Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=311969
For corporate, Wacthell.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 2:58 amWould it be Wachtell, some appellate firm in DC, an elite IP boutique in San Francisco?
What would you say?
Are there any firms that are notorious for turning down highly qualified candidates.
Just curious
You don’t get class credit for clerkships or prior work at another firm.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 10:00 amWachtell and Kellogg at my answers for corp and lit respectively. Kellogg has a 6-year partner track and pays a $175k clerkship bonus.
This.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 9:42 amFor corporate, Wacthell.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 2:58 amWould it be Wachtell, some appellate firm in DC, an elite IP boutique in San Francisco?
What would you say?
Are there any firms that are notorious for turning down highly qualified candidates.
Just curious
For litigation, boutiques.
stbyes wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 11:39 amThis.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 9:42 amFor corporate, Wacthell.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 2:58 amWould it be Wachtell, some appellate firm in DC, an elite IP boutique in San Francisco?
What would you say?
Are there any firms that are notorious for turning down highly qualified candidates.
Just curious
For litigation, boutiques.
If by "elite Biglaw" you are including flagship offices at DC for firms like Gibson, Kirkland, etc (or offices in other markets with similar levels of competitiveness). These are definitely more competitive than Quinn. I would put Quinn at the same level of competitiveness as a typical T30 biglaw shop.Joachim2017 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 3:21 pmstbyes wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 11:39 amThis.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 9:42 amFor corporate, Wacthell.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 2:58 amWould it be Wachtell, some appellate firm in DC, an elite IP boutique in San Francisco?
What would you say?
Are there any firms that are notorious for turning down highly qualified candidates.
Just curious
For litigation, boutiques.
Obviously the answer for litigation is "boutiques." That's presumably not all that helpful for OP because boutique acceptance rates vary wildly. Compare Susman to Mololamken: BSF will at this point take literally anybody with a pulse; Molo is difficult and selective, but not much more so than elite Big Law. Quinn is somewhere in between.
To answer OP: along the spectrum with Kellogg on one end and BSF on the other, firms that are notorious for turning down highly qualified candidates include Susman and Dovel & Luner on probably a par close to KH, and then you move in the other direction from there.
Doesn't even pay market.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 3:10 pmIn before someone says Craavaaaaath is competitive for lit, compared to the top litigation practices. LOL
This degree of specificity is misleading because boutiques don't compete for the same applicants. Kellogg Hansen hires the best and brightest COA clerks, usually but not always from T14 schools. It doesn't hire district court clerks, it doesn't compete for SCOTUS clerks, and it basically never hires experienced lawyers. Susman Godfrey hires district court clerks, but it insists on impeccable grades and (usually) trial experience. In addition to the T14, it hires regularly from UT Austin. MoloLamken only hires experienced lawyers (usually 3 years out of school or more) and doesn't require a federal clerkship. Wilkinson Stekloff insists on trial experience and will compromise on the other requirements. Bartlit Beck hires many SCOTUS clerks, doesn't have a formal clerkship requirement, and favors military experience.Joachim2017 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 3:21 pmstbyes wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 11:39 amThis.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 9:42 amFor corporate, Wacthell.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 2:58 amWould it be Wachtell, some appellate firm in DC, an elite IP boutique in San Francisco?
What would you say?
Are there any firms that are notorious for turning down highly qualified candidates.
Just curious
For litigation, boutiques.
Obviously the answer for litigation is "boutiques." That's presumably not all that helpful for OP because boutique acceptance rates vary wildly. Compare Susman to Mololamken: BSF will at this point take literally anybody with a pulse; Molo is difficult and selective, but not much more so than elite Big Law. Quinn is somewhere in between.
To answer OP: along the spectrum with Kellogg on one end and BSF on the other, firms that are notorious for turning down highly qualified candidates include Susman and Dovel & Luner on probably a par close to KH, and then you move in the other direction from there.
Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 4:25 pmThis degree of specificity is misleading because boutiques don't compete for the same applicants. Kellogg Hansen hires the best and brightest COA clerks, usually but not always from T14 schools. It doesn't hire district court clerks, it doesn't compete for SCOTUS clerks, and it basically never hires experienced lawyers. Susman Godfrey hires district court clerks, but it insists on impeccable grades and (usually) trial experience. In addition to the T14, it hires regularly from UT Austin. MoloLamken only hires experienced lawyers (usually 3 years out of school or more) and doesn't require a federal clerkship. Wilkinson Stekloff insists on trial experience and will compromise on the other requirements. Bartlit Beck hires many SCOTUS clerks, doesn't have a formal clerkship requirement, and favors military experience.Joachim2017 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 3:21 pmstbyes wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 11:39 amThis.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 9:42 amFor corporate, Wacthell.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 2:58 amWould it be Wachtell, some appellate firm in DC, an elite IP boutique in San Francisco?
What would you say?
Are there any firms that are notorious for turning down highly qualified candidates.
Just curious
For litigation, boutiques.
Obviously the answer for litigation is "boutiques." That's presumably not all that helpful for OP because boutique acceptance rates vary wildly. Compare Susman to Mololamken: BSF will at this point take literally anybody with a pulse; Molo is difficult and selective, but not much more so than elite Big Law. Quinn is somewhere in between.
To answer OP: along the spectrum with Kellogg on one end and BSF on the other, firms that are notorious for turning down highly qualified candidates include Susman and Dovel & Luner on probably a par close to KH, and then you move in the other direction from there.
This comment above the one I'm responding to isn't accurate. For KH alone, they have quite a few non-T-14 attorneys who graduated summa at their law school -- I'd estimate something like 25% of their associates are non-T-14, and they too have quite a few UT Austin associates. They also have no formal circuit court clerkship requirement, though it's probably a de facto requirement for 99% of applicants. KH also has a fair number of SCOTUS clerks.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 4:46 pmI've had a bunch of firsthand and secondhand experience with a lot of these firms and the above seems to try to cut too finely re differences in the candidate pool of some of these firms. Not sure how worth it it'll be to OP, and best course is to contact the firms coming out of your clerkship if you're interested in them, but I don't believe the differences depicted here for, eg, SG and KH really amount to much if anything. Bottom line, I do think firms like KH and SG compete for many of the same applicants.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 4:25 pm
This degree of specificity is misleading because boutiques don't compete for the same applicants. Kellogg Hansen hires the best and brightest COA clerks, usually but not always from T14 schools. It doesn't hire district court clerks, it doesn't compete for SCOTUS clerks, and it basically never hires experienced lawyers. Susman Godfrey hires district court clerks, but it insists on impeccable grades and (usually) trial experience. In addition to the T14, it hires regularly from UT Austin. MoloLamken only hires experienced lawyers (usually 3 years out of school or more) and doesn't require a federal clerkship. Wilkinson Stekloff insists on trial experience and will compromise on the other requirements. Bartlit Beck hires many SCOTUS clerks, doesn't have a formal clerkship requirement, and favors military experience.
Candidates do apply to multiple boutiques, but Kellogg Hansen and Susman Godfrey are very different law firms by almost every metric (location, blend of work, trial emphasis, staffing, case selection, partnership model, personalities, etc.). Their associates often have different backgrounds, especially outside New York.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 4:46 pmAnonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 4:25 pmThis degree of specificity is misleading because boutiques don't compete for the same applicants. Kellogg Hansen hires the best and brightest COA clerks, usually but not always from T14 schools. It doesn't hire district court clerks, it doesn't compete for SCOTUS clerks, and it basically never hires experienced lawyers. Susman Godfrey hires district court clerks, but it insists on impeccable grades and (usually) trial experience. In addition to the T14, it hires regularly from UT Austin. MoloLamken only hires experienced lawyers (usually 3 years out of school or more) and doesn't require a federal clerkship. Wilkinson Stekloff insists on trial experience and will compromise on the other requirements. Bartlit Beck hires many SCOTUS clerks, doesn't have a formal clerkship requirement, and favors military experience.Joachim2017 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 3:21 pmstbyes wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 11:39 amThis.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 9:42 amFor corporate, Wacthell.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 2:58 amWould it be Wachtell, some appellate firm in DC, an elite IP boutique in San Francisco?
What would you say?
Are there any firms that are notorious for turning down highly qualified candidates.
Just curious
For litigation, boutiques.
