Columbia Law School EIP 2013 Forum

[Anonymous User]

First attempt at a bid list, 3.47 GPA (guessing around top 1/3). All offices NY. Looking for corporate (M&A band) (bid:interview %) (offers made 2012):

Hodor's list

Any critiques?

- Hodor

I wonder if Cravath and SullCrom are a little too aggressive, but maybe I'm wrong. I think you might be better served by cutting down the list some and having some firms with more forgiving bid percentages in there.

-Ted "Theodore" Logan

I'm with Ted, although I think it's fine to leave at least Cravath on there since they can be bid so low. SullCrom is a little trickier because you have to bid them relatively high but the GPA might be a tad light for those guys.

Where I really agree is that you should put more firms on the list that you'll definitely get. That bidlist has disaster written all over it because I could see you just missing several of those firms in the middle. I'd take out Allen and Overy unless you have some real attachment to them and move everyone else up. Also think about moving SullCrom down (you could still get them at 20+, especially with our smaller class size) and move up the oversubscribed firms behind it.

--Garth Algar

[Anonymous User]

First attempt at a bid list, 3.47 GPA (guessing around top 1/3). All offices NY. Looking for corporate (M&A band) (bid:interview %) (offers made 2012):

Hodor's list

Any critiques?

- Hodor

I wonder if Cravath and SullCrom are a little too aggressive, but maybe I'm wrong. I think you might be better served by cutting down the list some and having some firms with more forgiving bid percentages in there.

-Ted "Theodore" Logan

I'm with Ted, although I think it's fine to leave at least Cravath on there since they can be bid so low. SullCrom is a little trickier because you have to bid them relatively high but the GPA might be a tad light for those guys.

Where I really agree is that you should put more firms on the list that you'll definitely get. That bidlist has disaster written all over it because I could see you just missing several of those firms in the middle. I'd take out Allen and Overy unless you have some real attachment to them and move everyone else up. Also think about moving SullCrom down (you could still get them at 20+, especially with our smaller class size) and move up the oversubscribed firms behind it.

--Garth Algar

Hmm, good suggestions. What about something like this?

1. Shearman and Sterling (E3) (288%) (15 offers)
2. Kirkland & Ellis (E3) (268%) (22 offers)
3. Sidley Austin (HR1) (284%) (13 offers)
4. GDC (E5) (239%) (22 offers)
5. Jones Day (E5) (230%) (12 offers)
6. Skadden (E1) (222%) (24 offers)
7. Ropes & Gray (HR2) (233%) (9 offers)
8. White & Case (HR1) (204%) (9 offers)
9. Latham (E3) (189%) (12 offers)
10. Fried Frank (E4) (189%) (10 offers)
11. Debevoise (E2) (163%) (37 offers)
12. Milbank (HR2) (145%) (29 offers)
13. Weil (E2) (178%) (15 offers)
14. Wilkie Farr (E4) (151%) (26 offers)
15. Cleary (E2) (139%) (40 offers)
16. Paul Weiss (E3) (137%) (41 offers)
17. DPW (E1) (132%) (46 offers)
18. Kramer Levin (HR3) (152%) (9 offers)
19. Cadwalader (HR3) (140%) (10 offers)
20. SullCrom (E1) (147%) (35 offers)
21. Pillsbury Winthrop (HR4) (130%) (6 offers)
22. Schulte Roth (HR1) (126%) (36 offers)
23. Covington (HR2) (135%) (19 offers)
24. Greenberg Traurig (HR2) (130%) (7 offers)
25. Dechert (HR1) (119%) (6 offers)
26. Simpson Thacher (E1) (106%) (30 offers)
27. Baker Botts (HR 3) (120%) (5 offers)
28. Hughes Hubbard (HR2) (109%) (7 offers)
29. Cravath (E1) (104%) (38 offers)
30. Goodwin Procter (HR3) (93%) (4 offers)

- Hodor

[Anonymous User]

That looks a little better. I'd still be nervous about some of the firms in the 5-10 range but I don't know who you'd eliminate.

--Garth Algar

[Anonymous User]

Nervous as in you dont think id get the interviews? If so I can cut sidley and move everything up one. Im not wed to ropes and gray either.
- Hodor

[Anonymous User]

Nervous as in you dont think id get the interviews? If so I can cut sidley and move everything up one. Im not wed to ropes and gray either.
- Hodor

Yeah that's what I was thinking. I'd hate to risk losing interviews with firms like DPW and Cleary, especially when you might not even get Ropes at 7 if they are at 233% again.

