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

[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.

I was close with some professors at Columbia and they suggested that the easiest way to become a professor these days (assuming your focus is corporate-adjacent stuff) was to get a PhD in economics (see e.g. Josh Mitts) so I think whether the PhD helps depends on (1) what you'll be getting your PhD in, (2) the quality of the PhD program and (3) what type of legal academic you are trying to be.

[Anonymous User]

OP.

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

It's not necessarily a liability, but you should be prepared to answer the question why you left that field to go to law school in almost every interview. It's not because it's a ding but because people will be genuinely curious (especially since corporate law and a social sciences PhD, like Philosophy or whatever else, are very different things).

If your narrative for wanting to be a lawyer (or X kind of lawyer) makes sense, you're fine. It probably makes sense because people generally do have very sincere personal reasons for making your type of move. If it doesn't make sense, I could see it souring some people.

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?

Unfortunately, I have zero sense of timing for post-clerkship applications.

I haven't really interviewed post-clerkship candidates because I was in Corporate, so they generally tried to get them to interview with lit people. If I had to guess, though, I'd think the interviews would be very similar to your OCI process back in law school, especially for candidates who clerked right after graduating. If you can talk coherently about the things you worked on and saw during your clerkship, you'll do great. There aren't extra pitfalls at the interviewing stage vs. standard OCI, and if anything, you'll have much more to talk about with your interviewer having had the year plus of clerking.

I was close with some professors at Columbia and they suggested that the easiest way to become a professor these days (assuming your focus is corporate-adjacent stuff) was to get a PhD in economics (see e.g. Josh Mitts) so I think whether the PhD helps depends on (1) what you'll be getting your PhD in, (2) the quality of the PhD program and (3) what type of legal academic you are trying to be.

I could see this being possible. Victor Goldberg does exist (assuming he still teaches Contracts et al. at CLS). Hope it jives with the poster's research interests.

[Anonymous User]

OP.

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

It's not necessarily a liability, but you should be prepared to answer the question why you left that field to go to law school in almost every interview. It's not because it's a ding but because people will be genuinely curious (especially since corporate law and a social sciences PhD, like Philosophy or whatever else, are very different things).

If your narrative for wanting to be a lawyer (or X kind of lawyer) makes sense, you're fine. It probably makes sense because people generally do have very sincere personal reasons for making your type of move. If it doesn't make sense, I could see it souring some people.

Thanks for this, it's really helpful. If it's okay with you, could you let me know what sorts of reasons are persuasive, in general or based on your own experience interviewing candidates? I understand interviewers are genuinely curious, but at the same time, it is also true there is somewhat of a bias (at a minimum, a degree of skepticism re the candidates commitment to big law) that PhD holders have to overcome. I suspect they are expected to say something that goes beyond wanting exposure to a variety of clients across many different industrial sectors, which seems to suffice for kjds in many cases.

[Anonymous User]

Not OP, but based on familiarity with PhDs who went to law school: the persuasive narrative is usually whatever your reasons for wanting to be a lawyer actually are, minus anything suggesting that you couldn’t hack academia.

Something very common that I think goes over well is wanting to have a more immediate impact on your community - like, you did your PhD hoping to contribute to the world in X fashion, but as you’ve gone through the process you’ve realized that while academic research is important in the sense of contributing to knowledge in a broad sense, you’d like to see the results of your work really having an impact on people’s lives. You went into academia because you were interested in problem solving, but realized you’d like to address more real-world problems. (These answers can be adapted as appropriate to your work - if you were literally finding cures for cancer, for instance, maybe you don’t want to say law addresses more real world problems.)

Spitballing more generally, you went into academia to study Y, but as you’ve gone through the degree it’s become clear that a JD offers more opportunities really to pursue that interest (like you did a geology degree because you were interested in rocks but in the process realized you were more interested the disagreements over who gets to keep which rocks, which seemed like an area where a JD would be more relevant). If you’re in a solo author kind of field, you can say that you realized you wanted to do something that involved more collaboration. If you’re in a lab-type field with PIs and driven by grants, you could maybe talk about how the pursuit of funding gets in the way of doing the work and you’re looking for something where you can do what the work needs rather than drum up funding. (This might not fly well with a private firm because it might sound like you won’t want to bring in clients/develop a book of business, which ultimately you will have to to, and it might not fly with certain non-profits that do rely a lot on grants, but I’m just throwing it out there to get ideas going.)

