Top Law Schools

bk187 wrote:

JCougar wrote:It's highly unprofitable for big firms to hire new associates that leave after three years.

What? Isn't their hiring model based on the fact that new associates leave after several years?

They'd rather the people not leave. It's just a fact of life that many law graduates hate Biglaw so much that, despite the awesome salaries, they're going to leave anyways.

Unless you're at a prestigious white shoe firm that can bill you out for $300/hour or higher, most first and second-year associates are a net loss for big firms. Think about it. They bill you out at $200/hour, you have to bill 2000 hours/year. That's $400,000 dollars a year that they bring in. But clients are always complaining about hours that shouldn't have been billed, so naturally, they get discounts, etc. So these firms are really only pulling in $300-350K from your work.

In addition to your $160K salary, they have to pay for all your health and dental benefits, among other perks, plus they have to pay your secretary's salary and health benefits as well, which brings your total costs close to $300K. On top of that, they have to pay rent on your office space (usually in a prime rent area), and other firm overhead.

You won't turn a profit for your firm until your third or fourth year under normal circumstances. This is why firms are increasingly looking farther than just grades. They want associates that will stay for 8 years.

bk187 wrote:

Attorney wrote:No.

Nice ninja edit to punctuate your statement.

I was under the impression that most people left biglaw after several years, is this not the case? I mean I understand that ideally they would want to keep people but isn't the reality that a lot of people get burned out pretty quickly?

It was always punctuated, just not bolded and enlarged!

You're very much right about a lot of people leaving due to burnout. They lose money when people do this so they try to minimize it as much as possible. It boils down to the market currently paying more than people are worth in the beginning, even as it underpays them later on. First-year associates are worth relatively little (less than $160,000 + benefits + lots more) to big firms as they don't contribute much to the bottom line.

JCougar's all over the grisly details of how they lose so much money on the leavers.

i have no knowledge about the biglaw hiring model, but common sense has me thinking this is an exaggeration. If a majority leave in a few years, and have yet to make the firm money, are you saying that the firm makes a nice profit off of the few who stay long term, and therefore earn several times over what they are really making?

and these firms would be less enticing to graduates if they just offered less to start with promise of significant raises in the next couple of years? 100k or 120k still beats out most/all midlaw offers. so the only argument could be that biglaw firms compete with each other, driving starting salaries up, thus collectively hurting their overall profits.

this just doesn't sound like good business. summer associates cost the firms money, first year perhaps, but no way that those who leave after three years have not earned an overall profit for the firm

romothesavior wrote: I'm only a 1L, so I don't know anything for certain. From what I can gather (and these are general, rough estimates), top 20-25% will probably get you some interviews, but you are far from safe. Top 1/3 might even do it if you have good WE or connections, and I've heard of people down to median getting NLJ 250 jobs (but they are a rare, rare exception).

I'd say anything outside top 10-15% is going to mean you have to interview really well to get a job out of OCI. ITE has made it so that few people at a school like WUSTL are "safe." But if you're top 20%, you'll be in a good place to get interviews and hopefully give yourself a real shot at an NLJ 250 job.

This is kind of terrifying. I thought the percentage was much higher. I very much want to get biglaw in either STL, KC or Chicago, and you're saying outside of top 10-15%, there's not a good chance of that? Just a chance?

seriously???? wrote:i have no knowledge about the biglaw hiring model, but common sense has me thinking this is an exaggeration. If a majority leave in a few years, and have yet to make the firm money, are you saying that the firm makes a nice profit off of the few who stay long term, and therefore earn several times over what they are really making?

and these firms would be less enticing to graduates if they just offered less to start with promise of significant raises in the next couple of years? 100k or 120k still beats out most/all midlaw offers. so the only argument could be that biglaw firms compete with each other, driving starting salaries up, thus collectively hurting their overall profits.

this just doesn't sound like good business. summer associates cost the firms money, first year perhaps, but no way that those who leave after three years have not earned an overall profit for the firm

All I can say is ask biglaw attorneys themselves about it. They talk about how naive first year associates are if they think they are making their firm a profit.

They're not losing much money on first year associates...they're probably decently close to breaking even. But they really start making money after your third year when you become more productive with your billable hours, and they can charge more for you because you have better experience.

If first year associates were 100% productive with their billable hours, they probably would make a profit...but they never are.

The reason why profit margins are so slim is because the competition is fierce. No firm wants to be the one that is turned down by the people on law review at the T14 because they offered $15K less in starting salary.

0LNewbie wrote:

romothesavior wrote: I'm only a 1L, so I don't know anything for certain. From what I can gather (and these are general, rough estimates), top 20-25% will probably get you some interviews, but you are far from safe. Top 1/3 might even do it if you have good WE or connections, and I've heard of people down to median getting NLJ 250 jobs (but they are a rare, rare exception).

