Former V5/V15 NYC Associate Involved with Hiring; AMA Forum

[Anonymous User]

Do grades matter at all for lateralling? If so, are there any rough guidelines for specific firms? Interested in the V15 in NYC. At a CCN and wondering if it's worth it to grind it out next year to have more options on the table if I want to move to another firm down the road - or if grades are a wash after law school. Thanks!

Not nearly as much, but firms will always ask for your transcript. It will matter more for some practice groups than others. For instance cap markets and debt finance groups probably wont nearly as much as some lit practices. But they will never truly disappear. When you're a midlevel, they will matter far far less than before, however, since at that point practice relevant experience will be more important. However, they may play a role if you, say, want to switch groups?

[Anonymous User]

Do grades matter at all for lateralling? If so, are there any rough guidelines for specific firms? Interested in the V15 in NYC. At a CCN and wondering if it's worth it to grind it out next year to have more options on the table if I want to move to another firm down the road - or if grades are a wash after law school. Thanks!

Not OP. I don't think grades play much of a role at all in lateralling, if you're just talking about the big NYC shops (except for Cravath which doesn't do laterals at the associate level I think?). Even the laterals that pop up from time to time on Wachtell's page aren't "magna" or "Kent" level and at least a handful came from lower T14s. I think practice group hiring needs play a much bigger role - e.g., if the firm's capital markets or restructuring practice is booming OR if not enough people from the summer program chose one of the niche areas like antitrust or tax and they could do with a few more cogs.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Can people who aren't me flag that briefly in their posts? Not a huge deal but just to clear up any confusion.

How do firms look at candidates who are graduating in December? For personal reasons, I may have to take a diminished courseload next year and thus end up graduating a semester late, so I'll have to find something for the intervening summer. I'm at a T20 if that matters.

Graduation date doesn't really matter in and of itself.

Applying for jobs at unusual times may matter, though (since firms might concentrate most of their expected hiring on standard OCI timing). Maybe there's an opportunity there in case of a firm trying to fill its numbers for groups it didn't hire enough for, though (e.g., we really need Cap Markets associates now, we hired a bunch of summers but they all wanted corp instead of lit, or similar).

Anon because some ppl here can identify me IRL.

I'm a 4th year, and starting to feel some burnout from these years in biglaw. In two years I'll be a senior associate and not all that eager to have that experience. My wife and I are thinking of planning a 6-12 month break with the money we have to travel and try and experience life before it disappears amidst emails and draft headers. Would that effectively end any hope of coming back to biglaw? Have you seen this before? I'd like to think that I could come back at a lower midlevel status again.

It's really firm by firm. I've seen people at Debevoise and Covington do roughly what you described with no issues.

Talk to a partner you're on good terms with though and see if they're amenable to it. Like lolwutpar said, some firms do unpaid leave, and other firms may just be open to re-hiring you later on.

Do grades matter at all for lateralling? If so, are there any rough guidelines for specific firms? Interested in the V15 in NYC. At a CCN and wondering if it's worth it to grind it out next year to have more options on the table if I want to move to another firm down the road - or if grades are a wash after law school. Thanks!

They don't really matter. I've heard a friend suggest Gibson still cares, though, but that's entirely anecdotal (and second- or thirdhand).

That said, my advice would be to not check out entirely. The rule of thumb here is that a grade drop is fine, just don't have a transcript you'd be embarassed about. There's a chance someone will scan through your transcript even briefly, and if they see a bunch of Cs and stuff below the discretionary part of the curve, it's fair for someone looking to hire a qualified candidate to think you phoned it in a little too hard.

[Anonymous User]

I was rejected from a lateral interview because I didn't meet the firm's general grade threshold. I was about 1.5 years out of law school then, so maybe it would have mattered less after. That said, I dont think this was about grade drop, just general mediocre law school grades.

[Anonymous User]

I was rejected from a lateral interview because I didn't meet the firm's general grade threshold. I was about 1.5 years out of law school then, so maybe it would have mattered less after. That said, I dont think this was about grade drop, just general mediocre law school grades.

Curious what is considered a decent cumulative law school GPA, say from a CCN or even T14 in general? As in, at what point would it be like, OK grades aren’t the thing holding back this lateral applicant? 3.3? 3.5?

[Anonymous User]

OP.

I was rejected from a lateral interview because I didn't meet the firm's general grade threshold. I was about 1.5 years out of law school then, so maybe it would have mattered less after. That said, I dont think this was about grade drop, just general mediocre law school grades.