Obviously the answer for litigation is "boutiques." That's presumably not all that helpful for OP because boutique acceptance rates vary wildly. Compare Susman to Mololamken: BSF will at this point take literally anybody with a pulse; Molo is difficult and selective, but not much more so than elite Big Law. Quinn is somewhere in between.
To answer OP: along the spectrum with Kellogg on one end and BSF on the other, firms that are notorious for turning down highly qualified candidates include Susman and Dovel & Luner on probably a par close to KH, and then you move in the other direction from there.
I've had a bunch of firsthand and secondhand experience with a lot of these firms and the above seems to try to cut too finely re differences in the candidate pool of some of these firms. Not sure how worth it it'll be to OP, and best course is to contact the firms coming out of your clerkship if you're interested in them, but I don't believe the differences depicted here for, eg, SG and KH really amount to much if anything. Bottom line, I do think firms like KH and SG compete for many of the same applicants.
I'm the poster you're replying to. 87% of Kellogg Hansen's associates are T14 and 100% have COA clerkships. (You're right that most of its non-T14 associates are from UT Austin - not as high a percentage as Susman, but notable all the same.) Kellogg Hansen hasn't hired a SCOTUS clerk since 2013, probably because it refuses to give class-year credit. Its SCOTUS clerks are all partners who have been at the firm since the early days.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 5:13 pmThis comment above the one I'm responding to isn't accurate. For KH alone, they have quite a few non-T-14 attorneys who graduated summa at their law school -- I'd estimate something like 25% of their associates are non-T-14, and they too have quite a few UT Austin associates. They also have no formal circuit court clerkship requirement, though it's probably a de facto requirement for 99% of applicants. KH also has a fair number of SCOTUS clerks.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 4:46 pmI've had a bunch of firsthand and secondhand experience with a lot of these firms and the above seems to try to cut too finely re differences in the candidate pool of some of these firms. Not sure how worth it it'll be to OP, and best course is to contact the firms coming out of your clerkship if you're interested in them, but I don't believe the differences depicted here for, eg, SG and KH really amount to much if anything. Bottom line, I do think firms like KH and SG compete for many of the same applicants.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 4:25 pm
This degree of specificity is misleading because boutiques don't compete for the same applicants. Kellogg Hansen hires the best and brightest COA clerks, usually but not always from T14 schools. It doesn't hire district court clerks, it doesn't compete for SCOTUS clerks, and it basically never hires experienced lawyers. Susman Godfrey hires district court clerks, but it insists on impeccable grades and (usually) trial experience. In addition to the T14, it hires regularly from UT Austin. MoloLamken only hires experienced lawyers (usually 3 years out of school or more) and doesn't require a federal clerkship. Wilkinson Stekloff insists on trial experience and will compromise on the other requirements. Bartlit Beck hires many SCOTUS clerks, doesn't have a formal clerkship requirement, and favors military experience.
SG doesn't insist on trial experience, though I'm sure it helps, and they have essentially the same grade requirements as the other lit boutiques, which is to say, very high. If they aren't competing for the same clerks as a KH or Wilkinson or Bartlit, it's less because of requirements and more because all of the firms are located in different parts of the country.
I went to the website and counted quickly. 9/44 (20%) are non-T14, and at least 1 from quickly scanning doesn't have a COA clerkship. At least 3 associates are going to SCOTUS, though I suppose there is no guarantee they would return.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 5:30 pmI'm the poster you're replying to. 87% of Kellogg Hansen's associates are T14 and 100% have COA clerkships. (You're right that most of its non-T14 associates are from UT Austin - not as high a percentage as Susman, but notable all the same.) Kellogg Hansen hasn't hired a SCOTUS clerk since 2013, probably because it refuses to give class-year credit. Its SCOTUS clerks are all partners who have been at the firm since the early days.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 5:13 pmThis comment above the one I'm responding to isn't accurate. For KH alone, they have quite a few non-T-14 attorneys who graduated summa at their law school -- I'd estimate something like 25% of their associates are non-T-14, and they too have quite a few UT Austin associates. They also have no formal circuit court clerkship requirement, though it's probably a de facto requirement for 99% of applicants. KH also has a fair number of SCOTUS clerks.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 4:46 pmI've had a bunch of firsthand and secondhand experience with a lot of these firms and the above seems to try to cut too finely re differences in the candidate pool of some of these firms. Not sure how worth it it'll be to OP, and best course is to contact the firms coming out of your clerkship if you're interested in them, but I don't believe the differences depicted here for, eg, SG and KH really amount to much if anything. Bottom line, I do think firms like KH and SG compete for many of the same applicants.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 4:25 pm
This degree of specificity is misleading because boutiques don't compete for the same applicants. Kellogg Hansen hires the best and brightest COA clerks, usually but not always from T14 schools. It doesn't hire district court clerks, it doesn't compete for SCOTUS clerks, and it basically never hires experienced lawyers. Susman Godfrey hires district court clerks, but it insists on impeccable grades and (usually) trial experience. In addition to the T14, it hires regularly from UT Austin. MoloLamken only hires experienced lawyers (usually 3 years out of school or more) and doesn't require a federal clerkship. Wilkinson Stekloff insists on trial experience and will compromise on the other requirements. Bartlit Beck hires many SCOTUS clerks, doesn't have a formal clerkship requirement, and favors military experience.
