2010 OCIP Callbacks

[CLARIFICATION: The purpose of this thread is not to display the frequency of callbacks/duration of the callback period for a given employer. THUS, please do not re-post callbacks that are already included in the main post!! Thank you kindly :) ]

This is the 2010 callback thread. If you are unsure about what that might mean, look here, here, or even here. Then take a break and look here for some comedic relief.

Still unsure what the thread is all about? Here is a short explanation: some people think it's helpful to learn whether firms are calling back as soon as possible. This thread is designed to satiate that obsessive desire by publicly disseminating that information as quickly as possible. To make it work, everybody has to play -- if you get a callback, post that information anonymously into the comments. Please format it like this:

[Firm Name], [Firm City], [+/-]

+ means you got a callback.
- means you did not get a callback.

Here is a longer explanation:

(a) When you get a callback or a ding (ding = a rejection), look to see if that information has been included in the main post. If not, post it into the comments using the following format: Firm Name, City, + or - to indicate offer or ding respectively. If it's already in the main post but you post it again to comments anyway, I'll cry for humanity a little bit and then delete the comment.

(b) I will move your information into the main body of the thread. After adding the information, I will delete comments that state only an offer or a ding. I will also delete comments that I find counterproductive to a supportive, positive OCI process for everyone. That may bother some people, but tough cookies!! That said, I'll keep any comment posted under your full, real name.

(c) I will keep comments that offer something substantive, ask or answer a question, or make me laugh (a relatively low standard.)

As Patrick noted last year, and as Armen wisely opined five years ago: if this thread makes you feel anxious or uncomfortable, just skip it. You'll miss very little of substance, and you'll spare yourself a few weeks of stress. In any case, you will learn nothing here about your callbacks that wasn't going to come to you by phone or mail, anyway. Lastly, while I can't claim to know all of the class of 2012 (that is our class year, right?), I think it's pretty safe to say we are all fabulously brilliant future Avengers of the Law in addition to being really, really good people -- so take it one day at a time, stay kind to your friends, and you're gonna KILL IT!!

Drumroll, please...