Yours is an earlier lateral move than most, but I'm surprised. For what it's worth, I lateraled myself around the 2.5-3 year mark. If you already have experience running deals of any type (and can speak coherently to that), you're probably past the point of most law firms looking too much at your grades.

I was rejected from a lateral interview because I didn't meet the firm's general grade threshold. I was about 1.5 years out of law school then, so maybe it would have mattered less after. That said, I dont think this was about grade drop, just general mediocre law school grades.

Curious what is considered a decent cumulative law school GPA, say from a CCN or even T14 in general? As in, at what point would it be like, OK grades aren’t the thing holding back this lateral applicant? 3.3? 3.5?

It's really context-specific, and that's if it even matters at all. In general, you'd probably be fine with a 3.3, at least at Columbia (it's the one I went to so I know it better, that's all).

The far bigger thing than grades is whether you have experience running deals and/or notable drafting experience, at least for corporate. You're less likely to have that in the first year or two, so grades might matter more. The whole point is that the firm you're moving to wants to hire someone who the old firm valued (like they're getting someone who can contribute, and wasn't just a dud at the old place). Everything is just a proxy for is this person going to be a decent contributor.

[gottagetouttahere]

How do firms look at candidates who are graduating in December? For personal reasons, I may have to take a diminished courseload next year and thus end up graduating a semester late, so I'll have to find something for the intervening summer. I'm at a T20 if that matters.

Graduation date doesn't really matter in and of itself.

Applying for jobs at unusual times may matter, though (since firms might concentrate most of their expected hiring on standard OCI timing). Maybe there's an opportunity there in case of a firm trying to fill its numbers for groups it didn't hire enough for, though (e.g., we really need Cap Markets associates now, we hired a bunch of summers but they all wanted corp instead of lit, or similar).

Could I PM you?

[Anonymous User]

How much does firm "prestige" actually matter for career progression/future opportunities?

[Anonymous User]

Do you have any tips on someone who is currently non-federal public interest, looking to switch to a private firm? Are there any tips or things that may public interest lawyers stand out as candidates that I should play up, if applicable?

[Anonymous User]

OP.

How much does firm "prestige" actually matter for career progression/future opportunities?

It matters to an extent, as long as it's targeted toward your field. You need to be way more specific here for me to actually give a targeted answer.

Are we talking big law vs. not big law? There's a big gap, unless the smaller law firm does is great in its own space and you want to move to a client.

Are we talking a V5 vs. a V50? It still depends on what you're doing. If you want to move to a tech company, Cooley/Gunderson/all those are just as good or better than any other firm you could be at. If you want to do life sciences transactions like licensing and collaboration agreements, surprise, Cravath doesn't do that. Vault rankings are shit except for, perhaps, comparing NYC corporate practices... they're literally created by emailing a bunch of associates and having them rank each firm 1-10. I'm sure there are people who rate every firm a 1 but the ones they like. It can have targeted relevance, though. There are only a few firms that really do a ton of public sell-side M&A, and they're WLRK, CSM, S&C, DPW, etc. If I'm a bank hiring a Cap Markets lawyer, DPW is actually really appealing because I know that person's been swamped with work this last year and can crank out an underwriter-side offering in their sleep. If we throw specialties out the window and I have two candidates who both did generic PE M&A for 3 years, I guess I'd pick the one who had more drafting experience and seemed more competent, but that's assuming I have ample time to get to know both candidates.

Overall, prestige can be used a proxy for competence when a future job has incomplete information on you. When it's crystal clear you have the desired experience and are a competent and likeable human being, prestige isn't gonna matter. When you have 100 candidates applying for a job, you can't bring them all in to sus out who's good and who's not, and it seems like a super close call between candidates, prestige is gonna matter more because the hiring person may try to fill in their informational gaps with relevant prestige. "Prestige" here meaning a reputation for being good in the applicable field, not reference to a Vault ranking or the like.

Does that make sense?

Do you have any tips on someone who is currently non-federal public interest, looking to switch to a private firm? Are there any tips or things that may public interest lawyers stand out as candidates that I should play up, if applicable?

What type of job is your current public interest job, and what kind of practice are you looking for at a private firm? How long have you been at the public interest job? This is incredibly broad/vague.

