Top Law Schools

Although I received a generous scholarship from UCLA, I am intent on practicing international law and being able to live in Europe. I applied late and was waitlisted at Harvard, Columbia, NYU, and Chicago. I got a 170 on the LSAT and graduated summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from Columbia with a 3.9 in philosophy. I am afraid I will be handicapped by having started at UCLA and hope that in re-applying early action I would be accepted at one of the above schools. Does anyone with knowledge about practicing private or public international law abroad have advice? I would greatly appreciate it. UCLA starts on Monday.
Thanks

What exactly are you trying to do with your career?

Reapply. You definitely underperformed your numbers.

the hell is intl law?

you mean capital markets?

I'm sure you've heard this before, but there is no "international law". There is international trade law, international tax law, capital markets, international human rights law, international environmental law, etc. Basically, there is an international component to many different legal fields that you could specialize in. Some of these fields are harder to get into than others... that's where going to a top school comes in.

.

worldtraveler wrote:What exactly are you trying to do with your career?

inkincorporate wrote:I'm sure you've heard this before, but there is no "international law". There is international trade law, international tax law, capital markets, international human rights law, international environmental law, etc. Basically, there is an international component to many different legal fields that you could specialize in. Some of these fields are harder to get into than others... that's where going to a top school comes in.

My interests are vague at this point, as they remain largely uninformed, perhaps trade law, although I am interested in Human Rights as well. In any case, it is important to me that I would be able to work in Europe.

serein wrote:

worldtraveler wrote:What exactly are you trying to do with your career?

inkincorporate wrote:I'm sure you've heard this before, but there is no "international law". There is international trade law, international tax law, capital markets, international human rights law, international environmental law, etc. Basically, there is an international component to many different legal fields that you could specialize in. Some of these fields are harder to get into than others... that's where going to a top school comes in.

My interests are vague at this point, as they remain largely uninformed, perhaps trade law, although I am interested in Human Rights as well. In any case, it is important to me that I would be able to work in Europe.

Learn at least one or two major European language fluently, become interested in one of the few aforementioned specialities, retake for HYS, hustle your ass off, and pray.
Or adjust your expectations. Whichever's easier.

Or go to law school in Europe?

kalvano wrote:Or go to law school in Europe?

Doesn't that always involve basically redoing UG? Then struggling to find employment in a market basically more fucked up than ours, and as an alien competing with natives?

ymmv wrote:

kalvano wrote:Or go to law school in Europe?

Doesn't that always involve basically redoing UG? Then struggling to find employment in a market basically more fucked up than ours, and as an alien competing with natives?

I have no idea because I live in America, not some pinko Commie wonderland, but if you want to life and work in Europe, going to law school in the USA is probably not the best plan.

I also think that whether this is feasible at all depends on your language skills and where in Europe you want to work. If you're willing to do capital markets work (or maybe M&A) in London, you would have a shot at a good school. Other places or types of law would be much much harder, I think.

If you are already not fluent (near native) in a major European language, London is your only option. And yes, if you want to work in Europe, capital markets is your best chance.

I think several american schools have a program where you can pick up a Master 1 or even a Master 2 from a French law school.

Danteshek wrote:If you are already not fluent (near native) in a major European language, London is your only option. And yes, if you want to work in Europe, capital markets is your best chance.

I think several american schools have a program where you can pick up a Master 1 or even a Master 2 from a French law school.

sideroxylon wrote:I also think that whether this is feasible at all depends on your language skills and where in Europe you want to work. If you're willing to do capital markets work (or maybe M&A) in London, you would have a shot at a good school. Other places or types of law would be much much harder, I think.

Thanks guys. I'm fluent in French and have looked at Columbia's and Cornell's joint programs. I would love to get advice from someone with experience or knowledge of Americans working in branches of international law firms in Europe. In particular, if they felt you needed a name brand like Columbia, Harvard, or Chicago, in your first year or if by transferring and working well you could get there.

serein wrote:

Danteshek wrote:If you are already not fluent (near native) in a major European language, London is your only option. And yes, if you want to work in Europe, capital markets is your best chance.

I think several american schools have a program where you can pick up a Master 1 or even a Master 2 from a French law school.

sideroxylon wrote:I also think that whether this is feasible at all depends on your language skills and where in Europe you want to work. If you're willing to do capital markets work (or maybe M&A) in London, you would have a shot at a good school. Other places or types of law would be much much harder, I think.

