firms in terms of grade selectivity Forum

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
SLS_AMG

Bronze
Posts: 500
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:18 pm

Re: firms in terms of grade selectivity

Post by SLS_AMG » Wed Jul 09, 2014 1:01 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote: I'm pretty sure the bolded does not accurately describe how the CLS honors report works. It does not reflect only offers accepted by the student - it captures all offers "extended." So 97% really means 97% of all offers given were to stone+; there aren't median applicants hiding in the woodwork who turned down the big firms.

You make some other fair points, esp re: pressure to take a sweatshop b/c of the name cache, and it's true that vault =/= selectivity and too many people mistake the too, but lets not get ahead of ourselves.

Quoted anon--thought people were reporting some sort of S&C honors reports. Good call. Sorry about that.

At least at my school there are slightly above median applicants who turned down S&C for other v15 firms (and sometimes firms in other markets). A close friend is one of those people.
Incredible how you seem to know everyone's grades at your school, their offers, etc. You know multiple minorities and women who have below median grades at Cravath. You know multiple people from current and past years who were around median at S&C. You know people who had grades around median that turned down S&C for other firms. I'm genuinely curious as to how and why you seem to know so many people's grades.

User avatar
jbagelboy

Diamond
Posts: 10361
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: firms in terms of grade selectivity

Post by jbagelboy » Wed Jul 09, 2014 1:25 am

Anonymous User wrote:HYS grad here. Only SullCrom and Williams & Connelly have hard, high grade cutoffs at HYS. Everywhere else is flexible, within reason (i.e. a person at median would not get automatically ruled out). SullCrom seems to make decisions based primarily on grades, often absorbing the high-performing students who didn't get offers from more desirable New York firms.

Obviously better grades will make you a more competitive candidate, all things being equal, but grades matter a lot less than you think. Having a technical background, a specialization, valuable work experience, or just coming across as hardworking and non-irritating adds more value than being "above median" as opposed to "median," or "near the top" as opposed to "above median." And on the margins, that's what makes the difference.
Yea, I mean this holds true across the top schools. An MS EE will sweep. Median isn't 'automatically' ruled out at any firm, but statistically speaking it's not likely and when you're giving advise for constructing a bid list, moderation is the name of the game at median and below.

Everyone has a story.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: firms in terms of grade selectivity

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Jul 09, 2014 1:32 am

Anonymous User wrote:Based on what I've read, I disagree with the above post. This is what I've found (ALL NYC):

Very attainable at median at CCN:
Weil

Attainable at median, but reach-y:
Skadden
Latham
Sidley

Slightly more difficult:
Kirkland
STB
Debevoise
Cleary

Difficult:
Gibson
Davis Polk
Paul Weiss
Cravath

Impossible/almost impossible
Covington (? not sure)
S&C
WLRK
W&C
considering ~10% of the class got an offer at S&C, "impossible" is quite a stretch. It's very doable with good grades. And Covington NY definitely isn't as competitive. WLRK and W&C are typically single digits though. I find it interesting how different people's opinions of Paul Weiss' competitiveness is. Some people have placed it above STB and Cleary, others below.

To me this back and forth suggests that between S&C and debevoise they are all too similar in terms of grade cutoffs to even have these type of lists since everyone's "experience" is overlapping but also contradictory. net it out to even.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: firms in terms of grade selectivity

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Jul 09, 2014 1:56 am

Anonymous User wrote:Based on what I've read, I disagree with the above post. This is what I've found (ALL NYC):

Very attainable at median at CCN:
Weil

Attainable at median, but reach-y:
Skadden
Latham
Sidley

Slightly more difficult:
Kirkland
STB
Debevoise
Cleary

Difficult:
Gibson
Davis Polk
Paul Weiss
Cravath

Impossible/almost impossible
Covington (? not sure)
S&C
WLRK
W&C
I've compared bidlists with multiple people at CCN, and seen the more specific stats from one of those schools. And the above breakdown is very off re: Kirkland, STB, Skadden, Latham, Weil, and Covington. Weil Latham Kirkland are very much in a group for selectivity, especially NY. Skadden might be Slightly more selective, but not in a meaningful way. And STB is a hair above Skadden.

Covington NY doesn't compare to it's DC office for this criterion.

Wearthewildthingsr

New
Posts: 94
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:18 pm

Re: firms in terms of grade selectivity

Post by Wearthewildthingsr » Wed Jul 09, 2014 2:19 am

this thread makes my head hurt. Why would you... advise people to choose such high firms with medianish grades even at CCN?

