Top Law Schools

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 3:20 pm**

Post your bid lists, etc. in this thread. Offer advice.

I'll start. Top 30%. 1 yr. of WE. Strong ties to both Southern California and Bay Area. Litigation-focused. Non-IP.

1. Paul Hastings LA (20)
2. Bingham McCutcheon LA (20)
3. Winston & Strawn LA/SF (20)
4. Morgan Lewis SF (20)
5. Akin Gump LA (20)
6. Sidley Austin SF (20)
7. Jones Day LA (20)
8. Latham & Watkins LA (32)
9. Morrison & Foerster SF (40)
10. Kirkland & Ellis SF (40)
11. Kirkland & Ellis LA (36)
13. Sidley Austin LA (20)
14. Quinn Emanuel LA (30)
15. Covington & Burling SF (40)
16. Jenner& Block LA (20)
17. Cooley SD/SF (72)
18. Sheppard Mullin LA (20)
19. Mitchell Silberberg LA (20)
20. Howard Rice SF (20)
21. Farella Braun SF (40)
22. Irell & Manella LA (52)
23. Pillsbury Winthrop LA/SF (20)
24. Orrick Herrington SF (40)
25. O'Melveny LA (40)
26. Ropes SF (280)
27. O'Melveny Century City (40)
28. Skadden Arps LA (40)

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 3:35 pm**

+1

About time someone got this started. Non school-specific threads are annoying as hell because the situation varies so much according to school.

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 3:59 pm**

What's the grade cut-off for Williams & Connolly at HLS? I have 5H/5P, and don't know if that's merely "above median" or if it puts me closer to top 1/3, or somewhere in between. I'm also on law review, but don't know if that will make a difference to them. Anyone know whether I'd be wasting a bid?

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 4:02 pm**

Anonymous User wrote:What's the grade cut-off for Williams & Connolly at HLS? I have 5H/5P, and don't know if that's merely "above median" or if it puts me closer to top 1/3, or somewhere in between. I'm also on law review, but don't know if that will make a difference to them. Anyone know whether I'd be wasting a bid?

My sense is that your grades wouldn't be a waste of a bid, but it certainly won't be likely. If you have unique WE, or something else to help you stand out (ex: W&C is said to love military experience), then you might have a shot.

I have 7H/3P and LR, but I still can't imagine my shot at W&C is that great, even though it's my top choice firm by FAR.

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 4:09 pm**

10Hs /w unique corporate law-related WE during 1L and highly selective 1L summer internship.

Curious to know how difficult it will be to break into SF/LA without any real ties whatsoever and a transactional law focus. Will be bidding basically the V10 + some relative safeties in NYC. Still trying to figure out my SF/LA firm bids... any suggestions would be welcome.

Also, I've heard from a rising 3L that bidding strategy doesn't really matter because you can always request (and be granted) an interview slot with a firm. Any truth to this?

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 4:16 pm**

OP here. Is it worth throwing a bid at Munger and/or Keker? I have heard varying things about my chances with them given my grades (6H, approx 30%, no LR), and they are hugely overbid (despite Munger having 40 interview slots.) Not really keen on bumping more realistic firms down another slot if I don't have much of a chance (since I think either should be a top 5 bid or not worth a bid at all...)

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 4:42 pm**

Anonymous User wrote:Also, I've heard from a rising 3L that bidding strategy doesn't really matter because you can always request (and be granted) an interview slot with a firm. Any truth to this?

Rising 3L. I agree with this for the most part; don't freak out about optimizing bid lists. You'll get almost everything you want initially, and there will be vacancies that arise in the event that you fail to obtain an interview somewhere.

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 5:14 pm**

Grades at or slightly below median. I am bidding on NYC and a secondary market. What do you think of my NYC bidlist. I'm interested in transactional work. Significant post undergrad WE.

1. Simpson Thatcher
2. Davis Polk
3. Cleary
4. Debevoise
5. Weil, Gosthal
6. Paul Weiss
7. Fried Frank
8. Shearman & Sterlin
9. Paul Hastings
10. Milbank
11. Latham
12. Kirkland
13. White & Case
14. GDC
15. Schulte
16. Sidley
17. Seward Kissel
18. Jones Day
19. Dewey

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 5:16 pm**

Anonymous User wrote:Grades at or slightly below median. I am bidding on NYC and a secondary market. What do you think of my NYC bidlist. I'm interested in transactional work. Significant post undergrad WE.

1. Simpson Thatcher
2. Davis Polk
3. Cleary
4. Debevoise
5. Weil, Gosthal
6. Paul Weiss
7. Fried Frank
8. Shearman & Sterlin
9. Paul Hastings
10. Milbank
11. Latham
12. Kirkland
13. White & Case
14. GDC
15. Schulte
16. Sidley
17. Seward Kissel
18. Jones Day
19. Dewey

Too aggressive by far. V10s are reaches for median, definitely should not be at the top. You might try flipping this list upside down to get a good starting point.

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 5:22 pm**

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Grades at or slightly below median. I am bidding on NYC and a secondary market. What do you think of my NYC bidlist. I'm interested in transactional work. Significant post undergrad WE.

1. Simpson Thatcher
2. Davis Polk
3. Cleary
4. Debevoise
5. Weil, Gosthal
6. Paul Weiss
7. Fried Frank
8. Shearman & Sterlin
9. Paul Hastings
10. Milbank
11. Latham
12. Kirkland
13. White & Case
14. GDC
15. Schulte
16. Sidley
17. Seward Kissel
18. Jones Day
19. Dewey
Too aggressive by far. V10s are reaches for median, definitely should not be at the top. You might try flipping this list upside down to get a good starting point.

Yeah, I should have mentioned that I didn't really put them in a bidlist order. I was more just listing the firms I want to bid on in General. Also, I understand there are some reaches in there, but I'm trying to have a good mix. Anymore thoughts?

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 5:29 pm**

I'm curious on how you settled on that number of firms. I'm a bit above median with significant WE and thinking of bidding 25.

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 5:32 pm**

Anonymous User wrote:I'm curious on how you settled on that number of firms. I'm a bit above median with significant WE and thinking of bidding 25.

well I'm also bidding on a secondary market (probably 12-13 bids), and maybe 2 or 3 bids to Boston. I will likely use up my full 35 bids.

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 6:28 pm**

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Grades at or slightly below median. I am bidding on NYC and a secondary market. What do you think of my NYC bidlist. I'm interested in transactional work. Significant post undergrad WE.

1. Simpson Thatcher
2. Davis Polk
3. Cleary
4. Debevoise
5. Weil, Gosthal
6. Paul Weiss
7. Fried Frank
8. Shearman & Sterlin
9. Paul Hastings
10. Milbank
11. Latham
12. Kirkland
13. White & Case
14. GDC
15. Schulte
16. Sidley
17. Seward Kissel
18. Jones Day
19. Dewey
Too aggressive by far. V10s are reaches for median, definitely should not be at the top. You might try flipping this list upside down to get a good starting point.

+1 to this. Although I see below that the original quoted poster is using other bids on secondary market so this is less relevant.

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 6:34 pm**

Moxie wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Grades at or slightly below median. I am bidding on NYC and a secondary market. What do you think of my NYC bidlist. I'm interested in transactional work. Significant post undergrad WE.

1. Simpson Thatcher
2. Davis Polk
3. Cleary
4. Debevoise
5. Weil, Gosthal
6. Paul Weiss
7. Fried Frank
8. Shearman & Sterlin
9. Paul Hastings
10. Milbank
11. Latham
12. Kirkland
13. White & Case
14. GDC
15. Schulte
16. Sidley
17. Seward Kissel
18. Jones Day
19. Dewey
Too aggressive by far. V10s are reaches for median, definitely should not be at the top. You might try flipping this list upside down to get a good starting point.
+1 to this. Although I see below that the original quoted poster is using other bids on secondary market so this is less relevant.

again my response: is the overall content of my list too aggressive, or is the order just bad?

As I count it, I have 5 V10's, 7 V20's and 7 outside of the V20. I also attempted to pick V10's and V20's that are not known to be highly grade selective and ones that have the largest classes.

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 9:19 pm**

I think it's too aggressive in general, but again it's hard to tell since I don't know how competitive your bids will be in Boston and your secondary market.

I know that median can get V20 (especially some of the less competitive), but there seem to be too many reaches (1-4, 6, 12 come to mind readily), and I'd throw in some bids to the bigger classes further down the Vault rankings.

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 9:40 pm**

Hey I'll add mine which I posted earlier on the other thread.
Around top 1/4, law review, interested in litigation, especially IP and appellate. Aiming for DC mostly, although could do SF (to which I have ties) and even NY so I've also included firms from those places on my list. List may be slightly aggressive but I also have a 1L SA from which I expect an offer, at a firm that's included in the list. Firms DC unless otherwise noted. Of the firms to which I'm applying/expressing interest in more than one office, are there any that are known not to like people doing that? Also any thoughts on splitting markets three ways like this? Thanks! Also, I ordered it taking into account both personal preference and the bid/interview ratio from last year.