Alameda County DA's Office +
Allen Matkins, SF+
Alson & Bird, DC+
Arnold & Porter, DC-, SF+
Baker Botts, DC+, Houston+
Baker McKenzie, SF+, SV+
Bingham, SF+
Boies Schiller, Oak+/-, NY+/-
Bracewell & Giuliani*, NY +
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, Den +/-
Bryan Cave, LA+/-, SF+
Cahill Gordon*, NY+
Cleary, Gottlieab, Steen & Hamilton, NY+/-
Covington & Burling, DC-, SD+/-, SF+, SV+
Cooley, SF+, SV+
Cox Castle, LA+
Cravath, Swaine and Moore, NY+/-
Crowell & Moring, DC+/-, LA+, SF+/-, OC-
Curtis Mallet-Prevost, NY+
Davis Polk, SV+/-, NY+
Davis Wright Tremaine, Sea+
Debevoise & Plimpton, NY +
Dechert, Phil+, SV+
Dewey & LeBouf, NY+
Faegre & Benson*, Minn+
Fenwick & West, SV+
Finnegan Reston+
Fish & Richardson, SD+, SV+
Foley Lardner, SF+
Fox Rothschild, LA-
Fried Frank*, NY +
Freshfields, NY+
Gibson Dunn, LA+/-, NY+/-, OC+, SF-
Goodwin Procter, Bos+, LA+, SF+, SV+
Greenberg Taurig, SV+/-
Gunderson Dettmer Stough Villeneuve Franklin & Hachigian, SV+
Hanson Bridgett, SF+
Haynes and Boone, Dal+, SV+
Hogan Lovells, DC+, NY+
Holland & Knight, SF+/-
Hooper Lundy, LA+, SF+
Howard Rice, SF+/-
Howrey, SF+
Irell and Manella, LA+, OC+
Ivins Phillips, DC+
Jeffer Mangels, LA +/-
Jenner and Block, Chi+, LA+
Jones Day, DC+, LA+/-, SD+/-, SF+/-, SV+/-
K&L Gates, SV+
Katten Muchin Rosenman*, LA+
Keker & Van Nest*, SF+/-
King & Spalding, SV+
Kirkland & Ellis, LA-, SF+/-, SV+/-
Knobbe Martens, DC+, OC +, SV-
Kramer Levin, NY+/-
Latham & Watkins, DC-, LA+/-, NY+, OC-, SD+, SF+/-, SV+/-
Loeb & Loeb, LA+/-
Mayer Brown, SV-
McDermott, LA-, SV-
Morgan Lewis, LA+, SF+/-, SV+/-
Morrison & Foerster, LA+/-, SD+/-, SF +/-, SV-
Munger Tolles, LA+/-
Nixon Peabody, SF+
O'Melveney & Myers, DC+/-, LA+/-, OC+/-, SF+/-, SV+
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LA+, Sac+/-, SF+/-, SV+/-
Paul Hastings, LA+/-, NY+, OC-, SD-, SF+/-, SV+
Paul Weiss, NY+
Pepper Hamilton*, NJ +
Perkins Coie, Sea+/-, SV+/-
Pillsbury, LA-, SF+
Quinn Emmanuel, LA+, SF+, SV+
Reed Smith, SF+
Ropes & Gray, Bos+, NY+, SF+/-
Sedgwick, SF+
Shartsis Friese, SF+
Shearman, SF+
Sheppard Mullin, LA+/-, OC+, SF+/-
Sidley Austin, Chi+, DC+/-, LA+/-, SF+/-, SV+/-
Simpson Thatcher, LA+/-, NY+/-, SV+/-
Skadden, NY+/-, SF-, SV+/-
Steptoe, DC+
Stradling Yocca, OC-
Sullivan & Cromwell, LA+/-, NY+/-
Thompson & Knight, Dal+
Townsend, SF-, SV-
Vinson Elkins, DC+, Houston +
Wachtell, NY+
Weil, Gotshal & Manges, NY+/-, SV+
White & Case, LA+, SV+
WilmerHale, Bos-, Chi-, DC+/-, LA+/-, NY+/-, SV+/-
Wilson Sonsini, SD+, SV +/-
Winston & Strawn, DC+, LA-, SF+/-

*Non-OCIP / Pre-OCIP callbacks.

The Wall of Awkward

Along with L'Alex's callback thread below above, it has also become something of a Nuts and Boalts tradition to share funny stories from the bizarre netherworld of OCIP during this time. The combination of hot days, dress clothes, nervous apprehension, tiny rooms, The Graduate posters, and struggling to maintain some semblance of professionalism through it all, makes for a potent cocktail of awkward. So share your best story below. I know you have one. I'll start.

At last year's OCIP, I was struggling to land a job after receiving a no-offer from my summer firm. (It happens to the best of us, OBVIOUSLY.) The one great lead I had was from the OCIP the year before, during which I had developed a rapport with the hiring partner at a major firm in Los Angeles that had continued via e-mail until that day. Even though I had not landed a scheduled interview, he had graciously offered to take me to lunch.

I had absolutely nothing else to do that day, as I had cancelled most of my plans to make sure I could prepare for the meeting. I thought it was probably my best chance to get a job in the foreseeable future. I even left the house an extra 30 minutes early, to give myself time to recover from the usual flop-sweat that develops when I wear wool outside. I was cleaned up, well-shaven, suit-clad, and ready to go with plenty of time to spare.

Then I tried to put my shoes on. I use the word "tried," because the effort was only half successful. After placing my left shoe on the left foot, I noticed that the other shoe was facing a peculiar direction--also left. Not only that, but it was an entirely different type of shoe than the one on my foot. Somehow, my shoe was missing its usual mate. I frantically searched the house for the Right shoe--eating up my 30 minute cushion--only to realize that my brother and I had apparently switched shoes when we packed up after my last trip home. The shoe that belonged on my right foot was somewhere in Salt Lake City.

So, what did I do? I did what any man would do. I jammed the other shoe on my right foot like that ugly stepsister from Cinderella and hoped no one would notice. I trudged down the hill and completed an entire interview and lunch wearing two mismatching dress shoes, both Left.

