DC corp vs NY lit competitiveness Forum

[Anonymous User]

does the greater competitiveness of the DC compared to NY outweigh the greater competitiveness of lit compared to transactional?

[BansheeScream]

Are you asking in terms of securing a position or competitiveness at firms? If the first (which I think is what you're asking) this question can't really be asked in a vacuum and your question assumes that it's easier to get a transactional position than a lit position. For example, I would argue it's just as difficult to secure a Cravath offer in NY as someone interested in transactional law than it is to get an offer at a top DC firm. Overall, there are significantly more NY transactional jobs than there are DC lit jobs so that will factor in and some firms have different grade cutoffs for transactional versus lit. All things equal, firms in NY are probably less grade/school/journal selective for litigation positions than firms in DC but I doubt DC firms are significantly dropping their standards to hire transactional associates when they can farm the work out to NY where most of it is based anyway.

[Anonymous User]

Are you asking in terms of securing a position or competitiveness at firms? If the first (which I think is what you're asking) this question can't really be asked in a vacuum and your question assumes that it's easier to get a transactional position than a lit position. For example, I would argue it's just as difficult to secure a Cravath offer in NY as someone interested in transactional law than it is to get an offer at a top DC firm. Overall, there are significantly more NY transactional jobs than there are DC lit jobs so that will factor in and some firms have different grade cutoffs for transactional versus lit. All things equal, firms in NY are probably less grade/school/journal selective for litigation positions than firms in DC but I doubt DC firms are significantly dropping their standards to hire transactional associates when they can farm the work out to NY where most of it is based anyway.

yes the former. I thought it was a safe to assume all else equal transactional is easier to get than lit, but I see you're suggesting that the difference is not significant in DC compared to the difference between NY and DC competitiveness

[BansheeScream]

Are you asking in terms of securing a position or competitiveness at firms? If the first (which I think is what you're asking) this question can't really be asked in a vacuum and your question assumes that it's easier to get a transactional position than a lit position. For example, I would argue it's just as difficult to secure a Cravath offer in NY as someone interested in transactional law than it is to get an offer at a top DC firm. Overall, there are significantly more NY transactional jobs than there are DC lit jobs so that will factor in and some firms have different grade cutoffs for transactional versus lit. All things equal, firms in NY are probably less grade/school/journal selective for litigation positions than firms in DC but I doubt DC firms are significantly dropping their standards to hire transactional associates when they can farm the work out to NY where most of it is based anyway.

yes the former. I thought it was a safe to assume all else equal transactional is easier to get than lit, but I see you're suggesting that the difference is not significant in DC compared to the difference between NY and DC competitiveness

A lot of the top firms in DC don't do a ton of transactional work based out of DC. If you would want to work for a satellite office of a NY based firm in DC doing transactional work, I think the thresholds for those positions are certainly lower than litigation positions in DC and probably comparable to NY.

[Anonymous User]

does the greater competitiveness of the DC compared to NY outweigh the greater competitiveness of lit compared to transactional?

DC is more competitive. Transactional will be less competitive than lit for sure, but many fewer spots, and many people try to get to DC by feigning interest in Corp and then try to switch to lit. NY lit isn’t really that competitive outside of a couple of firms. The slot differential just swamps everything else

[existentialcrisis]

Are you asking in terms of securing a position or competitiveness at firms? If the first (which I think is what you're asking) this question can't really be asked in a vacuum and your question assumes that it's easier to get a transactional position than a lit position. For example, I would argue it's just as difficult to secure a Cravath offer in NY as someone interested in transactional law than it is to get an offer at a top DC firm. Overall, there are significantly more NY transactional jobs than there are DC lit jobs so that will factor in and some firms have different grade cutoffs for transactional versus lit. All things equal, firms in NY are probably less grade/school/journal selective for litigation positions than firms in DC but I doubt DC firms are significantly dropping their standards to hire transactional associates when they can farm the work out to NY where most of it is based anyway.

yes the former. I thought it was a safe to assume all else equal transactional is easier to get than lit, but I see you're suggesting that the difference is not significant in DC compared to the difference between NY and DC competitiveness

A lot of the top firms in DC don't do a ton of transactional work based out of DC. If you would want to work for a satellite office of a NY based firm in DC doing transactional work, I think the thresholds for those positions are certainly lower than litigation positions in DC and probably comparable to NY.

