Law firms: A less gilded future -- The Economist

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
scammedhard
Posts: 642
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 1:17 pm

Law firms: A less gilded future -- The Economist

Postby scammedhard » Fri May 06, 2011 10:25 am

An interesting article about big law, the recession, and globalization.

http://www.economist.com/node/18651114? ... 4&fsrc=rss

User avatar
handlesthetruth
Posts: 119
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2011 4:42 pm

Re: Law firms: A less gilded future -- The Economist

Postby handlesthetruth » Fri May 06, 2011 10:53 am

:shock:

Honestly I was of the "the market is cyclical, it'll all bounce back" mindset until this article.

whymeohgodno
Posts: 2508
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:15 pm

Re: Law firms: A less gilded future -- The Economist

Postby whymeohgodno » Fri May 06, 2011 10:54 am

handlesthetruth wrote::shock:

Honestly I was of the "the market is cyclical, it'll all bounce back" mindset until this article.


It doesn't have to bounce back to pre ITE levels. I'll be happy if it starts noticeably improving...

User avatar
AntipodeanPhil
Posts: 1300
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 7:02 pm

Re: Law firms: A less gilded future -- The Economist

Postby AntipodeanPhil » Fri May 06, 2011 10:57 am

Interesting. I couldn't help reading it like an RC passage.

The main point: shitlaw is in big trouble - thanks to computers and outsourcing.

Secondary points: (1) many non-elite law firms are experiencing pressure to cut costs; (2) elite law firms will be fine.

Inferences: (1) don't go in to shitlaw; (2) avoid law schools that are likely to leave you with few options besides shitlaw.

dissonance1848
Posts: 706
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 4:42 pm

Re: Law firms: A less gilded future -- The Economist

Postby dissonance1848 » Fri May 06, 2011 11:22 am

I love how none of the commenters on the article at the Economist website mention that investment banking is a cartel with no competition, and simply bash law.

User avatar
ahduth
Posts: 2468
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 10:55 am

Re: Law firms: A less gilded future -- The Economist

Postby ahduth » Fri May 06, 2011 11:31 am

I highly approve of all the developments mentioned in this article.

User avatar
glitched
Posts: 1040
Joined: Wed May 19, 2010 9:50 am

Re: Law firms: A less gilded future -- The Economist

Postby glitched » Sat May 07, 2011 12:19 am

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii want to be a partner!

User avatar
FantasticMrFox
Posts: 592
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Law firms: A less gilded future -- The Economist

Postby FantasticMrFox » Sat May 07, 2011 12:53 am

AntipodeanPhil wrote:(1) many non-elite law firms are experiencing pressure to cut costs; (2) elite law firms will be fine.

User avatar
rocon7383
Posts: 431
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: Law firms: A less gilded future -- The Economist

Postby rocon7383 » Sat May 07, 2011 1:13 am

woof

shoeshine
Posts: 1241
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 10:58 pm

Re: Law firms: A less gilded future -- The Economist

Postby shoeshine » Sat May 07, 2011 1:17 am

FantasticMrFox wrote:
AntipodeanPhil wrote:(1) many non-elite law firms are experiencing pressure to cut costs; (2) elite law firms will be fine.

This was my take away as well.

rose711
Posts: 287
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2011 11:57 pm

Re: Law firms: A less gilded future -- The Economist

Postby rose711 » Sat May 07, 2011 2:16 am

shoeshine wrote:
FantasticMrFox wrote:
AntipodeanPhil wrote:(1) many non-elite law firms are experiencing pressure to cut costs; (2) elite law firms will be fine.

This was my take away as well.

How are we judging elite? Where was Howrey on the elite/non-elite firm scale? Maybe they were never elite. So, V10 is elite?

FiveSermon
Posts: 1507
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 6:56 pm

Re: Law firms: A less gilded future -- The Economist

Postby FiveSermon » Sat May 07, 2011 2:19 am

If only v10 firms = fine, and everyone else should be worried...that's even worse news than expected.

User avatar
jpSartre
Posts: 326
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 11:05 am

Re: Law firms: A less gilded future -- The Economist

Postby jpSartre » Sat May 07, 2011 2:21 am

wait so the legal industry isnt that good?

shoeshine
Posts: 1241
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 10:58 pm

Re: Law firms: A less gilded future -- The Economist

Postby shoeshine » Sat May 07, 2011 2:57 am

rose711 wrote:
shoeshine wrote:
FantasticMrFox wrote:
AntipodeanPhil wrote:(1) many non-elite law firms are experiencing pressure to cut costs; (2) elite law firms will be fine.

This was my take away as well.

How are we judging elite? Where was Howrey on the elite/non-elite firm scale? Maybe they were never elite. So, V10 is elite?

Howrey = exception not rule. The economy had to claim at least one major victim and (like banks) once people begin to lose faith in a big law firm it is pretty much over. Clients and partners fled because of uncertainty more than anything else. The article eludes to outsourcing for doc review and other remedial tasks that law firms charge big billable hours for. I think what everyone on here is referring to is that elite firms will not feel the brunt of this "cost reduction" as much as smaller or less prestigious firms that handle the less desirable jobs and clients. As long as M and A transactions start to pick up again then the biggest and most prestigious law firms will be fine.

And M and A is definitely back (especially for big firms):
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... lenews_wsj

User avatar
Verity
Posts: 1253
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 11:26 pm

Re: Law firms: A less gilded future -- The Economist

Postby Verity » Sat May 07, 2011 2:59 am

dissonance1848 wrote:I love how none of the commenters on the article at the Economist website mention that investment banking is a cartel with no competition, and simply bash law.