I don’t think your answers have to be incredibly complex or detailed - I think as long as you can offer something plausible and sound excited about law, you’re probably good. The most important things for getting your foot in the biglaw door will be grades and school pedigree; if you have those, you just need to make interviewers like you and reassure them that the PhD doesn’t mean you’ll flee to academia at the first opportunity. I think if you can explain “why law at all,” “why biglaw” isn’t too much of an issue. (Biglaw recruiters assume everyone wants biglaw, you’ll just have to be able to say why *this* ginormous firm over the other ginormous firms.)

Depending on the context, you can maybe raise some of the issues with academia, things that are sort of neutral/don’t reflect on your ability - like if you’re applying to a local school/job, you can probably say something about how academic jobs require you to move anywhere and you’re committed to this particular community. You don’t want this to be bitching about how bad academia is, though, so much as showing your love for your community, and this is really only pertinent if you plan to stay in that community and/or the law school is regional. You do want to generally avoid talking about wanting law because academia sucks, but if there’s something academia doesn’t have but law does or vice versa that makes law appealing to you, sell that.

The big thing is to avoid anything that says “I couldn’t get an academic job and this seemed like the next best option.”

[Anonymous User]

Not OP, but based on familiarity with PhDs who went to law school: the persuasive narrative is usually whatever your reasons for wanting to be a lawyer actually are, minus anything suggesting that you couldn’t hack academia.

Something very common that I think goes over well is wanting to have a more immediate impact on your community - like, you did your PhD hoping to contribute to the world in X fashion, but as you’ve gone through the process you’ve realized that while academic research is important in the sense of contributing to knowledge in a broad sense, you’d like to see the results of your work really having an impact on people’s lives. You went into academia because you were interested in problem solving, but realized you’d like to address more real-world problems. (These answers can be adapted as appropriate to your work - if you were literally finding cures for cancer, for instance, maybe you don’t want to say law addresses more real world problems.)

Spitballing more generally, you went into academia to study Y, but as you’ve gone through the degree it’s become clear that a JD offers more opportunities really to pursue that interest (like you did a geology degree because you were interested in rocks but in the process realized you were more interested the disagreements over who gets to keep which rocks, which seemed like an area where a JD would be more relevant). If you’re in a solo author kind of field, you can say that you realized you wanted to do something that involved more collaboration. If you’re in a lab-type field with PIs and driven by grants, you could maybe talk about how the pursuit of funding gets in the way of doing the work and you’re looking for something where you can do what the work needs rather than drum up funding. (This might not fly well with a private firm because it might sound like you won’t want to bring in clients/develop a book of business, which ultimately you will have to to, and it might not fly with certain non-profits that do rely a lot on grants, but I’m just throwing it out there to get ideas going.)

I don’t think your answers have to be incredibly complex or detailed - I think as long as you can offer something plausible and sound excited about law, you’re probably good. The most important things for getting your foot in the biglaw door will be grades and school pedigree; if you have those, you just need to make interviewers like you and reassure them that the PhD doesn’t mean you’ll flee to academia at the first opportunity. I think if you can explain “why law at all,” “why biglaw” isn’t too much of an issue. (Biglaw recruiters assume everyone wants biglaw, you’ll just have to be able to say why *this* ginormous firm over the other ginormous firms.)

Depending on the context, you can maybe raise some of the issues with academia, things that are sort of neutral/don’t reflect on your ability - like if you’re applying to a local school/job, you can probably say something about how academic jobs require you to move anywhere and you’re committed to this particular community. You don’t want this to be bitching about how bad academia is, though, so much as showing your love for your community, and this is really only pertinent if you plan to stay in that community and/or the law school is regional. You do want to generally avoid talking about wanting law because academia sucks, but if there’s something academia doesn’t have but law does or vice versa that makes law appealing to you, sell that.

The big thing is to avoid anything that says “I couldn’t get an academic job and this seemed like the next best option.”

This is awesome. Thanks so much for such detailed response!

[Anonymous User]

Not OP but a lit senior involved in hiring at my boutique: the above is just great advice for law firm interviewing regardless of whether you need to explain why a PhD, why are you lateraling, why are you changing markets, why anything on your resume requiring a little grace and quality-signaling.

[Anonymous User]

Wrapped up 1L at CLS and got grades back this week. Feel like a failure. Did pretty well fall semester but burned out in the spring and received awful grades this semester. While most of my friends all seemed to get the hang of law school over time and saw marked improvement in their grades in the spring, I suffered more than a 0.20 point drop in my cumulative GPA and barely made Stone. I am just depressed and filled with self-hate right now.