I'd say anything outside top 10-15% is going to mean you have to interview really well to get a job out of OCI. ITE has made it so that few people at a school like WUSTL are "safe." But if you're top 20%, you'll be in a good place to get interviews and hopefully give yourself a real shot at an NLJ 250 job.

This is kind of terrifying. I thought the percentage was much higher. I very much want to get biglaw in either STL, KC or Chicago, and you're saying outside of top 10-15%, there's not a good chance of that? Just a chance?

To add to that, I'm from KC, and when I visited I was led to believe that it's not too difficult to make it back to a big firm in KC (assuming not bottom of the class). I guess that's not totally accurate?

0LNewbie wrote:

0LNewbie wrote:

romothesavior wrote: I'm only a 1L, so I don't know anything for certain. From what I can gather (and these are general, rough estimates), top 20-25% will probably get you some interviews, but you are far from safe. Top 1/3 might even do it if you have good WE or connections, and I've heard of people down to median getting NLJ 250 jobs (but they are a rare, rare exception).

I'd say anything outside top 10-15% is going to mean you have to interview really well to get a job out of OCI. ITE has made it so that few people at a school like WUSTL are "safe." But if you're top 20%, you'll be in a good place to get interviews and hopefully give yourself a real shot at an NLJ 250 job.

This is kind of terrifying. I thought the percentage was much higher. I very much want to get biglaw in either STL, KC or Chicago, and you're saying outside of top 10-15%, there's not a good chance of that? Just a chance?

To add to that, I'm from KC, and when I visited I was led to believe that it's not too difficult to make it back to a big firm in KC (assuming not bottom of the class). I guess that's not totally accurate?

No, you're more accurate than that. Romo was responding to a question getting biglaw jobs anywhere from WUSTL, and through OCI. Biglaw in KC, being from KC, is not easy, but top 1/3 should give you a good shot - not necessarily through OCI, but with some legwork and networking.

quadsixm wrote: No, you're more accurate than that. Romo was responding to a question getting biglaw jobs anywhere from WUSTL, and through OCI. Biglaw in KC, being from KC, is not easy, but top 1/3 should give you a good shot - not necessarily through OCI, but with some legwork and networking.

Ok, that's a bit of a relief. I was in panic mode over here. I truly didn't know it was possible to get biglaw outside of OCI, even with connections to the market.

FYI: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... OLS_REPORT

BC 33.58%
BU 30.00%
Vanderbilt 29.81%
USC 28.72%
Texas 26.65%
Fordham 25.68%
GW 24.76%
Notre Dame 23.84%
Emory 21.18%
WUSTL 18.96%
Illinois 17.85%
SMU 16.22%
W&M 15.42%
UC-Davis 15.38%

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... hbxlogin=1

WUSTL dropped a spot, from #24 to #25. A few "go-to" schools dropped hugely in these rankings (e.g., Northwestern). Horrible market for everyone though.

Blindmelon wrote:FYI: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... OLS_REPORT

BC 33.58%
BU 30.00%
Vanderbilt 29.81%
USC 28.72%
Texas 26.65%
Fordham 25.68%
GW 24.76%
Notre Dame 23.84%
Emory 21.18%
WUSTL 18.96%
Illinois 17.85%
SMU 16.22%
W&M 15.42%
UC-Davis 15.38%

I may be wrong, but isn't this moderately deceiving due to the number of big firms that don't make the nlj250, yet still pay 6 figures?

I'm a little surprised NYU went so low and Cornell stayed so high.

A lot of the variation is caused because NYC firms no offered class of 2009, while the rest of the country didn't. And in 2009, the whole nation did. That protected schools like Northwestern, Michigan and UVA in 2009 data, but evened it out in 2010.

FuManChusco wrote:

Blindmelon wrote:FYI: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... OLS_REPORT

BC 33.58%
BU 30.00%
Vanderbilt 29.81%
USC 28.72%
Texas 26.65%
Fordham 25.68%
GW 24.76%
Notre Dame 23.84%
Emory 21.18%
WUSTL 18.96%
Illinois 17.85%
SMU 16.22%
W&M 15.42%
UC-Davis 15.38%

I may be wrong, but isn't this moderately deceiving due to the number of big firms that don't make the nlj250, yet still pay 6 figures?

]

I REALLY doubt that non-NLJ250 firm that still pay biglaw salaries would close the gap by much (if at all) for WUSTL

FuManChusco wrote:
I may be wrong, but isn't this moderately deceiving due to the number of big firms that don't make the nlj250, yet still pay 6 figures?

True, but that affects all schools. I know Boston at least has a few non-NLJ market-rate firms that some schools on this least feed into.