Yeah, I don't know first hand, but I could potentially see doing transactional work in DC being extremely competitive (perhaps equally so with litigation) because the big players other than like Latham and Skadden don't even really seem do much transactional work out of DC.

[Anonymous User]

MIf the first (which I think is what you're asking) this question can't really be asked in a vacuum and your question assumes that it's easier to get a transactional position than a lit position. For example, I would argue it's just as difficult to secure a Cravath offer in NY as someone interested in transactional law than it is to get an offer at a top DC firm.

Not your point but this is certainly wrong in the current market. Pretty good DC firms, let alone truly top DC firms, are basically only interested in people who are very likely to get federal clerkships for lit.

[Anonymous User]

MIf the first (which I think is what you're asking) this question can't really be asked in a vacuum and your question assumes that it's easier to get a transactional position than a lit position. For example, I would argue it's just as difficult to secure a Cravath offer in NY as someone interested in transactional law than it is to get an offer at a top DC firm.

Not your point but this is certainly wrong in the current market. Pretty good DC firms, let alone truly top DC firms, are basically only interested in people who are very likely to get federal clerkships for lit.

Yeah I also think this "dicta" is wrong - median at my school (YSH) could get cravath transactional. median could not get WH or covington DC

[Anonymous User]

MIf the first (which I think is what you're asking) this question can't really be asked in a vacuum and your question assumes that it's easier to get a transactional position than a lit position. For example, I would argue it's just as difficult to secure a Cravath offer in NY as someone interested in transactional law than it is to get an offer at a top DC firm.

Not your point but this is certainly wrong in the current market. Pretty good DC firms, let alone truly top DC firms, are basically only interested in people who are very likely to get federal clerkships for lit.

Yeah I also think this "dicta" is wrong - median at my school (YH) could get cravath transactional. median could not get WH or covington DC

Not to split hairs but Covington hires from from GW and median students at UVA. I highly doubt the same could be said for Cravath of WLRK.

[Anonymous User]

MIf the first (which I think is what you're asking) this question can't really be asked in a vacuum and your question assumes that it's easier to get a transactional position than a lit position. For example, I would argue it's just as difficult to secure a Cravath offer in NY as someone interested in transactional law than it is to get an offer at a top DC firm.

Not your point but this is certainly wrong in the current market. Pretty good DC firms, let alone truly top DC firms, are basically only interested in people who are very likely to get federal clerkships for lit.

Yeah I also think this "dicta" is wrong - median at my school (YH) could get cravath transactional. median could not get WH or covington DC

Not to split hairs but Covington hires from from GW and median students at UVA. I highly doubt the same could be said for Cravath of WLRK.

Cravath is nowhere near as selective as Wachtell. I don’t know why you would group these two firms together, they aren’t peers. I know for a fact that Cravath takes median students from Columbia fairly regularly. They probably take median students from schools like Penn and Virginia sometimes too.

[Anonymous User]

MIf the first (which I think is what you're asking) this question can't really be asked in a vacuum and your question assumes that it's easier to get a transactional position than a lit position. For example, I would argue it's just as difficult to secure a Cravath offer in NY as someone interested in transactional law than it is to get an offer at a top DC firm.

Not your point but this is certainly wrong in the current market. Pretty good DC firms, let alone truly top DC firms, are basically only interested in people who are very likely to get federal clerkships for lit.

Yeah I also think this "dicta" is wrong - median at my school (YH) could get cravath transactional. median could not get WH or covington DC

Not to split hairs but Covington hires from from GW and median students at UVA. I highly doubt the same could be said for Cravath of WLRK.

I would bet money that Cov doesn't take non-URM median students and/or median students without super relevant softs like prior govt experience from UVA. Furthermore, I am also willing to bet that Cravath and other top transactional shops regularly take Fordham kids too - home turf advantage is a real thing.

[Anonymous User]

MIf the first (which I think is what you're asking) this question can't really be asked in a vacuum and your question assumes that it's easier to get a transactional position than a lit position. For example, I would argue it's just as difficult to secure a Cravath offer in NY as someone interested in transactional law than it is to get an offer at a top DC firm.

Not your point but this is certainly wrong in the current market. Pretty good DC firms, let alone truly top DC firms, are basically only interested in people who are very likely to get federal clerkships for lit.