Full disclosure: I didn’t go into 1L wanting some unicorn outcome. I literally just want to land a V5/V10 shop in NYC (not WLRK obviously) and now I feel like my dumpster fire of a spring semester shut the door on that goal. I don’t know how I’m going to explain the downwards trend in my grades if firms ask - they’ll probably think I’m weak if I just say I got physically and emotionally exhausted. Some people - at school and on this thread - say that Stone is more than enough for those firms...but I’m barely above the cutoff and don’t know how firms will interpret that. Is it enough if they see “Stone” on my resume, even if I made it by a hair? I hate myself for not trying harder in the spring. I guess I just wanted to vent, but would appreciate any advice to stave off the depression.

[Anonymous User]

Wrapped up 1L at CLS and got grades back this week. Feel like a failure. Did pretty well fall semester but burned out in the spring and received awful grades this semester. While most of my friends all seemed to get the hang of law school over time and saw marked improvement in their grades in the spring, I suffered more than a 0.20 point drop in my cumulative GPA and barely made Stone. I am just depressed and filled with self-hate right now.

Full disclosure: I didn’t go into 1L wanting some unicorn outcome. I literally just want to land a V5/V10 shop in NYC (not WLRK obviously) and now I feel like my dumpster fire of a spring semester shut the door on that goal. I don’t know how I’m going to explain the downwards trend in my grades if firms ask - they’ll probably think I’m weak if I just say I got physically and emotionally exhausted. Some people - at school and on this thread - say that Stone is more than enough for those firms...but I’m barely above the cutoff and don’t know how firms will interpret that. Is it enough if they see “Stone” on my resume, even if I made it by a hair? I hate myself for not trying harder in the spring. I guess I just wanted to vent, but would appreciate any advice to stave off the depression.

I mean this nonjudgmentally--time for a reality check. S&C prefers 3.5+, but if you are Stone, you are realistically competitive for any non-WLRK firm; the GPA more often than not really is just a binary acceptable/not acceptable. The process has a great amount of randomness and factors outside your control (are you in a target demographic for hiring? are you corp or lit or in an in-demand field? etc.), but congrats on Stone and approach EIP with the sense that you are a solid candidate for V5/V10, which you are. And feel free to take this with a grain of salt, but I do not know you and therefore do not care enough about you to lie.

Personality, maturity, and prior experiences matter. So accept that your GPA makes you competitive and turn your attention to those things (in other words, interview skills). You will be fine.

[Anonymous User]

Poster above is spot on. You are at a top law school and you have solid credentials. That's all you need to get your foot in the door. Focus on nailing your interviews. I will tell you that personality and humor are by far the biggest factors in our interviews; we want to know if we can enjoy spending 12+ hours a day grinding on a deal with you.

[Anonymous User]

Wrapped up 1L at CLS and got grades back this week. Feel like a failure. Did pretty well fall semester but burned out in the spring and received awful grades this semester. While most of my friends all seemed to get the hang of law school over time and saw marked improvement in their grades in the spring, I suffered more than a 0.20 point drop in my cumulative GPA and barely made Stone. I am just depressed and filled with self-hate right now.

Full disclosure: I didn’t go into 1L wanting some unicorn outcome. I literally just want to land a V5/V10 shop in NYC (not WLRK obviously) and now I feel like my dumpster fire of a spring semester shut the door on that goal. I don’t know how I’m going to explain the downwards trend in my grades if firms ask - they’ll probably think I’m weak if I just say I got physically and emotionally exhausted. Some people - at school and on this thread - say that Stone is more than enough for those firms...but I’m barely above the cutoff and don’t know how firms will interpret that. Is it enough if they see “Stone” on my resume, even if I made it by a hair? I hate myself for not trying harder in the spring. I guess I just wanted to vent, but would appreciate any advice to stave off the depression.

Current rising 3L at CLS. Everything is going to be ok. While Wachtell and S&C are (probably) not going to happen, you should have a solid shot at every other firm in the V10. Your goal now should be to learn about the bidding process and do practice interviews to sharpen your interviewing skills. I would be surprised if interviewers asked you about your drop-off in grades.

Regardless of how you got there, Stone at CLS is a good place to be when hunting for V10 jobs.

[Anonymous User]

OP.