Gotcha. Thanks. I'm really just shocked Emory is up there after the horror stories.

FuManChusco wrote:Gotcha. Thanks. I'm really just shocked Emory is up there after the horror stories.

Their horror stories are from OCI 2009.

Desert Fox wrote:

FuManChusco wrote:Gotcha. Thanks. I'm really just shocked Emory is up there after the horror stories.

Their horror stories are from OCI 2009.

Ahhhhh yes. Realized that after my post. DF, where do you expect these numbers to be in another year? Higher, but by how much?

FuManChusco wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

FuManChusco wrote:Gotcha. Thanks. I'm really just shocked Emory is up there after the horror stories.

Their horror stories are from OCI 2009.

Ahhhhh yes. Realized that after my post. DF, where do you expect these numbers to be in another year? Higher, but by how much?

Lower.

Desert Fox wrote:

FuManChusco wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

FuManChusco wrote:Gotcha. Thanks. I'm really just shocked Emory is up there after the horror stories.

Their horror stories are from OCI 2009.

Ahhhhh yes. Realized that after my post. DF, where do you expect these numbers to be in another year? Higher, but by how much?

Lower.

Damn. I thought I saw you post in another thread that it would slowly reach pre-ITE numbers.

FuManChusco wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

FuManChusco wrote:

Desert Fox wrote: Their horror stories are from OCI 2009.

Ahhhhh yes. Realized that after my post. DF, where do you expect these numbers to be in another year? Higher, but by how much?

Lower.

Damn. I thought I saw you post in another thread that it would slowly reach pre-ITE numbers.

They got their SA offers before Lehman fell, and the Dow crashed. But they got their full time offers well after. It's a mix.

Desert Fox wrote:

FuManChusco wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

FuManChusco wrote:Gotcha. Thanks. I'm really just shocked Emory is up there after the horror stories.

Their horror stories are from OCI 2009.

Ahhhhh yes. Realized that after my post. DF, where do you expect these numbers to be in another year? Higher, but by how much?

Lower.

Based on what assumptions??

tkgrrett wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

FuManChusco wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:
Their horror stories are from OCI 2009.

Ahhhhh yes. Realized that after my post. DF, where do you expect these numbers to be in another year? Higher, but by how much?

Lower.

Based on what assumptions??

Class of 2011 is the first class that did OCI after the economy crashed.

that's sickening, and not good for topic of this post. BC and BU somewhat held their ground. WandL certainly got some humble pie. i agree that the class of 11 wont be better, but maybe class of 14 could equal to 09. It can get better, because the baby boomer retirement effect should start to grow.

JCougar wrote:

bk187 wrote:

JCougar wrote:It's highly unprofitable for big firms to hire new associates that leave after three years.

What? Isn't their hiring model based on the fact that new associates leave after several years?

They'd rather the people not leave. It's just a fact of life that many law graduates hate Biglaw so much that, despite the awesome salaries, they're going to leave anyways.

Unless you're at a prestigious white shoe firm that can bill you out for $300/hour or higher, most first and second-year associates are a net loss for big firms. Think about it. They bill you out at $200/hour, you have to bill 2000 hours/year. That's $400,000 dollars a year that they bring in. But clients are always complaining about hours that shouldn't have been billed, so naturally, they get discounts, etc. So these firms are really only pulling in $300-350K from your work.

In addition to your $160K salary, they have to pay for all your health and dental benefits, among other perks, plus they have to pay your secretary's salary and health benefits as well, which brings your total costs close to $300K. On top of that, they have to pay rent on your office space (usually in a prime rent area), and other firm overhead.

You won't turn a profit for your firm until your third or fourth year under normal circumstances. This is why firms are increasingly looking farther than just grades. They want associates that will stay for 8 years.

Rather they not leave? Wrong. Its a pyramid type organization. Even if one firm hires the brightest and most dynamic 8 law students in the nation at once, 7 years ago, it won't be able to make all 8 of them partner this year UNLESS each one has a book of business. Firms have always looked for characteristics beyond grades. What you might be trying to say is that they hope new associates might have some business contacts or family connections to bring some work to their firm, or that the associate is at least capable enough to develop such talent in short order.

The dumbest and most hated 1st year associate is profitable. If he is not profitable he would be kicked out. Total gross income on a first year in NYC is north of $500k. The idea that first years don't become profitable until year three is a myth. I'm not sure where people came up with that. Maybe at really horrid ID firms where the insurance clients don't want 1st years to bill this is how things work, but at firms of any prestige the first years are bright, dynamic and they bill. There are not that many discounts and writeoffs. In a small commercial lit case you might have a partner, a midlevel and a first year. All three individuals bill and show up on the invoice. For all the cost savings you have hard about clients do have money and dont want to lose a case and they will pay.