You'd have to play off your work experience, honestly. If your public interest job involves appearing in court and drafting legal docs, then yes, that's good experience that a junior firm lawyer may not have, and you should apply to firms that can make use of that specific experience. If you're working for Legal Aid and have no litigation experience, it will be much, much harder to convince a firm to hire you as a litigator, let alone a transactional attorney.

Clerking for a fed judge might help, though that's still not a guarantee.

[Anonymous User]

OP.

How much does firm "prestige" actually matter for career progression/future opportunities?

It matters to an extent, as long as it's targeted toward your field. You need to be way more specific here for me to actually give a targeted answer.

Are we talking big law vs. not big law? There's a big gap, unless the smaller law firm does is great in its own space and you want to move to a client.

Are we talking a V5 vs. a V50? It still depends on what you're doing. If you want to move to a tech company, Cooley/Gunderson/all those are just as good or better than any other firm you could be at. If you want to do life sciences transactions like licensing and collaboration agreements, surprise, Cravath doesn't do that. Vault rankings are shit except for, perhaps, comparing NYC corporate practices... they're literally created by emailing a bunch of associates and having them rank each firm 1-10. I'm sure there are people who rate every firm a 1 but the ones they like. It can have targeted relevance, though. There are only a few firms that really do a ton of public sell-side M&A, and they're WLRK, CSM, S&C, DPW, etc. If I'm a bank hiring a Cap Markets lawyer, DPW is actually really appealing because I know that person's been swamped with work this last year and can crank out an underwriter-side offering in their sleep. If we throw specialties out the window and I have two candidates who both did generic PE M&A for 3 years, I guess I'd pick the one who had more drafting experience and seemed more competent, but that's assuming I have ample time to get to know both candidates.

Overall, prestige can be used a proxy for competence when a future job has incomplete information on you. When it's crystal clear you have the desired experience and are a competent and likeable human being, prestige isn't gonna matter. When you have 100 candidates applying for a job, you can't bring them all in to sus out who's good and who's not, and it seems like a super close call between candidates, prestige is gonna matter more because the hiring person may try to fill in their informational gaps with relevant prestige. "Prestige" here meaning a reputation for being good in the applicable field, not reference to a Vault ranking or the like.

Does that make sense?

Do you have any tips on someone who is currently non-federal public interest, looking to switch to a private firm? Are there any tips or things that may public interest lawyers stand out as candidates that I should play up, if applicable?

What type of job is your current public interest job, and what kind of practice are you looking for at a private firm? How long have you been at the public interest job? This is incredibly broad/vague.

You'd have to play off your work experience, honestly. If your public interest job involves appearing in court and drafting legal docs, then yes, that's good experience that a junior firm lawyer may not have, and you should apply to firms that can make use of that specific experience. If you're working for Legal Aid and have no litigation experience, it will be much, much harder to convince a firm to hire you as a litigator, let alone a transactional attorney.

Clerking for a fed judge might help, though that's still not a guarantee.

I work at Legal Aid in consumer and housing (mostly estate matters). I have litigated a few times in chancery and general sessions court.

In law school, I wanted to do transactional but I don’t think that’s my best option at the moment. At least, to get my foot in the door.

[Anonymous User]

OP.

I work at Legal Aid in consumer and housing (mostly estate matters). I have litigated a few times in chancery and general sessions court.

In law school, I wanted to do transactional but I don’t think that’s my best option at the moment. At least, to get my foot in the door.

Got it. If you're applying for a litigation position, definitely highlight that litigation experience in your resume, especially everything substantive that came with it. If you're aware of any firms that specifically practice in the courts you've appeared in, you might have a larger in with those. I know next to nothing about estate work, but if there's a firm you're aware of that does that kind of work, try to spin your experience there. Essentially, you're most desirable to firms that your work experience is relevant to.

The other option is to find a firm that desperately needs people in some group. It's on you to find firms in your desired area that need bodies and don't mind retraining people. In this case, a recruiter might help, honestly, since your only goal here is to cast your net as widely as you can and apply until someone bites.

You ARE limited by your past work experience, though, and how long you've been doing it (if you've been in Legal Aid for five years, I'd think it'd be obscenely hard to pitch yourself for private practice unless what you've been doing ties in directly with what the firm does).

[Anonymous User]

OP.

I work at Legal Aid in consumer and housing (mostly estate matters). I have litigated a few times in chancery and general sessions court.

In law school, I wanted to do transactional but I don’t think that’s my best option at the moment. At least, to get my foot in the door.

