Top Law Schools

The threads are full of some semi old information and I was curious if people knew about their 3L hiring. I presume it's only open, if at all, to 2Ls who would have had a chance initially but went to peer firm, but was curious if anyone had an idea how strict/common it was.

I've been dinged by them three separate times as a 1L, 2L and 3L. No reason not to send an app just because you're a 3L.

Anonymous User wrote:I've been dinged by them three separate times as a 1L, 2L and 3L. No reason not to send an app just because you're a 3L.

do you mean you mass mailed, or did you have an OCI interview all three times?

jbagelboy wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I've been dinged by them three separate times as a 1L, 2L and 3L. No reason not to send an app just because you're a 3L.

do you mean you mass mailed, or did you have an OCI interview all three times?

Mass mailed so I've never had an interview. If I could just get in the room I know I could sway them...

My best friend works there. He's told me they don't hire 3L's, or even associates/SA's who've worked there before and then left/got fired/got no-offered. although lol isn't TCR not to gun for one firm?

Anonymous User wrote:My best friend works there. He's told me they don't hire 3L's, or even associates/SA's who've worked there before and then left/got fired/got no-offered. although lol isn't TCR not to gun for one firm?

they take clerks, so it seems bizarre to unilaterally dismiss 3Ls

jbagelboy wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:My best friend works there. He's told me they don't hire 3L's, or even associates/SA's who've worked there before and then left/got fired/got no-offered. although lol isn't TCR not to gun for one firm?

they take clerks, so it seems bizarre to unilaterally dismiss 3Ls

For what it's worth, most firms that have especially demanding hiring requirements don't hire 3Ls even though those firms will hire (and even have a preference for) clerks.

jbagelboy wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:My best friend works there. He's told me they don't hire 3L's, or even associates/SA's who've worked there before and then left/got fired/got no-offered. although lol isn't TCR not to gun for one firm?

they take clerks, so it seems bizarre to unilaterally dismiss 3Ls

Just what I've heard from my buddy. Although you shouldn't be fueling OP's WLRK 3L hiring dreams anyways...

rpupkin wrote:

jbagelboy wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:My best friend works there. He's told me they don't hire 3L's, or even associates/SA's who've worked there before and then left/got fired/got no-offered. although lol isn't TCR not to gun for one firm?

they take clerks, so it seems bizarre to unilaterally dismiss 3Ls

For what it's worth, most firms that have especially demanding hiring requirements don't hire 3Ls even though those firms will hire (and even have a preference for) clerks.

Actually not true at all, at least for NY/corporate firms. Cravath, S&C, and DPW all take tons of 3L's. WLRK doesn't

Anyone know anything about lateralling from CSM/S&C to WLRK after a few years? Does that happen often or is it an exception?

Anonymous User wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

jbagelboy wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:My best friend works there. He's told me they don't hire 3L's, or even associates/SA's who've worked there before and then left/got fired/got no-offered. although lol isn't TCR not to gun for one firm?

they take clerks, so it seems bizarre to unilaterally dismiss 3Ls

For what it's worth, most firms that have especially demanding hiring requirements don't hire 3Ls even though those firms will hire (and even have a preference for) clerks.

Actually not true at all, at least for NY/corporate firms. Cravath, S&C, and DPW all take tons of 3L's. WLRK doesn't

Those aren't the firms I'm thinking of. I don't think of those firms as having especially demanding hiring requirements.

Anonymous User wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

jbagelboy wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:My best friend works there. He's told me they don't hire 3L's, or even associates/SA's who've worked there before and then left/got fired/got no-offered. although lol isn't TCR not to gun for one firm?

they take clerks, so it seems bizarre to unilaterally dismiss 3Ls

For what it's worth, most firms that have especially demanding hiring requirements don't hire 3Ls even though those firms will hire (and even have a preference for) clerks.

Actually not true at all, at least for NY/corporate firms. Cravath, S&C, and DPW all take tons of 3L's. WLRK doesn't

At any rate, for those firms that DO take 3Ls, do they only do so through OCI? Or is there a point in the summer when it makes sense to start mass-mailing them?

