Top Law Schools

For the purposes of 1L EIP/OCI the handbooks provided by CLS only grade firm prestige by the percentage of offers extended to Stone Scholars (~top 28% class rank for 1L's) and above, which means they are largely useless for people who are in that range. So, I'm wondering if people with a better sense of the NYC firm landscape than I can offer some advice. Operating under the assumption that I will accept an offer from the best firm that extends one, I'm hoping someone can tell me what firms are truly out of reach, and which are shots worth taking.

I am near the bottom end of Stone Scholars, so figure roughly top quarter of my class, and strong 1L summer work (SDNY Judicial Internship). Otherwise, little or no worthwhile work experience.

Any input is appreciated-- thanks.

Truly out of reach: Wachtell, Boies, Susman

Reaches: CSM, S+C, DPW, maybe STB. Place these towards the bottom of the list because they tend to be underbid.

Targets: Skadden, Paul Weiss, Debevoise, Weil, Cleary, K+E. You could probably get at least one of these (something in the NYC V10).

The rest of your bids should be used on less selective firms you think you'd like to work at. You could bid satellite offices of V15 firms like Covington, Sidley, Gibson. Or the larger NY firms back in the lower Vault. Or smaller offices or firms that might pay market but have better QoL. I hesitate to call these safeties because I've heard of Stone Scholars striking out before.

Would you put the "less selective" firms at the top of your bid list (considering that they will more likely be overbid), the targets more to the middle and then the reaches at the bottom? I'm pretty much in the same position as OP, ~25% at CLS.

timbs4339 wrote:Truly out of reach: Wachtell, Boies, Susman

Reaches: CSM, S+C, DPW, maybe STB. Place these towards the bottom of the list because they tend to be underbid.

Targets: Skadden, Paul Weiss, Debevoise, Weil, Cleary, K+E. You could probably get at least one of these (something in the NYC V10).

The rest of your bids should be used on less selective firms you think you'd like to work at. You could bid satellite offices of V15 firms like Covington, Sidley, Gibson. Or the larger NY firms back in the lower Vault. Or smaller offices or firms that might pay market but have better QoL. I hesitate to call these safeties because I've heard of Stone Scholars striking out before.

I generally agree with this but I wouldn't even characterize CSM as a reach. Many people who got offers there were not particularly high up in the class (i.e., barely stone or not even), and they were so undersubscribed this year that they actually went back later in the season looking for more people.

Also, GDC is quite grade-selective. Probably more selective than most of the firms in the "targets" list.

imchuckbass58 wrote:

timbs4339 wrote:Truly out of reach: Wachtell, Boies, Susman

Reaches: CSM, S+C, DPW, maybe STB. Place these towards the bottom of the list because they tend to be underbid.

Targets: Skadden, Paul Weiss, Debevoise, Weil, Cleary, K+E. You could probably get at least one of these (something in the NYC V10).

The rest of your bids should be used on less selective firms you think you'd like to work at. You could bid satellite offices of V15 firms like Covington, Sidley, Gibson. Or the larger NY firms back in the lower Vault. Or smaller offices or firms that might pay market but have better QoL. I hesitate to call these safeties because I've heard of Stone Scholars striking out before.

I generally agree with this but I wouldn't even characterize CSM as a reach. Many people who got offers there were not particularly high up in the class (i.e., barely stone or not even), and they were so undersubscribed this year that they actually went back later in the season looking for more people.

Also, GDC is quite grade-selective. Probably more selective than most of the firms in the "targets" list.

GDC NY? No. It is the least selective of any firm in the target list.

Covington NY, on the other hand, is somewhat more selective than those targets.

I'm not sure Boies Schiller is "truly out of reach" for OP. A reach, sure, but I wouldn't say OP has 0 shot from CLS with top 1/4 grades.

what should the bid list be for someone whose high stone (top 10-15%)?

Is there any firm that is completely out of reach?

seriouslyinformative wrote:
GDC NY? No. It is the least selective of any firm in the target list.

Covington NY, on the other hand, is somewhat more selective than those targets.

