Job search answers from NYU 3L

[Resident CLS Troll]

I don't have hard numbers on this but that is the conventional wisdom, and has been my experience and that of people at my school. DC is a much smaller market but is very highly in demand, hence the difficulty. Also, DC is less profitable for partners than NY, so they hire fewer associates, who get paid as much or almost as their NY counterparts. NY just has a huge amount of work and needs a lot of associates, DC not quite as much.

I agree with this.  I think if you look at the associate/partner ratio at DC offices compared to NY offices, you'll see a significantly lower number.  So associates in DC are a lot more likely to become partners than associates in NY offices, and so are more carefully chosen.  In some ways it seems like the NY offices are a lot more interested in just having bodies than the DC offices.  Hence NY offices are less selective than DC offices. 

I hope that made some kind of sense.  My brain is fried.

[sternerstuff]

More Q's

1) My GPA would be XXX and my rank YYY "if not for that one B".... any room for an excuse like that to be fit into a cover letter, addendum or are you can that only come up in the interview you won't be getting since you are not top YYY%......

2) 'when' I network my ass off to get an interview at a firm I may not have otherswise gotten, and/or use a tenous friend/family connection to get the same,  Will I have a significant amount of ground to make up during the interview, or is everyone into the interview stage more or less on the same footing

3)  Non-biglaw question,  test your skills:    How 'grade centric' are positions with federal judges,   externs v clerkships... Im considering turning multiple judicial externships into a clerkship w/ district but if my grades aren't tops can that really happen.   Is it harder to get BigLaw than clerking @ fed level?

4)  Also, If the majority of fed judicial clerks get Big law, Is that a function of judicial selectivity, ie anyone who can land a clerkship at this level can get into BigLaw   OR is it a function of the skill sets people learn w/ a year clerking.....
----->> you keep answering, Ill keep asking,   its all be helpful so far, Thanks a bunch... I promise some day I'll  "'pay it forward" LSD

[thorc954]

thanks guys.


1. dont make excuses on your cover letter.  you didnt do well in a class, that is why your gpa is where it is.  I mean, we would all have better gpas if we had done better in some classes.

2.  there is some thought out there that they dont interview you unless they would be willing to give you the job.  Because the interviews are only a factor in the hiring committees decisions, Id say that your gpa/resume still play a big role.

3. very grade centric.  Im top 15% at a top 20 law school and my adviser suggested i dont waste my time with the districts I want to be at (DC, SDNY).  Also, its really difficult to turn an internship into a clerkship. 

4.  I think that anyone that could get a district court clerkship could get a big law job.  Also, many clerks deferred their offers from their SA positions to go clerk, so they are virtually guaranteed their jobs (at least before the poor economy).

[Astro]

One note:

There is only one situation where you may want to explain your GPA (not sure how to go about this, though), and that is if you had a major illness or family disaster that affected an entire semester's grades.  I'm not talking about just one or two exams, but all of them.  And even then, the only way your GPA argument is going to make any sense is if you can show that it was a major anomaly -- in other words, you need at least another semester's grades to compare it to, and that semester's grades need to be at least at the level that the firm would accept.

For example, if, during your first semester, your parents died in a car accident two or three weeks before exams and you could only manage low Bs, maybe Cs, and then you somehow manage to stick in the game your second semester and score almost straight As, that would be good grounds for an addendum or an explanation (still not sure whether that should go in a cover letter or not, though).  Even then, you should be aware that many hiring associates/partners will pay little attention to your excuse, but for those who do, it may make a difference.  Still very difficult to overcome such a hurdle -- BigLaw really is a prestige game, so the further down the rankings you go, the more your grades matter.  They matter to the clients, they matter to the firm's image, and therefore they matter to the hiring associates/partners.

[themanwithnoname]

I agree with most of what was said. some additional comments

2) getting an interview means they are seriously considering you, but that does not mean you are on equal footing with everybody else. Some people might be a longshot and will get the job if htey are amazing. Some people just need to not vomit on anybody. That's notrealy what you should worry about though, just focus on wowing them.

3) Federal clerkships are generally grade-centric but there is a little bit more variability. Some judges are loyal to their alma mater, and that can give you a significant boost. Generally it is significantly harder to get a clerkship with a district or circuit judge than to get biglaw.

Thorc, i hope you ignored your adviser, there is so much variability with the clerkship process that I really think it is worth applying to "reach" judges.

[Astro]

I agree with most of what was said. some additional comments

2) getting an interview means they are seriously considering you, but that does not mean you are on equal footing with everybody else. Some people might be a longshot and will get the job if htey are amazing. Some people just need to not vomit on anybody. That's notrealy what you should worry about though, just focus on wowing them.

3) Federal clerkships are generally grade-centric but there is a little bit more variability. Some judges are loyal to their alma mater, and that can give you a significant boost. Generally it is significantly harder to get a clerkship with a district or circuit judge than to get biglaw.

Thorc, i hope you ignored your adviser, there is so much variability with the clerkship process that I really think it is worth applying to "reach" judges.

Hey, while you're around, do you know how you'd go about explaining your anomalous poor semester in an application?  I'm having a hard time thinking about a professional way to go about it.  I attend a TTT so, you know, it's never gonna happen for me anyway.   