Yeah, no competition in investment banking.

Right.

keg411
Posts: 5935
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: Law firms: A less gilded future -- The Economist

Postby keg411 » Sat May 07, 2011 2:56 pm

FiveSermon wrote:If only v10 firms = fine, and everyone else should be worried...that's even worse news than expected.


I don't think that's what the article was saying.

TheFactor
Posts: 789
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2011 3:12 pm

Re: Law firms: A less gilded future -- The Economist

Postby TheFactor » Sat May 07, 2011 3:01 pm

dissonance1848 wrote:I love how none of the commenters on the article at the Economist website mention that investment banking is a cartel with no competition, and simply bash law.

lol wut?

User avatar
AreJay711
Posts: 3406
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:51 pm

Re: Law firms: A less gilded future -- The Economist

Postby AreJay711 » Sat May 07, 2011 3:06 pm

I have to imagine that even before the recession people had to realize that the legal market couldn't do what it was doing forever. If we get in another long, fast period of growth I bet it will return to the way it was in many ways though some are changed forever.

lawscholar20
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 3:29 pm

Re: Law firms: A less gilded future -- The Economist

Postby lawscholar20 » Sat May 07, 2011 4:16 pm

Take note of the third to last paragraph.....kind of promoting a JD/MBA or schools like Northwestern an
Penn where business studies can be incorporated into your JD studies.

User avatar
ahduth
Posts: 2468
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 10:55 am

Re: Law firms: A less gilded future -- The Economist

Postby ahduth » Sat May 07, 2011 4:50 pm

lawscholar20 wrote:Take note of the third to last paragraph.....kind of promoting a JD/MBA or schools like Northwestern an
Penn where business studies can be incorporated into your JD studies.


Or lawyers with actual work experience.

User avatar
uwb09
Posts: 574
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 2:09 am

Re: Law firms: A less gilded future -- The Economist

Postby uwb09 » Sat May 07, 2011 4:51 pm

AntipodeanPhil wrote:Interesting. I couldn't help reading it like an RC passage.

The main point: shitlaw is in big trouble - thanks to computers and outsourcing.

Secondary points: (1) many non-elite law firms are experiencing pressure to cut costs; (2) elite law firms will be fine.

Inferences: (1) don't go in to shitlaw; (2) avoid law schools that are likely to leave you with few options besides shitlaw.

just for reference purposes, what do you include in "shitlaw"

User avatar
arvcondor
Posts: 371
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 11:33 pm

Re: Law firms: A less gilded future -- The Economist

Postby arvcondor » Tue May 10, 2011 4:32 am

lawscholar20 wrote:Take note of the third to last paragraph.....kind of promoting a JD/MBA or schools like Northwestern an
Penn
next to a business school where business studies can be incorporated into your JD studies.

FTFY

I did also find that paragraph interesting, though. Makes me wonder if I should in fact go after a JD/MBA.

Also:
AntipodeanPhil wrote:Inferences: (1) don't go in to shitlaw; (2) avoid law schools that are likely to leave you with few options besides shitlaw.

I got the sense that the article cast uncertainty on firms well above the shitlaw threshold, unless you are simply counting all non-V100 firms as "shitlaw."

User avatar
FantasticMrFox
Posts: 592
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Law firms: A less gilded future -- The Economist

Postby FantasticMrFox » Tue May 10, 2011 5:10 am

lawscholar20 wrote:Take note of the third to last paragraph.....kind of promoting a JD/MBA or schools like Northwestern an
Penn where business studies can be incorporated into your JD studies.

or all those other universities offering JD/MBA a lot of them are all starting to offer the joint degree programs; if this is in any way correct: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8262 then at least 40 universities.

But this is me speculating but wouldn't JD MBA be counter productive? I thought that firm died due to partners fleeing from uncertainty so law firms=want certainty but the joint program doesn't add to that certainty with that extra "escape-route" written over it. But the article advocates a more rounded lawyers for survival. Meh, why wasn't I born a few years earlier? :roll:

tipler4213
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 11:16 am

Re: Law firms: A less gilded future -- The Economist

Postby tipler4213 » Tue May 10, 2011 7:14 am

tag

lawscholar20
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 3:29 pm

Re: Law firms: A less gilded future -- The Economist

Postby lawscholar20 » Tue May 10, 2011 1:40 pm

FantasticMrFox wrote:
lawscholar20 wrote:Take note of the third to last paragraph.....kind of promoting a JD/MBA or schools like Northwestern an
Penn where business studies can be incorporated into your JD studies.

or all those other universities offering JD/MBA a lot of them are all starting to offer the joint degree programs; if this is in any way correct: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8262 then at least 40 universities.

But this is me speculating but wouldn't JD MBA be counter productive? I thought that firm died due to partners fleeing from uncertainty so law firms=want certainty but the joint program doesn't add to that certainty with that extra "escape-route" written over it. But the article advocates a more rounded lawyers for survival. Meh, why wasn't I born a few years earlier? :roll:


I was specifically pointing out Penn and Northwestern where you can get a nice "business" background without the price and extra year of a JD/MBA

Your reasoning that a JD/MBA may scare away a firm from hiring adds to the advantages of attending a school like Penn and getting a business background via a certificate from Whartons without the whole MBA part.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests