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

[Anonymous User]

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.

Fair enough. I would assume that someone who is "litigation-focused" before an SA does not sound particularly open to corporate work, but your experience obviously suggests otherwise. For the record, I was not suggesting that candidates signal equal interest in lit and corp--acknowledging that law school has created an interest in lit does not rise to the level of "focus" for me.

The danger of signalling corporate interest too hard just for the sake of getting an off r 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.

What V10 firms do this?

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.

That "somewhere" could be a single offer, as it was for some of my T6 classmates. Some people have stronger preferences, or higher standards, if you will, than getting "some" lit offer "somewhere."

[beepboopbeep]

I have no idea which V10 firms give out strict group-specific offers, but your advice wasn't limited to V10s. There are "full-service" firms up and down the Vs. I don't have data on it, but my sense is that strict group-specific return offers aren't totally widespread but aren't uncommon either. And if anything I think the danger here is probably highest the more that a firm bills itself as full-service while the power center of the firm is heavily corporate.

It strikes me as weird to say that candidates with "strong preference" for lit and "higher standards" should be strategizing to get into NYC V10 full-service firms by feigning corporate interest. Not to get into the entire Vault debate, but Vault rank is only loosely correlated with strength of lit practice, especially outside of NYC. There are loads of "lower" V firms I'd take over non-Cravath/GDC V10s for strongly lit-focused candidates even excluding the elite boutiques, most of which aren't highly Vault-ranked. Those are the firms the lit candidates with strong preferences and high standards were targeting at my T6 (self included).

Ultimately I don't think we disagree on a whole lot -- I'd definitely advise a more marginal candidate or those with weaker preferences for lit to pay lip service to being interested in corporate work. I just don't think it's a risk-free move, and if you're in a position where you can self-select a little more during OCI/EIP, it's not a risk I'd take -- keeping in mind that you have to go work at where you get hired, it's worth approaching interviews (especially callbacks) with an eye toward filtering out places that aren't a good fit for your goals and preferences. But we have gone back and forth a decent bit and I don't want to derail OP's thread. If I end up with a slower period I may eventually do my own AMA from the perspective of lit boutique hiring.

[Anonymous User]

I think we are still talking past each other. Ultimately, you say the strategy carries risk and need not be employed by, say, the top 10% at T6 and other top students.

But you have failed to identify any actual risk. I am assuming that the readers are intelligent enough to realize that signaling openness to corp work is completely unnecessary or even inadvisable at (1) lit boutiques or lit-exclusive firms; (2) firms that are predominated by their lit practices; and (3) firms that give group-specific summer offers.

But for most standard applicants (even top students), a bid list of 30-40 firms is not going to be a list populated entirely by the exceptions above. If someone has the luxury of walking into KH and SG offers with no effort pre-OCI, great for them. But the vast majority of students, including top students, will be applying to at least some firms like S&C, Cravath, L&W, etc. And even ignoring Vault altogether (I agree with you on its issues), this same outcome results from relying on lit-specific Chambers rankings, for example. Lit hiring has been quite difficult even for top students the past several cycles.

[beepboopbeep]

Meh, this has run its course. If you're really going to dispute that feigning corporate interest might just result in having to do corporate work, I'm not really sure what to tell you. In any event, you've added more caveats to your advice -- from "no candidate should be telling any full-service firm that they're lit focused" to, okay, well, "most standard applicants" should consider "signalling openness" to corporate work at firms that don't give "group-specific offers." Well, yeah, I mean, that's what I've been saying. You've assumed away the problematic part.

[Anonymous User]

If you're really going to dispute that feigning corporate interest might just result in having to do corporate work, I'm not really sure what to tell you.

That is, in fact, exactly what I want you to tell me (or, rather, everyone else).

In any event, you've added more caveats to your advice -- from "no candidate should be telling any full-service firm that they're lit focused" to, okay, well, "most standard applicants" should consider "signalling openness" to corporate work at firms that don't give "group-specific offers."

Again, I assumed a basic level of knowledge on the part of the readers. And note that my advice was limited by firm while yours was purportedly based on quality of applicant, I think my advice stands.

This post probably reads more antagonistically than I intend it to be (which is not at all). But given how competitive lit is now, unless one of the exceptions I outlined in an earlier post applies, expressing openness to corp work in order to secure an SA position is generally the right move. If you have specific information, experiences, or insight to the contrary, it would definitely be useful.