Jeez people don't understand you gotta be conservative?

Want to continue reading?

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Absolutely FREE!


Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: firms in terms of grade selectivity

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Jul 09, 2014 3:05 am

Anonymous User wrote:HYS grad here. Only SullCrom and Williams & Connelly have hard, high grade cutoffs at HYS. Everywhere else is flexible, within reason (i.e. a person at median would not get automatically ruled out). SullCrom seems to make decisions based primarily on grades, often absorbing the high-performing students who didn't get offers from more desirable New York firms.
What? You're not mistaking S&C for another firm are you? This is surprising to me--at my T14, the cutoff didn't seem to be that high. Slightly above top 1/3, definitely below 1/4.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: firms in terms of grade selectivity

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Jul 09, 2014 3:29 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Based on what I've read, I disagree with the above post. This is what I've found (ALL NYC):

Very attainable at median at CCN:
Weil

Attainable at median, but reach-y:
Skadden
Latham
Sidley

Slightly more difficult:
Kirkland
STB
Debevoise
Cleary

Difficult:
Gibson
Davis Polk
Paul Weiss
Cravath

Impossible/almost impossible
Covington (? not sure)
S&C
WLRK
W&C

Covington NY doesn't compare to it's DC office for this criterion.
That's an absolutely ridiculous (and ungrammatical) thing to say.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: firms in terms of grade selectivity

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Jul 09, 2014 5:44 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Based on what I've read, I disagree with the above post. This is what I've found (ALL NYC):

Very attainable at median at CCN:
Weil

Attainable at median, but reach-y:
Skadden
Latham
Sidley

Slightly more difficult:
Kirkland
STB
Debevoise
Cleary

Difficult:
Gibson
Davis Polk
Paul Weiss
Cravath

Impossible/almost impossible
Covington (? not sure)
S&C
WLRK
W&C

Covington NY doesn't compare to it's DC office for this criterion.
That's an absolutely ridiculous (and ungrammatical) thing to say.
Whoa grammar police, sorry to offend your holy grammarness. Oops, more grammer mistakes. D'oh, spelling one right ther.

But in all seriousness, the bar for Covington NY was considerably lower than DC. There aren't very many data points, obviously, but there are enough for me--and at least one other poster--to make an assessment about both offices.

Edit: Do you work at Covington NY? Be honest...

Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: firms in terms of grade selectivity

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Jul 09, 2014 6:53 am

SLS_AMG wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote: I'm pretty sure the bolded does not accurately describe how the CLS honors report works. It does not reflect only offers accepted by the student - it captures all offers "extended." So 97% really means 97% of all offers given were to stone+; there aren't median applicants hiding in the woodwork who turned down the big firms.

You make some other fair points, esp re: pressure to take a sweatshop b/c of the name cache, and it's true that vault =/= selectivity and too many people mistake the too, but lets not get ahead of ourselves.

Quoted anon--thought people were reporting some sort of S&C honors reports. Good call. Sorry about that.

At least at my school there are slightly above median applicants who turned down S&C for other v15 firms (and sometimes firms in other markets). A close friend is one of those people.
Incredible how you seem to know everyone's grades at your school, their offers, etc. You know multiple minorities and women who have below median grades at Cravath. You know multiple people from current and past years who were around median at S&C. You know people who had grades around median that turned down S&C for other firms. I'm genuinely curious as to how and why you seem to know so many people's grades.
In short, people stop caring when it comes time to get a job. Close friends share grades/bidlists, talk interview strategy, left transcripts lying around, etc. Some 3Ls were pretty forthcoming with grades while helping 2Ls with OCI and others were eager to share their accomplishments.

To be honest, though, I'm not here to convince skeptical 3Ls, recent grads, or those at CSM/S&C who refuse to believe they're walking around with mere mortals, I'm here to share my experience and potentially help rising 2Ls.

Want to continue reading?

Register for access!

Did I mention it was FREE ?


Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: firms in terms of grade selectivity

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Jul 09, 2014 11:53 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Based on what I've read, I disagree with the above post. This is what I've found (ALL NYC):

Very attainable at median at CCN:
Weil

Attainable at median, but reach-y:
Skadden
Latham
Sidley

Slightly more difficult:
Kirkland
STB
Debevoise
Cleary

Difficult:
Gibson
Davis Polk
Paul Weiss
Cravath

Impossible/almost impossible
Covington (? not sure)
S&C
WLRK
W&C
I've compared bidlists with multiple people at CCN, and seen the more specific stats from one of those schools. And the above breakdown is very off re: Kirkland, STB, Skadden, Latham, Weil, and Covington. Weil Latham Kirkland are very much in a group for selectivity, especially NY. Skadden might be Slightly more selective, but not in a meaningful way. And STB is a hair above Skadden.

