Top Law Schools

bidding closed, thanks everyone!

MoFo is a bit of a reach.

Anonymous User wrote:MoFo is a bit of a reach.

Yeah I figured--they're super selective but they're ranked a "2" (aka they usually go for top 33%) so I thought I'd give them a try, even if they are at 35. Any suggestions on what may replace MoFo?

I have slightly higher numbers, different journal/board factors, very strong WE.
I think Fried is a reach, MoFo is on my list but it's kind of a dream bid.
Also, Proskauer Newark?

ETA: otherwise, looks good

Kaye Dechert and Stroock should definitely be lower. Use your first few spots for firms with 21 interview spots that give callbacks/offers to lottery interviews, since putting these firms outside of the top 4 or so makes it almost impossible to get an interview through lottery. Those three firms should be lower in ur top ten (think 7, 8, 9) since you will still have a great chance at a lottery interview even at that level of your bid list. Its all about maximizing interviews. By putting 21 interview firms at the very top, and those lower in the top 10, you have a good chance at all of them with lottery.

Move shearman and seward higher. I totally agree with the kaye strook dechert advice, move them down. Clifford might be good as a first pick, although I tend to agree with the 21 interview slots at the top advice. Clifford is just really non-selective with grades and takes a lot of people... you should do what you can to guarantee urself an interview. Keep white and case/cadwalader, etc toward the top as well, you're very likely to get an interview with those firms if they stay at that point in ur bid list

Keep mofo, its not bad to have one or two reaches on ur list. I'd put sheppard mullin lower, and take out curtis mallet unless you have international experience.

Top 3 should be Clifford, Shearman and Seward IMO

Anonymous User wrote:Kaye Dechert and Stroock should definitely be lower. Use your first few spots for firms with 21 interview spots that give callbacks/offers to lottery interviews, since putting these firms outside of the top 4 or so makes it almost impossible to get an interview through lottery. Those three firms should be lower in ur top ten (think 7, 8, 9) since you will still have a great chance at a lottery interview even at that level of your bid list. Its all about maximizing interviews. By putting 21 interview firms at the very top, and those lower in the top 10, you have a good chance at all of them with lottery.

Thanks for the advice. My concern is that my resume/grades aren't good enough to get preselected interviews at most of these firms, so I put the firms I was REALLY interested at the top (Kaye, Clifford, Dechert) to ensure that I did get at least 1 interview with 1 of them.

What would you suggest being 1-5?

Anonymous User wrote:I have slightly higher numbers, different journal/board factors, very strong WE.
I think Fried is a reach, MoFo is on my list but it's kind of a dream bid.
Also, Proskauer Newark?

ETA: otherwise, looks good

.

.

are you on a journal? moot?

You'll get interviews if you bid well.... Clifford, Shearman, Proskauer Newark and Seward in the top 5, keep cadwalader, white & case, chadbourne, brown in the top 10, and perhaps then round it out with kaye, strook and dechert. That would maximize the number of lottery interviews you get. For the rest of your list, use a few more "3" firms

Anonymous User wrote:You'll get interviews if you bid well.... Clifford, Shearman, Proskauer Newark and Seward in the top 5, keep cadwalader, white & case, chadbourne, brown in the top 10, and perhaps then round it out with kaye, strook and dechert. That would maximize the number of lottery interviews you get. For the rest of your list, use a few more "3" firms

So you're telling him to bid on Proskauer Newark when he has no ties to jersey, and the summer class was 3 people last year after like 40 got callbacks? I also don't agree that Seward should be in his top 10, he can certainly place firms with more grade selectivity in order not to waste a bid. He has a decent shot of getting Seward on a preselect. Cadwalader gives 84 interview slots, he can put them a bit lower as well.

OP, you should focus on the highest gpa rank firms up top, and any other ones you want that are only 21 slots that you want to prioritize. Otherwise, your list looks pretty solid. However, letting you know that Mayer Brown is a wasted bid unless you put them in your top 5, everybody and their mother is going to go after them because they gave out a few offers last year. I also heard the Proskauer office in NY doesn't care about kids that are not on Law Review and were very rude last year during screeners, there's a thread on here that recently discussed this so take a look around.

Mayer Brown is definitely a waste of a bid

Just wondering- is Seward a good bid for someone with around a 3.5 from Fordham? I heard rumors that if you bid on a firm that typically gets slightly lower gpas they might nix you as protection...

Its a good bid. its true that you can overbid... if u were top 10% then i'd say don't bid on Seward, but a 3.5 isn't high enough to prevent them from giving u a callback/offer

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:You'll get interviews if you bid well.... Clifford, Shearman, Proskauer Newark and Seward in the top 5, keep cadwalader, white & case, chadbourne, brown in the top 10, and perhaps then round it out with kaye, strook and dechert. That would maximize the number of lottery interviews you get. For the rest of your list, use a few more "3" firms

So you're telling him to bid on Proskauer Newark when he has no ties to jersey, and the summer class was 3 people last year after like 40 got callbacks? I also don't agree that Seward should be in his top 10, he can certainly place firms with more grade selectivity in order not to waste a bid. He has a decent shot of getting Seward on a preselect. Cadwalader gives 84 interview slots, he can put them a bit lower as well.

OP, you should focus on the highest gpa rank firms up top, and any other ones you want that are only 21 slots that you want to prioritize. Otherwise, your list looks pretty solid. However, letting you know that Mayer Brown is a wasted bid unless you put them in your top 5, everybody and their mother is going to go after them because they gave out a few offers last year. I also heard the Proskauer office in NY doesn't care about kids that are not on Law Review and were very rude last year during screeners, there's a thread on here that recently discussed this so take a look around.

.

Anonymous User wrote:are you on a journal? moot?

Nah, I'm not on either.

Anonymous User wrote:Its a good bid. its true that you can overbid... if u were top 10% then i'd say don't bid on Seward, but a 3.5 isn't high enough to prevent them from giving u a callback/offer

Good thing OP is nowhere close to a 3.5

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Its a good bid. its true that you can overbid... if u were top 10% then i'd say don't bid on Seward, but a 3.5 isn't high enough to prevent them from giving u a callback/offer

Good thing OP is nowhere close to a 3.5

I'm not, but I think that person was responding to this post (not me):

Anonymous User wrote:Just wondering- is Seward a good bid for someone with around a 3.5 from Fordham? I heard rumors that if you bid on a firm that typically gets slightly lower gpas they might nix you as protection...

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:are you on a journal? moot?

Nah, I'm not on either.

just wondering why? by choice? in an interview you should be prepared to answer to employers why you arent on a journal

.