[Anonymous User]

How important is your post-OCI 2L gpa and 3L gpa if you're looking for a 3L position that's different from your 2L summer? Would it matter more than where you were and what you did for 2L summer?

Also, how important would gpa trend be? For example, if your gpa is a constant upward trend, constant downward trend, or a bump in the middle.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Reviving this thread because I just remembered EIP's happening all over again. For anyone just checking, I've been in-house for a little less than a year now, but previously worked at two large NYC law firms doing corporate (and some tech trans). I graduated from Columbia so that's the interview process/school I'm most familiar with.

How important is your post-OCI 2L gpa and 3L gpa if you're looking for a 3L position that's different from your 2L summer? Would it matter more than where you were and what you did for 2L summer?

Also, how important would gpa trend be? For example, if your gpa is a constant upward trend, constant downward trend, or a bump in the middle.

Sorry I forgot to check this for a while!

It may be moot advice for you by now, but what you did for your 2L summer would generally be more important than your 2L grades. That said, don't let the grades plummet, because that's a bad look (at least don't let there be a significant decrease). The firm wants to feel like they're stealing a good candidate from someone else, so to the extent you can reinforce that feeling, that's good.

Let me know if you're talking about moving up in firms or trying to move from a non-firm to a firm.

[Anonymous User]

Hi OP! Appreciate you jumping back on! I have two questions as I’m going through OCI right now.

(1) Is there a tangible difference between V10 firms (barring WLRK) when it comes to M&A? Currently choosing between Skadden and STB and have heard STB M&A isn’t on par with Skadden…but I like STB a lot more in terms of culture. Would choosing one over the other have any impact on lateral (or exit) opportunities down the line? Or are both viewed as belonging to the same tier of firms?

(2) How feasible is it to lateral to other firms, either in 3L OCI or after graduation? Given my interests in M&A, I’d probably only be interested in CSM/S&C/WLRK (lol). Do these places hire 3Ls/recent grads regularly, and how can I best position myself for next year? I imagine raising my grades is key, but are there any other things you’d recommend (e.g., try to work on some big M&A deal next summer, do relevant research with a professor, etc.)?

Thanks a lot!

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Reviving this thread because I just remembered EIP's happening all over again. For anyone just checking, I've been in-house for a little less than a year now, but previously worked at two large NYC law firms doing corporate (and some tech trans). I graduated from Columbia so that's the interview process/school I'm most familiar with.

How important is your post-OCI 2L gpa and 3L gpa if you're looking for a 3L position that's different from your 2L summer? Would it matter more than where you were and what you did for 2L summer?

Also, how important would gpa trend be? For example, if your gpa is a constant upward trend, constant downward trend, or a bump in the middle.

Sorry I forgot to check this for a while!

It may be moot advice for you by now, but what you did for your 2L summer would generally be more important than your 2L grades. That said, don't let the grades plummet, because that's a bad look (at least don't let there be a significant decrease). The firm wants to feel like they're stealing a good candidate from someone else, so to the extent you can reinforce that feeling, that's good.

Let me know if you're talking about moving up in firms or trying to move from a non-firm to a firm.

Not the person who originally asked back in June, but also interested - mainly in terms of moving up in firms. Do you think it is worth going through the hassle of 3L EIP to jump a couple of spots? Also, how hard is it to get a general corporate/litigation spot at, say, a V10 through 3L recruiting? I’ve heard it’s virtually impossible at CSM/Wachtell?? What about other firms like Skadden or SullCrom?

[Anonymous User]

OP.

Hi OP! Appreciate you jumping back on! I have two questions as I’m going through OCI right now.

(1) Is there a tangible difference between V10 firms (barring WLRK) when it comes to M&A? Currently choosing between Skadden and STB and have heard STB M&A isn’t on par with Skadden…but I like STB a lot more in terms of culture. Would choosing one over the other have any impact on lateral (or exit) opportunities down the line? Or are both viewed as belonging to the same tier of firms?

(2) How feasible is it to lateral to other firms, either in 3L OCI or after graduation? Given my interests in M&A, I’d probably only be interested in CSM/S&C/WLRK (lol). Do these places hire 3Ls/recent grads regularly, and how can I best position myself for next year? I imagine raising my grades is key, but are there any other things you’d recommend (e.g., try to work on some big M&A deal next summer, do relevant research with a professor, etc.)?

Thanks a lot!

