Top Law Schools

It seems to me that being on law review is training for litigation rather than corporate law. If one is on law review, but specifically interested in pursuing corporate work, will it give that person an edge in the hiring process? How do firms hiring for transactional work view law reivew? Thanks.

Anonymous User wrote:It seems to me that being on law review is training for litigation rather than corporate law. If one is on law review, but specifically interested in pursuing corporate work, will it give that person an edge in the hiring process? How do firms hiring for transactional work view law reivew? Thanks.

Being on law review is training for being a secretary.

Desert Fox wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:It seems to me that being on law review is training for litigation rather than corporate law. If one is on law review, but specifically interested in pursuing corporate work, will it give that person an edge in the hiring process? How do firms hiring for transactional work view law reivew? Thanks.

Being on law review is training for being a secretary.

CR. No one gives a fuck about law review once you have a client list and real work under your belt.

"Law review" means you had either one of the highest GPAs or best-written journal competition entries at your law school, so employers prefer it for the same reason they prefer students with higher grades in general. Its irrelevance to just about everything except academia and possibly appellate litigation means nothing to employers.

law review/journals aren't training for anything but journals; academic writing and citation.

G. T. L. Rev. wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:It seems to me that being on law review is training for litigation rather than corporate law. If one is on law review, but specifically interested in pursuing corporate work, will it give that person an edge in the hiring process? How do firms hiring for transactional work view law reivew? Thanks.

Being on law review is training for being a secretary.

Or not. At all.

I did an editing cycle on a secondary journal. It seems like everyone not in an Eboard position just edits and cite checks. But again I only did one editing cycle.

G. T. L. Rev. wrote:

Julio_El_Chavo wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:It seems to me that being on law review is training for litigation rather than corporate law. If one is on law review, but specifically interested in pursuing corporate work, will it give that person an edge in the hiring process? How do firms hiring for transactional work view law reivew? Thanks.

Being on law review is training for being a secretary.

CR. No one gives a fuck about law review once you have a client list and real work under your belt.

Maybe. But consider that there are lots of people who do care about it. These include at least (1) OCI employers; (2) judges; (3) federal agencies that search for "law review" when sorting online apps; and (4) academic positions/fellowships.

Considering that many of those entites may play a role in where you end up having a client list and real work experience, LR does matter, even if lots of the actual work involved in it is extremely mundane.

it's a proxy for high grades. your grades show that you work hard, think logically, and can write relatively well. this is what all of the people you mention really care about.

fwiw, i got a V10 firm job without law review (but top 10% grades).

G. T. L. Rev. wrote:

Julio_El_Chavo wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:It seems to me that being on law review is training for litigation rather than corporate law. If one is on law review, but specifically interested in pursuing corporate work, will it give that person an edge in the hiring process? How do firms hiring for transactional work view law reivew? Thanks.

Being on law review is training for being a secretary.

CR. No one gives a fuck about law review once you have a client list and real work under your belt.

Maybe. But consider that there are lots of people who do care about it. These include at least (1) OCI employers; (2) judges; (3) federal agencies that search for "law review" when sorting online apps; and (4) academic positions/fellowships.

Considering that many of those entites may play a role in where you end up having a client list and real work experience, LR does matter, even if lots of the actual work involved in it is extremely mundane.

I don't think anyone is arguing it's not important, only that it's not important because of the substance of what you do/learn. I can't imagine any employer anywhere gives a flying fuck how good I am at searching ProQuest for the original print versions of an article that also appeared online, so that I can find the page it appeared on. The importance of LR comes from the status of having been through it, not from any skill or ability it develops.

Also, I know several people on law review who got no offers from V10s despite interviewing with 7 or 8 of them.

G. T. L. Rev. wrote:

Julio_El_Chavo wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:It seems to me that being on law review is training for litigation rather than corporate law. If one is on law review, but specifically interested in pursuing corporate work, will it give that person an edge in the hiring process? How do firms hiring for transactional work view law reivew? Thanks.

Being on law review is training for being a secretary.

CR. No one gives a fuck about law review once you have a client list and real work under your belt.

Maybe. But consider that there are lots of people who do care about it. These include at least (1) OCI employers; (2) judges; (3) federal agencies that search for "law review" when sorting online apps; and (4) academic positions/fellowships.

Considering that many of those entites may play a role in where you end up having a client list and real work experience, LR does matter, even if lots of the actual work involved in it is extremely mundane.

Most of what you listed is only relevant for the first few years of practice.