Anonymous User wrote:

jbagelboy wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:My best friend works there. He's told me they don't hire 3L's, or even associates/SA's who've worked there before and then left/got fired/got no-offered. although lol isn't TCR not to gun for one firm?

they take clerks, so it seems bizarre to unilaterally dismiss 3Ls

Just what I've heard from my buddy. Although you shouldn't be fueling OP's WLRK 3L hiring dreams anyways...

What a weird view. It takes about 30 seconds to revise a cover letter, reread it and press send.

Plus this to me sounds like CSM "all of our partners are homegrown." And they all were. Until they actually needed to hire outside partners (or realized they would make more money in some instances). Are the laterals superstars? Yeah. But my point is that WLKR would probably hire a legit superstar 3L if they needed them rather than stick to "we don't hire 3Ls." No harm in sending it. Also, like you're saying, even if they literally don't hire 3Ls, that gives most people about the same chance they had applying as a 1L/2L.

There is no such thing as a superstar 3L though.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Just what I've heard from my buddy. Although you shouldn't be fueling OP's WLRK 3L hiring dreams anyways...

What a weird view. It takes about 30 seconds to revise a cover letter, reread it and press send.

Plus this to me sounds like CSM "all of our partners are homegrown." And they all were. Until they actually needed to hire outside partners (or realized they would make more money in some instances). Are the laterals superstars? Yeah. But my point is that WLKR would probably hire a legit superstar 3L if they needed them rather than stick to "we don't hire 3Ls." No harm in sending it. Also, like you're saying, even if they literally don't hire 3Ls, that gives most people about the same chance they had applying as a 1L/2L.

lol, cravath's "homegrown" shtick is certainly part myth at this point. true, they don't have many lateral partners, but they take lateral juniors in corporate who become partners, they have partners from DOJ who did a 1L SA at cravath ten years ago, they take clerks who summered at other firms, ect. that being said, they still keep it more in the family than other new york firms

Desert Fox wrote:There is no such thing as a superstar 3L though.

Yeah, I should have added that's obviously very unusual. In this context though, I just meant a person who can do something "better" than big law. And I think that's the case for at least a few SAs Wachtell is typically trying to recruit. That's why they end up with a low yield from the summer class.

Anonymous User wrote:That's why they end up with a low yield from the summer class.

I can think of at least one other really good reason.

Anyway why would WLRK care if you could do something other than biglaw versus actually having done it. Your opportunity cost makes you more expensive and risky, but not more valuable unless it means other skills. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your argument.

Also WLRK is not THAT unicorn-y. They have almost 30 SAs this year. This is going to be the most jbagel sentence I ever write, but I'm pretty sure one of the people in my class headed there isn't even in the top 5%.

beepboopbeep wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:That's why they end up with a low yield from the summer class.

I can think of at least one other really good reason.

Anyway why would WLRK care if you could do something other than biglaw versus actually having done it. Your opportunity cost makes you more expensive and risky, but not more valuable unless it means other skills. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your argument.

Also WLRK is not THAT unicorn-y. They have almost 30 SAs this year. This is going to be the most jbagel sentence I ever write, but I'm pretty sure one of the people in my class headed there isn't even in the top 5%.

(If the first sentence is a reference to bad work environment, yes that's probably true, but it reinforces my point because I don't think someone would leave WLRK because of that to start at S&C. They would probably just pass on typical NY big law).

Agree with all of the above. Clearly it would only apply to people with other skills or people who were really unicorny. Agreed that plenty of SAs aren't some ridiculous candidate. To pull a random example, this guy was Dartmouth summa with triple major in computer science, economics, and philosophy, then Yale Law/YLJ and two publications (http://wlrk.com/Jonathan-H-Choi/). I don't think it's crazy to say that firms would much rather have him (even though he's K-JD) than a CLS Stone or whatever. Even though they know someone like that has more of a chance of jumping ship. The expected value of hiring them is that much higher (especially when you take into account that the more junior partners at top firms usually have solid-to-ridiculous credentials. At least a few of the associates have to become partners).

Anonymous User wrote:

beepboopbeep wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:That's why they end up with a low yield from the summer class.

I can think of at least one other really good reason.

