Before Kevin Smith...
I want to create a bit of an open thread here regarding OCIP. I realize most of you have submitted your bids, but here's a place to ask questions. I think ATL is incredibly useful for firm research, if you have the time and patience. But a few things should raise some red flags, e.g., Heller. Also, note the open threads organized by Vault rankings.
For nitty gritty tips, read this post by Disco Stu from several years ago. Also, I think a comment from the same year about grade breakdowns in the LA market seems very accurate based on little more than anecdotal evidence. The commenter wrote:
Maybe Quinn may be moved up a bit as they've been putting a lot of emphasis on top 10% or what have you. But there you have it. This year, Patrick will be handling the call back thread when the time comes.
UPDATE: This webisode is genius. They really ought to make a full TV series. HT: WSJ LB.
For nitty gritty tips, read this post by Disco Stu from several years ago. Also, I think a comment from the same year about grade breakdowns in the LA market seems very accurate based on little more than anecdotal evidence. The commenter wrote:
Roughly speaking ...
MOST SELECTIVE
Munger, Tolles & Olson
Irell & Manella
(Need to be in top 15-25 people in class or so. Should have say, 50% HHs, but may be able to get away with only 1/3rd HHs, or a P. These are two of the top 5 most selective firms in the country, and lucky for us, they happen to hire a lot from Boalt.)
THEN --
Gibson
Latham
O'Melveny
Skadden LA
Kirkland LA
(a good rule of thumb is 5 Hs in 1L year, with HH counting as 2 Hs)
Paul Hastings
Quinn Emanuel
Sidley LA
(middle of the pack selectivity; say even mix of Hs and Ps, maybe an HH here and there)
Pillsbury
Sheppard
Manatt
random small branch offices of out-of-town firms
(one or two Hs and/or CLR should be good)
Maybe Quinn may be moved up a bit as they've been putting a lot of emphasis on top 10% or what have you. But there you have it. This year, Patrick will be handling the call back thread when the time comes.
UPDATE: This webisode is genius. They really ought to make a full TV series. HT: WSJ LB.
Labels: 0L/1L Advice, OCIP/Employment
posted by Armen Adzhemyan at 4:37 PM
43 Comments:
These benchmarks are helpful, Armen. If we're looking outside of CA - say, NY or DC or elsewhere, would we want to raise or lower the HH benchmarks you're suggesting?
Additionally, I've heard CLR functions like an extra HH. If you're looking higher on the list, does non-CLR act like a P, or is it a nonfactor?
Q: Who in Berkeley will entertain same-day dry cleaning?
I second Armen's suggestion to check out ATL - especially with the economy going sour, any mention on ATL is not a good thing for a firm (regarding partners leaving, associate layoffs, or pushed back start dates for incoming associates). Of course, take this stuff with a grain of salt.
Oh, how the times have changed from two years ago, when ATL was used to spot the firms making the move to 160, not those making layoffs.
Quinn Emanuel is more selective than that, and Irell & Manella is far less selective.
For LA, Quinn is probably in that LW-GDC-OMM group now. Irell is probably in its own tier just after MTO.
I always heard rumors that DC is a harder market than some of the other big ones, but I didn't find that to be the case. With decent grades, I did quite well there.
Whether or not CLR acts like an HH, non-CLR does NOT act like a P for higher on the list. Doing nothing but study while at Boalt, however, may detract from your overall package -- another journal or other activities/involvement should be just fine.
6:33, what leads you to believe that Quinn is in the LW-GDC-OMM tier?
I'm quite happy with my overall package.
7:47 - my and other people's experience interviewing at Quinn.
@ 8:11:
That's what she said.
For firms that say "Mix of H, HH" in that grade book.. is one or two Ps going to ding you?
Definitely read ATL, but don't bother with the comments, except on the Vault threads where actual associates are more likely to give decently balanced summaries. And ignore any post that mentions 'TTT' in it.
Also note the red flagged firms this year: Heller, S&S, Cadawalder, DLA Piper, Dechert, Sonnenschien, and Thelen Reid. To a lesser extent, be cautious around Dechert, Pillsbury, and Thacher.
You'll hear a lot of disparaging comments about using the Vault rankings to make choices. The vault rankings are decided based on nationwide associate opinions of each firm, and so while they don't represent the truth about any given firm, they represent the prestige that the firm has among your fellow future peer group. This is, sadly, important. A firm is probably not your final career, but rather a stepping stone. And you want to go to a firm that people think highly of. So when choosing between a V20 and a V50, given no other lifestyle or practice area differences, pick the V20.
There are other reasons to lean on prestige, too. V20 firms know about their prestige and are more careful to keep it. No V10 firm has done anything this year to risk recruiting or prestige, meaning they have not laid off anybody or no-offered/cold-offered any significant (or any) number of summers. This is a big deal. If you go to a big Boalt-firm like KE, Latham, or Weil, you're going to be safer in economic downturns than somebody who goes to a Thelen or DLA Piper.