Wrapped up 1L at CLS and got grades back this week. Feel like a failure. Did pretty well fall semester but burned out in the spring and received awful grades this semester. While most of my friends all seemed to get the hang of law school over time and saw marked improvement in their grades in the spring, I suffered more than a 0.20 point drop in my cumulative GPA and barely made Stone. I am just depressed and filled with self-hate right now.

Full disclosure: I didn’t go into 1L wanting some unicorn outcome. I literally just want to land a V5/V10 shop in NYC (not WLRK obviously) and now I feel like my dumpster fire of a spring semester shut the door on that goal. I don’t know how I’m going to explain the downwards trend in my grades if firms ask - they’ll probably think I’m weak if I just say I got physically and emotionally exhausted. Some people - at school and on this thread - say that Stone is more than enough for those firms...but I’m barely above the cutoff and don’t know how firms will interpret that. Is it enough if they see “Stone” on my resume, even if I made it by a hair? I hate myself for not trying harder in the spring. I guess I just wanted to vent, but would appreciate any advice to stave off the depression.

Like all the posters said, you're fine. You're Stone. None of your dreams are out of reach and the only things that might hold you back in interviews are your personality and bid list, not your grades.

I'd caution you to never say what you posted here aloud to anyone else in your law school class. It's not pleasant to hear someone complain they're disgusted with grades that are better than at least 60% of the rest of their class, if not more.

[Anonymous User]

OP.

Wrapped up 1L at CLS and got grades back this week. Feel like a failure. Did pretty well fall semester but burned out in the spring and received awful grades this semester. While most of my friends all seemed to get the hang of law school over time and saw marked improvement in their grades in the spring, I suffered more than a 0.20 point drop in my cumulative GPA and barely made Stone. I am just depressed and filled with self-hate right now.

Full disclosure: I didn’t go into 1L wanting some unicorn outcome. I literally just want to land a V5/V10 shop in NYC (not WLRK obviously) and now I feel like my dumpster fire of a spring semester shut the door on that goal. I don’t know how I’m going to explain the downwards trend in my grades if firms ask - they’ll probably think I’m weak if I just say I got physically and emotionally exhausted. Some people - at school and on this thread - say that Stone is more than enough for those firms...but I’m barely above the cutoff and don’t know how firms will interpret that. Is it enough if they see “Stone” on my resume, even if I made it by a hair? I hate myself for not trying harder in the spring. I guess I just wanted to vent, but would appreciate any advice to stave off the depression.

Like all the posters said, you're fine. You're Stone. None of your dreams are out of reach and the only things that might hold you back in interviews are your personality and bid list, not your grades.

I'd caution you to never say what you posted here aloud to anyone else in your law school class. It's not pleasant to hear someone complain they're disgusted with grades that are better than at least 60% of the rest of their class, if not more.

Thanks OP and the other posters. <3 Feeling a lot better now after reading through all your advice. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like (1) Stone vs. non-Stone is an on-off switch and (2) once you hit Stone, you should have a realistic shot at V10 firms (sans WLRK and SullCrom)? I was initially worried it was more of a sliding scale all the way up to Kent (e.g., DPW would definitely prefer a 3.6 over a 3.41)...

[Anonymous User]

OP.

Wrapped up 1L at CLS and got grades back this week. Feel like a failure. Did pretty well fall semester but burned out in the spring and received awful grades this semester. While most of my friends all seemed to get the hang of law school over time and saw marked improvement in their grades in the spring, I suffered more than a 0.20 point drop in my cumulative GPA and barely made Stone. I am just depressed and filled with self-hate right now.

Full disclosure: I didn’t go into 1L wanting some unicorn outcome. I literally just want to land a V5/V10 shop in NYC (not WLRK obviously) and now I feel like my dumpster fire of a spring semester shut the door on that goal. I don’t know how I’m going to explain the downwards trend in my grades if firms ask - they’ll probably think I’m weak if I just say I got physically and emotionally exhausted. Some people - at school and on this thread - say that Stone is more than enough for those firms...but I’m barely above the cutoff and don’t know how firms will interpret that. Is it enough if they see “Stone” on my resume, even if I made it by a hair? I hate myself for not trying harder in the spring. I guess I just wanted to vent, but would appreciate any advice to stave off the depression.

Like all the posters said, you're fine. You're Stone. None of your dreams are out of reach and the only things that might hold you back in interviews are your personality and bid list, not your grades.