--Garth Algar

[Anonymous User]

3.54 GPA. Want transactional. Several years work experience. I plan to throw a few easy-to-get regional firms where I have ties in at the bottom, but I'm also interested in adding another NY firm or two if anyone has suggestions.

1. Shearman & Sterling
2. K&E
3. Sidley
4. Skadden
5. White & Case
6. Jones Day
7. Weil
8. Debevoise
9. SullCrom
10. Cleary
11. Fried Frank
12. Milbank
13. DPW
14. Paul Weiss
15. Cadwalader
16. Willkie Farr
17. Cahill Gordon
18. Covington
19. Schulte Roth
20. Simpson Thacher
21. Cravath

--Garth Algar

[Anonymous User]

3.42 GPA. Looking mostly at Lit and its various sub-fields, probably in NY. I'm bidding some LA firms because I have ties there and they're much easier to get interviews with than NY. I tried to bid targets (Skadden, Debevoise, Davis Polk) a spot or two higher than necessary to land the interview. I'm skeptical as to whether I should keep the few DC firms on the list at all; they might spread me too thin geographically and hurt my odds in NY and LA:

1 Kirkland & Ellis, NY
2 Shearman, NY
3 White & Case, NY
4 Jones Day, NY
5 Skadden, NY
6 Sidley, DC
7 Fried Frank, NY
8 Kramer, NY
9 Milbank, NY
10 Debevoise, NY
11 Kasowitz, NY
12 Weil, NY
13 Paul Weiss, NY
14 Cleary, NY
15 Davis Polk, NY
16 Cahill, NY
17 Willkie, NY
18 O’Melveny, LA
19
20 Patterson, NY
21 Simpson, NY
22 Latham, LA
23 Covington, DC
24
25
26 Gibson Dunn, LA
27 Arnold & Porter, DC
28
29
30 Irell, LA

Any critiques and/or recommendations to fill the remaining spots welcome. Thanks,

-Tiefighter

[Anonymous User]

3.42 GPA. Looking mostly at Lit and its various sub-fields, probably in NY. I'm bidding some LA firms because I have ties there and they're much easier to get interviews with than NY. I tried to bid targets (Skadden, Debevoise, Davis Polk) a spot or two higher than necessary to land the interview. I'm skeptical as to whether I should keep the few DC firms on the list at all; they might spread me too thin geographically and hurt my odds in NY and LA:

1 Kirkland & Ellis, NY
2 Shearman, NY
3 White & Case, NY
4 Jones Day, NY
5 Skadden, NY
6 Sidley, DC
7 Fried Frank, NY
8 Kramer, NY
9 Milbank, NY
10 Debevoise, NY
11 Kasowitz, NY
12 Weil, NY
13 Paul Weiss, NY
14 Cleary, NY
15 Davis Polk, NY
16 Cahill, NY
17 Willkie, NY
18 O’Melveny, LA
19
20 Patterson, NY
21 Simpson, NY
22 Latham, LA
23 Covington, DC
24
25
26 Gibson Dunn, LA
27 Arnold & Porter, DC
28
29
30 Irell, LA

Any critiques and/or recommendations to fill the remaining spots welcome. Thanks,

-Tiefighter

Without getting into the strategy of bidding DC generally, I think Covington DC might be a wasted bid. You're in a good spot GPA-wise, but they are just extremely grade-conscious. If you look up all the CLS attorneys in their DC office, the majority were Kent scholars, so that would probably be an uphill battle.

- Roger Sterling

[Anonymous User]

3.54 GPA. Want transactional. Several years work experience. I plan to throw a few easy-to-get regional firms where I have ties in at the bottom, but I'm also interested in adding another NY firm or two if anyone has suggestions.

1. Shearman & Sterling
2. K&E
3. Sidley
4. Skadden
5. White & Case
6. Jones Day
7. Weil
8. Debevoise
9. SullCrom
10. Cleary
11. Fried Frank
12. Milbank
13. DPW
14. Paul Weiss
15. Cadwalader
16. Willkie Farr
17. Cahill Gordon
18. Covington
19. Schulte Roth
20. Simpson Thacher
21. Cravath

--Garth Algar

Might take a look at that Excel chart I sent you (or some of the ones here) since it's completely NY / transactional focused.