Covington NY doesn't compare to it's DC office for this criterion.

What do you mean Weil Latham Kirkland are in a group? You mean they are similarly (non)selective or they are all very selective?

iliketurtles123

Bronze
Posts: 267
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:14 pm

Re: firms in terms of grade selectivity

Post by iliketurtles123 » Wed Jul 09, 2014 11:54 am

Wearthewildthingsr wrote:this thread makes my head hurt. Why would you... advise people to choose such high firms with medianish grades even at CCN?

Jeez people don't understand you gotta be conservative?
Maybe you should read the entire thread

User avatar
DELG

Gold
Posts: 3021
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 7:15 pm

Re: firms in terms of grade selectivity

Post by DELG » Wed Jul 09, 2014 11:58 am

Anonymous User wrote:

Covington NY doesn't compare to it's DC office for this criterion.
That's an absolutely ridiculous (and ungrammatical) thing to say.
wait are you saying cov ny is as selective as cov dc

Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: firms in terms of grade selectivity

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Jul 09, 2014 12:02 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:HYS grad here. Only SullCrom and Williams & Connelly have hard, high grade cutoffs at HYS. Everywhere else is flexible, within reason (i.e. a person at median would not get automatically ruled out). SullCrom seems to make decisions based primarily on grades, often absorbing the high-performing students who didn't get offers from more desirable New York firms.
What? You're not mistaking S&C for another firm are you? This is surprising to me--at my T14, the cutoff didn't seem to be that high. Slightly above top 1/3, definitely below 1/4.
I'm this anon. I'm not saying that the grade cutoff was super-high, just that it existed and was above median. The poster was talking about what reach firms to apply to given she is at median. Even if the SullCrom cutoff was "just" top third, that poster would be auto-rejected.

People often conflate offer-selectivity with desirableness. SullCrom simply will not consider people at median, so in that way they are more offer-selective than nearly all firms who recruit at my school. However, many top students choose firms like Cravath, Davis Polk, Covington DC, or Paul Weiss over SullCrom, firms that would consider people at median. So you can't simply look at who is going to which firm to figure out which firm is the most selective in this particular way.

Also, work experience and technical background (or experience and/or interest in patent work) are much more important than female or minority status. Work isn't university; for better or for worse, the firms don't care that much about diversity. I know several minorities with below-median stats, and all got firm offers from non-selective firms (as in firms/offices not listed on this thread) despite their good personalities and the fact that we were at HYS.

Register now!

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.

It's still FREE!


User avatar
2014

Platinum
Posts: 6028
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:53 pm

Re: firms in terms of grade selectivity

Post by 2014 » Wed Jul 09, 2014 12:36 pm

I'm going to say this once more for my conscience and then give up. You are safe bidding all NYC firms at "median" from Uchi except wachtell. You sure as hell don't need honors/LR type grades (though I concede like everyone at CLS is a stone scholar so that means different things here)

User avatar
rayiner

Platinum
Posts: 6145
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: firms in terms of grade selectivity

Post by rayiner » Wed Jul 09, 2014 12:54 pm

I think all these six-tier lists are missing a basic point. Just CSM, S&C, Skadden, DPW, Cleary, STB, and Weil probably hire 600+ summer associates in New York every year. 40-50% of them will come from just three schools: Harvard, Columbia, and NYU. There's maybe 1,400 students between those schools. So ~20% of the class at each of these schools is ending up at one of these seven firms, more at Columbia/NYU and less at Harvard. Thus, it's really not possible for these firms to be particularly selective at these schools.

The general impression is correct that S&C is more willing to take top 5% at a T50 than median at CCN, but aside from that, all these firms will go to median, sometimes below, to get summer associates. They couldn't fill their classes otherwise. They don't take everyone at median or above, but your interview will matter much more than your grades at that point.

Making these six-tier lists creates an impression of more precision than actually exists in this process. Those who are basing their conclusions on historical offer data should note that the year-to-year fluctuation in these numbers is huge, and seems artificially precise when averaged together.

