Bid List Top 5% T14 Forum

[Anonymous User]

T14, better than top 5%, NYC/SF, want litigation (white collar), no work experience, good UG.

what do you think about my bid list?

1. Gunderson Dettmer Stough LLP* (Palo Alto)
2. clifford chance US LLP (NYC)
3. Shearman & Sterling LLP (NYC)
4. White & Case LLP (NYC)
5. Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher LLP (SF)
6. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP (SF)
7. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (PA)
8. Cooley Godward Kronish LLP (PA)
9. Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP (SF)
10. Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP (NYC)
11. Allen & Overy LLP (NYC)
12. Morrison Foerster (SF)
13. Kirkland & Ellis LLP (SF)
14. Latham & Watkins LLP (SF)
15. O'Melveny & Myers LLP (SF)
16. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP (SF)
17. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (NYC)
18. Simpson Thacher & bartlett llp (NYC)
19. Debvoise & Plimpton LLP (NYC)
20. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (NYC)
21. Williams & Connolly LLP (D.C.)
22. Ropes & Gray LLP (SF)
23. Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP (NYC)
24. Davis Polk & Wardwell (NYC)
25. Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP (NYC)
26. Jones Day (SF)
27. Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP (SF)
28. Sullivan & Cromwell LLP (NYC)
29. Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP (NYC)
30. Covington & Burling LLP (D.C.)

*I know gunderson does mainly corporate, but it has a pretty big summer class for a west coast office, so I decided what the hell.

[thesealocust]

You're missing a couple of great NYC firms... patterson belkamp? maybe I'm remembering wrong, there's some great NYC lit firm that's always like #90 on the vault list for some stupid reason.

Double check Quinn's office sizes. You might want to bid on Quinn NYC instead, I don't know how many people they have in the SF area.

Don't bid on W&C or Covington if you don't want to work in DC. They do both have great white collar programs, but having to add in a trip to DC could really fuck up your recruiting season since you're already likely going to need to split coasts. You'll get and want to take a number of callbacks if you play your cards right, it's worth making big decisions now. Personal choice though.

I don't see Irell or Munger, both of which should get a letter. Likewise consider Susman - very small in NYC, not even sure if they're in Cali, but worth a look if you want to do litigation (though I don't know if they do white collar). Mail Wachtell if you feel like it - they have a large litigation practice, though I don't think it's at all white collar.

Your order looks smart if it's pure lottery and handicapped based on # of interviews each firm is conducting, which I assume it is, otherwise it would make no sense.

[rayiner]

Where is this T14? If an NY-centric T14 (Penn, Duke, etc), you need to put your target NYC firms higher because you may not get them in the lottery. Your overall bid list has your target firms too low and too many safeties too high. With top 5% you don't need to get specific safeties in your interview schedule, just some safeties. So bid them in the middle. You won't get all of them, but you'll get enough. Put your real target firms higher so you'll be sure to get them.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks thesealocust. Appreciate your help. I will definitely look into Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler. For 2011, Quinn SF has 12 listed on NALP and NY has 15, so I figured there was no real difference, and I prefer SF. With respect to Covington and W & C, I figured it was worth a bid. While I do not prefer to work in D.C., I would not be opposed to it either, and it seems for the type of work I am interested in W & C is the best, and Covington is not that far behind. No Irell and Munger is because I really do not want to work in LA. Yeah, I missed Susman, but do you think I should be adding these "reachy" firms? I am worried about not having work experience.

Yep, my school does pure lottery. By handicapping based on interview slots do you mean ranking lower firms with lesser slots? I do not know if that information is up, or if so I do not know how to find it on symplicity. I tried to do this by looking at summer class size (figuring firms with smaller classes won't interview as many people). Other than that, it is sorted by GPA and summer class size. Thanks again.

[Anonymous User]

Where is this T14? If an NY-centric T14 (Penn, Duke, etc), you need to put your target NYC firms higher because you may not get them in the lottery. Your overall bid list has your target firms too low and too many safeties too high. With top 5% you don't need to get specific safeties in your interview schedule, just some safeties. So bid them in the middle. You won't get all of them, but you'll get enough. Put your real target firms higher so you'll be sure to get them.

Thanks Rayiner. We send a lot of people to NYC, so I see your point. What should I consider "targets" because I figured the V5/V10 NYC firms have high enough GPAs that I can put them towards the bottom.

[thesealocust]

I tend to agree with anon / disagree with rayiner on bid ordering, but it depends entirely on your school and data about how hard or easy various interviews are to get. At most T14s my impression is that getting interviews with gigantic V10/V15 like NYC firms is easy money because of how many slots there are vs. how still grade conscious the firms are. Could be wrong though, and it reallllllyyy depends on each firm / your school's system and history.