Thanks guys. I'm fluent in French and have looked at Columbia's and Cornell's joint programs. I would love to get advice from someone with experience or knowledge of Americans working in branches of international law firms in Europe. In particular, if they felt you needed a name brand like Columbia, Harvard, or Chicago, in your first year or if by transferring and working well you could get there.

There are a couple firms like Cleary Gottlieb or SullCrom where if you have a language skill and a pronounced interest you can cycle through a european office and work abroad, both as a summer associate and for several years while in practice. Cleary in particular has a spectacular program for French with a 1 month immersion course in the south of France followed by a 2+ yr stint in the Paris office. Cravath will allow some of its corporate attorneys to do a capital markets rotation in the London office; same with Simpson.

You could also try to work at a magic circle firm in their London office - A&O, Linklaters, ect - but this is not easily done. Great grades from a top school with language skills sometimes won't even be enough, since they rarely take American candidates seriously. And yes, you would have to be in cap markets.

On that note, as others have suggested, American legal work in Europe is really focused in capital markets and a bit of M&A. Kirkland, for example, specifically advertises its London Cap Markets group. You won't have these opportunities as a litigator (besides your summer), since you can't appear in European courts, and you would have to be willing to either rotate or join these practice groups. I tried and had little success getting international arbitration or project finance work abroad - most of that is focused in New York offices.

So really, what it comes down to for private "international" work is getting an SA at a top firm that supports splits and rotations (or some secondment equivalent) through european offices. This means landing at least above median, if not top third, at HYSCCN. You'd have to be near the top of your class at UCLA.

jbagelboy wrote:

serein wrote:

Danteshek wrote:If you are already not fluent (near native) in a major European language, London is your only option. And yes, if you want to work in Europe, capital markets is your best chance.

I think several american schools have a program where you can pick up a Master 1 or even a Master 2 from a French law school.

sideroxylon wrote:I also think that whether this is feasible at all depends on your language skills and where in Europe you want to work. If you're willing to do capital markets work (or maybe M&A) in London, you would have a shot at a good school. Other places or types of law would be much much harder, I think.

Thanks guys. I'm fluent in French and have looked at Columbia's and Cornell's joint programs. I would love to get advice from someone with experience or knowledge of Americans working in branches of international law firms in Europe. In particular, if they felt you needed a name brand like Columbia, Harvard, or Chicago, in your first year or if by transferring and working well you could get there.

There are a couple firms like Cleary Gottlieb or SullCrom where if you have a language skill and a pronounced interest you can cycle through a european office and work abroad, both as a summer associate and for several years while in practice. Cleary in particular has a spectacular program for French with a 1 month immersion course in the south of France followed by a 2+ yr stint in the Paris office. Cravath will allow some of its corporate attorneys to do a capital markets rotation in the London office; same with Simpson.

You could also try to work at a magic circle firm in their London office - A&O, Linklaters, ect - but this is not easily done. Great grades from a top school with language skills sometimes won't even be enough, since they rarely take American candidates seriously. And yes, you would have to be in cap markets.

On that note, as others have suggested, American legal work in Europe is really focused in capital markets and a bit of M&A. Kirkland, for example, specifically advertises its London Cap Markets group. You won't have these opportunities as a litigator (besides your summer), since you can't appear in European courts, and you would have to be willing to either rotate or join these practice groups. I tried and had little success getting international arbitration or project finance work abroad - most of that is focused in New York offices.

So really, what it comes down to for private "international" work is getting an SA at a top firm that supports splits and rotations (or some secondment equivalent) through european offices. This means landing at least above median, if not top third, at HYSCCN. You'd have to be near the top of your class at UCLA.

Thank you so much! That is very helpful, and really appreciated. I'm thinking about starting at UCLA as its more or less paid for and then transferring. I wonder if that will give me a leg up, or if I'll be more or less set on track by the first year grades at UCLA.

Bad plan. For this to work you are banking on (1) finishing at least top 10% at UCLA (2) getting accepted into a better school as a transfer (3) that the magical circle firms or US firms with European offices that allow you to work over there are willing to seriously consider a transfer student with no grades from their new school and (4) that you actually do well in the interview.

The chances of all this coming out in your favor are very very low.

Nomo wrote:Bad plan. For this to work you are banking on (1) finishing at least top 10% at UCLA (2) getting accepted into a better school as a transfer (3) that the magical circle firms or US firms with European offices that allow you to work over there are willing to seriously consider a transfer student with no grades from their new school and (4) that you actually do well in the interview.

The chances of all this coming out in your favor are very very low.