Yeah I also think this "dicta" is wrong - median at my school (YH) could get cravath transactional. median could not get WH or covington DC

Not to split hairs but Covington hires from from GW and median students at UVA. I highly doubt the same could be said for Cravath of WLRK.

I would bet money that Cov doesn't take non-URM median students and/or median students without super relevant softs like prior govt experience from UVA. Furthermore, I am also willing to bet that Cravath and other top transactional shops regularly take Fordham kids too - home turf advantage is a real thing.

This is turning into a weird dick measuring contest

If you're vaguely above median at my school (YSH), you can get an offer at Cravath, Covington or Wilmer.

Wachtell and the DC boutiques are whether things start to get harder. But even then Kellogg took 3 people who were around median (1 of whom did not have a clerkship lined up)

[Anonymous User]

MIf the first (which I think is what you're asking) this question can't really be asked in a vacuum and your question assumes that it's easier to get a transactional position than a lit position. For example, I would argue it's just as difficult to secure a Cravath offer in NY as someone interested in transactional law than it is to get an offer at a top DC firm.

Not your point but this is certainly wrong in the current market. Pretty good DC firms, let alone truly top DC firms, are basically only interested in people who are very likely to get federal clerkships for lit.

Yeah I also think this "dicta" is wrong - median at my school (YH) could get cravath transactional. median could not get WH or covington DC

Not to split hairs but Covington hires from from GW and median students at UVA. I highly doubt the same could be said for Cravath of WLRK.

I would bet money that Cov doesn't take non-URM median students and/or median students without super relevant softs like prior govt experience from UVA. Furthermore, I am also willing to bet that Cravath and other top transactional shops regularly take Fordham kids too - home turf advantage is a real thing.

This is turning into a weird dick measuring contest

If you're vaguely above median at my school (YSH), you can get an offer at Cravath, Covington or Wilmer.

Wachtell and the DC boutiques are whether things start to get harder. But even then Kellogg took 3 people who were around median (1 of whom did not have a clerkship lined up)

Are you saying at YSH median and below students could get DC firms like GDC, Skadden, A&P, Latham, Hogan, K&E, Sidley, JD etc?

[Anonymous User]

MIf the first (which I think is what you're asking) this question can't really be asked in a vacuum and your question assumes that it's easier to get a transactional position than a lit position. For example, I would argue it's just as difficult to secure a Cravath offer in NY as someone interested in transactional law than it is to get an offer at a top DC firm.

Not your point but this is certainly wrong in the current market. Pretty good DC firms, let alone truly top DC firms, are basically only interested in people who are very likely to get federal clerkships for lit.

Yeah I also think this "dicta" is wrong - median at my school (YH) could get cravath transactional. median could not get WH or covington DC

Not to split hairs but Covington hires from from GW and median students at UVA. I highly doubt the same could be said for Cravath of WLRK.

I would bet money that Cov doesn't take non-URM median students and/or median students without super relevant softs like prior govt experience from UVA. Furthermore, I am also willing to bet that Cravath and other top transactional shops regularly take Fordham kids too - home turf advantage is a real thing.

This is turning into a weird dick measuring contest

If you're vaguely above median at my school (YSH), you can get an offer at Cravath, Covington or Wilmer.

Wachtell and the DC boutiques are whether things start to get harder. But even then Kellogg took 3 people who were around median (1 of whom did not have a clerkship lined up)

I can't help thinking these reports of Kellogg Hansen's demise are overstated. I'm seeing 54 associates with website profiles. 2 haven't clerked; 2 "only" have district court clerkships. Those 4 look like they fit a pattern and I wouldn't assume they're indicative of the average applicant. The other 50 have at least one court of appeals clerkship each, and 2 of the new hires came from a SCOTUS clerkship. I'd be surprised if they hire too many people at median.

[Anonymous User]

To add a perspective from Yale:

Basically everyone in the class, even at the very bottom, can get a New York V20 corporate position.

Students perceived as average (I'd guess around median) often wind up at New York V10s (excluding Wachtell) doing either litigation or corporate based on their preference. At least while I was at Yale, DPW took the largest number of Yale students for summer associate positions, with Cravath and S&C not far behind.