On the way to Durant, I stopped off in the student center to ask a few friends if they noticed anything strange about me. No one seemed to catch it, and I still don't know if the partner ever noticed. But at least I have something to blame for not getting that job, and a pretty good story to boot.

Queue Martha and the Vandellas...

Many would say there's little humor in OCIP (unless you count the whole interviewing-in-a-bedroom thing)--but I find it pretty amusing that our Summer-O-Fog has decided to turn into a heatwave the very day that interviews begin.

Ambitious 2Ls: complimentary monogrammed pocket fans. Take THAT to the bank.

Pre-OCI Reminder

This is one of my first substantive posts, but I feel it is necessary to say a few things about this. It is that time again, and a lot of 2Ls are at least a bit stressed out, myself included. Let's keep a few things in mind:

1. Keep arrogance to a minimum. Maybe not everyone will have as many callbacks as you, and not everyone will feel as confident about their screening interviews. Limiting these conversations with close friends seems credited.
2. Can we not talk about grades and whether doing a screening interview with grade-sensitive firms is a good idea? No one really wants to hear it, and we have our schedules already.
3. If you have advice to give (on interview techniques, firms, suits, life, etc.), think about whether it is welcome in the mind of the person receiving it. How you present advice, and to whom you present it, can really make a difference as to how it is perceived.

These are the top three things that come to my mind, but feel free to add.

Week 1 LRW/Civ Pro Lesson to 1Ls

You will eventually learn the precise contours of Rule 11 and its FRAP equivalent.  But for now, try and avoid stuff like this.  Also, I'm not an appellate lawyer by any stretch of the imagination, but if you are trying to get the Supreme Court to reverse Rule 11 sanctions against you, serving the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights will tend to prove that you are deranged and completely incapable of recognizing objective truth if it slapped you in the face.  Just a practice pointer. 

This is Not a Miley Cyrus Concert, This is Civil Procedure

Dear 1Ls,

I understand this is an exciting time in all of your lives. You're here! At Law School! Fantastic!

But, if I have to dodge a bum rush while coming out of Evidence because, as one of you exclaimed at me as you pushed past, "The seating chart was erased!" I am probably going to have an aneurysm. I understand that this is my fault. I simply don't get how sitting in the perfect seat is akin to getting the best deals on Black Friday at Wal Mart or shaking Barack Obama's hand, but please, for my health, wait for those of us exiting class to get out of your way before you run in to play "musical chairs" or "go to the head of the class" or whatever the hell you people call it.

10am is just too early to be subjected to a 1L stampede.

Love,
James

P.S - To whoever thinks it's a good idea to sign up on a seating chart before you physically occupy the seat in question, we should also have a discussion.

So... this exists

Who knew?

Bring out the Sorting Hat

It's time for another year at Hogwarts. Although it seems most of the regular posters here are old and increasingly creepy alumni, this blog is still about Boaltkley Law Hall, and we want to hear what's new there. So, what's new? Any good stories from the first day? Have they forced you to take classes in an actual dirt hole yet? Was this guy there? Fill us in below, and if anyone wants to write a more informative post, consider this deleted.

Update: Caption Contest!

In Memoriam

Now that the passing of former Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) is confirmed, I'd like to offer my condolences and prayers to the Stevens family.  His daughter is a Boalt alumna from the
Class of 2007.  And because of that, the former Senator, though a Bruin and a staunch conservative, spoke at Boalt in one of the most memorable and entertaining lunchtime talks.  Again, I'm wishing the best for the Stevens family in their time of grief.   

Breaking: Judge Walker Finds Prop. 8 Unconstitutional. But Will the Decision Stand?

In what appears to be a stunning decision (which I haven't read yet), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has held that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the due process and equal protection clauses. The decision is available here.

According to N.Y. Magazine, the key passage is:

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples.