I'd caution you to never say what you posted here aloud to anyone else in your law school class. It's not pleasant to hear someone complain they're disgusted with grades that are better than at least 60% of the rest of their class, if not more.

Thanks OP and the other posters. <3 Feeling a lot better now after reading through all your advice. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like (1) Stone vs. non-Stone is an on-off switch and (2) once you hit Stone, you should have a realistic shot at V10 firms (sans WLRK and SullCrom)? I was initially worried it was more of a sliding scale all the way up to Kent (e.g., DPW would definitely prefer a 3.6 over a 3.41)...

Everyone prefers a 3.65 to a 3.45, it just doesn't make a big difference for everyone but WLRK and Sullcrom. How you place is going to depend primarily on your i) pre-law employment; and ii) how well your interviews go; and iii) go well you "fit" with each firm.

[Anonymous User]

OP.

Wrapped up 1L at CLS and got grades back this week. Feel like a failure. Did pretty well fall semester but burned out in the spring and received awful grades this semester. While most of my friends all seemed to get the hang of law school over time and saw marked improvement in their grades in the spring, I suffered more than a 0.20 point drop in my cumulative GPA and barely made Stone. I am just depressed and filled with self-hate right now.

Full disclosure: I didn’t go into 1L wanting some unicorn outcome. I literally just want to land a V5/V10 shop in NYC (not WLRK obviously) and now I feel like my dumpster fire of a spring semester shut the door on that goal. I don’t know how I’m going to explain the downwards trend in my grades if firms ask - they’ll probably think I’m weak if I just say I got physically and emotionally exhausted. Some people - at school and on this thread - say that Stone is more than enough for those firms...but I’m barely above the cutoff and don’t know how firms will interpret that. Is it enough if they see “Stone” on my resume, even if I made it by a hair? I hate myself for not trying harder in the spring. I guess I just wanted to vent, but would appreciate any advice to stave off the depression.

Like all the posters said, you're fine. You're Stone. None of your dreams are out of reach and the only things that might hold you back in interviews are your personality and bid list, not your grades.

I'd caution you to never say what you posted here aloud to anyone else in your law school class. It's not pleasant to hear someone complain they're disgusted with grades that are better than at least 60% of the rest of their class, if not more.

Thanks OP and the other posters. <3 Feeling a lot better now after reading through all your advice. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like (1) Stone vs. non-Stone is an on-off switch and (2) once you hit Stone, you should have a realistic shot at V10 firms (sans WLRK and SullCrom)? I was initially worried it was more of a sliding scale all the way up to Kent (e.g., DPW would definitely prefer a 3.6 over a 3.41)...

Everyone prefers a 3.65 to a 3.45, it just doesn't make a big difference for everyone but WLRK and Sullcrom. How you place is going to depend primarily on your i) pre-law employment; and ii) how well your interviews go; and iii) go well you "fit" with each firm.

Rising 3L at CLS at S&C - this is correct. It also makes a huge difference what your preferences are. Everyone wants people interested in corporate work, particularly M&A, because that's where the $ is being made these days. A lower GPA from someone who goes full bore corporate preference will go further than a moderately higher GPA from a lit-only candidate. If you are litigation focused, GPA will become more relevant for more firms outside S&C or WLRK.

[Anonymous User]

OP.

Wrapped up 1L at CLS and got grades back this week. Feel like a failure. Did pretty well fall semester but burned out in the spring and received awful grades this semester. While most of my friends all seemed to get the hang of law school over time and saw marked improvement in their grades in the spring, I suffered more than a 0.20 point drop in my cumulative GPA and barely made Stone. I am just depressed and filled with self-hate right now.

Full disclosure: I didn’t go into 1L wanting some unicorn outcome. I literally just want to land a V5/V10 shop in NYC (not WLRK obviously) and now I feel like my dumpster fire of a spring semester shut the door on that goal. I don’t know how I’m going to explain the downwards trend in my grades if firms ask - they’ll probably think I’m weak if I just say I got physically and emotionally exhausted. Some people - at school and on this thread - say that Stone is more than enough for those firms...but I’m barely above the cutoff and don’t know how firms will interpret that. Is it enough if they see “Stone” on my resume, even if I made it by a hair? I hate myself for not trying harder in the spring. I guess I just wanted to vent, but would appreciate any advice to stave off the depression.

Like all the posters said, you're fine. You're Stone. None of your dreams are out of reach and the only things that might hold you back in interviews are your personality and bid list, not your grades.