Above average students, those on YLJ, etc. would do DC litigation (Wilmer, GDC, Sidley, KE, A&P, Jenner, Covington, W&C) or a lit boutique (Susman, Kellogg, Wilkinson Stetloff, etc.). Above average students would also wind up at Wachtell. It's difficult to parse among these firms/students though, and which of these firms someone wound up with seemed to just come down to personal preference and fit.

In terms of the OP's original question of DC corp vs. NY lit, it's hard to answer generally without knowing specific firms. DC is not as big of a corporate market, so I can see corporate at top DC firms being similarly competitive to doing lit at a NY V10. But I doubt any DC corp position would be as competitive as the very top NY lit positions (Susman, Wachtell).

[Anonymous User]

To add a perspective from Yale:

Basically everyone in the class, even at the very bottom, can get a New York V20 corporate position.

Students perceived as average (I'd guess around median) often wind up at New York V10s (excluding Wachtell) doing either litigation or corporate based on their preference. At least while I was at Yale, DPW took the largest number of Yale students for summer associate positions, with Cravath and S&C not far behind.

Above average students, those on YLJ, etc. would do DC litigation (Wilmer, GDC, Sidley, KE, A&P, Jenner, Covington, W&C) or a lit boutique (Susman, Kellogg, Wilkinson Stetloff, etc.). Above average students would also wind up at Wachtell. It's difficult to parse among these firms/students though, and which of these firms someone wound up with seemed to just come down to personal preference and fit.

In terms of the OP's original question of DC corp vs. NY lit, it's hard to answer generally without knowing specific firms. DC is not as big of a corporate market, so I can see corporate at top DC firms being similarly competitive to doing lit at a NY V10. But I doubt any DC corp position would be as competitive as the very top NY lit positions (Susman, Wachtell).

Thanks for the response. Guess I was more thinking about NY V10 lit because yeah generally top lit is going to be harder than corp anywhere other than Wachtell.

so it sounds like we have a few people saying DC transactional = NY v10 lit in difficulty, and a few saying DC transactional > NY v10 lit in difficulty. no one yet has the position that DC transactional is less competitive

[Anonymous User]

MIf the first (which I think is what you're asking) this question can't really be asked in a vacuum and your question assumes that it's easier to get a transactional position than a lit position. For example, I would argue it's just as difficult to secure a Cravath offer in NY as someone interested in transactional law than it is to get an offer at a top DC firm.

Not your point but this is certainly wrong in the current market. Pretty good DC firms, let alone truly top DC firms, are basically only interested in people who are very likely to get federal clerkships for lit.

Yeah I also think this "dicta" is wrong - median at my school (YH) could get cravath transactional. median could not get WH or covington DC

Not to split hairs but Covington hires from from GW and median students at UVA. I highly doubt the same could be said for Cravath of WLRK.

I would bet money that Cov doesn't take non-URM median students and/or median students without super relevant softs like prior govt experience from UVA. Furthermore, I am also willing to bet that Cravath and other top transactional shops regularly take Fordham kids too - home turf advantage is a real thing.

This is turning into a weird dick measuring contest

If you're vaguely above median at my school (YSH), you can get an offer at Cravath, Covington or Wilmer.

Wachtell and the DC boutiques are whether things start to get harder. But even then Kellogg took 3 people who were around median (1 of whom did not have a clerkship lined up)

I can't help thinking these reports of Kellogg Hansen's demise are overstated. I'm seeing 54 associates with website profiles. 2 haven't clerked; 2 "only" have district court clerkships. Those 4 look like they fit a pattern and I wouldn't assume they're indicative of the average applicant. The other 50 have at least one court of appeals clerkship each, and 2 of the new hires came from a SCOTUS clerkship. I'd be surprised if they hire too many people at median.

Not trying to insinuate a "demise" or anything like that. Their website is full of insanely credentialed people and they just snagged a handful of S.Ct. clerks (I believe). Maybe they are expanding? Whose to say. Anyway, the people I was referring to are not on website since they are either 3Ls or clerking currently

[Anonymous User]

MIf the first (which I think is what you're asking) this question can't really be asked in a vacuum and your question assumes that it's easier to get a transactional position than a lit position. For example, I would argue it's just as difficult to secure a Cravath offer in NY as someone interested in transactional law than it is to get an offer at a top DC firm.