SLS_AMG

Bronze
Posts: 500
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:18 pm

Re: firms in terms of grade selectivity

Post by SLS_AMG » Wed Jul 09, 2014 12:56 pm

2014 wrote:I'm going to say this once more for my conscience and then give up. You are safe bidding all NYC firms at "median" from Uchi except wachtell. You sure as hell don't need honors/LR type grades (though I concede like everyone at CLS is a stone scholar so that means different things here)
So at Harvard you have to be top 40% to have a chance at S&C, but at UChicago you only have to be at median. Got it.

User avatar
Crowing

Gold
Posts: 2631
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:20 pm

Re: firms in terms of grade selectivity

Post by Crowing » Wed Jul 09, 2014 1:07 pm

SLS_AMG wrote:
2014 wrote:I'm going to say this once more for my conscience and then give up. You are safe bidding all NYC firms at "median" from Uchi except wachtell. You sure as hell don't need honors/LR type grades (though I concede like everyone at CLS is a stone scholar so that means different things here)
So at Harvard you have to be top 40% to have a chance at S&C, but at UChicago you only have to be at median. Got it.
What makes you say you need top 40% at HLS to get S&C?

Get unlimited access to all forums and topics

Register now!

I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...


User avatar
jbagelboy

Diamond
Posts: 10361
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: firms in terms of grade selectivity

Post by jbagelboy » Wed Jul 09, 2014 1:59 pm

Crowing wrote:
SLS_AMG wrote:
2014 wrote:I'm going to say this once more for my conscience and then give up. You are safe bidding all NYC firms at "median" from Uchi except wachtell. You sure as hell don't need honors/LR type grades (though I concede like everyone at CLS is a stone scholar so that means different things here)
So at Harvard you have to be top 40% to have a chance at S&C, but at UChicago you only have to be at median. Got it.
What makes you say you need top 40% at HLS to get S&C?
It's the generally quoted figure. 5+ H. You can browse the HLS EIP thread and see.

Anyway, I don't think firms really understand your grading scale so everything looks either pretty good or terrible and maybe that works to your advantage? I don't know - but honestly considering sullivan is one of the most awkward-friendly firms, if they were pulling regularly from median-ish at Chicago, the summer class numbers would look different.

It's tough to compare honestly because from what I can tell many of the best chicago kids summer at Chi offices like K&E or aim for DC; less are trying for the ny superhouses than HCN. So yea, you guys aren't really comparable.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: firms in terms of grade selectivity

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Jul 09, 2014 2:30 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
By significant number, I meant that I know three personally (two this year, one last year). I think three is significant, especially when there may be more floating out there.

I also know two this year around median at S&C and two from the year prior. Keep in mind all of these people didn't accept, so they wouldn't show up on honors reports. There may also be some self-selection where people who have good grades and are on LR feel pressure to be at a prestigious firm (I know someone at my school who said he'd be embarrassed to go to his other offers because everyone on LR was at much better firms--I doubt this made his decision but I'm sure it influenced it).
As someone on the other side (i.e., at peer firm to S&C), I've learned that lots of people lie about offers they receive, even to their close friends. LOTS. If someone tells you they have medianish grades but turned down a Cravath offer, or an S&C offer, etc for an offer from a materially worse firm, your alarm bells should be going off unless you've seen the damn offer letter. Obviously, its very different if they're turning down S&C for Cleary.

None of which takes away from the larger point that there's more to resume than just grades, and more to a firm than prestige.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: firms in terms of grade selectivity

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Jul 09, 2014 3:43 pm

Interesting. We don't have hard data for S&C but some of the other firms being thrown around ITT as similarly selective have given callbacks to people at or below median. Obviously these people could be outliers, but the point is it's possible.

OCS says you should have a 178 for S&C but I don't know if that is worth anything since that is their general number for all selective firms (they cite LR for super selective firms like Wachtell).

Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: firms in terms of grade selectivity

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:20 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
By significant number, I meant that I know three personally (two this year, one last year). I think three is significant, especially when there may be more floating out there.

I also know two this year around median at S&C and two from the year prior. Keep in mind all of these people didn't accept, so they wouldn't show up on honors reports. There may also be some self-selection where people who have good grades and are on LR feel pressure to be at a prestigious firm (I know someone at my school who said he'd be embarrassed to go to his other offers because everyone on LR was at much better firms--I doubt this made his decision but I'm sure it influenced it).
As someone on the other side (i.e., at peer firm to S&C), I've learned that lots of people lie about offers they receive, even to their close friends. LOTS. If someone tells you they have medianish grades but turned down a Cravath offer, or an S&C offer, etc for an offer from a materially worse firm, your alarm bells should be going off unless you've seen the damn offer letter. Obviously, its very different if they're turning down S&C for Cleary.