[Anonymous User]

Be more specific. This depends on which T14. Narrow it down to HYS, CCN, MVP, DNC, BG.

[Anonymous User]

not HYSCCN. do not want to be more specific than that.

[thesealocust]

For your grades and desires, it doesn't really matter which T14 school you are at. Bidding will change a bit depending on your system, but that's about it.

[sharkweek]

*edited post*

[KMaine]

Just because it's pure lottery doesn't mean people with lower GPAs won't bid on the more selective firms. Not everyone is as logical as you seem to be. If there is a higher ranked firm you would really like to work at I'd consider bumping them up and bumping a few of your less selective safeties down. Why no Q&E NY? Did I miss that one?

Actually, most people are as logical as you. At Cornell many of the higer-ranked firms have large numbers of interview slots. Keep this in mind. Many people will (and should) shy away from them, so you can put them toward the middle. However, if it is somewhere you really want to work, put it up higher. The true safety firms will be on everybody's list. It may be wise for you to ignore these and put some mid-ranked firms up top. These will be your safeties. You should do great! Do you have ties to CA? Your grades should get you considered, but the issue may still come up.

[seriouslyinformative]

Some of these bids are just plain bizarre. clifford chance? Their US litigation office decamped years ago.

[thesealocust]

Some of these bids are just plain bizarre. Clifford Chance? Their US litigation office decamped years ago.

Good call, like 20 litigators in the entire firm now. Definitely not worth a bid if you're looking to do lit (this is why it's smart to punch a firm into the nalp directory before bidding - much less interviewing - for a position that might not really exist).

[seriouslyinformative]

Going to elaborate some more.

1) If you're top 5% at any T14, you have a chance at any firm save two or three, so don't feel the need to be conservative.

2) If you're interested in white collar litigation, a lot of the firms on your list just don't make sense. Remove clifford chance, Shearman & Sterling, White & Case, Orrick, Wilson, Cooley, Morgan Lewis, Allen & Overy, Kirkland SF, Latham, OMM, Ropes SF, Jones Day SF, and Pillsbury.

3) White collar litigation work isn't that commonplace in SF. You should be shooting mainly for NYC office, and these firms in particular (though in no particular order):
1) Debevoise
2) Paul Weiss
3) Gibson Dunn NY
4) Skadden
5) Davis Polk
6) S&C
7) Cravath
Simpson
9) Cleary
10) Fried Frank
11) Kirkland NY
12) Kasowitz Benson
13) Patterson Belknap
14) Quinn
15) Boies
16) W&C (I know they don't have an office in NYC, but go for the DC office)
17) Covington DC

If you're looking for litigation out of CA, look at Morrison & Foerster, Munger Tolles, and *maybe* Keker. Other firms in the Bay Area either focus on corporate, or are just unsafe firms to be (i.e., I don't care if Pillsbury's litigation practice is amazing; firm is still a sinking ship).

[Anonymous User]

Some of these bids are just plain bizarre. Clifford Chance? Their US litigation office decamped years ago.

Yeah, thanks for pointing that out. I somewhat ran out of good litigation firms, and chose to just start including bigger NYC offices, but yeah I guess I should get rid of clifford chance then.

edit, I saw your longer post. Thanks. I guess, while I am interested in white collar litigation, I am also interested in commercial litigation in general, possibly in antitrust, securities litigation, etc. I also realize that SF somewhat sucks as a market for me, I really life SF outside of purely legal considerations. Also long-term GF considerations make SF the best market for us, but NY is definitely still a strong possibility.

[rayiner]

I tend to agree with anon / disagree with rayiner on bid ordering, but it depends entirely on your school and data about how hard or easy various interviews are to get. At most T14s my impression is that getting interviews with gigantic V10/V15 like NYC firms is easy money because of how many slots there are vs. how still grade conscious the firms are. Could be wrong though, and it reallllllyyy depends on each firm / your school's system and history.

This is why I asked where his T14 was. At NU, and possibly Michigan, the NYC firms don't necessarily have a ton of interview slots compared to the number they have at more NYC-centric schools.

[vamedic03]

Are you sure you want to do white collar? It's very, very fact / document / investigation intensive.

[FlightoftheEarls]

2) If you're interested in white collar litigation, a lot of the firms on your list just don't make sense. Remove . . . OMM . . .

OMM may have lost several partners as of late, but they're still one of the best white collar shops in California. Even though they're LA based, the only two named partners in their Chambers (Band 1, might I add) bio are both SF based. I would say they deserve to stay on this list.

[Tangerine Gleam]

You want SF white collar and you DON'T have Keker on your list???

[seriouslyinformative]

2) If you're interested in white collar litigation, a lot of the firms on your list just don't make sense. Remove . . . OMM . . .

