Is lateralling harder or easier than OCI? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Sorry if this is a dumb question. I'm currently at a lower T13 (Cornell/Northwestern/Duke) with a low 3.6X (~top 30-40%), heading to a V20 in NYC (transactional). I'm pretty burnt out and I'm wondering what the repercussions are if I let my GPA slip to a high 3.4X (~bottom 40-50%) by graduation in terms of lateralling?

Let's say I really disliked NYC and wanted to lateral to CA after 1-2 years; I would hesitate to advise lower-classmen to bid CA with a 3.4X if they were risk-averse (given the competitiveness of the market). Would this same intuition apply to those lateralling as well, or is lateralling harder/easier than OCI?

TIA!

[hdr]

Grades rarely matter at all, especially coming from a T14/V20, and the difference between a 3.6 and a 3.4 is meaningless. Lateraling comes down to having the right experience and a convincing reason to move firms (i.e. that you're not just being pushed out). If your practice area is in-demand, lateraling is way easier than OCI since there's much less competition.

[lolwutpar]

So much easier. Especially now - firms are busy and, quite frankly, traditionally selective firms are dipping further down for candidates than they normally will because they need bodies.

[beepboopbeep]

There are definitely grade-snooty firms in, for example, CA, but typically depending on how far out of law school you are, they generally matter less and less for the lateral process. I think they could matter in this situation? Most of the lateral grade cutoffs I've seen tend to cluster around top 25-30%, but they're less of hard cutoffs and more of "does this person's transcript look plausibly like ones we've hired before." If you have a plausibly-top-30% transcript and would be falling to just "pretty clearly median," ngl, I think that actually could hurt. Would it hurt enough to prevent you from lateraling? Doubt it in this economy; you're still a T14/V20 candidate and firms desperately need warm bodies right now. But it could matter if you have your heart set on particular places.

Answering the broader question: having been through both, I think lateraling is easier in some ways and harder in others. Easier in that it's easy to just get an offer, any offer, if that's all you're looking for. Harder if you're trying to find the perfect fit and also in terms of the process. Typically it's a full day of callback interviews rather than a half-day, and that is honestly just brutal in a way that I didn't expect. There's also somewhat more pressure, IMO, to have a decent answer about what you want to do with your career and why Firm X makes sense for those goals. I think at OCI you can basically get away with I want to litigate/do deals/whatever and you have cool cases (with some amount of window dressing); no one's really expecting you to know anything. Laterals have some inherent questions - how long does this person want to stay in biglaw? Are they being pushed out or are they in good standing? Will they work hard or have they checked out already? The one case where you can plead the 5th a bit is if you're moving for family reasons -- happy with my firm, everything's going great, but just want to be closer to family. (This doesn't always work, especially if your current firm has an office in the city you want to move to.)

Ultimately like, what are you looking for here? For people to say yea go ahead and blow off 3L? Or for people to spook you into trying harder for the next two months? It's like two months, just give enough of a shit to tread water and this isn't a problem.

[Anonymous User]

So much easier. Especially now - firms are busy and, quite frankly, traditionally selective firms are dipping further down for candidates than they normally will because they need bodies.

Is this actually true for litigation right now? I feel like you just need a pulse in corporate because literally everyone is hiring, but postings for lit are so much fewer and far between.

Also, if there is an actual job posting that your group/level and you have decent experience how likely is it that you get a CB/offer?

[lolwutpar]

So much easier. Especially now - firms are busy and, quite frankly, traditionally selective firms are dipping further down for candidates than they normally will because they need bodies.

Is this actually true for litigation right now? I feel like you just need a pulse in corporate because literally everyone is hiring, but postings for lit are so much fewer and far between.

Also, if there is an actual job posting that your group/level and you have decent experience how likely is it that you get a CB/offer?

Probably a bit less true, but at least at my firm/office, the litigators are quite busy.

If you meet the basic credentials you'll probably at least get a screener. From there, it's the usual crap shoot.

[Auxilio]

I think your actual transcript starts losing importance, but having "cum laude" etc. is worth a boost. Worth putting in some amount of effort to keep you above one of those cut offs if you think you are close in my opinion.

They also get to put coif/cum laude on your bio, but they can't put 3.2 GPA

[Anonymous User]

So much easier. Especially now - firms are busy and, quite frankly, traditionally selective firms are dipping further down for candidates than they normally will because they need bodies.

Like OP, I'm also a burnt out 3L at a t14. I'll be heading to a specialist group of a v10. The lateral market is certainly "hot" now, but will this be as true in 3-5 years? If they're hiring all these laterals now, isn't it just more likely that OP and I will be trying to lateral in a slow market?

[Itcamefromthesea]

So much easier. Especially now - firms are busy and, quite frankly, traditionally selective firms are dipping further down for candidates than they normally will because they need bodies.