Got it. If you're applying for a litigation position, definitely highlight that litigation experience in your resume, especially everything substantive that came with it. If you're aware of any firms that specifically practice in the courts you've appeared in, you might have a larger in with those. I know next to nothing about estate work, but if there's a firm you're aware of that does that kind of work, try to spin your experience there. Essentially, you're most desirable to firms that your work experience is relevant to.

The other option is to find a firm that desperately needs people in some group. It's on you to find firms in your desired area that need bodies and don't mind retraining people. In this case, a recruiter might help, honestly, since your only goal here is to cast your net as widely as you can and apply until someone bites.

You ARE limited by your past work experience, though, and how long you've been doing it (if you've been in Legal Aid for five years, I'd think it'd be obscenely hard to pitch yourself for private practice unless what you've been doing ties in directly with what the firm does).

Thank you. I am hoping that since it is only my second year, it won't limit me. I know that each year it is increasingly harder to craft a narrative though.

[Anonymous User]

OP.

How much does firm "prestige" actually matter for career progression/future opportunities?

It matters to an extent, as long as it's targeted toward your field. You need to be way more specific here for me to actually give a targeted answer.

Are we talking big law vs. not big law? There's a big gap, unless the smaller law firm does is great in its own space and you want to move to a client.

Does that make sense?

All big law, I'm splitting this summer with two firms in the V20, in a non-NYC major market. One's headquartered in the city though and is usually regarded as better in that city, but the other is known for having a stronger practice in the area that I think I'm going to want to go into. My classmates all think I'd be dumb going to the lower 'ranked' firm

[Anonymous User]

Hi OP, thanks for responding to my earlier question about grades for lateralling. Starting a new thread because that one was getting a bit long. You mentioned the importance of being able to "run deals." Can you share any tips on what law students can do to get a handle on what corporate work - and particularly M&A - is like? Are there any "technical" books/guides that you would recommend people to read while in law school/as a junior associate (e.g., I've seen "The Art of M&A" and investment banking valuation books thrown around on the forum but don't know how useful they are) or any particular classes/workshops that are helpful? (I'm at CLS, btw) Thanks!!

[Anonymous User]

OP.

It matters to an extent, as long as it's targeted toward your field. You need to be way more specific here for me to actually give a targeted answer.

Are we talking big law vs. not big law? There's a big gap, unless the smaller law firm does is great in its own space and you want to move to a client.

Does that make sense?

All big law, I'm splitting this summer with two firms in the V20, in a non-NYC major market. One's headquartered in the city though and is usually regarded as better in that city, but the other is known for having a stronger practice in the area that I think I'm going to want to go into. My classmates all think I'd be dumb going to the lower 'ranked' firm

I take it the "lower ranked" one here is the latter firm? No harm in picking something stronger in your practice area, all else equal (aside from general "prestige"). Honestly, there's prestige and there's relevant prestige (i.e., reputation within that specialty). A growing tech company likely isn't going to value S&C over Cooley, for example.

• If you're excited about the practice group you're targeting, you're in great hands. If your firm's better known in that space and has better clients, you'll get more chances to work with clients you'd rather move to eventually. It'd feel pretty stupid to crave project finance but pick Paul, Weiss over Milbank, for example.
• If you have no idea what practice you might like but a couple sound sort of interesting, then the general prestige is a little bit of a hedge, in the sense that you're not putting all your eggs in the basket of a particular practice group you're not even sure you'll like. It might make sense to pick the firm with the higher general "prestige," assuming that "prestige" translates to corporate (or lit or whatever's relevant) practices that are generally stronger across the board.

But in your case, it doesn't seem like there's that big a difference between the two anyway. Go with your gut and you probably won't regret it either way. I can weigh in more if you give more specifics.

Hi OP, thanks for responding to my earlier question about grades for lateralling. Starting a new thread because that one was getting a bit long. You mentioned the importance of being able to "run deals." Can you share any tips on what law students can do to get a handle on what corporate work - and particularly M&A - is like? Are there any "technical" books/guides that you would recommend people to read while in law school/as a junior associate (e.g., I've seen "The Art of M&A" and investment banking valuation books thrown around on the forum but don't know how useful they are) or any particular classes/workshops that are helpful? (I'm at CLS, btw) Thanks!!

You don't need to do any prep, honestly. If you really wanted to, you could just read financial articles from time to time (even just scan the WSJ news, this isn't a high bar). Take one of those M&A deals workshop seminars at CLS (the one I took was with two S&C partners), that was actually an easy introduction without too much pressure.

