ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
beach_terror
Posts: 7256
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:01 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby beach_terror » Tue Jan 28, 2014 11:42 pm

BlueLotus wrote:Why Cardozo=Bad Under Any Circumstances and Temple=Good, when they are similarly ranked (and both located in markets saturated with lawl schools)?

Philadelphia isn't saturated like NYC is (and is much cheaper). Temple is also high in the peaking order, along with Villanova. The Philadelphia equivalent of a Cardozo in NYC is Widener or Drexel. Job prospects in Philly are still very poor, FWIW.

Chekhov'sGun
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 2:43 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby Chekhov'sGun » Tue Jan 28, 2014 11:49 pm

RobertGolddust wrote:
Because they assume that lawyers all make 70K with bonuses, and the law schools do nothing to dissuade them from thinking that, and the anonymous people online who tell them otherwise are all just bitter losers who failed at life.


Pretty much what I was thinking. But still, 50 k. Why not become a teacher or something?


I agree many people are confused about the starting salaries of most lawyers but I believe the starting salary for teachers is usually around 35K. Also I think it's important to factor in the job growth potential and career long compensation when comparing any two occupations.

Lawyer median wage: $113,530 http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes231011.htm
Secondary school teacher median wage: $55,050 http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes252031.htm

User avatar
worldtraveler
Posts: 7669
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:47 am

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby worldtraveler » Tue Jan 28, 2014 11:57 pm

Chekhov'sGun wrote:
RobertGolddust wrote:
Because they assume that lawyers all make 70K with bonuses, and the law schools do nothing to dissuade them from thinking that, and the anonymous people online who tell them otherwise are all just bitter losers who failed at life.


Pretty much what I was thinking. But still, 50 k. Why not become a teacher or something?


I agree many people are confused about the starting salaries of most lawyers but I believe the starting salary for teachers is usually around 35K. Also I think it's important to factor in the job growth potential and career long compensation when comparing any two occupations.

Lawyer median wage: $113,530 http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes231011.htm
Secondary school teacher median wage: $55,050 http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes252031.htm


Those statistics are meaningless because while teachers are clustered around the middle, lawyer salaries are bimodal. You're either making a lot or a little and there is not much in between.

User avatar
BlueLotus
Posts: 2428
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 8:07 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby BlueLotus » Wed Jan 29, 2014 12:03 am

beach_terror wrote:
BlueLotus wrote:Why Cardozo=Bad Under Any Circumstances and Temple=Good, when they are similarly ranked (and both located in markets saturated with lawl schools)?

Philadelphia isn't saturated like NYC is (and is much cheaper). Temple is also high in the peaking order, along with Villanova. The Philadelphia equivalent of a Cardozo in NYC is Widener or Drexel. Job prospects in Philly are still very poor, FWIW.


Thanks!

I chose to go to a T30 in a neighboring market for free, and wanna do PD/Legal Aid in Philly. As someone familiar with that market, what steps would you recommend I take? Did my 1L summer there, and secured a 2L summer PI jerb in Philly as well as a spring/winter break pro bono thing. Have strong ties, as in grew up in southeastern PA.

User avatar
beach_terror
Posts: 7256
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:01 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby beach_terror » Wed Jan 29, 2014 12:20 am

BlueLotus wrote:
beach_terror wrote:
BlueLotus wrote:Why Cardozo=Bad Under Any Circumstances and Temple=Good, when they are similarly ranked (and both located in markets saturated with lawl schools)?

Philadelphia isn't saturated like NYC is (and is much cheaper). Temple is also high in the peaking order, along with Villanova. The Philadelphia equivalent of a Cardozo in NYC is Widener or Drexel. Job prospects in Philly are still very poor, FWIW.


Thanks!

I chose to go to a T30 in a neighboring market for free, and wanna do PD/Legal Aid in Philly. As someone familiar with that market, what steps would you recommend I take? Did my 1L summer there, and secured a 2L summer PI jerb in Philly as well as a spring/winter break pro bono thing. Have strong ties, as in grew up in southeastern PA.

I'm not too familiar with PD/legal aid (I'm at a firm), but I do know PD has a very late hiring process that's usually divorced from their internship program. I know they take on post-grad interns and don't pay them anything, and I think I know of one person who ended up with a full time PD gig from that. I can ask around if you want and see what I can find out. I know a few people from my class that went the PI route.