None of which takes away from the larger point that there's more to resume than just grades, and more to a firm than prestige.

They were for firms like DPW, PW, and K&E Chicago. So it made sense to me.

Regardless, take my post for what it's worth. I think rayiner's post summarizes what I was trying to get across fairly well.

Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.

Register now, it's still FREE!


Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: firms in terms of grade selectivity

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:37 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:HYS grad here. Only SullCrom and Williams & Connelly have hard, high grade cutoffs at HYS. Everywhere else is flexible, within reason (i.e. a person at median would not get automatically ruled out). SullCrom seems to make decisions based primarily on grades, often absorbing the high-performing students who didn't get offers from more desirable New York firms.
What? You're not mistaking S&C for another firm are you? This is surprising to me--at my T14, the cutoff didn't seem to be that high. Slightly above top 1/3, definitely below 1/4.
I'm this anon. I'm not saying that the grade cutoff was super-high, just that it existed and was above median. The poster was talking about what reach firms to apply to given she is at median. Even if the SullCrom cutoff was "just" top third, that poster would be auto-rejected.

People often conflate offer-selectivity with desirableness. SullCrom simply will not consider people at median, so in that way they are more offer-selective than nearly all firms who recruit at my school. However, many top students choose firms like Cravath, Davis Polk, Covington DC, or Paul Weiss over SullCrom, firms that would consider people at median. So you can't simply look at who is going to which firm to figure out which firm is the most selective in this particular way.

Also, work experience and technical background (or experience and/or interest in patent work) are much more important than female or minority status. Work isn't university; for better or for worse, the firms don't care that much about diversity. I know several minorities with below-median stats, and all got firm offers from non-selective firms (as in firms/offices not listed on this thread) despite their good personalities and the fact that we were at HYS.
Anon responding. Yeah, I understand your rationale, just surprised because there are firms out there known for being more selective than S&C at CCN and below. Maybe they're more lenient at H...I dunno. The ones I'm talking about are Wachtell, WilCo, Munger. At my school typically 1-2 get those firms, and not every year. But there are many more at S&C, and the GPAs of those offer/cb recipients were for sure lower.

User avatar
Yukos

Gold
Posts: 1774
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 12:47 pm

Re: firms in terms of grade selectivity

Post by Yukos » Wed Jul 09, 2014 10:03 pm

Anonymous User wrote: Anon responding. Yeah, I understand your rationale, just surprised because there are firms out there known for being more selective than S&C at CCN and below. Maybe they're more lenient at H...I dunno. The ones I'm talking about are Wachtell, WilCo, Munger. At my school typically 1-2 get those firms, and not every year. But there are many more at S&C, and the GPAs of those offerees were for sure lower.
I think the disconnect is because S&C's cutoffs do not drop as much across tiers of schools as other firms do. This is a completely false hypothetical, but imagine MTO requires top 1% from MVP, top 5% from CCN and top 20% from HYS, while S&C requires top 15% from MVPCCNHYS. UPenn kid thinks MTO >> S&C (as far as selectivity) and HLS kid thinks S&C > MTO, and they're both right.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: firms in terms of grade selectivity

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Jul 09, 2014 10:03 pm

Can anyone speak to how hard the S&C cutoff is at H? For example, if you had 3H/1DS instead of 5H.

Neal Patrick Harris

Bronze
Posts: 240
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: firms in terms of grade selectivity

Post by Neal Patrick Harris » Wed Jul 09, 2014 10:10 pm

Yukos wrote:
Anonymous User wrote: Anon responding. Yeah, I understand your rationale, just surprised because there are firms out there known for being more selective than S&C at CCN and below. Maybe they're more lenient at H...I dunno. The ones I'm talking about are Wachtell, WilCo, Munger. At my school typically 1-2 get those firms, and not every year. But there are many more at S&C, and the GPAs of those offerees were for sure lower.
I think the disconnect is because S&C's cutoffs do not drop as much across tiers of schools as other firms do. This is a completely false hypothetical, but imagine MTO requires top 1% from MVP, top 5% from CCN and top 20% from HYS, while S&C requires top 15% from MVPCCNHYS. UPenn kid thinks MTO >> S&C (as far as selectivity) and HLS kid thinks S&C > MTO, and they're both right.
I like you. Why weren't you here three pages ago.

Seriously? What are you waiting for?

Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!


Post Reply Post Anonymous Reply  

Return to “Legal Employment”