I say the above because you don't really need to get ahead. It's insanely hard to. When you're a first year, your main goal is to just be reliable - nobody's needs (or even wants) you to be a genius, because you're still not going to get the chance to run a giant M&A deal as a first year. People will give you more responsibilities once you've proven you're reliable with the more basic ones. If you're my junior associate on a deal, it's my role to explain what's happening, give you visibility into whatever you're not working on (where possible) and teach you what you don't know to get the tasks you're assigned done. It's your role to follow directions, not make sloppy mistakes, communicate effectively (including telling me what you don't know, if it's not obvious), work hard and soak up what you're seeing along the way.

When you're finally the most senior associate working on the deal, you'll be "running the deal," i.e., taking charge of running the process, drafting the primary deal documents, etc.

That said, if M&A's your focus, I promise you it's not the most complex area of corporate law. It's a frenetic clusterfuck where everyone's killing themselves because one company's at the end of its lifecycle and there's a lot of money on the line, but the process itself is not complex. There's also a near-infinite amount of precedent (precedent meaning, in a corporate law context, deal docs for recent deals similar to the one you're doing now), and your goal is to plagiarize precedent as much as possible, changing the terms only for what's different for your deal and what's negotiated.

tl;dr Just show up at your firm and work hard/be reliable. The rest will follow.

[Anonymous User]

How much of a difference does having Wachtell on your resume make for joining another firm/going in house?

[Anonymous User]

OP.

How much of a difference does having Wachtell on your resume make for joining another firm/going in house?

Please don't ask questions as vague and sweeping as this. It's more meaningful for me to help people with specific questions that are useful to them. The only response to a question as vague as this is an equally vague (and terribly generalized) answer.

Try to provide some detail on your circumstances and what your actual goals are.

If you go to another firm for the same practice you did at WLRK (I'll assume M&A), I'll probably assume based off the name alone that you're diligent and responsive, and have put in a lot of hours (at least as much as anyone else in your class year) drilling all the things M&A lawyers do. You don't have to convince me of your knowledge/qualifications as much, so the real burden's just to not seem like a colossal prick.

As for in-house, I'd give you a slight leg up if you're looking at a general M&A role for a public company (or a company that deals with shareholder activists at all). Same with any role involving corporate governance work and similar. If it's a more niche role that your work experience at WLRK is irrelevant to, then the WLRK name obviously isn't going to matter. It's common sense. If the job you're applying to takes advantage of parts of the WLRK experience that are hard to find elsewhere (like public M&A, espec. sell-side, activism and such), then you'll have as good a shot as anyone else applying, all else equal.

[Anonymous User]

OP.

It matters to an extent, as long as it's targeted toward your field. You need to be way more specific here for me to actually give a targeted answer.

Are we talking big law vs. not big law? There's a big gap, unless the smaller law firm does is great in its own space and you want to move to a client.

Does that make sense?

All big law, I'm splitting this summer with two firms in the V20, in a non-NYC major market. One's headquartered in the city though and is usually regarded as better in that city, but the other is known for having a stronger practice in the area that I think I'm going to want to go into. My classmates all think I'd be dumb going to the lower 'ranked' firm

I take it the "lower ranked" one here is the latter firm? No harm in picking something stronger in your practice area, all else equal (aside from general "prestige"). Honestly, there's prestige and there's relevant prestige (i.e., reputation within that specialty). A growing tech company likely isn't going to value S&C over Cooley, for example.

• If you're excited about the practice group you're targeting, you're in great hands. If your firm's better known in that space and has better clients, you'll get more chances to work with clients you'd rather move to eventually. It'd feel pretty stupid to crave project finance but pick Paul, Weiss over Milbank, for example.
• If you have no idea what practice you might like but a couple sound sort of interesting, then the general prestige is a little bit of a hedge, in the sense that you're not putting all your eggs in the basket of a particular practice group you're not even sure you'll like. It might make sense to pick the firm with the higher general "prestige," assuming that "prestige" translates to corporate (or lit or whatever's relevant) practices that are generally stronger across the board.

But in your case, it doesn't seem like there's that big a difference between the two anyway. Go with your gut and you probably won't regret it either way. I can weigh in more if you give more specifics.