User avatar
bcbias
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 1:12 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby bcbias » Wed Jan 29, 2014 1:32 am

First off, thank you guys for chiming in to offer advice! :lol:

Goals: IP/Patent Attorney in Biglaw or corporate in-house counsel/ litigator
Area Ties: Born, raised, and undergrad educated in NC
Schools: WUSTL (sticker as of now) =138K. Hopefully UNC =57K(assuming sticker) and Wake =117(assuming sticker)

I applied first week in January (late as s***) to Wake, UNC and WUSTL.
Within a week I received an email from the Dean about my acceptance to WUSTL.
Wake said my application decision will most likely be delayed. Judging by such an action rather than an immediate admit/denial, I'm most likely competitive for acceptance in their eyes.
Still waiting on UNC.

My family and my network in NC is extensive and I've got connections with admissions deans at Wake and UNC, not to mention I have credentials competitive considering their medians, I'm a URM, I'm soon to be published next month, and I have a stellar laboratory research resume: I should get into these schools.

I have zero undergrad debt. I'm currently interning under a former Judge with a vast network who takes me to all types of bar association banquets, dinners, and political events. I've sat next to and networked with associates and partners at Alston Bird, Moore Van Allen, King Spaudling, and firms in NC. I have personal networks with corporate engineers, investment bankers, university researchers, and local political figures.

Assuming I get accepted into UNC and Wake, is it worth risking my NC network by leaving for WUSTL? At what point would it be reasonable or sensible to attend over UNC/Wake. I just don't know if WUSTL is worth the potential debt unless it opens up bigger opportunities for me and/or I'm able to transfer into the top 14. Please help me out guys!

User avatar
BlueLotus
Posts: 2428
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 8:07 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby BlueLotus » Wed Jan 29, 2014 1:32 am

So grads, is this the Boston pecking order?:

Harvard>BC=BU>Northeastern>Suffolk>New England>Western New England>UMass Dartmouth>unaccredited shiz

And is this about right for Philly?

Penn>Temple>Rutgers Camden=Villanova>Widener=Drexel>unaccredited shiz

Also, for those in Philly-area schools, does anyone know how liberal they are in letting students visit there for 3L year? Does it have to be a serious situation like a dying parent or can just wanting to be there and having ties to the region suffice?

User avatar
prezidentv8
Posts: 2821
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 5:33 am

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby prezidentv8 » Wed Jan 29, 2014 1:44 am

worldtraveler wrote:
Chekhov'sGun wrote:
RobertGolddust wrote:
Because they assume that lawyers all make 70K with bonuses, and the law schools do nothing to dissuade them from thinking that, and the anonymous people online who tell them otherwise are all just bitter losers who failed at life.


Pretty much what I was thinking. But still, 50 k. Why not become a teacher or something?


I agree many people are confused about the starting salaries of most lawyers but I believe the starting salary for teachers is usually around 35K. Also I think it's important to factor in the job growth potential and career long compensation when comparing any two occupations.

Lawyer median wage: $113,530 http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes231011.htm
Secondary school teacher median wage: $55,050 http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes252031.htm


Those statistics are meaningless because while teachers are clustered around the middle, lawyer salaries are bimodal. You're either making a lot or a little and there is not much in between.


Also, I don't know much about the job market for teachers, but a few additional observations:

(1) Teaching credential = 1 yr, JD = 3 yrs
(2) JD has debt second only to MD
(3) Not all JDs get to be real lawyers and therefore do not count in the BLS salary figures
(4) JD career prospects closely tied to prestige of school; teaching not so much I think
(5) Not gonna break even on a JD for many years, teaching you're in the black pretty fast.
(6) more debt = more stress, less options
(7) social life of teacher > social life of lawyer

ETA:
(8) lawyers work more, often much more boringly

timbs4339
Posts: 2733
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:19 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby timbs4339 » Wed Jan 29, 2014 2:03 am

bcbias wrote:First off, thank you guys for chiming in to offer advice! :lol:

Goals: IP/Patent Attorney in Biglaw or corporate in-house counsel/ litigator
Area Ties: Born, raised, and undergrad educated in NC
Schools: WUSTL (sticker as of now) =138K. Hopefully UNC =57K(assuming sticker) and Wake =117(assuming sticker)

I applied first week in January (late as s***) to Wake, UNC and WUSTL.
Within a week I received an email from the Dean about my acceptance to WUSTL.
Wake said my application decision will most likely be delayed. Judging by such an action rather than an immediate admit/denial, I'm most likely competitive for acceptance in their eyes.
Still waiting on UNC.

My family and my network in NC is extensive and I've got connections with admissions deans at Wake and UNC, not to mention I have credentials competitive considering their medians, I'm a URM, I'm soon to be published next month, and I have a stellar laboratory research resume: I should get into these schools.