Not your point but this is certainly wrong in the current market. Pretty good DC firms, let alone truly top DC firms, are basically only interested in people who are very likely to get federal clerkships for lit.

Yeah I also think this "dicta" is wrong - median at my school (YH) could get cravath transactional. median could not get WH or covington DC

Not to split hairs but Covington hires from from GW and median students at UVA. I highly doubt the same could be said for Cravath of WLRK.

I would bet money that Cov doesn't take non-URM median students and/or median students without super relevant softs like prior govt experience from UVA. Furthermore, I am also willing to bet that Cravath and other top transactional shops regularly take Fordham kids too - home turf advantage is a real thing.

This is turning into a weird dick measuring contest

If you're vaguely above median at my school (YSH), you can get an offer at Cravath, Covington or Wilmer.

Wachtell and the DC boutiques are whether things start to get harder. But even then Kellogg took 3 people who were around median (1 of whom did not have a clerkship lined up)

Clerkships matter at least as much as grades in lit so not too surprising that people with clerkships but not too great of grades got offers

Kellogg gives much higher clerkship bonuses than anyone else in DC so they’ll always be one of the destination firms. But it also has an idiosyncratic practice and at least a rep for a bad culture.

[Anonymous User]

MIf the first (which I think is what you're asking) this question can't really be asked in a vacuum and your question assumes that it's easier to get a transactional position than a lit position. For example, I would argue it's just as difficult to secure a Cravath offer in NY as someone interested in transactional law than it is to get an offer at a top DC firm.

Not your point but this is certainly wrong in the current market. Pretty good DC firms, let alone truly top DC firms, are basically only interested in people who are very likely to get federal clerkships for lit.

Yeah I also think this "dicta" is wrong - median at my school (YH) could get cravath transactional. median could not get WH or covington DC

Not to split hairs but Covington hires from from GW and median students at UVA. I highly doubt the same could be said for Cravath of WLRK.

I would bet money that Cov doesn't take non-URM median students and/or median students without super relevant softs like prior govt experience from UVA. Furthermore, I am also willing to bet that Cravath and other top transactional shops regularly take Fordham kids too - home turf advantage is a real thing.

This is turning into a weird dick measuring contest

If you're vaguely above median at my school (YSH), you can get an offer at Cravath, Covington or Wilmer.

Wachtell and the DC boutiques are whether things start to get harder. But even then Kellogg took 3 people who were around median (1 of whom did not have a clerkship lined up)

Clerkships matter at least as much as grades in lit so not too surprising that people with clerkships but not too great of grades got offers

Kellogg gives much higher clerkship bonuses than anyone else in DC so they’ll always be one of the destination firms. But it also has an idiosyncratic practice and at least a rep for a bad culture.

Yeah - that phenomenon might kinda explain why Kellogg facially skews conservative - easier to double clerk and snag the credentials they are looking for if you have fedsoc on the resume

Yeah the 175k (IIRC) clerkship bonus is stellar but I don't think it vests all that quickly? At least the vesting schedule for other boutiques with above market clerkship bonuses is spread across 2/3 years.

[Anonymous User]

Chiming in to say that I think DC transactional might be more competitive than V10 lit because of the very limited opportunities. I'm not entirely sure if it is credential wise more competitive, but there are significantly fewer opportunities (only a few true corp players) and a plethora of people who want to do high level east coast transactional law without having to endure NYC (no shade, it's a great city, just not for some people).

I'm a junior doing transactional work in DC and there definitely is a distinction between our lit juniors and our transactional juniors (in credentials), but I wouldn't say the gulf is that large (everyone basically is T-14/20 with the majority having honors) to compare it to landing NYC V10 lit (just based on the grades/school of people I know who went to NYC lit V10).

[Anonymous User]

Not your point but this is certainly wrong in the current market. Pretty good DC firms, let alone truly top DC firms, are basically only interested in people who are very likely to get federal clerkships for lit.

Yeah I also think this "dicta" is wrong - median at my school (YH) could get cravath transactional. median could not get WH or covington DC

Not to split hairs but Covington hires from from GW and median students at UVA. I highly doubt the same could be said for Cravath of WLRK.