Hi OP, thanks for responding to my earlier question about grades for lateralling. Starting a new thread because that one was getting a bit long. You mentioned the importance of being able to "run deals." Can you share any tips on what law students can do to get a handle on what corporate work - and particularly M&A - is like? Are there any "technical" books/guides that you would recommend people to read while in law school/as a junior associate (e.g., I've seen "The Art of M&A" and investment banking valuation books thrown around on the forum but don't know how useful they are) or any particular classes/workshops that are helpful? (I'm at CLS, btw) Thanks!!

You don't need to do any prep, honestly. If you really wanted to, you could just read financial articles from time to time (even just scan the WSJ news, this isn't a high bar). Take one of those M&A deals workshop seminars at CLS (the one I took was with two S&C partners), that was actually an easy introduction without too much pressure.

I say the above because you don't really need to get ahead. It's insanely hard to. When you're a first year, your main goal is to just be reliable - nobody's needs (or even wants) you to be a genius, because you're still not going to get the chance to run a giant M&A deal as a first year. People will give you more responsibilities once you've proven you're reliable with the more basic ones. If you're my junior associate on a deal, it's my role to explain what's happening, give you visibility into whatever you're not working on (where possible) and teach you what you don't know to get the tasks you're assigned done. It's your role to follow directions, not make sloppy mistakes, communicate effectively (including telling me what you don't know, if it's not obvious), work hard and soak up what you're seeing along the way.

When you're finally the most senior associate working on the deal, you'll be "running the deal," i.e., taking charge of running the process, drafting the primary deal documents, etc.

That said, if M&A's your focus, I promise you it's not the most complex area of corporate law. It's a frenetic clusterfuck where everyone's killing themselves because one company's at the end of its lifecycle and there's a lot of money on the line, but the process itself is not complex. There's also a near-infinite amount of precedent (precedent meaning, in a corporate law context, deal docs for recent deals similar to the one you're doing now), and your goal is to plagiarize precedent as much as possible, changing the terms only for what's different for your deal and what's negotiated.

tl;dr Just show up at your firm and work hard/be reliable. The rest will follow.

Thanks OP!

[Anonymous User]

Not sure if OP is still checking this thread, but I had a question about transferring and BigLaw hiring. Got one grade back and expect to make low Stone at CLS (assuming all Bs for the remaining classes, but no discretionary grades lol). Want to land a summer gig at a big NYC corporate shop like CSM/PW/DPW and, from earlier posts in this thread and from anecdotal information, I think I should be able to end up with something in NYC.

My question is: Would I be disadvantaged if I transfer to HLS and interview for the same firms? Not sure (1) where I would stand in the HLS class as a Columbia transfer and (2) if some or all of these NYC firms would be less likely to hire me after I transfer. I do have substantive reasons for transferring, because I'd like to go into academia down the road, but still want to do BigLaw for a few years to pay off loans, get practical experience, etc. Would appreciate any insights!

[Anonymous User]

Not sure if OP is still checking this thread, but I had a question about transferring and BigLaw hiring. Got one grade back and expect to make low Stone at CLS (assuming all Bs for the remaining classes, but no discretionary grades lol). Want to land a summer gig at a big NYC corporate shop like CSM/PW/DPW and, from earlier posts in this thread and from anecdotal information, I think I should be able to end up with something in NYC.

My question is: Would I be disadvantaged if I transfer to HLS and interview for the same firms? Not sure (1) where I would stand in the HLS class as a Columbia transfer and (2) if some or all of these NYC firms would be less likely to hire me after I transfer. I do have substantive reasons for transferring, because I'd like to go into academia down the road, but still want to do BigLaw for a few years to pay off loans, get practical experience, etc. Would appreciate any insights!

I'm not the OP, but I attend CLS. Would HLS even accept a low Stone CLS transfer? I also don't think your substantive reasons for transferring are particularly substantive: academia is a tall lift for anyone, let alone with your current grades, and you need to develop relationships with professors and probably clerk, which seems like it would be even harder if you transfer.

[Anonymous User]

Not sure if OP is still checking this thread, but I had a question about transferring and BigLaw hiring. Got one grade back and expect to make low Stone at CLS (assuming all Bs for the remaining classes, but no discretionary grades lol). Want to land a summer gig at a big NYC corporate shop like CSM/PW/DPW and, from earlier posts in this thread and from anecdotal information, I think I should be able to end up with something in NYC.