1. In terms of prestige, there isn't a difference, but there can be a general difference in types of clients between some of them. Some notes on that (and some other thoughts on your firms):

• Cravath does hardly any private equity work, but if you're at Kirkland/Latham/STB you may see quite a bit more of that. That's not to say Cravath's all public M&A (a lot of it's acquisitions of private companies for strategic acquirers), there's plenty of private M&A there, but you won't often deal with PE clients. STB does a pretty good amount of both PE and non-PE work. Just something loose to consider.
• What about STB culture draws you there? For what it's worth, their M&A group can be a tough place to work (they were pretty horribly understaffed a year or two ago... maybe they've hired more now).
• Skadden is a niche place. I'm less familiar with it then some of the other NYC firms, so I could be totally off-base here, but my rough understanding was that you end up in "partner groups" within M&A, each of which has some slightly different expertise (e.g., one deals with more clients in one area). I don't have a sense of how much control you have over who you work with or what group you end up in.
• For all of these firms, cultural fit is more important that perceived prestige/etc. They're all pretty close. Your exit options will be fine from whichever but hating yourself and regretting your decision is a much greater risk.

2. You can lateral, but you really, really shouldn't count on it. Cravath has summer classes of 100+. Maybe they take 1 or 2 people in 3L OCI that aren't focused on benefits or something not general Corporate. You really shouldn't place those firms on a pedestal, though. Wachtell I get if you're desperate for money, but the approach to forcing yourself in there is to make yourself an exec comp associate and then pray they need people. Exec comp is pretty boring, to me at least.

It's got a low chance of success, and most of what impacts that success rate is outside of your control. You're relying on the firm to (1) underhire during their summer class, (2) happen to underhire specifically for the exact niche you want to fill (e.g., they may need a tax person, but not a corp person), (3) have an economy and deal flow that can support a new hire in that precise field on an ongoing basis, and (4) not have other people more competitive than you apply for that same niche that's already got a low chance of panning out.

Again, please don't get fixated on these firms. STB and Skadden are fine. I know plenty of people at Cravath/S&C who've chosen to lateral to each. You're going to hate your job if you decide (needlessly) that it's not somewhere you want to be at before you even start.

Not the person who originally asked back in June, but also interested - mainly in terms of moving up in firms. Do you think it is worth going through the hassle of 3L EIP to jump a couple of spots? Also, how hard is it to get a general corporate/litigation spot at, say, a V10 through 3L recruiting? I’ve heard it’s virtually impossible at CSM/Wachtell?? What about other firms like Skadden or SullCrom?

See the reply earlier in this post.

It's a huge hassle, and you can try, I just wouldn't count on it. It's like starting law school intending to transfer, but with even more factors out of your control.

There honestly isn't a huge difference between STB and CSM or similar. If it's a financially unstable firm to a stable firm well known in your field, then yeah, definitely, that's worth it (like K&L Gates a couple years ago to Weil or something like that).

[scourgeofquizi]

As a quiet, introverted person, interviews are daunting for me because my peers and the interviewers seem more outgoing and talkative. Do shy, introverted people generally have a disadvantage in BigLaw interviews? Are interviewers wary of hiring quiet types for some reason? I’m just curious and would love to get perspective from someone who has been on the other side of the chair.

[Anonymous User]

OP.

As a quiet, introverted person, interviews are daunting for me because my peers and the interviewers seem more outgoing and talkative. Do shy, introverted people generally have a disadvantage in BigLaw interviews? Are interviewers wary of hiring quiet types for some reason? I’m just curious and would love to get perspective from someone who has been on the other side of the chair.

It doesn't matter if you're not super social/outgoing. I'm an introvert. The majority of us are, including partners.

That said, what do you mean by quiet here? If you seem horrendously uncomfortable around me and can't hold a regular conversation, that's not a good thing. It should be easy for you to talk about what you did your 1L summer, what you're interested in, the interests listed on your resume, and other basic interview topics. I can't learn more about you and all the positive points you have unless you speak long enough to tell me about them.

I don't need someone I want to go to a bar with, but I am interested in hiring somebody that's not too awkward around me. The proper answer to "How'd you enjoy your 1L summer?" isn't "It was good." There's nothing for an interviewer to follow up on there, when you could have talked about what you worked on, what you took away from it, etc.