I have zero undergrad debt. I'm currently interning under a former Judge with a vast network who takes me to all types of bar association banquets, dinners, and political events. I've sat next to and networked with associates and partners at Alston Bird, Moore Van Allen, King Spaudling, and firms in NC. I have personal networks with corporate engineers, investment bankers, university researchers, and local political figures.

Assuming I get accepted into UNC and Wake, is it worth risking my NC network by leaving for WUSTL? At what point would it be reasonable or sensible to attend over UNC/Wake. I just don't know if WUSTL is worth the potential debt unless it opens up bigger opportunities for me and/or I'm able to transfer into the top 14. Please help me out guys!


Are those projected debt figures? Do they include COL and all the other goodies?

My initial reaction is that, if UNC is really 60K, there's almost no benefit to going to WUSTL or Wake. UNC actually has better stats than Wake, and only slightly worse than WUSTL. The difference in reputation between WUSTL and UNC is not so great that someone who was not willing to go to bat for you if you were median at UNC would have gone to bat for you if only you were median at WUSTL.

My reservation is that you want biglaw but are not going to a biglaw feeder school (biglaw is basically a prereq to in-house counsel jobs, I can count the number of major corporations that hire entry-level in-house attorneys on one hand). Transferring to the T14 is not a good bet and is unlikely to impact your chances anyway since you only have your grades at your 1L school for biglaw hiring. You have an interesting background with a lot of soft factors (IP/URM/connections), so you may have some wiggle room that other students won't have. Think about retaking, get the numbers for Duke, and you'll have less of a worry about being left out in the cold.

User avatar
yossarian
Posts: 1303
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 2:45 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby yossarian » Wed Jan 29, 2014 2:44 am

General question about this thread.

In the OP, does 50%+ scholly refer to just tuition or COA.

Graduating with ~$190k is significantly different than ~$140k.

(I know that goals/specific situations will really impact the difference that $50k makes, but curious as to the generalization).

User avatar
Dr. Review
Posts: 1797
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 1:51 am

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby Dr. Review » Wed Jan 29, 2014 8:27 am

bcbias wrote:First off, thank you guys for chiming in to offer advice! :lol:

Goals: IP/Patent Attorney in Biglaw or corporate in-house counsel/ litigator
Area Ties: Born, raised, and undergrad educated in NC
Schools: WUSTL (sticker as of now) =138K. Hopefully UNC =57K(assuming sticker) and Wake =117(assuming sticker)



As a patent associate at a midlaw and/or biglaw firm in NC, I am going to say go to UNC. The majority of people at my firm are UNC grads and I know we do OCI there but not WUSTL. Also, based on your figure of 57K for UNC, are you able to avoid COL loans if you attend? If not, I think it's important that you look at UNC as costing more along the lines of $150k. If that is your true COA, I am reluctant to suggest UNC. Normally I might flat out say no to UNC at sticker, but certain IP/Patent backgrounds provide more job security than others. It'd be a question of debt aversion. If you must choose from these 3, choose UNC.

User avatar
Dr. Review
Posts: 1797
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 1:51 am

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby Dr. Review » Wed Jan 29, 2014 12:59 pm

yossarian71 wrote:General question about this thread.

In the OP, does 50%+ scholly refer to just tuition or COA.

Graduating with ~$190k is significantly different than ~$140k.

(I know that goals/specific situations will really impact the difference that $50k makes, but curious as to the generalization).

It refers to 50% scholarship on tuition, but realistically most of those places won't be worth much over $100k in total debt.

User avatar
Bikeflip
Posts: 1833
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:01 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby Bikeflip » Wed Jan 29, 2014 1:14 pm

BlueLotus wrote:So grads, is this the Boston pecking order?:

Harvard>BC=BU>Northeastern>Suffolk>New England>Western New England>UMass Dartmouth>unaccredited shiz




Very close, but I would say it's the following for Boston:


Harvard>top 6 with ties>BC=BU=top 14 with ties>Northeastern>top 30 with strong ties>Suffolk>top 50 state school with strong ties>New England>Western New England>UMass Dartmouth>unaccredited shiz


Note if you want Boston biglaw, do not go lower than BC/BU/T14 with ties & a big scholarship.



timbs4339 wrote:My reservation is that you want biglaw but are not going to a biglaw feeder school (biglaw is basically a prereq to in-house counsel jobs, I can count the number of major corporations that hire entry-level in-house attorneys on one hand). Transferring to the T14 is not a good bet and is unlikely to impact your chances anyway since you only have your grades at your 1L school for biglaw hiring. You have an interesting background with a lot of soft factors (IP/URM/connections), so you may have some wiggle room that other students won't have. Think about retaking, get the numbers for Duke, and you'll have less of a worry about being left out in the cold.



