HLS 2012 EIP Thread Forum

[Anonymous User]

just got a cleary offer (ny) - interviewed early this week.

Interviewed earlier this week too. Starting to believe my Cleary ship is sinking.

How early?

[Anonymous User]

I don't think anyone has posted, but the associates I met with during my CB claimed that people from Monday had heard back. None of the people I know that have done CBs there have heard yet, though.

This is a bad sign...didn't they have a near 100% offer rate last year?

[Anonymous User]

It may not necessarily be a bad sign as the associates may not have actually known or the committee may have been looking at people by school, who knows. Last year there was a 90% offer rate.

[Anonymous User]

I don't think anyone has posted, but the associates I met with during my CB claimed that people from Monday had heard back. None of the people I know that have done CBs there have heard yet, though.

This is a bad sign...didn't they have a near 100% offer rate last year?

90% in Boston.

[Anonymous User]

I think I am going to go with either Cravath or Sullcrom over any offers I end up getting from the handful of top 10 DC firms (not W&C) I have had or will be doing callbacks at. I think that overall the quality of the work and the general quality of the practice groups, even in litigation, are much stronger in elite NYC firms like CSM or S&C. The DC firms like Wilmer, Gibson, Kirkland, or AP are special in that they have elite appellate litigation practices and that is something attractive to the "elite" of HLS. However, I think going to an overall inferior firm in order to do appellate litigation is somewhat absurd. The litigation practice in a firm like Sullcrom overall is superior to that of a firm like Wilmer, it just doesn't offer you the opportunity to do the sort of appellate work done by Wilmer (it does however have a rather larger regulation and government enforcement practice, not sure why people act like regulatory law is only practiced in DC given that the two most important practice areas related to regulatory law are Antitrust and Securities Regulation). Importantly, in order to actually be able to take advantage of the sexy appellate practice groups in DC firms you likely will need to be coming in from a top COA clerkship etc. Otherwise you'll just be on commercial litigation and regulatory enforcement. So I figure that it makes sense to go with either Cravath or Sullcrom now and then if I manage to land a top COA clerkship I can get a post-clerkship job in DC. People forget about that option.... Right now, not knowing what my clerkship will be I think it makes sense to go with the firms stronger across the board in NYC rather than go after otherwise inferior firms just because they have one tiny sexy practice group. So for now I can do white collar and securities regulation litigation at CSM or SC and if I get a good COA I'll maybe go to DC. Does this make sense?

[Anonymous User]

and this is why people hate harvard kids. yeah, you best stay away from those "inferior" firms, because they wouldn't want tools like you around anyways.

[GeePee]

I think I am going to go with either Cravath or Sullcrom over any offers I end up getting from the handful of top 10 DC firms (not W&C) I have had or will be doing callbacks at. I think that overall the quality of the work and the general quality of the practice groups, even in litigation, are much stronger in elite NYC firms like CSM or S&C. The DC firms like Wilmer, Gibson, Kirkland, or AP are special in that they have elite appellate litigation practices and that is something attractive to the "elite" of HLS. However, I think going to an overall inferior firm in order to do appellate litigation is somewhat absurd. The litigation practice in a firm like Sullcrom overall is superior to that of a firm like Wilmer, it just doesn't offer you the opportunity to do the sort of appellate work done by Wilmer (it does however have a rather larger regulation and government enforcement practice, not sure why people act like regulatory law is only practiced in DC given that the two most important practice areas related to regulatory law are Antitrust and Securities Regulation). Importantly, in order to actually be able to take advantage of the sexy appellate practice groups in DC firms you likely will need to be coming in from a top COA clerkship etc. Otherwise you'll just be on commercial litigation and regulatory enforcement. So I figure that it makes sense to go with either Cravath or Sullcrom now and then if I manage to land a top COA clerkship I can get a post-clerkship job in DC. People forget about that option.... Right now, not knowing what my clerkship will be I think it makes sense to go with the firms stronger across the board in NYC rather than go after otherwise inferior firms just because they have one tiny sexy practice group. So for now I can do white collar and securities regulation litigation at CSM or SC and if I get a good COA I'll maybe go to DC. Does this make sense?

You're drinking the Kool Aid a bit. You listed some top DC firms there. I think you're taking the questionable call to lust after appellate litigation a step too far to say that the rest of these firms are overall inferior. Do they do different work? Sure. But I don't agree with your logic. Your relevant decisionmaking tool should be NY vs. DC and the practice consequences that entails when you're choosing between A&P and Wilmer vs. Cravath and S&C, not perceived differences in litigation strength/prestige.