I would bet money that Cov doesn't take non-URM median students and/or median students without super relevant softs like prior govt experience from UVA. Furthermore, I am also willing to bet that Cravath and other top transactional shops regularly take Fordham kids too - home turf advantage is a real thing.

This is turning into a weird dick measuring contest

If you're vaguely above median at my school (YSH), you can get an offer at Cravath, Covington or Wilmer.

Wachtell and the DC boutiques are whether things start to get harder. But even then Kellogg took 3 people who were around median (1 of whom did not have a clerkship lined up)

Clerkships matter at least as much as grades in lit so not too surprising that people with clerkships but not too great of grades got offers

Kellogg gives much higher clerkship bonuses than anyone else in DC so they’ll always be one of the destination firms. But it also has an idiosyncratic practice and at least a rep for a bad culture.

Yeah - that phenomenon might kinda explain why Kellogg facially skews conservative - easier to double clerk and snag the credentials they are looking for if you have fedsoc on the resume

Yeah the 175k (IIRC) clerkship bonus is stellar but I don't think it vests all that quickly? At least the vesting schedule for other boutiques with above market clerkship bonuses is spread across 2/3 years.

Vests in equal distributions over 2 years

[Anonymous User]

Chiming in to say that I think DC transactional might be more competitive than V10 lit because of the very limited opportunities. I'm not entirely sure if it is credential wise more competitive, but there are significantly fewer opportunities (only a few true corp players) and a plethora of people who want to do high level east coast transactional law without having to endure NYC (no shade, it's a great city, just not for some people).

I'm a junior doing transactional work in DC and there definitely is a distinction between our lit juniors and our transactional juniors (in credentials), but I wouldn't say the gulf is that large (everyone basically is T-14/20 with the majority having honors) to compare it to landing NYC V10 lit (just based on the grades/school of people I know who went to NYC lit V10).

Agree. At least at my T6, NY V10 lit is not that competitive. DC transactional is less of a safe bet from median or slightly above but median seems totally fine for many New York firms.

[Anonymous User]

Older data point (I’m now a junior associate) but I interviewed with transactional groups in NY and DC during OCI. Had DC ties and went to Penn. My grades were probably bottom of the top third (Penn doesn’t calculate GPAs but I had around a 3.5, definitely not top of the class). Ended up taking a NY V10 offer, but I had several DC transactional offers, including Latham. I didn’t get the impression that it was that difficult if you were coming from a T14 with reasonable grades. I didn’t interview with Covington or WH, but I did a screener with GDC. No callback.

I lateraled from the V10 to a DC-based regulatory group. I get the impression based on credentials, etc. that my current group/practice is far harder to get into, probably because there are way fewer positions.

[Anonymous User]

Older data point (I’m now a junior associate) but I interviewed with transactional groups in NY and DC during OCI. Had DC ties and went to Penn. My grades were probably bottom of the top third (Penn doesn’t calculate GPAs but I had around a 3.5, definitely not top of the class). Ended up taking a NY V10 offer, but I had several DC transactional offers, including Latham. I didn’t get the impression that it was that difficult if you were coming from a T14 with reasonable grades. I didn’t interview with Covington or WH, but I did a screener with GDC. No callback.

I lateraled from the V10 to a DC-based regulatory group. I get the impression based on credentials, etc. that my current group/practice is far harder to get into, probably because there are way fewer positions.

This is not at all inconsistent with the above posts. Top 1/3 at Penn is solid. You don't need those grades to get a top firm in NY, lit or transactional.

[Anonymous User]

Older data point (I’m now a junior associate) but I interviewed with transactional groups in NY and DC during OCI. Had DC ties and went to Penn. My grades were probably bottom of the top third (Penn doesn’t calculate GPAs but I had around a 3.5, definitely not top of the class). Ended up taking a NY V10 offer, but I had several DC transactional offers, including Latham. I didn’t get the impression that it was that difficult if you were coming from a T14 with reasonable grades. I didn’t interview with Covington or WH, but I did a screener with GDC. No callback.

I lateraled from the V10 to a DC-based regulatory group. I get the impression based on credentials, etc. that my current group/practice is far harder to get into, probably because there are way fewer positions.

This is not at all inconsistent with the above posts. Top 1/3 at Penn is solid. You don't need those grades to get a top firm in NY, lit or transactional.

Agreed lol if anything a V10 offer would be expected at top 1/3 Penn