I'd caution you to never say what you posted here aloud to anyone else in your law school class. It's not pleasant to hear someone complain they're disgusted with grades that are better than at least 60% of the rest of their class, if not more.

Thanks OP and the other posters. <3 Feeling a lot better now after reading through all your advice. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like (1) Stone vs. non-Stone is an on-off switch and (2) once you hit Stone, you should have a realistic shot at V10 firms (sans WLRK and SullCrom)? I was initially worried it was more of a sliding scale all the way up to Kent (e.g., DPW would definitely prefer a 3.6 over a 3.41)...

Everyone prefers a 3.65 to a 3.45, it just doesn't make a big difference for everyone but WLRK and Sullcrom. How you place is going to depend primarily on your i) pre-law employment; and ii) how well your interviews go; and iii) go well you "fit" with each firm.

Rising 3L at CLS at S&C - this is correct. It also makes a huge difference what your preferences are. Everyone wants people interested in corporate work, particularly M&A, because that's where the $ is being made these days. A lower GPA from someone who goes full bore corporate preference will go further than a moderately higher GPA from a lit-only candidate. If you are litigation focused, GPA will become more relevant for more firms outside S&C or WLRK.

Got it. LOL, I'm actually "full bore corporate" (and M&A, in particular), so that's good to hear! :DD

[Anonymous User]

Rising 3L at CLS at S&C - this is correct. It also makes a huge difference what your preferences are. Everyone wants people interested in corporate work, particularly M&A, because that's where the $ is being made these days. A lower GPA from someone who goes full bore corporate preference will go further than a moderately higher GPA from a lit-only candidate. If you are litigation focused, GPA will become more relevant for more firms outside S&C or WLRK.

No candidate should be telling any full-service firm that they are litigation-focused. Even if the resume screams litigation, not expressing seemingly earnest interest in exploring corporate work for (possibly fake) reasons 1 & 2 is a total amateur move.

[beepboopbeep]

Rising 3L at CLS at S&C - this is correct. It also makes a huge difference what your preferences are. Everyone wants people interested in corporate work, particularly M&A, because that's where the $ is being made these days. A lower GPA from someone who goes full bore corporate preference will go further than a moderately higher GPA from a lit-only candidate. If you are litigation focused, GPA will become more relevant for more firms outside S&C or WLRK.

No candidate should be telling any full-service firm that they are litigation-focused. Even if the resume screams litigation, not expressing seemingly earnest interest in exploring corporate work for (possibly fake) reasons 1 & 2 is a total amateur move.

Bad bait and nice anon

[Anonymous User]

Rising 3L at CLS at S&C - this is correct. It also makes a huge difference what your preferences are. Everyone wants people interested in corporate work, particularly M&A, because that's where the $ is being made these days. A lower GPA from someone who goes full bore corporate preference will go further than a moderately higher GPA from a lit-only candidate. If you are litigation focused, GPA will become more relevant for more firms outside S&C or WLRK.

No candidate should be telling any full-service firm that they are litigation-focused. Even if the resume screams litigation, not expressing seemingly earnest interest in exploring corporate work for (possibly fake) reasons 1 & 2 is a total amateur move.

Bad bait and nice anon

How is that bait at all? Are you seriously suggesting that lit-focused candidates would be well served by pigeonholing themselves into a more selective field unnecessarily?

[beepboopbeep]

It's a sufficiently bad take that it's hard to believe anyone would assert it in good faith. People have to actually practice after getting hired. Believe it or not, people have preferences for being litigators or corporate attorneys. There are probably some candidates who don't know enough about their preferences or are marginal for getting biglaw, and who would be well-served paying lip service to interest in corporate work. But it's hardly advice that should apply to every candidate.

[Anonymous User]

Rising 3L at CLS at S&C - this is correct. It also makes a huge difference what your preferences are. Everyone wants people interested in corporate work, particularly M&A, because that's where the $ is being made these days. A lower GPA from someone who goes full bore corporate preference will go further than a moderately higher GPA from a lit-only candidate. If you are litigation focused, GPA will become more relevant for more firms outside S&C or WLRK.

No candidate should be telling any full-service firm that they are litigation-focused. Even if the resume screams litigation, not expressing seemingly earnest interest in exploring corporate work for (possibly fake) reasons 1 & 2 is a total amateur move.

Bad bait and nice anon

How is that bait at all? Are you seriously suggesting that lit-focused candidates would be well served by pigeonholing themselves into a more selective field unnecessarily?