How's my bid list looking now? Any more suggestions?

1. Shearman and Sterling (E3) (288%) (15 offers)
2. Kirkland & Ellis (E3) (268%) (22 offers)
3. Sidley Austin (HR1) (284%) (13 offers)
4. GDC (E5) (239%) (22 offers)
5. Skadden (E1) (222%) (24 offers)
6. Jones Day (E5) (230%) (12 offers)
7. White & Case (HR1) (204%) (9 offers)
8. Latham (E3) (189%) (12 offers)
9. Fried Frank (E4) (189%) (10 offers)
10. Debevoise (E2) (163%) (37 offers)
11. Milbank (HR2) (145%) (29 offers)
12. Weil (E2) (178%) (15 offers)
13. Wilkie Farr (E4) (151%) (26 offers)
14. Cleary (E2) (139%) (40 offers)
15. Paul Weiss (E3) (137%) (41 offers)
16. DPW (E1) (132%) (46 offers)
17. Akin Gump (HR3) (167%) (10 offers)
18. Kramer Levin (HR3) (152%) (9 offers)
19. Cadwalader (HR3) (140%) (10 offers)
20. SullCrom (E1) (147%) (35 offers)
21. Pillsbury Winthrop (HR4) (130%) (6 offers)
22. Schulte Roth (HR1) (126%) (36 offers)
23. Covington (HR2) (135%) (19 offers)
24. Greenberg Traurig (HR2) (130%) (7 offers)
25. Dechert (HR1) (119%) (6 offers)
26. Simpson Thacher (E1) (106%) (30 offers)
27. Baker Botts (HR 3) (120%) (5 offers)
28. Hughes Hubbard (HR2) (109%) (7 offers)
29. Cravath (E1) (104%) (38 offers)
30. Goodwin Procter (HR3) (93%) (4 offers)

ETA: Wondering whether I should take off Sidley so I can bump up the firms I care about more up another slot. Not sure what I'd replace it with. Any thoughts?

- Hodor

[Anonymous User]

Without getting into the strategy of bidding DC generally, I think Covington DC might be a wasted bid. You're in a good spot GPA-wise, but they are just extremely grade-conscious. If you look up all the CLS attorneys in their DC office, the majority were Kent scholars, so that would probably be an uphill battle.

- Roger Sterling

Yeah, I know that DC is crazy selective, which is why I left others, like WilmerHale, off. I may forgo DC entirely by the final bidlist. I believe I put Covington-DC on the list because it was 83% offers-by-honors, so I estimated a cut-off of Stone for non-URM. Of course, that's one out of six who wasn't Stone, which isn't a very stable sample size; it's possible that the one non-Stone had amazing WE or got a very large bump from URM. I feel like this is something I'll have to ask OCS about.

- Tiefighter

[Anonymous User]

Without getting into the strategy of bidding DC generally, I think Covington DC might be a wasted bid. You're in a good spot GPA-wise, but they are just extremely grade-conscious. If you look up all the CLS attorneys in their DC office, the majority were Kent scholars, so that would probably be an uphill battle.

- Roger Sterling

Yeah, I know that DC is crazy selective, which is why I left others, like WilmerHale, off. I may forgo DC entirely by the final bidlist. I believe I put Covington-DC on the list because it was 83% offers-by-honors, so I estimated a cut-off of Stone for non-URM. Of course, that's one out of six who wasn't Stone, which isn't a very stable sample size; it's possible that the one non-Stone had amazing WE or got a very large bump from URM. I feel like this is something I'll have to ask OCS about.

- Tiefighter

Based on grades, I think A&P and Sidley DC would be worth the bids - depending on if you keep DC on your list - but I think Covington DC is pretty much on par with WilmerHale in terms of selectivity.

- Roger Sterling

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone know what the approximate GPA cutoff for Sullivan and Wachtell is?

[Anonymous User]

Screw fit, imo. While CSM may be more of a sweatshop than DPW (e.g.), they're all NYC biglaw firms at the end of the day. I'm trying to maximize the number of interviews (with an eye towards those firms that are good in the practice area I want to enter). See above for my first attempt.