OMM may have lost several partners as of late, but they're still one of the best white collar shops in California. Even though they're LA based, the only two named partners in their Chambers (Band 1, might I add) bio are both SF based. I would say they deserve to stay on this list.

This is where I become concerned about choosing a firm that's great at an area but whose overall financial stability is questionable. With top 5% grades, I'd rather bite the bullet and stick it out at a firm that offers prestige and job security, but to each their own. Now don't link me to that ATL article talking about how everyone at OMM is super busy and they're starting associates earlier. Losing 60 partners and a top-notch group of private equity partners is bad news no matter how you look at it. And the way Culvahouse pampered them created a lot of discordance in the firm. Moreover, because of the firm's distinctly second-tier PPP, they will continue to shed star partners to firms with higher PPP. That's just the way musical chairs work.

The ideal firm would be one with prestige, financial stability, strength in desires practice area, and location in desired market. I think Keker fits the bill. Munger does too. Gibson, Latham, and Quinn are also good picks, but I don't know if their white collar practice strength is in SF in particular.

[Anonymous User]

With respect to Covington and W & C, I figured it was worth a bid. While I do not prefer to work in D.C., I would not be opposed to it either, and it seems for the type of work I am interested in W & C is the best, and Covington is not that far behind.

If you want white collar lit and you like NYC but not DC, you should be bidding on Covington NY. Their NY office does a lot of white collar work and they're still growing their NY office, which means more opportunities in the near future. Maybe they're not "the best" in terms of being known already for it, but they're a place to do a lot of high-end work, and that's what matters.

[FlightoftheEarls]

2) If you're interested in white collar litigation, a lot of the firms on your list just don't make sense. Remove . . . OMM . . .

OMM may have lost several partners as of late, but they're still one of the best white collar shops in California. Even though they're LA based, the only two named partners in their Chambers (Band 1, might I add) bio are both SF based. I would say they deserve to stay on this list.

This is where I become concerned about choosing a firm that's great at an area but whose overall financial stability is questionable. With top 5% grades, I'd rather bite the bullet and stick it out at a firm that offers prestige and job security, but to each their own. Now don't link me to that ATL article talking about how everyone at OMM is super busy and they're starting associates earlier. Losing 60 partners and a top-notch group of private equity partners is bad news no matter how you look at it. And the way Culvahouse pampered them created a lot of discordance in the firm. Moreover, because of the firm's distinctly second-tier PPP, they will continue to shed star partners to firms with higher PPP. That's just the way musical chairs work.

The ideal firm would be one with prestige, financial stability, strength in desires practice area, and location in desired market. I think Keker fits the bill. Munger does too. Gibson, Latham, and Quinn are also good picks, but I don't know if their white collar practice strength is in SF in particular.

I get that. I really do. Significant partner losses can be worrisome (especially after watching Howrey crumble), and OMM has been smacked around as of late. Of course, the very firm that snagged OMM's PE group was similarly mentioned as losing a lot of partners just a few years ago, but has now been making headlines almost monthly for pulling in firm-wide practice group chairs from other firms. Cyclical changes like that are partly why I recognize that OMM's headlines may be worrisome, and yet hesitate to think they're not worth a bid if you want SF white collar work. Besides, it's just a bid. OP can always reject an offer for somewhere else if a better/safer SF/NY white collar option ends up on the table.

[Anonymous User]

You want SF white collar and you DON'T have Keker on your list???

They do not OCI at my school, or they would be a top choice.

[Anonymous User]

With respect to Covington and W & C, I figured it was worth a bid. While I do not prefer to work in D.C., I would not be opposed to it either, and it seems for the type of work I am interested in W & C is the best, and Covington is not that far behind.

If you want white collar lit and you like NYC but not DC, you should be bidding on Covington NY. Their NY office does a lot of white collar work and they're still growing their NY office, which means more opportunities in the near future. Maybe they're not "the best" in terms of being known already for it, but they're a place to do a lot of high-end work, and that's what matters.

Thanks for this information. Does Covington have a centralized hiring process (so should I not bid both NY and DC)? In general, I am very reluctant to bid two offices of the same firm, but from what you are saying, it seems that both offices could be worth a bid.

[Anonymous User]

Actually, most people are as logical as you. At Cornell many of the higer-ranked firms have large numbers of interview slots. Keep this in mind. Many people will (and should) shy away from them, so you can put them toward the middle. However, if it is somewhere you really want to work, put it up higher. The true safety firms will be on everybody's list. It may be wise for you to ignore these and put some mid-ranked firms up top. These will be your safeties. You should do great! Do you have ties to CA? Your grades should get you considered, but the issue may still come up.

Thanks, I have some ties to California, so hopefully that will not be a problem. How do you figure out the number of interview slots?