[Anonymous User]

Somewhat unrelated, but I was wondering if you knew what the process was like for associates that have less than one year of experience (Class of 2020) lateralling and having to pay back any bar classes/fees/advances. Would firms that are looking for c/o 2020 associates be willing to provide these additional expenses on top of any potential signing bonuses? I'm assuming they would know that these clawbacks pertain to most 2020 associates.

[Anonymous User]

OP.

Somewhat unrelated, but I was wondering if you knew what the process was like for associates that have less than one year of experience (Class of 2020) lateralling and having to pay back any bar classes/fees/advances. Would firms that are looking for c/o 2020 associates be willing to provide these additional expenses on top of any potential signing bonuses? I'm assuming they would know that these clawbacks pertain to most 2020 associates.

I don't have reliable intel on this, sorry. It's going to change firm by firm and based on how bad they actually need someone at your level of seniority. I guess it's possible. I don't know how common it is.

[Anonymous User]

Hey OP,

I'm applying for 2L SA positions right now, lit focus, top 15% at GULC. I haven't been able to get past a screener interview yet. I did a mock interview with a classmate to try and figure out why I was doing so poorly and they said that my resume, not interviewing, was the problem.

All my resume has on it is my work experience. I am a KJD so my work experience is not relevant to law (think retail), and I didn't do any extracurriculars 1L or in college. I also did not go to a fancy college.

I have pretty good grades. I have excellent references.

What would your advice be to someone in my position?

[Anonymous User]

OP.

1. In terms of prestige, there isn't a difference, but there can be a general difference in types of clients between some of them. Some notes on that (and some other thoughts on your firms):

• Cravath does hardly any private equity work, but if you're at Kirkland/Latham/STB you may see quite a bit more of that. That's not to say Cravath's all public M&A (a lot of it's acquisitions of private companies for strategic acquirers), there's plenty of private M&A there, but you won't often deal with PE clients. STB does a pretty good amount of both PE and non-PE work. Just something loose to consider.
• What about STB culture draws you there? For what it's worth, their M&A group can be a tough place to work (they were pretty horribly understaffed a year or two ago... maybe they've hired more now).
• Skadden is a niche place. I'm less familiar with it then some of the other NYC firms, so I could be totally off-base here, but my rough understanding was that you end up in "partner groups" within M&A, each of which has some slightly different expertise (e.g., one deals with more clients in one area). I don't have a sense of how much control you have over who you work with or what group you end up in.
• For all of these firms, cultural fit is more important that perceived prestige/etc. They're all pretty close. Your exit options will be fine from whichever but hating yourself and regretting your decision is a much greater risk.

2. You can lateral, but you really, really shouldn't count on it. Cravath has summer classes of 100+. Maybe they take 1 or 2 people in 3L OCI that aren't focused on benefits or something not general Corporate. You really shouldn't place those firms on a pedestal, though. Wachtell I get if you're desperate for money, but the approach to forcing yourself in there is to make yourself an exec comp associate and then pray they need people. Exec comp is pretty boring, to me at least.

It's got a low chance of success, and most of what impacts that success rate is outside of your control. You're relying on the firm to (1) underhire during their summer class, (2) happen to underhire specifically for the exact niche you want to fill (e.g., they may need a tax person, but not a corp person), (3) have an economy and deal flow that can support a new hire in that precise field on an ongoing basis, and (4) not have other people more competitive than you apply for that same niche that's already got a low chance of panning out.

Again, please don't get fixated on these firms. STB and Skadden are fine. I know plenty of people at Cravath/S&C who've chosen to lateral to each. You're going to hate your job if you decide (needlessly) that it's not somewhere you want to be at before you even start.

Hi OP, this was super helpful, thank you! I just vibed more with the STB people I interviewed with. They were a bit more reserved, which I oddly liked. Plus, I've heard that Skadden is super social and I really would prefer a place where I can do the work and then go home lol.

When you say that Simpson M&A is a "tough place," is it only because the team is smaller and therefore each associate has to take on more work? Or are the partners there actually unpleasant to work with?

[Anonymous User]

OP.

Hey OP,

I'm applying for 2L SA positions right now, lit focus, top 15% at GULC. I haven't been able to get past a screener interview yet. I did a mock interview with a classmate to try and figure out why I was doing so poorly and they said that my resume, not interviewing, was the problem.

All my resume has on it is my work experience. I am a KJD so my work experience is not relevant to law (think retail), and I didn't do any extracurriculars 1L or in college. I also did not go to a fancy college.

I have pretty good grades. I have excellent references.