Well, I'm basing this off the Kent-Stone list from 2009, where GDC NY gave offers to 90% stone scholars (excluding transfers). Compare that to Paul Weiss at 68%, Cleary at 74%, STB at 74%, Skadden at 63%, Weil at 60%, Debevoise at 62%, and Kirkland at 57%.

Plus, literally everyone for whom I know such things who was at the GDC offer event this year (i.e., 2010) was either Law Review and/or Stone. I'm sure there were a couple who weren't, but none that I knew.

Well, I'm basing this off the Kent-Stone list from 2009, where GDC NY gave offers to 90% stone scholars (excluding transfers). Compare that to Paul Weiss at 68%, Cleary at 74%, STB at 74%, Skadden at 63%, Weil at 60%, Debevoise at 62%, and Kirkland at 57%.

Well, I'm just basing this off of the mean/median GPA stats from other T10 schools, where GDC NY took an average 3.35. Compare that to Paul Weiss at 3.55, Cleary at 3.65, Simpson at 3.55, Skadden at 3.55, Weil at 3.3, Kirkland at 3.45, and Debevoise at 3.6.

Would anyone at CLS be willing to send me their gpa info for firms?

imchuckbass58 wrote:

seriouslyinformative wrote:
GDC NY? No. It is the least selective of any firm in the target list.

Covington NY, on the other hand, is somewhat more selective than those targets.

Well, I'm basing this off the Kent-Stone list from 2009, where GDC NY gave offers to 90% stone scholars (excluding transfers). Compare that to Paul Weiss at 68%, Cleary at 74%, STB at 74%, Skadden at 63%, Weil at 60%, Debevoise at 62%, and Kirkland at 57%.

Plus, literally everyone for whom I know such things who was at the GDC offer event this year (i.e., 2010) was either Law Review and/or Stone. I'm sure there were a couple who weren't, but none that I knew.

This notwithstanding, GDC isn't nearly as grade-crazy as people make them out to be. People are working there this summer who have just-above median grades at Columbia. GDC NY is by far the least grade-selective of the offices though, including satellites.

Is GDC really of the same caliber as the other names being thrown around for the target range? I've hardly ever heard it spoken in the same breath as Paul Weiss, Skadden, etc.

Anonymous User wrote:Is GDC really of the same caliber as the other names being thrown around for the target range? I've hardly ever heard it spoken in the same breath as Paul Weiss, Skadden, etc.

It isn't.

seriouslyinformative wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Is GDC really of the same caliber as the other names being thrown around for the target range? I've hardly ever heard it spoken in the same breath as Paul Weiss, Skadden, etc.

It isn't.

For litigation, it is (yes, including in NY). For corporate, it's not.

CLS2013 wrote:For the purposes of 1L EIP/OCI the handbooks provided by CLS only grade firm prestige . . . Operating under the assumption that I will accept an offer from the best firm that extends one

It's fine to want a good firm, but understand that the world of law firms isn't ordinal. You can't just stretch them from first to last. There are firms with strengths and weaknesses, firms strong everywhere but the best at nothing, etc. Don't walk into this process obsessed with prestige. It matters, but MUCH less than the people you work with on a daily basis and the kind of work available at your chosen office.

imchuckbass58 wrote:

seriouslyinformative wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Is GDC really of the same caliber as the other names being thrown around for the target range? I've hardly ever heard it spoken in the same breath as Paul Weiss, Skadden, etc.

It isn't.

For litigation, it is (yes, including in NY). For corporate, it's not.

Hello Gibson Dunn summer associate. Troll hats should be put in coat check.

For the purposes of moving beyond anecdotes, here are the NY litigation rankings from Chambers:

http://www.chambersandpartners.com/USA/Editorial/43209

seriouslyinformative wrote:

imchuckbass58 wrote:

seriouslyinformative wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Is GDC really of the same caliber as the other names being thrown around for the target range? I've hardly ever heard it spoken in the same breath as Paul Weiss, Skadden, etc.

It isn't.

For litigation, it is (yes, including in NY). For corporate, it's not.

Hello Gibson Dunn summer associate. Troll hats should be put in coat check.