CLS S&C summer anon - for what its worth I was sort of an A&B test for this as I'm totally litigation focused. I did day 1 of EIP with high stone grades expressing only lit interest and got callbacks from either boutiques or big firms that still have lit going on (a smaller group) but didn't at a few NY firms that my gpa alone would suggest I should get. I shifted a bit for next two days to express some openness to corporate work and got like 90+% callbacks. I think it's not bait to say if you want to keep all options available, you shouldn't say I'm only litigation.

[beepboopbeep]

To be clear, I have no problem with saying it's sometimes a good strategic call to feign interest in corporate. It's just not advice that should apply to all lit-focused candidates. Have been on both sides of the table on this.

[Anonymous User]

To be clear, I have no problem with saying it's sometimes a good strategic call to feign interest in corporate. It's just not advice that should apply to all lit-focused candidates. Have been on both sides of the table on this.

Totally - I think it's a more viable strat now given the disparities in demand though it seems litigation practice is growing w the pandemic coming to end.

[Anonymous User]

It's a sufficiently bad take that it's hard to believe anyone would assert it in good faith. People have to actually practice after getting hired. Believe it or not, people have preferences for being litigators or corporate attorneys. There are probably some candidates who don't know enough about their preferences or are marginal for getting biglaw, and who would be well-served paying lip service to interest in corporate work. But it's hardly advice that should apply to every candidate.

OP of the original advice. To be clear, I was not suggesting that lit-focused candidates should interview at corporate-focused firms (WLRK, Cadwalader, etc.) under false pretenses. Also not suggesting they should feign corporate interest while interviewing at Quinn or GDC or the like.

But as far as all the firms in-between--S&C, K&E, L&W, CSM, STB, etc.--I am struggling to understand your perspective at all. We are not talking about laterals here; this is purely for EIP. So we are talking about post-1Ls attempting to secure 2L SA positions where (with few exceptions) they can explore whatever they want and face no possibility of being boxed into some field they have no interest in.

Within that context, I would recommend to everyone, including those that are 100% lit-focused, to signal openness to trying things during the summer and to have a reason or two why corporate work could be interesting.

You suggest--reasonably--that that advice should not apply to everyone lit-focused. For the sake of refining the advice, to whom, specifically, would that advice not apply?

[beepboopbeep]

For one, "signalling openness to corporate" is a goalpost-shift from "no candidate should be telling firms they are litigation focused". You can say lit focused but open to trying both. That's super common. I interviewed people like that all the time at my old firm.

The danger of signalling corporate interest too hard just for the sake of getting an offer is, like, for example: You're a marginal candidate for some firm for lit, but they need corporate bodies. So you say yea I'm 50/50 and get that offer over some lower ranked, lit focused place. They offer you in part because corp interest. You go summer there. Do some of both. Get a corporate offer. Some firms are pretty inflexible about how post-summer offers extend, and the offer you get is what you're stuck with. You cannot come back and join the lit department. Now you are a 3L who's stuck trying to swap at 3L OCI, or you bite the bullet and go join the corporate post-grad, maybe try to switch back to lit, but it's going to create some friction and you may just not be able to.

This or a variant on it happened to several law school friends/acquaintances. They generally just bit the bullet and tried corp. And they generally left their firms the earliest.

The point is just what I said earlier: you have to actually go do this job after getting it. The point is not just to get hired; it's to practice. That's true whether your goal is just to tolerate the job long enough to pay off loans, or to try to make a career out of it. If you are actually lit-focused, and you could have gotten a lit-focused offer to begin with, you're better off just pursuing that for the get-go, even if you have to (gasp) practice at a V20 instead of a v10. If you're undecided, or actually open to trying both, it's generally fine to say that and maybe strategically better to do so. But if you feign too much interest in corporate work and you legitimately don't want to do it, there is some danger that you'll get what you're asking for.

[beepboopbeep]

The other reason I just don't think it's universalizable advice is that some people just have actually strong lit preferences plus have the grades/school to not need to play OCI/EIP this strategically. If you're e.g. top 10% at a T14 and not an atrocious interviewer, you'll probably snag a lit offer somewhere. It just doesn't really matter if you miss S&C or Latham by not feigning corporate interest. Again, it's different if you're a more marginal candidate and in those cases you don't have as much room to be picky (and I'd advise those people to more strongly signal openness to corporate given the current hiring market).