1. Williams & Connolly
2. Covington
3. WilmerHale
4. Boies (DC/NY/Oakland)
5. Arnold & Porter
6. Sullivan & Cromwell (NY)
7. Kirkland & Ellis
8. Gibson Dunn (DC/NY/SF)
9. Keker (SF)
10. Mayer Brown
11. Jenner & Block
12. Jones Day
13. King & Spalding
14. Akin Gump
15. Quinn Emanuel (NY/SF)
16. Covington (SF)
17. Sidley Austin
18. hogan lovells
19. Latham (DC/SF)
20. Skadden (NY)
21. Ropes & Gray (DC/NY)
22. White & Case
23. Debevoise & Plimpton (NY)
24. Morrison & Foerster (SF)
25. Paul Weiss
26. Weil Gotshal (NY)
27. O'Melveny
28. Paul Weiss (NY)
29. Fried Frank (DC/NY)
30. Steptoe & Johnson
31. Crowell & Moring
32. Cravath (NY)
33. Cleary (NY)
34. Davis Polk (NY)
35. Skadden
36. Simpson Thacher (DC/NY)

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 9:55 pm**

What is "median" here? How do you know if you're above it? Is it 5H/5P?

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 10:03 pm**

Median is probably in the neighborhood of 4H, 6P. The median student may actually have 3H, 7P but it's hard to tell. Most anecdotal evidence from both students and professors suggests that professors approximately stuck to the curve (with the exception of the LP, which was assigned more laxly).

ETA: Also, above anon poster, PM me to talk in more detail. I think it would be helpful to pool our knowledge. Do PM's to Anonymous Users make their way to the anon poster or do they end up in the abyss?

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 10:05 pm**

GeePee wrote:Median is probably in the neighborhood of 4H, 6P. The median student may actually have 3H, 7P but it's hard to tell. Most anecdotal evidence from both students and professors suggests that professors approximately stuck to the curve (with the exception of the LP, which was assigned more laxly).

Yea, I've always gotten the sense that 3 or 4 Hs was median, but 5Hs is definitely above median.

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 10:07 pm**

Anonymous User wrote:Hey I'll add mine which I posted earlier on the other thread.
Around top 1/4, law review, interested in litigation, especially IP and appellate. Aiming for DC mostly, although could do SF (to which I have ties) and even NY so I've also included firms from those places on my list. List may be slightly aggressive but I also have a 1L SA from which I expect an offer, at a firm that's included in the list. Firms DC unless otherwise noted. Of the firms to which I'm applying/expressing interest in more than one office, are there any that are known not to like people doing that? Also any thoughts on splitting markets three ways like this? Thanks! Also, I ordered it taking into account both personal preference and the bid/interview ratio from last year.

1. Williams & Connolly
2. Covington
3. WilmerHale
4. Boies (DC/NY/Oakland)
5. Arnold & Porter
6. Sullivan & Cromwell (NY)
7. Kirkland & Ellis
8. Gibson Dunn (DC/NY/SF)
9. Keker (SF)
10. Mayer Brown
11. Jenner & Block
12. Jones Day
13. King & Spalding
14. Akin Gump
15. Quinn Emanuel (NY/SF)
16. Covington (SF)
17. Sidley Austin
18. Hogan Lovells
19. Latham (DC/SF)
20. Skadden (NY)
21. Ropes & Gray (DC/NY)
22. White & Case
23. Debevoise & Plimpton (NY)
24. Morrison & Foerster (SF)
25. Paul Weiss
26. Weil Gotshal (NY)
27. O'Melveny
28. Paul Weiss (NY)
29. Fried Frank (DC/NY)
30. Steptoe & Johnson
31. Crowell & Moring
32. Cravath (NY)
33. Cleary (NY)
34. Davis Polk (NY)
35. Skadden
36. Simpson Thacher (DC/NY)

What do you mean by around top 1/4? I tried to be conservative in my own bidlist, so your three market swing seems risky to me, but I'd be interested in other opinions (and if anyone has the credentials to get offers from SF and DC, you certainly do)

Also, do you have DC ties? If not, do you have a legitimate and comprehensible reason for why you want to work there? (ex: can you answer why DC without sounding like an idiot?)