[Anonymous User]

I think I am going to go with either Cravath or Sullcrom over any offers I end up getting from the handful of top 10 DC firms (not W&C) I have had or will be doing callbacks at. I think that overall the quality of the work and the general quality of the practice groups, even in litigation, are much stronger in elite NYC firms like CSM or S&C. The DC firms like Wilmer, Gibson, Kirkland, or AP are special in that they have elite appellate litigation practices and that is something attractive to the "elite" of HLS. However, I think going to an overall inferior firm in order to do appellate litigation is somewhat absurd. The litigation practice in a firm like Sullcrom overall is superior to that of a firm like Wilmer, it just doesn't offer you the opportunity to do the sort of appellate work done by Wilmer (it does however have a rather larger regulation and government enforcement practice, not sure why people act like regulatory law is only practiced in DC given that the two most important practice areas related to regulatory law are Antitrust and Securities Regulation). Importantly, in order to actually be able to take advantage of the sexy appellate practice groups in DC firms you likely will need to be coming in from a top COA clerkship etc. Otherwise you'll just be on commercial litigation and regulatory enforcement. So I figure that it makes sense to go with either Cravath or Sullcrom now and then if I manage to land a top COA clerkship I can get a post-clerkship job in DC. People forget about that option.... Right now, not knowing what my clerkship will be I think it makes sense to go with the firms stronger across the board in NYC rather than go after otherwise inferior firms just because they have one tiny sexy practice group. So for now I can do white collar and securities regulation litigation at CSM or SC and if I get a good COA I'll maybe go to DC. Does this make sense?

Subtle Yale/Stanford trolling.

[Anonymous User]

?

[Anonymous User]

.

[Anonymous User]

You're drinking the Kool Aid a bit. You listed some top DC firms there. I think you're taking the questionable call to lust after appellate litigation a step too far to say that the rest of these firms are overall inferior. Do they do different work? Sure. But I don't agree with your logic. Your relevant decisionmaking tool should be NY vs. DC and the practice consequences that entails when you're choosing between A&P and Wilmer vs. Cravath and S&C, not perceived differences in litigation strength/prestige.[/quote]

I think people overestimate how different the overall work character in a litigation group at a top dc and nyc firm differs, besides the work done in appellate.

[GeePee]

You're drinking the Kool Aid a bit. You listed some top DC firms there. I think you're taking the questionable call to lust after appellate litigation a step too far to say that the rest of these firms are overall inferior. Do they do different work? Sure. But I don't agree with your logic. Your relevant decisionmaking tool should be NY vs. DC and the practice consequences that entails when you're choosing between A&P and Wilmer vs. Cravath and S&C, not perceived differences in litigation strength/prestige.

I think people overestimate how different the overall work character in a litigation group at a top dc and nyc firm differs, besides the work done in appellate.[/quote]
I think that's true, but the difference should still inform the decision. Also, my first post primarily meant NY v. DC the places, and then work subject differences. But there's definitely a difference in practice and culture. People in NY start later and generally finish later. NY firms generally have robust securities practices; this is a smaller percentage of work in DC. On the other hand, DC does more regulatory work and things like gov't contracts, if that interests you. Yes, the majority of work in both places will be general commercial disputes, and these disputes will overlap, but the nature of the residual work is still important to consider.

[Anonymous User]

i love that no one has mentioned that a person may just prefer to live in one or the other of these two radically different cities

[Anonymous User]

any dings from
Munger LA
Arnold Porter DC
HoganLovells DC
JonesDay DC
Kirkland Ellis DC

[Anonymous User]

Ding from Hogan DC on Friday.

[Anonymous User]

Paul Weiss NY snail mail ding.

[Anonymous User]

Paul Weiss NY snail mail ding.

Post cb or just screener?

[Anonymous User]

Is anyone else still waiting to hear or all the CB decisions are pretty much out by now?

I got one on Thursday and 2 on Tuesday; each was at least a week after the screener. So I don't think it's unlikely that some people will still have callback trickling in.

[Anonymous User]

Paul Weiss NY snail mail ding.

Post cb or just screener?

Post screener.

[Anonymous User]

Ding from Hogan DC on Friday.

email or snail mail?

[Anonymous User]

.

[Anonymous User]

Okay, then. [.], I guess.

[Anonymous User]

do we have to respond within days to voicemail post-cb offers or can we just wait around a couple weeks or at least till we get the paper offer in the mail. by the way, how long do we have to wait for the actual paper offer in the mail?

[Anonymous User]

Is anyone else still waiting to hear or all the CB decisions are pretty much out by now?

I got one on Thursday and 2 on Tuesday; each was at least a week after the screener. So I don't think it's unlikely that some people will still have callback trickling in.

I got 2 last Thursday. I have a friend who got one on Friday. They were all bay area callbacks, though, and it seems that the bay is really like the last market to go.

[Anonymous User]

do we have to respond within days to voicemail post-cb offers or can we just wait around a couple weeks or at least till we get the paper offer in the mail. by the way, how long do we have to wait for the actual paper offer in the mail?

I am sending a thank you e-mail. I think it is a a nice thing to do.