Anyway why would WLRK care if you could do something other than biglaw versus actually having done it. Your opportunity cost makes you more expensive and risky, but not more valuable unless it means other skills. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your argument.

Also WLRK is not THAT unicorn-y. They have almost 30 SAs this year. This is going to be the most jbagel sentence I ever write, but I'm pretty sure one of the people in my class headed there isn't even in the top 5%.

(If the first sentence is a reference to bad work environment, yes that's probably true, but it reinforces my point because I don't think someone would leave WLRK because of that to start at S&C. They would probably just pass on typical NY big law).

Agree with all of the above. Clearly it would only apply to people with other skills or people who were really unicorny. Agreed that plenty of SAs aren't some ridiculous candidate. To pull a random example, this guy was Dartmouth summa with triple major in computer science, economics, and philosophy, then Yale Law/YLJ and two publications (http://wlrk.com/Jonathan-H-Choi/). I don't think it's crazy to say that firms would much rather have him (even though he's K-JD) than a CLS Stone or whatever. Even though they know someone like that has more of a chance of jumping ship. The expected value of hiring them is that much higher (especially when you take into account that the more junior partners at top firms usually have ridiculous credentials. At least a few of the associates have to become partners).

Yea, fair enough. I think they'd wonder why a guy like him was on the 3L market, though, especially if the 2L firm was also NYC. You can tell a plausible story about changing markets (spouse got a job, sick family, etc). Hard when it's cross-town to avoid the appearance of no-offer.

By the way, to answer OP's original question: It looks like from NALP that WLRK hired 1 3L in 2013 and 2 in 2014.

beepboopbeep wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

beepboopbeep wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:That's why they end up with a low yield from the summer class.

I can think of at least one other really good reason.

Anyway why would WLRK care if you could do something other than biglaw versus actually having done it. Your opportunity cost makes you more expensive and risky, but not more valuable unless it means other skills. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your argument.

Also WLRK is not THAT unicorn-y. They have almost 30 SAs this year. This is going to be the most jbagel sentence I ever write, but I'm pretty sure one of the people in my class headed there isn't even in the top 5%.

(If the first sentence is a reference to bad work environment, yes that's probably true, but it reinforces my point because I don't think someone would leave WLRK because of that to start at S&C. They would probably just pass on typical NY big law).

Agree with all of the above. Clearly it would only apply to people with other skills or people who were really unicorny. Agreed that plenty of SAs aren't some ridiculous candidate. To pull a random example, this guy was Dartmouth summa with triple major in computer science, economics, and philosophy, then Yale Law/YLJ and two publications (http://wlrk.com/Jonathan-H-Choi/). I don't think it's crazy to say that firms would much rather have him (even though he's K-JD) than a CLS Stone or whatever. Even though they know someone like that has more of a chance of jumping ship. The expected value of hiring them is that much higher (especially when you take into account that the more junior partners at top firms usually have ridiculous credentials. At least a few of the associates have to become partners).

Yea, fair enough. I think they'd wonder why a guy like him was on the 3L market, though, especially if the 2L firm was also NYC. You can tell a plausible story about changing markets (spouse got a job, sick family, etc). Hard when it's cross-town to avoid the appearance of no-offer.

Oh didn't mean to mislead, I don't know for sure but I assume he summered as a 2L there. Just to make the point that if that resume comes to them from a 3L, I think they still hire them no matter what their policy would be. I think it's all moot though because they do hire 3Ls.

Anonymous User wrote: Oh didn't mean to mislead, I don't know for sure but I assume he summered as a 2L there. Just to make the point that if that resume comes to them from a 3L, I think they still hire them no matter what their policy would be. I think it's all moot though because they do hire 3Ls.

I think we're on the same page - I have no idea whether this particular guy summered there. Was just speaking hypothetically.

Yea I guess I'm a little more unsure whether you'd have the same chance. Obviously a serious candidate is going to get a look one way or another. I'd just imagine you'd have to get over some inevitable questions about whether you got no-offered or cold-offered by your summer firm.

Good data, thanks.

I'm at HYS and a 3L friend had an interview this spring. Said she was competing with clerks, so it's probably the same process. Didn't get an offer FWIW.

.

-