SG doesn't insist on trial experience, though I'm sure it helps, and they have essentially the same grade requirements as the other lit boutiques, which is to say, very high. If they aren't competing for the same clerks as a KH or Wilkinson or Bartlit, it's less because of requirements and more because all of the firms are located in different parts of the country.
It appears I missed an associate - she's the only one of the 44 without a COA clerkship. Kellogg Hansen regularly hires SCOTUS-bound associates, usually for 2 year terms. It also feeds associates to SCOTUS. For whatever reason, it won't make the compromises on pay and seniority to hire them back.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 5:40 pmI went to the website and counted quickly. 9/44 (20%) are non-T14, and at least 1 from quickly scanning doesn't have a COA clerkship. At least 3 associates are going to SCOTUS, though I suppose there is no guarantee they would return.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 5:30 pmI'm the poster you're replying to. 87% of Kellogg Hansen's associates are T14 and 100% have COA clerkships. (You're right that most of its non-T14 associates are from UT Austin - not as high a percentage as Susman, but notable all the same.) Kellogg Hansen hasn't hired a SCOTUS clerk since 2013, probably because it refuses to give class-year credit. Its SCOTUS clerks are all partners who have been at the firm since the early days.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 5:13 pmThis comment above the one I'm responding to isn't accurate. For KH alone, they have quite a few non-T-14 attorneys who graduated summa at their law school -- I'd estimate something like 25% of their associates are non-T-14, and they too have quite a few UT Austin associates. They also have no formal circuit court clerkship requirement, though it's probably a de facto requirement for 99% of applicants. KH also has a fair number of SCOTUS clerks.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 4:46 pmI've had a bunch of firsthand and secondhand experience with a lot of these firms and the above seems to try to cut too finely re differences in the candidate pool of some of these firms. Not sure how worth it it'll be to OP, and best course is to contact the firms coming out of your clerkship if you're interested in them, but I don't believe the differences depicted here for, eg, SG and KH really amount to much if anything. Bottom line, I do think firms like KH and SG compete for many of the same applicants.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 4:25 pm
This degree of specificity is misleading because boutiques don't compete for the same applicants. Kellogg Hansen hires the best and brightest COA clerks, usually but not always from T14 schools. It doesn't hire district court clerks, it doesn't compete for SCOTUS clerks, and it basically never hires experienced lawyers. Susman Godfrey hires district court clerks, but it insists on impeccable grades and (usually) trial experience. In addition to the T14, it hires regularly from UT Austin. MoloLamken only hires experienced lawyers (usually 3 years out of school or more) and doesn't require a federal clerkship. Wilkinson Stekloff insists on trial experience and will compromise on the other requirements. Bartlit Beck hires many SCOTUS clerks, doesn't have a formal clerkship requirement, and favors military experience.
SG doesn't insist on trial experience, though I'm sure it helps, and they have essentially the same grade requirements as the other lit boutiques, which is to say, very high. If they aren't competing for the same clerks as a KH or Wilkinson or Bartlit, it's less because of requirements and more because all of the firms are located in different parts of the country.
Not saying Williams & Connolly is easy to get into, but given the presence of firms in DC like KH, hard to imagine that WC gets the nod. I admittedly don't know much, but I always thought of WC as like just the poor man's KH.