Just to chime in, I'm a CLS alum, and judging from the experiences of my friends / classmates, this is a big mistake. I know many people who are miserable because they took the attitude of "they're all sweatshops" and chose minor differences in practice strength over fit.

It's true that you will work more or less equally hard at most of the NY firms. But it makes a big difference to both your well-being and also your prospects for advancement if you genuinely like the people you are working with. I would also add two points, the first being that unless you've worked in particular industry / practice before, I've found the practice area preferences people have going into EIP often change by the end of the summer when people get a fuller view of different practice areas. Second, at least among the top NY firms, people tend to to overestimate differences in practice area strength.

For example, choosing S&C or Cravath over DPW or Cleary for M&A because the former are Band 1 and the latter are Band 2 even though you feel the latter are a better fit is dumb - I can assure you those minute differences have virtually no impact on options, whereas your happiness and how long you stick around will be influenced heavily by fit.

Just my two cents. I know this is just the bidding stage and you can make these distinctions when you choose between firms, but I know way too many people who regret making that type of choice (or, conversely, are happy they went with fit over minor differences in practice area strength).

I am very much interested in pursuing fit over marginal differences in practice areas. I'm basically looking at places that offer a broad variety of practice areas so I can experiment and see what works best for me, and then after that my biggest concern is personality/fit. I'm struggling, however, to really get a sense of firms' cultures (besides the fact that every firm is "congenial"). How did you go about narrowing down firms for your bidlist that you thought would mesh well with your personality?

I recognize that this is an incredibly basic/foundational question, but I've found the fit question to be really challenging as I work on my bidlist, and any guidance would be appreciated.

[Anonymous User]

So I basically have no idea what I am doing with my bid list. I have a 3.57 GPA. I'm looking at mostly litigation firms in both NY and CA. I put together an initial list based mostly just on stats, but I have no idea what would be considered reasonable. I haven't gotten a bid order, so I am just putting things together in alphabetical order. Any input (even if its just that I have no idea what you are doing), would be appreciated.

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP (LA)
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP (NY)
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP (NY)
Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
Crowell & Moring LLP
Davis Polk, and Wardwell (NY)
Debevoise & Plimptom
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP (NY)
hogan lovells US LLP
Irell & Manella (Newport)
Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP
katten muchin rosenman llp
Kaye Scholer LLP
Kirkland & Ellis (LA)
Kirkland & Ellis (NY)
Latham & Watkins LLP (LA) / (NY)
Mayer Brown, LLP (NY)
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe (Menlo Park)
Paul Hastings (LA)
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
proskauer rose llp (NY)
Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP
Shearman & Sterling LLP (NY)
Simpson Thacher & bartlett llp (LA) (NY)
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher, & Flom LLP (LA)
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher, & Flom LLP (NY)
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP (NY)
Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
Wilmerhale (NY)


-Bob Bobbinson

[Anonymous User]

Stone designations are up on LawNet.

[Anonymous User]

Stone designations are up on LawNet.

Just FYI because this confused me: I don't think honors show up when you just click "Check Grades." I was only able to see it when I selected "Print JD Program Transcript."

Jon Snow

[Anonymous User]

So I basically have no idea what I am doing with my bid list. I have a 3.57 GPA. I'm looking at mostly litigation firms in both NY and CA. I put together an initial list based mostly just on stats, but I have no idea what would be considered reasonable. I haven't gotten a bid order, so I am just putting things together in alphabetical order. Any input (even if its just that I have no idea what you are doing), would be appreciated.

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP (LA)
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP (NY)
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP (NY)
Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
Crowell & Moring LLP
Davis Polk, and Wardwell (NY)
Debevoise & Plimptom
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP (NY)
Hogan Lovells US LLP
Irell & Manella (Newport)
Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP
Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
Kaye Scholer LLP
Kirkland & Ellis (LA)
Kirkland & Ellis (NY)
Latham & Watkins LLP (LA) / (NY)
Mayer Brown, LLP (NY)
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe (Menlo Park)
Paul Hastings (LA)
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
Proskauer Rose LLP (NY)
Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP
Shearman & Sterling LLP (NY)
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP (LA) (NY)
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher, & Flom LLP (LA)
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher, & Flom LLP (NY)
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP (NY)
Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
Wilmerhale (NY)


-Bob Bobbinson

Simpson Thacher has a pretty small office in LA. Don't know how you feel about that. Also any reason for Orrick Menlo Park as opposed to one of their Southern California offices?

