Student Outreach and Corporate Law Committees Host “Navigating OCI with Corporate Attorneys” Panel

On October 28, 2024, the Student Outreach Committee and Corporate Law Committee hosted a panel discussion titled “Navigating OCI with Corporate Attorneys” at Paul Hastings LLP. The event was designed to equip students with practical advice on navigating the On-Campus Interviewing (OCI) process, featuring insights from seasoned corporate attorneys and law firm partners. 

Moderators Joon Choe (Andersen Tax LLC) and Cat Tran (Columbia Law School ‘25) facilitated a dynamic conversation with panelists Kevin Lam (Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP), Tracy Feng (Partner, Paul Hastings LLP), Gordon Mak (Partner, Allen Overy Shearman Sterling LLP), and Kyle Zhu (Senior Associate, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP). The discussion covered a range of topics critical to students preparing for OCI. 

The discussion began with panelists sharing what drew them to their practice areas and how their experiences at their firms shaped their careers. They emphasized the importance of exploring different practice areas early on and encouraged students to stay curious. When selecting a law firm, panelists advised considering factors like firm culture, mentorship, and growth opportunities. They suggested attending firm receptions and informational interviews to gain a better sense of each firm’s environment.

As OCI timelines have accelerated in recent years, the panelists recommended that students prepare in advance by updating resumes and starting to network early. They emphasized the importance of proactive engagement, advising candidates to build relationships with attorneys and mentors. To stand out in applications, the panelists suggested tailoring resumes and cover letters to highlight unique experiences and interest in certain law firms. 

Networking and interviewing were other key areas of focus. Panelists shared tips on building authentic connections, suggesting students follow up after events with personalized emails. For virtual interviews, they highlighted the importance of a professional setup and preparing thoughtful questions to ask interviewers. On diversity and inclusion, panelists recommended asking specific questions about firms’ D&I initiatives to gauge their commitment. The event ended with a Q&A session on international work opportunities and networking strategies, followed by a networking reception for further conversation and opportunities for attendees to connect with the panelists and each other.

We hope this event provided attendees with the tools and confidence to navigate the legal recruiting landscape. Thank you again to Paul Hastings LLP for their partnership, our panelists for their insights, and to all who attended, for making the evening a success.

To learn more about the Corporate Law Committee, please click here. To learn more about the Student Outreach Committee, please click here.

In The News: The Brooklyn Daily Eagle Highlights AABANY’s “Pathways to the Bench” Event at New York Law School

On July 26, 2024, The Brooklyn Daily Eagle published an article about AABANY’s “Pathways to the Bench” event at New York Law School on July 23rd. The article summarizes the accounts of Hon. Lillian Won, Hon. Donald Leo, Hon. L. Austin D’Souza, and Hon. Rena Malik as they discussed their experiences being a judge, how they got there, and advice they had for aspiring judges.

To read the full article, click here.

IP Insights #1: Mayo and its Impact on Medicine

In Mayo v. Prometheus Labs, the Supreme Court invalidated a medical diagnosis patent because it was an unpatentable application of a law of nature. The patent was a method for determining the proper dosage level of a certain class of drugs administered to patients. The Court considered the patent to be merely reciting a natural law about the body’s physical chemistry and instructing doctors or researchers to apply that law to routine medical practice or research. The Court seemed to be concerned with diagnostic patents creating monopolies on medical research and practice, and thus inhibiting further discoveries.

Medical researchers and professionals have reacted favorably to the decision. They had feared that diagnostic patents would restrict medical research and experimentation, and that they would need to secure licenses in order to perform their routine work. In fact, doctors point out that the patent was covering something they do all the time: giving a patient different dosages of a drug, observing the results, and making a medical judgment about the proper dosage. Mayo and other academic hospitals will have more flexibility about conducting medical experiments with drugs without fear of infringing on someone else’s patents. 

What do you think about the Mayo v. Prometheus decision? Many have criticized the Court’s unsatisfactory reasoning; do you think it was rightly decided based on the Court’s patent law precedents? Most commentators have focused on the practical effect on doctors, medical researchers, and biotech companies. What do you think about the effect and how significant will Mayo be?

(To read the Mayo decision, click on the Supremecourt.gov link below. You can also read the PTO’s preliminary guidance in wake of Mayo at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/mayo_prelim_guidance.pdf)