Also, be aware of work ethics, but don't follow stereotypes too much. Big firms have higher average billable hours, but that doesn't mean their associates are working longer hours. Huh? How's that work? More prestigious firms can get away with billing more. Several V10 firms, including Cravath and Kirkland, bill at the 15 minute increment for most projects; most firms bill at the 6 minute increment. That's a lot more rounding going on in favor of associates at those firms, and so their actual billables will appear higher.
Lesser firms will also discount associate hours. Take 4 hours to do something a partner thinks should've taken 2? Guess what: you're only getting 2 hours for that that work, even though you legitimately spent the whole 4. Large firms that handle bet-the-company type work, or do extremely strong legal work, do not feel the pressure to discount hours and often don't. As a result, their 'average hours' look more like 'actual billed hours' rather than a poor associate at a different firm who actually worked 2400 hours but only got credit for 2000 of them. Use caution.
As a final thought: when it comes down to it, almost everybody at any V100 firm is doing the same amount of work in terms of hours. The difference is in the quality of that work, the amount you're being compensated for it (see, e.g., Wachtell or Kirkland's bonuses), the environment you do it in (see, e.g., Weil's casual PA office), and the general intelligence of your peers and partners (compare V10 to V100 firms).
Lots of things to keep in mind. If it starts to get to you, think of it this way: You're being asked to choose between two or more offers of employment where they want to pay you $3100/wk over the summer to eat lunch with them, and all of which pay at least $140-160K a year. Life could be much, much worse.
All good advice. I would also like to point out, however, that Vault rankings might be different for different cities. That is, a firm ranked 15 in Vault might have a weaker office in SF than a firm ranked 45. Keep in mind the strength of the office you're working for, and the quality of work that office gets. You might end up taking a lower ranked firm because it is based in San Francisco or LA and has better roots there than some NY satellite office.
LOL at 8:11.
i disagree with 9:24 on several points. 9:48 is absolutely correct about different offices.
yes, prestige matters. but fit matters more. are you a person who gets turned on by corporate law? is M&A your thing? if not, it might not make sense to go to a firm known for that. what was the tone of the people you interviewed with? for the same reasons that you might be a better fit for undergrad at Dartmouth than UCLA or vice versa (or wherever you went), different firms can be a better fit for some people versus others.
also, the hours thing. it matters. i have been at v5 and a v25 firm and things were very different. perhaps not in actual hours billed but definitely in a "feeling" about it. you can get a sense of this in your interview. are people bb'ing the whole time? looking annoyed that they have to talk to you? do they skip lunch most of the time?
oh, and not being on CLR mattered not a lick for me. never even came up.
I was the dude who posted those grades breakdowns back then. I'm now an associate at one of the firms on the list, working my ass off. As for the comments that Quinn seems to have become more selective -- I agree. When I posted that list, Quinn was little known outside LA and was not even listed on the Vault 100. They were handing out offers left and right to people in my class, and had the most flexible split policy. Since then, they have become much better known, as a result of a number of high profile victories (and losses, but never mind that), new office openings in Tokyo and London, billboards at Burbank airport, big recruiting stunts, and so forth. I am definitely very impressed with their marketing. Having said that, I would caution those considering Quinn to do a little more research on whether it is a good place to work if you are not John Quinn and their general reputation in the marketplace.
I summered at Quinn and had a great experience. The attorneys were quirky, tolerant, and accommodating I didn't end up going back there (am not working at a firm) but they were (and have continued to be) supportive of my current (and future) plans. My complaint about Quinn is probably the a complaint that's found at firms across the board - long hours. I don't know if they were worse than at other firms, but they were pretty bad.
Quinn's "reputation in the marketplace," is excellent. QE is one firm that has continued to grow even as other firms are having to cut back, and they continue to attract a more and more impressive clientele. In my last job search I interviewed with numerous practitioners and judges and they all had very high praise for QE.
It's definitely got some quirks that make it not a right fit for everyone, but it can be a great place for the right person (i.e. someone who wants to be a hardcore litigator, is willing to work hard, and can't stand wearing heels (you can wear shorts and flip flops to the office, and the attorneys there take the liberal dress code to the extreme)).
Don't pay too much attention to the grade listings that they have in the grade book. If you go by that, then less than half the class would end up with jobs!
If you're interviewing at BigLaw firms, don't worry about the hours. Find out if the people with whom you interview seem to genuinely like their work. Does everyone seem exhausted like they have no life whatsoever? once you have an offer you can ask about workload, hours requirements, avg hours billed, etc., but don't ask until you have an offer--it looks bad.
Take a deep breath, smile, and pretend that you're interested in every firm that you interview with. We've all been through this and you, too, will make it through.
My friend at Quinn has been screamed at at work and also have things literally thrown at her. They probably don't do this to summer associates.
As to "reputation," I don't mean their business success, which has been good, but their reputation for pushing the bounds of what's ethical, or at least civilized, in litigation. Quinn conducts its litigation as asshole attack dogs, which I suppose will appeal to some students.
Can we start a thread on the dreaded question that about a third (if not more) of the Boalt OCI-ers are fearing:
"So, I see you have a lot of background in public interest work. Why do you want to work at a law firm, anyway?"
Well I think the point of this thread is for all questions on OCIP. But more specifically, the answer to that question depends...drum roll please...on why you want to work at a law firm. I mean I don't understand what you're asking. Do you mean, "what lie should I tell to get a job at a law firm?" Do you think in similar terms when an interviewers asks you, "How are you today?"
To 10:37 -- Just say you're interested in social issues and have always been interested in doing what you could to make the world a little bit better, but that you are also interested in a big law firm because of the unrivaled quality of their practice, and of course, you would be interested in staying involved in pro bono work for the rest of your career as a lawyer. A lot of law students have random activist-sounding things on their resume. Don't worry.
I have a couple of thoughts for 10:37. Feel free to tell me I am wrong, but first I would like to know how many people with PI background have actually been asked that question in anything other than a genuinely curious manner?
Many, many attorneys have public interest backgrounds and continue to volunteer in their communities, work for nonprofit organizations, etc. Troll the bios of attorneys at the firms you are researching (especially the associates whose shorter careers sometimes make their bios less law-specific) to see what kind of stuff they have done, and what kind of interests they have. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Second, you actually do know how to handle that question. You do know the answer. Think about it: why do you want to work in a law firm? Is it just for the money? Really? Are you that kind of as sell-out? Seriously?
No. I didn't think so. The decision to move from PI work to a large law firm is complex and involves all sorts of personal factors. If you care about yourself at all, then you are taking that decision seriously. Whatever questions you are answering are not a simple as the price of your dignity, or wage at which you will compromise your morality.
It's just fine if you want to want to work somewhere for the money, but there must be other factors motivating you as well. What part of being in a law firm do you look forward to? In what way do you see yourself growing? Those are talking points. Focus on them, leave the moral wrangling at the door, and I'm sure you will handle the question very gracefully.
My perception is that PI applicants sometimes think that a demonstrated dedication to public service will automatically detract from their application. I think that's absurd. Don't you?
patrick, well said, but i'm afraid you're a bit naive. summer associateships are a costly invesment for a firm. if someone very obviously wants to do PI (to the point of not evening being able to ethically handle doing the work firms do - there was a thread on this last year, check the archives), then the firm might see through the attempt to make a quick $30K in a summer. no one (not even big firms) likes to be taken.
My resume was about as public interest-y as could be, and although everyone asked me about it, I don't think it hurt me in any way. If anything, I think it helped because it gave us some easy and interesting topics of conversation. When asked, I just said that my PI days were one phase of my life, and that I'm moving on and interested in doing something new. If your resume screams PI, think of something to say to the inevitable question, but I really don't think it's something to stress about.
Anyone what to take a stab at the selectivity of the SF and/or SV offices?
On SF/SV selectivity, it seems that most students want to be in SF than SV. I'm not sure why. But because of that, you may be interviewing against fewer fellow Boalties if you interview for SV offices.
For my firm, the work is the same in the SF & SV offices. Both handle large IP litigations. Perhaps there are more "smaller" IP cases in SV. But that's a great thing if you're an associate--you'll be taking depositions years earlier than your SF colleagues. The atmospheres of the offices are different and not all because SF is bigger.
Most of the firms asked about my public interest background, with some pushing me on the issue. Some were more pushy than others.
At the end of the day: if they don't want you, you don't want them.
Hey, are there any plaintiffs' firms that participate in OCIP? I think plaintiffs' work might be a good middle ground for PI-interested people like myself -- money isn't great, but it's not terrible -- and you get to sue big companies . . .
how important is it to go to firm cocktail parties that happen before your interview
And as a follow-up to 6:45's question, how many drinks should I have at those cocktail parties before my interview? I mean, because firms want to know I can throw them down, right?
Bay Area selectivity:
Impossible - Munger Tolles (only have summers in their LA office)
Quasi-impossible - Keker & Van Nest (but damn, sure worth a try)
Beyond that, I'm not really sure because it can be so subjective. But observing various firms during my time in practice (which is not long, so take with a grain of salt), I'd describe (and roughly rank) them as:
Gibson - great pretrial work; but forced to take a back seat when it comes time to actually try a case.
Weil - uneven. At times spectacular, at times craptacular. That Jared Bobrow is something else though.
Orrick - epitomizes the A-. Solid, but never incredible, with the occasional flub.
Cooley Godward - Solid. Takes the occasional liberty.
Fish & Richardson - Same. The occasional too cute moment that makes you wonder.
Fenwick & West - Diligent. The 20 HR, 85 RBI outfielder every team needs, but that never makes the All-Star team.
Morrison & Foerster- zealously advocating, no matter how absurd it makes them look. Other times pathetic. But this attorney gave the best oral argument I've seen yet.
Morgan Lewis - B. A bit over-the-top, but above-average and effective.
Winston & Strawn - surprised me with how competent they were. I expected them to be average at best. Actually, pretty competent.
Thelen - A sinking ship as a firm, but every attorney has impressed me. They'll land on their feet.
Bingham - Very disappointing based on what I'd heard about them. Lousy briefs.
Wilson Sonsini - sinking ship. Lost Bob Feldman. Botch cases. File absurd motions. Flee.
Pillsbury - similar to Wilson. Serious questions about who's running the show over there.
Quinn Emanuel - Stole Bob Feldman. There is now one attorney at the firm that I trust.
Gordon & Rees - save your money and represent yourself.
Townsend & Townsend & Crew - too nerdy for their own good. Maybe useful in a bench trial. Painful to imagine before a jury.
DLA Piper - the supermarket brand of law firms.
Lieff Cabraser - check for your wallet.
Coughlin Stoia - be nice to them. They'll be your criminal defense clients soon.
Obviously, these little blurbs can't be too helpful, but maybe they can spur some further comments or provide a rough impression.
"My friend at Quinn has..."
Hearsay much? At least in the SF office, the Quinn attorneys with whom I worked (which was a sizeable number) were very conscientious and ethical. Perhaps QE's flashy marketing (some of which is quite cheesy, if you ask me) and image as an "aggressive" trial firm has led some law students to get ideas of who they think a QE lawyers are, but I assure you that the lawyers at QE are intelligent and ethical. I don't think they would continue to attract top attorneys such as Kathleen Sullivan, former AUSAs, etc. if they weren't.
9:28 - Thanks for the not-help. Aside from the first two firms, none of your statements about firms have anything to do with the topic of your comment (and what the readers of this post care about): selectivity.
If we wanted a second-year associate to relay the idiosyncratic sound bite that more experienced attorneys at his firm told him about the trial practices of other bay area firms, we would be reading ATL right now.
Here's my take on Bay Area selectivity based on my experiences last year. I'm just talking about the SF offices here..
Most (almost all HHs): Munger; Quinn; Keker.
Very (mostly Hs, with an HH or two, a P is OK): Gibson; Latham; Kirkland; Weil; Covington; Orrick (?); Folger
Middle tier (maybe half Hs): Mofo; O'Melveney; Paul Hastings; Cooley; Skadden SF; Morgan Lewis; Sidley; Winston & Strawn; Wilson Sonsini
The other mega-shops (DLA Piper, Baker, etc.) tend to be less selective, as far as I can tell.
This year I'd avoid if at all possible: Heller and Thelen; and to a somewhat lesser degree, Pillsbury and Bingham.
I know I forgot a few of the firms with offices here, sorry. And this is just my take and I am sure others will disagree.. and with the economy this year, perhaps things have changed and more firms here will be more choosy (in general, I found SF the most competitive of the LA/DC/NY/SF options).
This thread might be close to dead, but printing a writing sample double-sided - encouraged? frowned upon? encouraged by environmentally friendly places but discouraged by others? totally irrelevant?
Three points:
1. This thread is heavily CA-centric (like Boalt, I guess). Most CA-based firms (apart from L&W) have a lower profile outside California. So don't take these selectivity lists too seriously if you are looking in DC/NY/Chicago/etc.
2. Law students tend to obsess about selectivity. But it's as/more important to look about practice area strength and training/mentoring opportunities. These don't always align with selectivity.
3. The most useful webpage for comparing firm strength is http://www.chambersandpartners.com/usa/, which ranks firms into tiers by practice area and geographic location. This site is much more insightful and trustworthy than Vault. Everyone participating in OCIP should take a look. (There are also national and international rankings).
Does going to the cocktail parties improve your chances of getting callbacks?
Some people - and you know who you are - are really good at schmoozing, and for those people I imagine that attending cocktail parties would help. For the rest of us, I think they're totally missable. I went to one, decided I'm too shy to make them helpful, and never attended another one. I did just fine in OCIP without them.
Callback dinners, on the other hand, shouldn't be missed.
I agree about cocktail parties. I went to a couple at first, thinking they were necessary, but then I stopped going and found it made no difference. My impression was that I was judged on my transcript/resume/interview and that was about it.
@12:47
care to elaborate on Pillsbury and Bingham?
Bingham
Pillsbury (and here)
Having gone through OCIP, I can tell you this list is way off. Especially in our current economic environment.
Post a Comment
<< Home