As someone also planning to bid NYC/CA I'm wondering what happens if you get callbacks to both places from the same firm? Anybody have any idea?

--Garth Algar

[Anonymous User]

So I basically have no idea what I am doing with my bid list. I have a 3.57 GPA. I'm looking at mostly litigation firms in both NY and CA. I put together an initial list based mostly just on stats, but I have no idea what would be considered reasonable. I haven't gotten a bid order, so I am just putting things together in alphabetical order. Any input (even if its just that I have no idea what you are doing), would be appreciated.

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP (LA)
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP (NY)
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP (NY)
Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
Crowell & Moring LLP
Davis Polk, and Wardwell (NY)
Debevoise & Plimptom
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP (NY)
Hogan Lovells US LLP
Irell & Manella (Newport)
Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP
Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
Kaye Scholer LLP
Kirkland & Ellis (LA)
Kirkland & Ellis (NY)
Latham & Watkins LLP (LA) / (NY)
Mayer Brown, LLP (NY)
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe (Menlo Park)
Paul Hastings (LA)
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
Proskauer Rose LLP (NY)
Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP
Shearman & Sterling LLP (NY)
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP (LA) (NY)
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher, & Flom LLP (LA)
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher, & Flom LLP (NY)
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP (NY)
Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
Wilmerhale (NY)


-Bob Bobbinson

Simpson Thacher has a pretty small office in LA. Don't know how you feel about that. Also any reason for Orrick Menlo Park as opposed to one of their Southern California offices?

As someone also planning to bid NYC/CA I'm wondering what happens if you get callbacks to both places from the same firm? Anybody have any idea?

--Garth Algar

The So Cal Orrick offices aren't coming to EIP, that's the only reason. And thanks for the heads up on Simpson Thatcher.

As for what happens if you get callbacks on both, I am assuming it doesn't really matter since it should be a completely different hiring staff, but I am purely speculating

-Bob Bobbinson

[Anonymous User]

Screw fit, imo. While CSM may be more of a sweatshop than DPW (e.g.), they're all NYC biglaw firms at the end of the day. I'm trying to maximize the number of interviews (with an eye towards those firms that are good in the practice area I want to enter). See above for my first attempt.

Just to chime in, I'm a CLS alum, and judging from the experiences of my friends / classmates, this is a big mistake. I know many people who are miserable because they took the attitude of "they're all sweatshops" and chose minor differences in practice strength over fit.

It's true that you will work more or less equally hard at most of the NY firms. But it makes a big difference to both your well-being and also your prospects for advancement if you genuinely like the people you are working with. I would also add two points, the first being that unless you've worked in particular industry / practice before, I've found the practice area preferences people have going into EIP often change by the end of the summer when people get a fuller view of different practice areas. Second, at least among the top NY firms, people tend to to overestimate differences in practice area strength.

For example, choosing S&C or Cravath over DPW or Cleary for M&A because the former are Band 1 and the latter are Band 2 even though you feel the latter are a better fit is dumb - I can assure you those minute differences have virtually no impact on options, whereas your happiness and how long you stick around will be influenced heavily by fit.

Just my two cents. I know this is just the bidding stage and you can make these distinctions when you choose between firms, but I know way too many people who regret making that type of choice (or, conversely, are happy they went with fit over minor differences in practice area strength).

I am very much interested in pursuing fit over marginal differences in practice areas. I'm basically looking at places that offer a broad variety of practice areas so I can experiment and see what works best for me, and then after that my biggest concern is personality/fit. I'm struggling, however, to really get a sense of firms' cultures (besides the fact that every firm is "congenial"). How did you go about narrowing down firms for your bidlist that you thought would mesh well with your personality?

I recognize that this is an incredibly basic/foundational question, but I've found the fit question to be really challenging as I work on my bidlist, and any guidance would be appreciated.

CLS 3L here - fit is very important, but a lot of determining fit will come from your screening interviews and callback interviews; e.g., whether you like the people or not and think you'd like to work with them. IMO as far as creating a bid list goes, you should to some extent be trying to maximize interviews within your interests. But if you want an idea as far as culture goes, take a look at Vault (you guys should have gold accounts) and Chambers.