What would your advice be to someone in my position?

I can't say for certain without actually looking at your resume, but I promise your college isn't the issue.

That said, zero extracurriculars? It's not that important exactly what the things on your resume are, but if there's literally nothing there besides work experience, there's not much for the interviewer to start a conversation about. I'd worry more about it from a conversation fodder POV, rather than a judgmental POV.

You have an interests section, right? Make sure three are listed. And as far as 1L clubs go, they're pretty pointless, but they are about as simple as just showing up. Nothing here? No business law thing, no ACS-type thing, no diversity group, etc.?

I would do more mock interviews, with other people. More points of view are helpful. Do your mock interview with someone who's been through the OCI process at GULC before, not a peer, if possible (not a knock on your friends, but the feedback's probably more on point). There's usually something in your interviewing that you're not aware of.

Hi OP, this was super helpful, thank you! I just vibed more with the STB people I interviewed with. They were a bit more reserved, which I oddly liked. Plus, I've heard that Skadden is super social and I really would prefer a place where I can do the work and then go home lol.

When you say that Simpson M&A is a "tough place," is it only because the team is smaller and therefore each associate has to take on more work? Or are the partners there actually unpleasant to work with?

Don't make your decision entirely off your interviewers. Do second looks. Meet more people in the groups you think you may want to practice in. The five or six people you might have met during your screener/callback are not the entire firm, let alone the people you'll likely be working with on a daily basis.

Your decision-making process honestly sounds a little bit shallow. Please don't just look at name-brand + law firm stereotypes to decide where you want to start your career. Is Skadden, on the whole, more of a social place than Simpson? Probably. What about the specific group you want to be in, though? Maybe that practice group's full of people who are just a little bit more reserved. I'm not saying Simpson's a bad choice, but do your diligence, talk to more people, and make a more informed decision than you are now. You're in a position where you already have offers and people are happy to talk to you.

Simpson M&A was in a rough spot because they were severely understaffed, as of a year or two ago. Maybe they've fixed that problem now. There are also a number of difficult partners. Every firm will have at least a couple difficult partners, but there are a number of them there and when the group's also understaffed, surprise, you're going to have to work with them.

I'm sure Skadden has its share of difficult partners that I'm just not as familiar with. But seriously, talk to more people at the firms (including 3Ls at your own law school), you're choosing almost entirely based on gut with very low information.

[Anonymous User]

OP.

Hey OP,

I'm applying for 2L SA positions right now, lit focus, top 15% at GULC. I haven't been able to get past a screener interview yet. I did a mock interview with a classmate to try and figure out why I was doing so poorly and they said that my resume, not interviewing, was the problem.

All my resume has on it is my work experience. I am a KJD so my work experience is not relevant to law (think retail), and I didn't do any extracurriculars 1L or in college. I also did not go to a fancy college.

I have pretty good grades. I have excellent references.

What would your advice be to someone in my position?

I can't say for certain without actually looking at your resume, but I promise your college isn't the issue.

That said, zero extracurriculars? It's not that important exactly what the things on your resume are, but if there's literally nothing there besides work experience, there's not much for the interviewer to start a conversation about. I'd worry more about it from a conversation fodder POV, rather than a judgmental POV.

You have an interests section, right? Make sure three are listed. And as far as 1L clubs go, they're pretty pointless, but they are about as simple as just showing up. Nothing here? No business law thing, no ACS-type thing, no diversity group, etc.?

I would do more mock interviews, with other people. More points of view are helpful. Do your mock interview with someone who's been through the OCI process at GULC before, not a peer, if possible (not a knock on your friends, but the feedback's probably more on point). There's usually something in your interviewing that you're not aware of.

Hey OP,

I literally had zero extracurriculars when I posted this. My summer internship offered to have me volunteer throughout the schoolyear when I had time, and I accepted, so now I have something. But yes, no clubs or anything, I wanted to focus on grades and I was doing law school several time zones away, so I didn't do clubs my 1L year. This was a mistake on my part, I now realize.

I do have an interests section. What sort of interests are good here? I have some niche interests, like skeet and target shooting, that I didn't include because I was not sure how they would go over. I'm also not a member of any diverse group, so no diversity groups for me. I didn't join ACS or fed soc. Would it help for me to join one of those?

I will definitely do more interviews. I'll try and meet upperclassman and get feedback from them. I have a few networking interviews I managed to set up with hiring chairs for firms, do you think they would be able to help.