Wow, that was unwarranted, considering that imchuckbass is NOT in fact at Gibson Dunn (or even litigation) this summer and is usually one of the more helpful posters on TLS.

thesealocust wrote:For the purposes of moving beyond anecdotes, here are the NY litigation rankings from Chambers:

http://www.chambersandpartners.com/USA/Editorial/43209

Thanks, this is useful.

seriouslyinformative wrote:

imchuckbass58 wrote:

seriouslyinformative wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Is GDC really of the same caliber as the other names being thrown around for the target range? I've hardly ever heard it spoken in the same breath as Paul Weiss, Skadden, etc.

It isn't.

For litigation, it is (yes, including in NY). For corporate, it's not.

Hello Gibson Dunn summer associate. Troll hats should be put in coat check.

Not at GDC. In fact, working at one of the other firms listed above.

thesealocust wrote:For the purposes of moving beyond anecdotes, here are the NY litigation rankings from Chambers:

http://www.chambersandpartners.com/USA/Editorial/43209

Thanks for adding something concrete.

I'm not going to argue with Chambers. I guess I would just point out that a lot of GDC's interesting non-appellate litigation is run out of New York (the facebook case, the Chevron case, the project runway litigation, etc). Certainly your exit options won't be constrained by doing litigation at GDC NY versus many of the above firms.

timbs4339 wrote:
The rest of your bids should be used on less selective firms you think you'd like to work at. You could bid satellite offices of V15 firms like Covington, Sidley, Gibson. Or the larger NY firms back in the lower Vault. Or smaller offices or firms that might pay market but have better QoL. I hesitate to call these safeties because I've heard of Stone Scholars striking out before.

To elaborate on this, for this third category you might want to also look into:

-Patterson Belknap (very lit heavy and not well-known nationally, but great rep in NY, lots of interesting work, very smart people, and very good QoL)
-WilmerHale
-Quinn (only lit and has a distinct/polarizing personality, but some people love it)
-Ropes & Gray
-Cahill Gordon
-Willkie Farr & Gallagher

I guess I would just point out that a lot of GDC's interesting non-appellate litigation is run out of New York (the facebook case, the Chevron case, the project runway litigation, etc).

The Gibson trolls always parrot this as if they have it committed to memory. "Interesting" cases doesn't mean that the litigation department is particularly good. TTT firms handle interesting litigation cases all the time (Orrick handled the Bratz/Mattel suit; is Orrick suddenly a really good litigation firm? No. And they even beat Quinn). I'll grant that the LA office is top tier, though still a notch below the firms above. The NYC office, though, is nowhere near the top. The only people I hear argue for that is you and people actually working at Gibson.

seriouslyinformative wrote:

I guess I would just point out that a lot of GDC's interesting non-appellate litigation is run out of New York (the facebook case, the Chevron case, the project runway litigation, etc).

The Gibson trolls always parrot this as if they have it committed to memory. "Interesting" cases doesn't mean that the litigation department is particularly good. TTT firms handle interesting litigation cases all the time (Orrick handled the Bratz/Mattel suit; is Orrick suddenly a really good litigation firm? No. And they even beat Quinn). I'll grant that the LA office is top tier, though still a notch below the firms above. The NYC office, though, is nowhere near the top. The only people I hear argue for that is you and people actually working at Gibson.

No, but winning litigation department of the year is generally a good indication that the litigation department is particularly good.

http://www.law.com/jsp/law/LawArticleFr ... 2437356128

imchuckbass58 wrote:

seriouslyinformative wrote:

I guess I would just point out that a lot of GDC's interesting non-appellate litigation is run out of New York (the facebook case, the Chevron case, the project runway litigation, etc).

The Gibson trolls always parrot this as if they have it committed to memory. "Interesting" cases doesn't mean that the litigation department is particularly good. TTT firms handle interesting litigation cases all the time (Orrick handled the Bratz/Mattel suit; is Orrick suddenly a really good litigation firm? No. And they even beat Quinn). I'll grant that the LA office is top tier, though still a notch below the firms above. The NYC office, though, is nowhere near the top. The only people I hear argue for that is you and people actually working at Gibson.

No, but winning litigation department of the year is generally a good indication that the litigation department is particularly good.

http://www.law.com/jsp/law/LawArticleFr ... 2437356128

That's the second link trolls have up their sleeves. Again, while I concede the LA/DC offices are top notch, NYC is not. Sorry bro.