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 10:14 pm**

GeePee et al: Basically, no one knows if 3 or 4 H's is median, but your bidding strategy should not differ much regardless of which you have. 5-6 is comfortably above median (common wisdom is 5H=top 40% and 6H=top 30%) and should get Biglaw (and probably have options, or so I was told by a legal recruiter). 7+ is basically Biglaw-secure and no firm is really out of bounds based on grades.

Three market poster: If 25%=7H or so, then I think your list is mostly OK, although you could play around with the order a bit to make sure you get some interviews at NY places and places with big class sizes. Three market split is not retarded if the firms you are bidding are all healthy places with big class sizes. I think people focus too much on # of markets bid on and not enough on aggregate # of SA slots the firms on your bid list have.

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 10:20 pm**

Anonymous User wrote:GeePee et al: Basically, no one knows if 3 or 4 H's is median, but your bidding strategy should not differ much regardless of which you have. 5-6 is comfortably above median (common wisdom is 5H=top 40% and 6H=top 30%) and should get Biglaw (and probably have options, or so I was told by a legal recruiter). 7+ is basically Biglaw-secure and no firm is really out of bounds based on grades.

Three market poster: If 25%=7H or so, then I think your list is mostly OK, although you could play around with the order a bit to make sure you get some interviews at NY places and places with big class sizes. Three market split is not retarded if the firms you are bidding are all healthy places with big class sizes. I think people focus too much on # of markets bid on and not enough on aggregate # of SA slots the firms on your bid list have.

Disagree. Planning callbacks in 3 cities is a logistical nightmare. It wouldn't hurt at OCI, but when you start getting time to do callbacks having 3 cities in the mix (particularly when one is on the other coast) is a significant burden and the OP will probably be forced to cut one out.

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 10:50 pm**

GeePee wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:GeePee et al: Basically, no one knows if 3 or 4 H's is median, but your bidding strategy should not differ much regardless of which you have. 5-6 is comfortably above median (common wisdom is 5H=top 40% and 6H=top 30%) and should get Biglaw (and probably have options, or so I was told by a legal recruiter). 7+ is basically Biglaw-secure and no firm is really out of bounds based on grades.

Three market poster: If 25%=7H or so, then I think your list is mostly OK, although you could play around with the order a bit to make sure you get some interviews at NY places and places with big class sizes. Three market split is not retarded if the firms you are bidding are all healthy places with big class sizes. I think people focus too much on # of markets bid on and not enough on aggregate # of SA slots the firms on your bid list have.
Disagree. Planning callbacks in 3 cities is a logistical nightmare. It wouldn't hurt at OCI, but when you start getting time to do callbacks having 3 cities in the mix (particularly when one is on the other coast) is a significant burden and the OP will probably be forced to cut one out.

I disagree with this, based on how the schedule has changed with callbacks and EIP. When callbacks had to be done during a one-week period previously, it made sense to limit it to one or two markets. However, we now have up to three weeks to do callbacks (obviously dependent on how quickly some firms are able to do callback invites and schedule them). In this case, I don't think three markets is out of line, especially if they are mildly successful in scheduling multiple ones in the same city day after day. That said, some cuts might still need to be made to do callbacks only with the firms in those three markets that the poster wants if they are lucky enough to get a ton of callback invites.

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 11:09 pm**

"owlofminerva"

Vermeulaholic

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 11:20 pm**

Anonymous User wrote:"owlofminerva"

Vermeulaholic

LOL

Top Law Schools

2011 Harvard EIP Thread Forum

2011 Harvard EIP Thread

Re: 2011 Harvard EIP Thread

Re: 2011 Harvard EIP Thread

Re: 2011 Harvard EIP Thread

Re: 2011 Harvard EIP Thread

Re: 2011 Harvard EIP Thread

Re: 2011 Harvard EIP Thread

Re: 2011 Harvard EIP Thread

Re: 2011 Harvard EIP Thread

Re: 2011 Harvard EIP Thread

Re: 2011 Harvard EIP Thread

Re: 2011 Harvard EIP Thread

Re: 2011 Harvard EIP Thread

Re: 2011 Harvard EIP Thread

Re: 2011 Harvard EIP Thread

Re: 2011 Harvard EIP Thread

Re: 2011 Harvard EIP Thread

Re: 2011 Harvard EIP Thread

Re: 2011 Harvard EIP Thread

Re: 2011 Harvard EIP Thread

Re: 2011 Harvard EIP Thread

Re: 2011 Harvard EIP Thread

Re: 2011 Harvard EIP Thread

Re: 2011 Harvard EIP Thread

Re: 2011 Harvard EIP Thread