[Anonymous User]

FYI, expected class sizes for V10 (sans Wachtell):

CSM: 82 --> 93 (firmwide)
SullCrom: 100 --> 125 (firmwide)
Skadden: 66 --> 73 (NY)
DPW: 129 --> 125 (multi-office)
Weil: 63 --> 53 (NY)
Simpson: 84 --> 63 (NY)
Cleary: 115 --> 98 (NY)
KE: 51 --> 51 (NY)
Latham: 26 --> 36 (NY)

Overall: 716 --> 717

Plus some others...

GDC: 42 --> 39 (NY)
Debevoise: 67 --> 65 (NY)
Paul Weiss: 107 --> 81 (NY)
Jones Day: 22 --> 22 (NY)

- Hodor

[Anonymous User]

FYI, expected class sizes for V10 (sans Wachtell):

CSM: 82 --> 93 (firmwide)
SullCrom: 100 --> 125 (firmwide)
Skadden: 66 --> 73 (NY)
DPW: 129 --> 125 (multi-office)
Weil: 63 --> 53 (NY)
Simpson: 84 --> 63 (NY)
Cleary: 115 --> 98 (NY)
KE: 51 --> 51 (NY)
Latham: 26 --> 36 (NY)

Overall: 716 --> 717

Plus some others...

GDC: 42 --> 39 (NY)
Debevoise: 67 --> 65 (NY)
Paul Weiss: 107 --> 81 (NY)
Jones Day: 22 --> 22 (NY)

- Hodor

That seems like a big drop for Simpson and Cleary especially. Not surprising that Weil wants to be conservative. Does that change how you'll bid?

-Jon Snow

[Anonymous User]

FYI, expected class sizes for V10 (sans Wachtell):

CSM: 82 --> 93 (firmwide)
SullCrom: 100 --> 125 (firmwide)
Skadden: 66 --> 73 (NY)
DPW: 129 --> 125 (multi-office)
Weil: 63 --> 53 (NY)
Simpson: 84 --> 63 (NY)
Cleary: 115 --> 98 (NY)
KE: 51 --> 51 (NY)
Latham: 26 --> 36 (NY)

Overall: 716 --> 717

Plus some others...

GDC: 42 --> 39 (NY)
Debevoise: 67 --> 65 (NY)
Paul Weiss: 107 --> 81 (NY)
Jones Day: 22 --> 22 (NY)

- Hodor

That seems like a big drop for Simpson and Cleary especially. Not surprising that Weil wants to be conservative. Does that change how you'll bid?

-Jon Snow

I think the take-away is that our CLS class' smaller size tracks the overall trends in the BigLaw market. In other words, I predict that CLS 2015 will perform not much better or worse than CLS 2014 at EIP.

It also means that Cravath's and SullCrom's 3.6ish median offer from last year may dip a bit, so they're probably worth bidding around a 3.5.

- Tiefighter

[Anonymous User]

CLS 3L again - just to clarify, those second numbers are this summer's class sizes, NOT what they expect to take at EIP for next summer. (I'm in one of the classes in the second column).

[Anonymous User]

CLS 3L again - just to clarify, those second numbers are this summer's class sizes, NOT what they expect to take at EIP for next summer. (I'm in one of the classes in the second column).

Oh shit, really? Is there any way to determine what they expect to take at EIP THIS summer?

[Anonymous User]

Giving it a shot. 3.7+ GPA, WE, good interviewer (though probably everyone thinks he's a good interviewer). Looking to do transactional work in New York. I think my list may be too aggressive/lacking in safeties, and it's in very early stages so I need to do a lot of arranging to maximize screeners. I know I have a wide range of firm personalities/cultures here. This is intentional since I'm still trying to figure out what kind of culture I think would be the best fit. I would welcome comments on any firms that seem like outliers. If there are any rising 3Ls or current practitioners lurking, I would especially appreciate your input.

1. Kirkland
2. Ropes
3. Gibson
4. Arnold & Porter
5. Sidley
6. MoFo
7. Latham
8. Debevoise
9. Linklaters
10. Paul Hastings
11. Cleary
12. Paul, Weiss
13. DPW
14. STB
15. S&C
16. Skadden
17. Shearman
18. V&E
19. clifford chance
20. White & Case
21. Fried, Frank
22. Akin Gump
23. Freshfields
24. Cravath
25. Williams & Connolly (yes, I know this is DC)
26. Weil
27. Covington
28. Cahill
29. Wachtell
30. Boies corporate

-Jon Snow