One and two should be fine but four does indeed always pose a risk. It would be great to find out more about three.

serein wrote:

Nomo wrote:Bad plan. For this to work you are banking on (1) finishing at least top 10% at UCLA (2) getting accepted into a better school as a transfer (3) that the magical circle firms or US firms with European offices that allow you to work over there are willing to seriously consider a transfer student with no grades from their new school and (4) that you actually do well in the interview.

The chances of all this coming out in your favor are very very low.

One and two should be fine but four does indeed always pose a risk. It would be great to find out more about three.

Everyone plans on finishing top 10% but only 10% actually do. Unless you're absolutely positive of your skill as a 1L, all of that is conjecture and risky conjecture at that.

serein wrote:

Nomo wrote:Bad plan. For this to work you are banking on (1) finishing at least top 10% at UCLA (2) getting accepted into a better school as a transfer (3) that the magical circle firms or US firms with European offices that allow you to work over there are willing to seriously consider a transfer student with no grades from their new school and (4) that you actually do well in the interview.

The chances of all this coming out in your favor are very very low.

One and two should be fine but four does indeed always pose a risk. It would be great to find out more about three.

If you work really hard there's no reason you can't finish in the top five percent of your class.

serein wrote:

Nomo wrote:Bad plan. For this to work you are banking on (1) finishing at least top 10% at UCLA (2) getting accepted into a better school as a transfer (3) that the magical circle firms or US firms with European offices that allow you to work over there are willing to seriously consider a transfer student with no grades from their new school and (4) that you actually do well in the interview.

The chances of all this coming out in your favor are very very low.

One and two should be fine but four does indeed always pose a risk. It would be great to find out more about three.

Most firms will consider transfer students for regular hire when they recruit from the original school the student transferred out of. Elite places like Wachtell and Williams & Connolly notwithstanding, many top firms still recruit from UCLA so that shouldn't be the chief concern. On the other hand, saying (1) or (2) "should be fine" belies a true lack of deep reflection about this process and your choices (no offense intended - I'm sure you're smart, that's why we're saying this). Lots of UCLA students get jobs in CA, but its ridiculous to attend on the presumption that you'll start at one of the most elite corporate firms in the country that students at feeder schools like NYU and Harvard are fighting over.

You had a bad cycle: it happens sometimes. You'll have a good one this year. Honestly no reason to throw away your opportunities prematurely.

Mal Reynolds wrote:

serein wrote:

Nomo wrote:Bad plan. For this to work you are banking on (1) finishing at least top 10% at UCLA (2) getting accepted into a better school as a transfer (3) that the magical circle firms or US firms with European offices that allow you to work over there are willing to seriously consider a transfer student with no grades from their new school and (4) that you actually do well in the interview.

The chances of all this coming out in your favor are very very low.

One and two should be fine but four does indeed always pose a risk. It would be great to find out more about three.

If you work really hard there's no reason you can't finish in the top five percent of your class.

This is a very bad shtick for the on-topics.

jbagelboy wrote:

serein wrote:

Nomo wrote:Bad plan. For this to work you are banking on (1) finishing at least top 10% at UCLA (2) getting accepted into a better school as a transfer (3) that the magical circle firms or US firms with European offices that allow you to work over there are willing to seriously consider a transfer student with no grades from their new school and (4) that you actually do well in the interview.

The chances of all this coming out in your favor are very very low.

One and two should be fine but four does indeed always pose a risk. It would be great to find out more about three.

Most firms will consider transfer students for regular hire when they recruit from the original school the student transferred out of. Elite places like Wachtell and Williams & Connolly notwithstanding, many top firms still recruit from UCLA so that shouldn't be the chief concern. On the other hand, saying (1) or (2) "should be fine" belies a true lack of deep reflection about this process and your choices (no offense intended - I'm sure you're smart, that's why we're saying this). Lots of UCLA students get jobs in CA, but its ridiculous to attend on the presumption that you'll start at one of the most elite corporate firms in the country that students at feeder schools like NYU and Harvard are fighting over.

You had a bad cycle: it happens sometimes. You'll have a good one this year. Honestly no reason to throw away your opportunities prematurely.

One and two are simply finishing in the top of the class and being accented as a transfer. The first nearly entails the second, and I have no concerns about the first for good reason. But the final two points are taken; I'll be significantly set back by starting at UCLA, and I should re-apply.

Considering you can tell the future, why are you asking a bunch of randos on the Internet for advice? That seems really dumb of you. I thought you had good reason to think you were smart?

BigZuck wrote:Considering you can tell the future, why are you asking a bunch of randos on the Internet for advice? That seems really dumb of you. I thought you had good reason to think you were smart?

you mad bro? it seems like you're mad