Thanks for your time OP, I really appreciate it.

[Anonymous User]

OP.

Hey OP,

I literally had zero extracurriculars when I posted this. My summer internship offered to have me volunteer throughout the schoolyear when I had time, and I accepted, so now I have something. But yes, no clubs or anything, I wanted to focus on grades and I was doing law school several time zones away, so I didn't do clubs my 1L year. This was a mistake on my part, I now realize.

I do have an interests section. What sort of interests are good here? I have some niche interests, like skeet and target shooting, that I didn't include because I was not sure how they would go over. I'm also not a member of any diverse group, so no diversity groups for me. I didn't join ACS or fed soc. Would it help for me to join one of those?

I will definitely do more interviews. I'll try and meet upperclassman and get feedback from them. I have a few networking interviews I managed to set up with hiring chairs for firms, do you think they would be able to help.

Thanks for your time OP, I really appreciate it.

You'll be fine, don't sweat it, just keep hustling for interviews! The club thing honestly isn't a big deal, it's just extra words on a resume is all.

Any interests are good, skeet and target shooting included. As long as they're not phony, so you're not exposed as a fraud the moment you start talking about it. I've never been skeet shooting myself but that doesn't mean I wouldn't be interested in talking about it. When I interviewed, I had a somewhat rare sport listed on my own interests section, and 95% of my interviewers brought it up (despite most having zero familiarity with it). It's just a way for them to talk about something unique from other interviewees that gives a bit more depth to you as a person. Nobody's really looking to judge your interests, they're just trying to talk about something they didn't talk about with the last 10 interviewees that also gives them insight into who you are.

For screeners, it's a very repetitive 20 minutes for interviewers. They'll always ask about what you did your 1L summer, what type of work you're generally interested in, stuff like that. After that, they're largely just looking to learn more about you by talking to you more, and the easiest material for them to get a conversation going is stuff on your resume.

One other interview tip would be you don't have to wait until the end to ask questions. It's a lot easier on the both of you if you can just keep the conversation going. Ex. Let's say you're telling them about your summer job and that you worked really closely with 1-2 attorneys there on X matters who really looked out for you. It'd be perfectly fine to ask the interviewer afterward if they've had a close mentor at the firm and what that's meant to them, how the interviewer learned their practice, how the firm supported them early on, or whatever else. If the interviewer mentions something interesting to you, feel free to call it back out later in the interview - "You mentioned earlier that you _______. Could you tell me more about that?" Obviously it's not a formula, but it also lets them focus on talking to you instead of trying to find something to talk about on your resume.

[uygiugiyugyugk]

I'll be 40 when i graduate from a t10. URM.

am i fucked for biglaw? above median.

[nixy]

I'll be 40 when i graduate from a t10. URM.

am i fucked for biglaw? above median.

How can you be above median when you wrote earlier this summer that you were going to law school soon?

[Anonymous User]

I'll be 40 when i graduate from a t10. URM.

am i fucked for biglaw? above median.

How can you be above median when you wrote earlier this summer that you were going to law school soon?

FWIW at my t15, I have a friend who'll be in his mid-forties when they graduate and they summered, and will be working in biglaw (v30-v40) upon graduation.

Perhaps OP means in the case they'll be above median after 1L?

[Anonymous User]

OP.

I'll be 40 when i graduate from a t10. URM.

am i fucked for biglaw? above median.

I'll be 40 when i graduate from a t10. URM.

am i fucked for biglaw? above median.

How can you be above median when you wrote earlier this summer that you were going to law school soon?

I'm not really interested in answering fake questions, but to give a cursory response, you're not fucked from a hiring perspective. You are fucked from a "can my body physically withstand the erratic demands and hours forced on junior associates" perspective. Hope your prior work experience relates to what you want to do with law.

[Anonymous User]

As a current public interest attorney, applying to private firm jobs, am I expected to have a deal sheet?

[Anonymous User]

OP.

As a current public interest attorney, applying to private firm jobs, am I expected to have a deal sheet?

Are you applying for a lit or corporate job? How relevant is your public interest experience to the type of firm job you're applying for?

That said, my quick take - I'd only make a deal sheet if there was a sufficiently large amount of info to include that's interesting/relevant to the firm. That may not be the case, which is fine, a deal sheet's never a requirement. Just make it crystal clear what experience you have on your resume, you can highlight the substantive responsibilities you've had and what you've generally worked on there.