My question is: Would I be disadvantaged if I transfer to HLS and interview for the same firms? Not sure (1) where I would stand in the HLS class as a Columbia transfer and (2) if some or all of these NYC firms would be less likely to hire me after I transfer. I do have substantive reasons for transferring, because I'd like to go into academia down the road, but still want to do BigLaw for a few years to pay off loans, get practical experience, etc. Would appreciate any insights!

I'm not the OP, but I attend CLS. Would HLS even accept a low Stone CLS transfer? I also don't think your substantive reasons for transferring are particularly substantive: academia is a tall lift for anyone, let alone with your current grades, and you need to develop relationships with professors and probably clerk, which seems like it would be even harder if you transfer.

Hi there! I'm definitely not going the traditional route (stellar grades, prestigious clerkship, etc.). Like you said, my grades aren't great haha. Hoping to get a PhD in another field and going the "interdisciplinary" route later on, and Harvard has a program I'm really interested in. I guess I am wondering if anyone could speak to EIP outcomes for CCN transfers. I realize whether I will even be admitted is important, but I'm not looking to delve into that question here (as a side note, HLS' incoming class of 2023 was much smaller than usual, so I thought I might as well give it a shot LOL). But if I would served better staying at CLS for EIP purposes, I guess I won't even think about transferring.

[Anonymous User]

OP.

Not sure if OP is still checking this thread, but I had a question about transferring and BigLaw hiring. Got one grade back and expect to make low Stone at CLS (assuming all Bs for the remaining classes, but no discretionary grades lol). Want to land a summer gig at a big NYC corporate shop like CSM/PW/DPW and, from earlier posts in this thread and from anecdotal information, I think I should be able to end up with something in NYC.

My question is: Would I be disadvantaged if I transfer to HLS and interview for the same firms? Not sure (1) where I would stand in the HLS class as a Columbia transfer and (2) if some or all of these NYC firms would be less likely to hire me after I transfer. I do have substantive reasons for transferring, because I'd like to go into academia down the road, but still want to do BigLaw for a few years to pay off loans, get practical experience, etc. Would appreciate any insights!

I don't think transferring to Harvard will hurt your chances at the big NYC firms. That said, it won't help them either.

That said, I'd just caution you that you're not guaranteed to be able to transfer to HLS with those grades (no clue on transfer chances, don't ask me on that, but I can at least say you shouldn't count on it). Also, if you really want academia, you need to start writing ASAP. If you do begin your career in big law, it'll be incredibly hard to find time to write then.

I don't think getting a PhD in another field helps your chances with legal academia. Writing does. I guess the PhD might help with some academic job generally but I don't know anything about academia that's not at a law school.

[Anonymous User]

OP.

Not sure if OP is still checking this thread, but I had a question about transferring and BigLaw hiring. Got one grade back and expect to make low Stone at CLS (assuming all Bs for the remaining classes, but no discretionary grades lol). Want to land a summer gig at a big NYC corporate shop like CSM/PW/DPW and, from earlier posts in this thread and from anecdotal information, I think I should be able to end up with something in NYC.

My question is: Would I be disadvantaged if I transfer to HLS and interview for the same firms? Not sure (1) where I would stand in the HLS class as a Columbia transfer and (2) if some or all of these NYC firms would be less likely to hire me after I transfer. I do have substantive reasons for transferring, because I'd like to go into academia down the road, but still want to do BigLaw for a few years to pay off loans, get practical experience, etc. Would appreciate any insights!

I don't think transferring to Harvard will hurt your chances at the big NYC firms. That said, it won't help them either.

That said, I'd just caution you that you're not guaranteed to be able to transfer to HLS with those grades (no clue on transfer chances, don't ask me on that, but I can at least say you shouldn't count on it). Also, if you really want academia, you need to start writing ASAP. If you do begin your career in big law, it'll be incredibly hard to find time to write then.

I don't think getting a PhD in another field helps your chances with legal academia. Writing does. I guess the PhD might help with some academic job generally but I don't know anything about academia that's not at a law school.

Just a question regarding PhDs. How do firms look at candidates with that degree, particularly the social science kind? I'm looking into NYC corporate, and quite curious if the PhD would be a plus or a liability. I'm around median at T6

[Anonymous User]

I'm a district court clerk on a two-year term that will finish in August 2022. The post-clerkship hiring thread from this year paints a somewhat bleak picture. What is your sense of when I should be applying for post-clerkship gigs, and to the extent that you've interviewed people coming off of clerkships, is there anything they more commonly screw up / anything you'd recommend we stay away from in interviewing/applying?