxSpyKEx]

At Mayer-Chicago, my landing pad this year

2008 2L SAs: 71
2009 2L SAs: 44 (Offers Made: 33)
2010 2L SAs: 11

Jeez. The judge I worked for last summer had 6 interns.

K&E Chicago is down to 32 this year
Jenner Chicago is down to 16
Sidley is down to 20
Winston & Strawn: 22

So, christ, total for the "Chicago 5": 101. That's a lot worse than I thought.

Add some of the other big V100 firms with offices in Chicago:

Skadden: 9 ( )
Latham: 9
Baker & McKenzie: 4
DLA Piper: 5
Jones Day: 8

Etc. etc.

Hey, C/O 2012 people: STOP BITCHING. You might have it bad, but it won't be the rapeage that the C/O 2011 got handed.

I wonder what % change in total number 2L SA (for NALP firms) there were from 2007 OCI (i.e. 2008 2L SAs) to this year in Chicago. Seems like it had to be pretty large... Now if I wasn't so lazy I would considering looking this up for myself...

OK, I can’t sleep and am starting to feel a little hung over now and saw this thread so I looked up the total results for the NALP firms in Chicago (I think there are a good number of IP boutiques in here because I haven’t even heard of some of these firms).

Law firm name
2008 2009 2010 [2L SA class]

Baker & McKenzie LLP – Chicago
2 8 4

Banner & Witcoff, Ltd.
5 3 3

Barnes & Thornburg LLP
3 0 0

BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE
7 12 1

BRYAN CAVE LLP – CHICAGO
6 3 2

Butler Rubin Saltarelli & Boyd LLP
1 1 1

chapman and cutler llp
10 9 7

dla piper LLP (US)
18 7 5

Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
12 5 4

DYKEMA (dykema gossett pllc) - CHICAGO OFFICE
6 3 2

FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY
7 1 0

FOLEY & LARDNER LLP- CHICAGO
21 9 4

goldberg kohn Ltd.
8 1 1

Greenberg Traurig, LLP
6 7 3

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
18 7 8

Holland & Knight LLP – Chicago
6 4 2

JENNER & BLOCK LLP
40 46 16

JONES DAY – CHICAGO
17 21 8

K&L Gates LLP - Chicago, IL
10 13 3

katten muchin rosenman llp
29 15 5

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP – Chicago
54 52 32

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP – CHICAGO
25 20 9

Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP – Chicago
11 2 2

Lovells LLP
7 4 2

Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP
4 2 4

mayer brown llp
71 46 11

McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd.
7 4 4

McDermott Will & Emery LLP
14 14 8

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP
9 9 9

mcguirewoods LLP – Chicago
8 11 4

Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
2 2 1

Miller Shakman & Beem LLP
2 1 0

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
5 3 0

Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP
19 10 0

nixon peabody llp - Chicago, IL
2 1 2

Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP
14 5 5

Perkins Coie LLP
4 3 1

Pircher, Nichols & Meeks
3 3 3

Quarles & Brady LLP
3 3 0

Reed Smith – Chicago
6 6 2

Ropes & Gray LLP
0 6 5

schiff hardin llp
12 21 8

seyfarth shaw llp – CHICAGO
9 6 0

Shefsky & Froelich Ltd
2 1 1

sidley austin llp – CHICAGO
75 43 20

SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP - CHICAGO
57 33 9

Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP
43 14 6

thompson coburn llp
3 1 1

Ungaretti & Harris LLP
6 4 3

Vedder Price, P.C.
10 5 0

WILDMAN, HARROLD, ALLEN & DIXON LLP
14 17 3

Winston & Strawn LLP
67 54 22

2008 SA total= 809

2009 SA total= 581

2010 SA total= 256

2010 SA/ 2009 SA = 256/581= 44% of the SAs that were available in 2009 were available in 2010

2010 SA/2008 SA = 256/809 = 31.6% of the SAs that were available in 2008 were available in 2010

The 256 number doesn’t seem to bad, but then again, it is right around the size of NU’s class alone, and then you figure there are 6 schools in the Chicagoland area aiming for those + UIUC, WUSTL, ND, IU, & UMich at least to some extent shooting for those spots. Pretty brutal all things considered.

[TTT-LS]

.

[Veyron]

Ouch.

[chadwick218]

Texas, a market that a lot of folks though was sparred to some extent, similarly took a 50-75% hit across the board.

The following data is from Dallas.

The following #'s show the change from 2009 to 2010 SA Starting Classes. It's very interesting that with the exception of Haynes and Boone, the 2010 #'s for many of these firms are 80% lower than 2008.

1. Baker Botts: 27 - 10 (-63%)
2. Fulbright: 12 - 10 (-17%)
3. Vinson: 18 - 11 (-39%)
4. Weil: 16 - 3 (-81%)
5. Haynes and Boone: 30 - 25 (-17%)
6. Locke Lord: 9 - 4 (-56%)
7. Jones Day: 19 - 13 (-32%)


Also, great post XxSpyKEx!

[Anonymous User]

How reliable are the 2010 expected SA numbers? Is that the number that firms actually ended up hiring?

[Anonymous User]

How reliable are the 2010 expected SA numbers? Is that the number that firms actually ended up hiring?

Based on my firm and having watched the numbers, firms didn't fill in the "expected" column until they had completed hiring and made offers. They should be extremely accurate, but not very precise - as there will undoubtedly be a few last minute cancellations / moves / hires at many firms.