This. For biglaw, ties & network only matter if you've already got the right law school(s) and grades in hand. Partners still have to get you through HR & other partners, and it's much easier to get a median Duke grad through the HR/partner machine than it would be to get a median UNC grad through the HR/partner machine.

For those 0Ls saying, "but I have these connections and I want to go law school now!" great. Connections can and will help you, but a great school will help you just as much, if not more, than connections. So if you have the connections, and if they're damn good connections, they'll still be around when you go to law school next year. They may be impressed that you know how the biglaw hiring game works. It's easier to go to bat for someone who knows how to play the hiring game.
Last edited by Bikeflip on Wed Jan 29, 2014 1:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Bikeflip
Posts: 1833
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:01 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby Bikeflip » Wed Jan 29, 2014 1:21 pm

double post.
Last edited by Bikeflip on Wed Jan 29, 2014 1:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
yossarian
Posts: 1303
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 2:45 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby yossarian » Wed Jan 29, 2014 1:23 pm

Bikeflip wrote:
BlueLotus wrote:So grads, is this the Boston pecking order?:

Harvard>BC=BU>Northeastern>Suffolk>New England>Western New England>UMass Dartmouth>unaccredited shiz




Very close, but I would say it's the following for Boston:


Harvard>top 6 with ties>BC=BU=top 14 with ties>Northeastern>top 30 with strong ties>Suffolk>top 50 state school with strong ties>New England>Western New England>UMass Dartmouth>unaccredited shiz


Note if you want Boston biglaw, do not go lower than BC/BU/T14 with ties & a big scholarship.


I think pecking order for top 50 markets could be an interesting thread

User avatar
Bikeflip
Posts: 1833
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:01 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby Bikeflip » Wed Jan 29, 2014 1:26 pm

yossarian71 wrote:
Bikeflip wrote:
BlueLotus wrote:So grads, is this the Boston pecking order?:

Harvard>BC=BU>Northeastern>Suffolk>New England>Western New England>UMass Dartmouth>unaccredited shiz




Very close, but I would say it's the following for Boston:


Harvard>top 6 with ties>BC=BU=top 14 with ties>Northeastern>top 30 with strong ties>Suffolk>top 50 state school with strong ties>New England>Western New England>UMass Dartmouth>unaccredited shiz


Note if you want Boston biglaw, do not go lower than BC/BU/T14 with ties & a big scholarship.


I think pecking order for top 50 markets could be an interesting thread


Probably not. It's not like Arizona's going to have a ton of weight on the East Coast. Why pick an Arizona grad when you can get a GW/BU/BC/Fordham grad? No offense to Arizona, of course. It could be a Washington, Colorado, Illinois, UGA, etc grad trying to go out of their market. Those schools are just going to be regional. Hell, even GW/BU/BC/Fordham are regional.

Now if you're talking the top 50 legal markets in the US (DC, NYC, SFO, etc), that may be more interesting, but it's not like markets 30-50 are going to be earth-shatteringly huge. I'd even wager that markets 5-50 are going to be regional specific, and those markets are going to want ties.

What could be interesting, and this is what you may mean, is to do the pecking order for the top 50 markets. E.g. Where does Arizona fall in Phoenix? In front of or behind UCLA? That'd be super useful.

User avatar
yossarian
Posts: 1303
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 2:45 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby yossarian » Wed Jan 29, 2014 1:41 pm

Bikeflip wrote:
yossarian71 wrote:
Bikeflip wrote:

Harvard>top 6 with ties>BC=BU=top 14 with ties>Northeastern>top 30 with strong ties>Suffolk>top 50 state school with strong ties>New England>Western New England>UMass Dartmouth>unaccredited


I think pecking order for top 50 markets could be an interesting thread



Now if you're talking the top 50 legal markets in the US (DC, NYC, SFO, etc), that may be more interesting, but it's not like markets 30-50 are going to be earth-shatteringly huge. I'd even wager that markets 5-50 are going to be regional specific, and those markets are going to want ties.

What could be interesting, and this is what you may mean, is to do the pecking order for the top 50 markets. E.g. Where does Arizona fall in Phoenix? In front of or behind UCLA? That'd be super useful.


The latter. Like you did for Boston. But for each of the top 50 legal markets

User avatar
Dr. Review
Posts: 1797
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 1:51 am

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby Dr. Review » Wed Jan 29, 2014 1:52 pm

yossarian71 wrote:
Bikeflip wrote:
yossarian71 wrote:
Bikeflip wrote:

Harvard>top 6 with ties>BC=BU=top 14 with ties>Northeastern>top 30 with strong ties>Suffolk>top 50 state school with strong ties>New England>Western New England>UMass Dartmouth>unaccredited


I think pecking order for top 50 markets could be an interesting thread



Now if you're talking the top 50 legal markets in the US (DC, NYC, SFO, etc), that may be more interesting, but it's not like markets 30-50 are going to be earth-shatteringly huge. I'd even wager that markets 5-50 are going to be regional specific, and those markets are going to want ties.