Of course, the concern of many gay rights activists is not that the
plaintiffs would lose at trial, but that they would lose on appeal. And frankly, it's noteworthy whenever a district court concludes that any government justification fails to meet the rational basis test--much less those in connection with so controversial an issue and so historically entrenched a practice. Given that this case is almost certainly going to be decided at the Supreme Court, Judge Walker's decision may sweep too broadly for comfort.

An Amendment To Be

Hmmm, now that the GOP leadership wants to take away one of the most fundamental rights enshrined by the 14th Amendment (jus soli citizenship) then Congressional Democrats should propose to tack on amendments to the amendment. 

1)  Eliminate incorporation of the 2nd Amendment through the 14th Amendment.

2)  Amplify first half of the 2nd Amendment and eliminate any personal right to keep and bear arms.

3)  Eliminate corporate political contributions from the ambit of 1A free speech. 

Deal? 

Clerkship Thoughts from Gate 33B

Someone asked in the thread below about a clerkship discussion, which is something I have been meaning to start for weeks. I guess I was a little distracted with a test, or something, but what better opportunity to catch up than now, while I sit here waiting for a connecting flight at LAX?

Where are you in the timeline? Paper judge lists in? Cover letter writing? OSCAR deadline looming? That seems about right.

Let me share some off-hand thoughts, and then open a forum. As a threshold matter, I remember being utterly confused by the lingo, the timelines, the telephone strategies, and all the rest of it. The clerkship process is a little like OCIP in that it seems massively confusing until you have actually gone through it once. Afterward, it seems relatively simple. So, if you have any questions (particularly questions you are too embarrassed to ask the CDO in person), ask anonymously to your heart's content. Someone will answer.

There are four specific pieces of advice I would like to share. I realize perspectives vary and so you should not take this as gospel. Just take it as one person's view.

First, do not hang your soul on this process. Being a clerk is in no way a measure of your legal mind, your academic merit, or career potential, much less your worth as a human being. Not only is the hiring process "highly competitive" (how many times have you heard that one?), but it is also quite arbitrary. Approaching the process with a "well, let's see what happens" mindset, in my opinion, is the only healthy way to go. Really. Stay healthy.

Second, try not to compare us to Yale and instead reach out to the CDO and see what they can do for you. We may not have the crazy clerkship guns of other schools, but I found our guns more than adequate. Our CDO answered my questions, passed on tips based on what they remembered about my applications, and really did seem to know what they were doing. Small example: I know for a fact that ES went the extra mile for at least one of my classmates well after the clerkship hiring process ended, and as a result classmate is now a federal clerk with a prominent bay area judge. I realize opinions vary, and I don't want to open a debate about the CDO (please, I really don't), but my experience was positive, and I have every reason to believe that yours can be positive, too.

Third, if it is your application, it is your responsibility. Even given what I just said about the CDO, you are seeking a clerkship so that you can benefit by being a clerk. It matters more to you than to anyone else, and I think that keeping this perspective is helpful -- this whole affair isn't profoundly important; it is just profoundly important to you. On one hand, if things go wrong with your application, they will affect you more than anyone else. But on the other, the fruits of extra energy on your part will be reaped by you and no one else. No one is going to hand you a clerkship for being yourself -- no matter what your rank, how awesome your personality, or how catchy your resume's interests section, you still have to put yourself out there, and a judge still has to decide to like you. What I am saying is that the more you own this process, the more you will stand out from the thousands and thousands of other applicants who are plodding through the paces. Which means the more likely you are to become a clerk.

Fourth, quality not quantity. I now know that a key to tipping the clerkship hiring arbitrariness in your favor is to focus on judges within your reach and show them that you care about working for them. Try to (professionally) reach out and touch your judges, instead of just spamming every federal judge in OSCAR. The judges with whom I interviewed all said that after routine screening for grades, schools, etc., they pulled my application because it appeared that I had genuine desire to work for that judge in particular. We all know to "personalize our cover letters" and so I can conclude only that despite how common that advice is, few people actually follow it. Strive to be one of the people who does.

Those are my off-the-cuff thoughts on this. Fire away in the comments with your questions. I am sure other folks who have been through this process will chime in, and even if they disagree with what I have said here, you should listen to them.

Good luck!

(Sent from my phone.)