[themanwithnoname]

assuming you don't actually have a really good explanation?

I think one of the best ways to do it is to spin it: if it is an early semester, you explain how much you learned and improved.  If it is a recent semester, you talk about expanding your focus into extracurricular activities that took up so much time (which has to be backed up in your resume). Ultimately though I don't think there is so much you can do.

[Jolie Was Here]

I agree with most of what was said. some additional comments

2) getting an interview means they are seriously considering you, but that does not mean you are on equal footing with everybody else. Some people might be a longshot and will get the job if htey are amazing. Some people just need to not vomit on anybody. That's notrealy what you should worry about though, just focus on wowing them.

3) Federal clerkships are generally grade-centric but there is a little bit more variability. Some judges are loyal to their alma mater, and that can give you a significant boost. Generally it is significantly harder to get a clerkship with a district or circuit judge than to get biglaw.

Thorc, i hope you ignored your adviser, there is so much variability with the clerkship process that I really think it is worth applying to "reach" judges.

Hey, while you're around, do you know how you'd go about explaining your anomalous poor semester in an application?  I'm having a hard time thinking about a professional way to go about it.  I attend a TTT so, you know, it's never gonna happen for me anyway.   

I actually faced this scenario (family emergency 1st semester, had to go home for a month and took 1st semester exams during 2nd semester).  During OCI, I generally just mentioned the story in the screening interviews (except for the ones where they never glanced at my resume or transcript and the talk was entirely non-legal...that would have been really awkward).  It felt weird to bring it up, but I tried to be very humble and realistic about the whole thing (ie. who know - my grades may have blown even without this set of bad circumstances, but at least now you have context, etc.).  Everyone was very receptive and sympathetic, but I'm not sure it made a lick of difference in any outcomes.  

[Astro]

I agree with most of what was said. some additional comments

2) getting an interview means they are seriously considering you, but that does not mean you are on equal footing with everybody else. Some people might be a longshot and will get the job if htey are amazing. Some people just need to not vomit on anybody. That's notrealy what you should worry about though, just focus on wowing them.

3) Federal clerkships are generally grade-centric but there is a little bit more variability. Some judges are loyal to their alma mater, and that can give you a significant boost. Generally it is significantly harder to get a clerkship with a district or circuit judge than to get biglaw.

Thorc, i hope you ignored your adviser, there is so much variability with the clerkship process that I really think it is worth applying to "reach" judges.

Hey, while you're around, do you know how you'd go about explaining your anomalous poor semester in an application?  I'm having a hard time thinking about a professional way to go about it.  I attend a TTT so, you know, it's never gonna happen for me anyway.   

I actually faced this scenario (family emergency 1st semester, had to go home for a month and took 1st semester exams during 2nd semester).  During OCI, I generally just mentioned the story in the screening interviews (except for the ones where they never glanced at my resume or transcript and the talk was entirely non-legal...that would have been really awkward).  It felt weird to bring it up, but I tried to be very humble and realistic about the whole thing (ie. who know - my grades may have blown even without this set of bad circumstances, but at least now you have context, etc.).  Everyone was very receptive and sympathetic, but I'm not sure it made a lick of difference in any outcomes.   

I remember this!  I totally should've asked you.

Hmm, so no mention pre-screening.  I'm not surprised it doesn't make much difference.  Firms don't like to gamble most of the time.

[Jolie Was Here]

I agree with most of what was said. some additional comments

2) getting an interview means they are seriously considering you, but that does not mean you are on equal footing with everybody else. Some people might be a longshot and will get the job if htey are amazing. Some people just need to not vomit on anybody. That's notrealy what you should worry about though, just focus on wowing them.

3) Federal clerkships are generally grade-centric but there is a little bit more variability. Some judges are loyal to their alma mater, and that can give you a significant boost. Generally it is significantly harder to get a clerkship with a district or circuit judge than to get biglaw.

Thorc, i hope you ignored your adviser, there is so much variability with the clerkship process that I really think it is worth applying to "reach" judges.

Hey, while you're around, do you know how you'd go about explaining your anomalous poor semester in an application?  I'm having a hard time thinking about a professional way to go about it.  I attend a TTT so, you know, it's never gonna happen for me anyway.   

I actually faced this scenario (family emergency 1st semester, had to go home for a month and took 1st semester exams during 2nd semester).  During OCI, I generally just mentioned the story in the screening interviews (except for the ones where they never glanced at my resume or transcript and the talk was entirely non-legal...that would have been really awkward).  It felt weird to bring it up, but I tried to be very humble and realistic about the whole thing (ie. who know - my grades may have blown even without this set of bad circumstances, but at least now you have context, etc.).  Everyone was very receptive and sympathetic, but I'm not sure it made a lick of difference in any outcomes.   

I remember this!  I totally should've asked you.

Hmm, so no mention pre-screening.  I'm not surprised it doesn't make much difference.  Firms don't like to gamble most of the time.

Crappity.  I should have mentioned that we don't get pre-screened, so it would've been REALLY weird for me to mention it ahead of time.  I'm not sure how I would have handled it if the OCI schedule had been firm-driven.