Top Law Schools

I know it's a sweatshop, etc. etc. etc. Whatever. I really want to work there anyway. They have great litigation, have done awesome pro bono that I actually really care about, have a strong track record with diversity (which I care greatly about -- am a minority), and I've liked everyone I've met from the firm. I'm top 25% at HLS so I think on that count I should be fine.

Is this more of a "fit" interview? Are there specific things I should talk up? I've done my research but honestly I have a hard time conveying what distinguishes a firm in interviews in a genuine way, probably because things like "you have a good lit department and I see you've worked on X, Y, and Z" are obviously canned/straight from Chambers and I feel uncomfortable saying them.

Thanks guys.

I interviewed with them last Tuesday, got an offer today

I think it is mainly a fit interview - never got a question as to why I wanted to work there. Just basically some decent conversations about associate / partner practices, and what I was interested in. Associates do TONS of pro bono work - which is really impressive to me, and associates were happy to discuss their work, both corporate and pro bono. I didn't have the smoothest interviews, but the people were generally very friendly and willing to answer any and all questions.

When today did you get the offer?

If you're talking to a partner, ask about the actuarial accounting case in Alaska. The firm made $100 million from the case and each partner came away with about half a million profit.

Paul Weiss is great, but hold off on some of your enthusiasm, it could come across as desperate/sociopathic/weirdo/pedophiliac

I went on a callback a while ago an have an offer there. My best tip: be prepared to ask a LOT of questions. They do seem to be gauging enthusiasm -- have a plethora of questions specific to the firm at the ready, as they will expect you to fill a good portion of each interview with them.

is pw more of a sweatshop than other v10 firms?

War Cardinal wrote:Paul Weiss is great, but hold off on some of your enthusiasm, it could come across as desperate/sociopathic/weirdo/pedophiliac

More terrible advice from TLS.

Keep it coming guys.

Of course you don't want to come across as creepily enthusiastic ("I would do anything for a job here!"), but being really excited about the firm is probably a good thing ("I've really had my sights set on PW for awhile. It really has everything I want in a firm, and has been my goal since I started thinking about where I wanted to make my career.")

In particular, it's OK to gush about everything you like about the firm when they ask "why us?"

is pw more of a sweatshop than other v10 firms?

No, but more doc review than other V10 firms.

is it worth it if i want to go into lit?

Anonymous User wrote:is it worth it if i want to go into lit?

If you're willing to go the distance, absolutely. If you're just a tourist, probably not.

what does that mean?

If you're sure you want to do lit, you have no business considering big law.

Don't be a sheep.

Anonymous User wrote:If you're sure you want to do lit, you have no business considering big law.

Don't be a sheep.

what should i be doing instead?

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:If you're sure you want to do lit, you have no business considering big law.

Don't be a sheep.

what should i be doing instead?

If you actually want to be litigating, you should be looking at boutiques and small firms.

If you just want to be in the litigation department, regardless of whether you're actually doing substantive work, then big law is OK.

sorry, i should clarify...i want to make money and work in lit

"I hated the practice of law. Seriously, I thought about quitting every week. Then it dawned on me: I didn't hate the practice of law. I just hated working for Paul, Weiss!"

- a senior government lawyer to the entire summer intern class

FWIW, I got an offer despite focusing on corporate/transactional practice - they definitely grilled me on why I wanted to work at Paul, Weiss as opposed to SullCrom or whatever.

Anonymous User wrote:sorry, i should clarify...i want to make money and work in lit

Don't worry. He's also wrong.

These boutique people need to get off their high horse.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:sorry, i should clarify...i want to make money and work in lit

Don't worry. He's also wrong.

These boutique people need to get off their high horse.

I'd take a 4th year associate at Susman, Keker, Bartlit, Beck Redden, or Gibbs & Bruns in court against a mid-level partner at a v10 7 days a week and twice on Sundays.

It's not being on a high horse, it's living in reality. The reality is that unless you go to a small firm or a boutique, you're going to be doing mostly bitchwork for the first 3-5 years. Will you still have to do some doc review at lit boutiques? Of course, because it's the nature of litigation. But unlike big firms, most of your work won't be doc review. They expect you to take and defend depos in your first year at the aforementioned boutiques.

Name one big law where that happens regularly.

I'd take a 4th year associate at Susman, Keker, Bartlit, Beck Redden, or Gibbs & Bruns in court against a mid-level partner at a v10 7 days a week and twice on Sundays.

Yeah, you have no idea what you're talking about. But it's cute that you keep dropping names like that. News flash: clients aren't hiring the 4th year associate, and I'm sure GCs everywhere are breathing a collective sigh of relief over the fact that you're not deciding their legal strategy.

I'd take a 4th year associate at Susman, Keker, Bartlit, Beck Redden, or Gibbs & Bruns in court against a mid-level partner at a v10 7 days a week and twice on Sundays.

I'm at a big firm. First year. Doc review has been about 20% of my work. I've already taken deps. And believe me, if you want to last at my firm, you will quickly learn to do things other than doc review.

I'll put up one week's paycheck that you don't first or second chair a trial by the end of your second year.

And if it could be demonstrated (reliably) statistically, I'd put up month's paycheck that the average # of trials first or second chaired by attorneys at the firms you thought it was cute of me to name drop is at least double the average # of trials first or second chaired by attorneys in the v10.

(P.S. If you're at Williams & Connolly, that doesn't count; they're the exception).

Anonymous User wrote:I'll put up one week's paycheck that you don't first or second chair a trial by the end of your second year.

Never said I would. I guess if you're not chairing a trial, you're just doing "bitchwork."

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I'll put up one week's paycheck that you don't first or second chair a trial by the end of your second year.

Never said I would. I guess if you're not chairing a trial, you're just doing "bitchwork."

Unless you're at Williams & Connolly (Or BSF, to a lesser extent), you're delusional -- objectively -- if you don't think there is a significant difference between the responsibility given to junior associates at a 30-80 person boutique and the responsibility given to associates at your big law firm. It's actually common sense.

Not at either firm.

It's funny how some random anonymous 2L is lecturing a first-year associate. I'm really getting a kick out of it.

if you don't think there is a significant difference between the responsibility given to junior associates at a 30-80 person boutique and the responsibility given to associates at your big law firm. It's actually common sense.

I never said that. It seems that in your rush to namedrop, you forgot how to read.

Speaking with the 2nd and 3rd year lit associates at the firm, it still seems like you do get some decently substantive work - I feel like the mentality at the firm is that you get what you can handle, as early as possible.