Like OP, I'm also a burnt out 3L at a t14. I'll be heading to a specialist group of a v10. The lateral market is certainly "hot" now, but will this be as true in 3-5 years? If they're hiring all these laterals now, isn't it just more likely that OP and I will be trying to lateral in a slow market?

If you spend a few years at a v10, you shouldn’t have much trouble lateraling to a good firm under most circumstances.

[jotarokujo]

if your goal is simply to go to biglaw in CA, i think staying above median is all you have to do. no need to kill yourself working 60+ hrs a week

[esther0123]

So much easier. Especially now - firms are busy and, quite frankly, traditionally selective firms are dipping further down for candidates than they normally will because they need bodies.

Is this actually true for litigation right now? I feel like you just need a pulse in corporate because literally everyone is hiring, but postings for lit are so much fewer and far between.

Also, if there is an actual job posting that your group/level and you have decent experience how likely is it that you get a CB/offer?

In my experience a little (or significantly) less true for lit. I think it's particularly hard to lateral to a peer, and definitely substantially more difficult to do so once you are past year 4. I don't actually know why there is a difference between litigation and corporate, even when litigation is busy.

[nerd1]

OCI and lateralling cannot really be compared because what's important for OCI is different from what's important for lateralling. Grades and school only matter if you are a junior associate trying to lateral. In a typical market, lateralling as a first or second year is harder than OCI because there are just so few openings. But for a midlevel with good experience, lateralling could be quite easy in a busy market.

[Anonymous User]

Grades still matter for Gibson. I'm a 6th year below their cutoff, and they had some national meeting to discuss a special exception for me. Despite the entire practice group at my office allegedly going to bat for me, I was denied for grades.

[Anonymous User]

Grades still matter for Gibson. I'm a 6th year below their cutoff, and they had some national meeting to discuss a special exception for me. Despite the entire practice group at my office allegedly going to bat for me, I was denied for grades.

hope this is a joke. But I did hear that they look at grades when hiring partners so...

[Anonymous User]

Grades still matter for Gibson. I'm a 6th year below their cutoff, and they had some national meeting to discuss a special exception for me. Despite the entire practice group at my office allegedly going to bat for me, I was denied for grades.

hope this is a joke. But I did hear that they look at grades when hiring partners so...

wow. I've heard this before but what are the actual cutoffs though? Broken down by HYS, CCN, T14 please

[Anonymous User]

Grades still matter for Gibson. I'm a 6th year below their cutoff, and they had some national meeting to discuss a special exception for me. Despite the entire practice group at my office allegedly going to bat for me, I was denied for grades.

hope this is a joke. But I did hear that they look at grades when hiring partners so...

Unless they were all lying to me, which would be odd since ghosting me or rejecting me is pretty easy to do. A special exception/waiver for missing grade cutoffs apparently is required for anyone. First year, laterals, and partners. They're more likely to be granted if you're in a niche practice group (meaning they can't find anyone better) or with the more book of business that will follow you. I obviously don't work there, this was information told to me by GDC partners. I have no idea if it's correct or not. Many of the partners do not agree with it.

[Anonymous User]

Honestly, I think it depends on your seniority, practice group and market. I'm in a niche practice group and having a bit of a tough time lateraling in my same market because there's such few biglaw firms in my market that have this practice and, if they are looking, it's usually for a midlevel or junior. I'm fairly confident I will find something, but I am thinking it may take a bit of time given my unique circumstances.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Grades still matter for Gibson. I'm a 6th year below their cutoff, and they had some national meeting to discuss a special exception for me. Despite the entire practice group at my office allegedly going to bat for me, I was denied for grades.

hope this is a joke. But I did hear that they look at grades when hiring partners so...

I have heard the same thing and it's hilarious. Imagine an NFL team not signing Tom Brady now because his 40 time at the combine was too slow.

[nealric]

I think it's easier in some ways, harder in others.

It's easier in the sense that if you want to lateral and are currently employed in a biglaw firm (not being pushed out on a short timeframe), it's nearly certain that you will find SOME firm willing to take you on.

It's harder in the sense that the universe of firms that you can be hired to is narrower. You need to find a firm that has a practice that fits with your existing practice. Additionally, you don't get the whole universe of biglaw coming to you at a specific time all at once like with OCI. You can't just interview with 20 firms at the same time, so you may have a harder time with comparisons. It's rare that you will be weighing multiple live offers like post OCI just because the timing may not line up.

There are odd exceptions like Gibson (supposedly), but grade/school matters a lot less than practice area and experience. Grades are more likely to matter if you are more junior, very unlikely to matter as a senior associate/counsel. They are almost always irrelevant at the partner level.