What could be interesting, and this is what you may mean, is to do the pecking order for the top 50 markets. E.g. Where does Arizona fall in Phoenix? In front of or behind UCLA? That'd be super useful.


The latter. Like you did for Boston. But for each of the top 50 legal markets

As bikeflip suggested, top 50 is too large a list. Certain regions could be lumped together as one "market".

rad lulz
Posts: 9844
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:53 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby rad lulz » Wed Jan 29, 2014 1:58 pm

m
Last edited by rad lulz on Thu Sep 08, 2016 11:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
BlueLotus
Posts: 2428
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 8:07 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby BlueLotus » Wed Jan 29, 2014 2:03 pm

rad lulz wrote:When a ton of schools basically aren't worthwhile at all or w out full scholarship quibbling about which schools are better in a market is silly:

Ex Boston: Haravrd > bc or bu > don't go


How about Philly? Penn/T14 with ties>Temple>don't go?

User avatar
Bikeflip
Posts: 1833
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:01 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby Bikeflip » Wed Jan 29, 2014 2:19 pm

rad lulz wrote:When a ton of schools basically aren't worthwhile at all or w out full scholarship quibbling about which schools are better in a market is silly:

Ex Boston: Haravrd > bc or bu > don't go



Yeah, thinking about it for a second longer, you're probably right.

Saying

Harvard>top 6 with ties>BC=BU=top 14 with ties>Northeastern>top 30 with strong ties>Suffolk>top 50 state school with strong ties>New England>Western New England>UMass Dartmouth>unaccredited

sends the wrong message. Someone can look at the list, on their way to Aspen, see Western New England and think, "So you're saying there's a chance."

It may have some use to weigh, say UCLA (better big law stats) against Arizona (in state) for Phoenix big law.

Even then, if you wanna see how far UCLA can take you, there's a site for that.
Last edited by Bikeflip on Wed Jan 29, 2014 2:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
yossarian
Posts: 1303
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 2:45 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby yossarian » Wed Jan 29, 2014 2:20 pm

rad lulz wrote:When a ton of schools basically aren't worthwhile at all or w out full scholarship quibbling about which schools are better in a market is silly:

Ex Boston: Haravrd > bc or bu > don't go


Fair point.

Where it becomes interesting is for smaller markets like Indy/Louisville/Cinci. Obv. HYS > UChi = NU > T6 > T14. But, where do regionals fall in the pecking order in what cities. Does WUSTL carry any midwest clout to these markets? Vandy? If so, more or less than ND/IUB/Moritz/UK. Does UK carry any clout in Indy? IUB in Louisville? Not looking for specific answers to these questions. I just mean that is what's interesting to me.

(But again, you're point comes into play, if you're talking BigLaw, after UCHI, NU, regional powerhouse, the differences are so minimal, it doesn't matter, even if interesting).

User avatar
sublime
Posts: 15418
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby sublime » Wed Jan 29, 2014 2:27 pm

..

User avatar
Bikeflip
Posts: 1833
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:01 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby Bikeflip » Wed Jan 29, 2014 2:59 pm

sublime wrote:Which markets are attainable from a midwestern school without any ties?

I have heard that NYC is, DC is slightly tougher, and Chi is much tougher.

I have heard mixed thinks about Texas, particularly Dallas.

Any thoughts on LA? or is that a non-starter because of school location?


It depends on the school. Bid NYC is credited for Michigan, probably less so for Wisconsin. Any event, I think trying to make super specific "how do ties matter" lists would be a waste of time, because a bunch of the job hunt stuff will be random, OCI or not. Plus bros might argue over the lists, which is not the point of this thread. Better to go case by case, and if there's a consensus, then put the school on OP's original lists.

NYstate
Posts: 1566
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:44 am

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby NYstate » Wed Jan 29, 2014 3:14 pm

RobertGolddust wrote:
http://www.nalp.org/salarydistrib


Does this include bonus? If not, what's a typical bonus look like for a first year professional at a small firm?


Small firms aren't like biglaw where there is lockstep salaries and bonuses. I don't think there is data on small firm bonuses. Each firm is going to do its own thing.

You should assume a maximum salary of around $45,000 -$50,000.

But as mentioned, there are many attorneys who are making zero and they are not counted in the linked study.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests