A WSJ Article: Lawyers Settle... for Temp Jobs

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: A WSJ Article: Lawyers Settle... for Temp Jobs

Postby romothesavior » Wed Jun 15, 2011 11:58 am

Nulli Secundus wrote:As with "NoJob" before you, you are peddling your wares in the wrong forum. The ones that post here without being ripped apart to shreds or trolled to extinction are people with at least T1 grade numbers. And if you graduate from a T1 and still can find only a Temp Job, well, chances are law school did not negatively affect your prospects in the first place. You just fail at life. Hth.

Nulli Secundus wrote:Notice how I do not claim that T1 makes you immune to supply & demand. Quite the contrary, I say that T1 graduation gives you the necessary tools for success, your failure to utilize those (since to do so you need at least basic interviewing skills, a decent personality etc.) is, shockingly, your failure. Yes the market is grim for all TTT grads and for all T1 grads that fail to give the right message. Boo effing hoo.

Shut up 0L. You're being a callous a-hole and you have absolutely no idea WTF you are talking about.
Last edited by romothesavior on Wed Jun 15, 2011 12:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

scammedhard
Posts: 642
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 1:17 pm

Re: A WSJ Article: Lawyers Settle... for Temp Jobs

Postby scammedhard » Wed Jun 15, 2011 12:01 pm

NYC Law wrote:What, from this info, allows you to draw the conclusion that the changes are permanent? We've just gone through the worst recession since the great depression, so yeah, things are awful. But I don't see how you're able to draw that conclusion while still in the middle of the fog of it all.

Here is another "Yellow Journalism" story about changes in the legal profession. Perhaps it can clear some of the fog.

NYTimes: "Armies of Expensive Lawyers, Replaced by Cheaper Software"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/science/05legal.html

CanadianWolf
Posts: 10439
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: A WSJ Article: Lawyers Settle... for Temp Jobs

Postby CanadianWolf » Wed Jun 15, 2011 12:02 pm

Temp agencies originated in the 1980s as a way for employers to escape high benefits' costs--whether imposed by the government or by competition for labor. The main effect of temp agencies is to benefit employers while making employees readily disposable with little or no residual benefits' issues or costs.
Legal temping of lawyers is a much more recent development & unlikely to disappear in light of outsourcing to India & computerized discovery.

User avatar
NYC Law
Posts: 1569
Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 3:33 pm

Re: A WSJ Article: Lawyers Settle... for Temp Jobs

Postby NYC Law » Wed Jun 15, 2011 12:12 pm

scammedhard wrote:
NYC Law wrote:What, from this info, allows you to draw the conclusion that the changes are permanent? We've just gone through the worst recession since the great depression, so yeah, things are awful. But I don't see how you're able to draw that conclusion while still in the middle of the fog of it all.

Here is another "Yellow Journalism" story about changes in the legal profession. Perhaps it can clear some of the fog.

NYTimes: "Armies of Expensive Lawyers, Replaced by Cheaper Software"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/science/05legal.html


I've read that one before. It is an issue, but not one unique to the legal field. I still don't think there's a reason to believe it will take up the bulk of the legal industry since many aspects will need a higher level of skill, but it will increase competition and tighten things up a bit.

I completely agree that there are too many law schools/law grads, but idk if I believe all the hype about permanent restrictive structural change to the legal system.

scammedhard
Posts: 642
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 1:17 pm

Re: A WSJ Article: Lawyers Settle... for Temp Jobs

Postby scammedhard » Wed Jun 15, 2011 12:20 pm

NYC Law wrote:I've read that one before. It is an issue, but not one unique to the legal field. I still don't think there's a reason to believe it will take up the bulk of the legal industry since many aspects will need a higher level of skill, but it will increase competition and tighten things up a bit.

I completely agree that there are too many law schools/law grads, but idk if I believe all the hype about permanent restrictive structural change to the legal system.

Like I said before, you can believe in whatever you want to believe. I am sorry if some of my posts/links bother you. That's certainly not my intention. I merely want to share with others what I believe is relevant and important data/information. In the future, you can always avoid the threads that I have started. No one is forcing you (or anyone else) to read them; and/or you can complain to TLS staff about them if you deem them inappropriate. It's always your choice.

User avatar
robotclubmember
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 7:53 am

Re: A WSJ Article: Lawyers Settle... for Temp Jobs

Postby robotclubmember » Wed Jun 15, 2011 12:28 pm

NYC Law wrote:
scammedhard wrote:
NYC Law wrote:What, from this info, allows you to draw the conclusion that the changes are permanent? We've just gone through the worst recession since the great depression, so yeah, things are awful. But I don't see how you're able to draw that conclusion while still in the middle of the fog of it all.

Here is another "Yellow Journalism" story about changes in the legal profession. Perhaps it can clear some of the fog.

NYTimes: "Armies of Expensive Lawyers, Replaced by Cheaper Software"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/science/05legal.html


I've read that one before. It is an issue, but not one unique to the legal field. I still don't think there's a reason to believe it will take up the bulk of the legal industry since many aspects will need a higher level of skill, but it will increase competition and tighten things up a bit.

I completely agree that there are too many law schools/law grads, but idk if I believe all the hype about permanent restrictive structural change to the legal system.


Because it's not unique to the legal field is irrelevant to the point that it represents a permanent and systemic change in the job market for JD's. Whether or not it will consume "a bulk" of the workload in the legal industry is also irrelevant. Even if it only accounted for 1% of the work load in the legal environment, that's another 300 less jobs that would be needed each year, further dislodging the equilibrium of supply and demand in an already sorely strained industry. And do you think that new technological innovations won't emerge? That this is at a constant? Look forward. This is the future. More temp work, more computers doing the work, because why pay someone $160K to do something that some software and a temp making $30 an hour could do? New technologies will emerge. As was stated, the trend of temp hiring will continue its uptick because companies are finding that they save cost without sparing significant work quality.

Not to mention, the economy is heading into another downturn. You seem to think that we've seen the worst recession we'll ever see. No regulation has been introduced that substantially solves problems in the financial markets. The dollar's value is nosediving, unemployment is rising, the housing market never recovered, consumer confidence is at its lowest point since it was indexed, inflation of food and gas is being understated, consumer and government debt are at all-time highs and gross domestic production is lackluster at best. Political stalemates make resolving these issue highly unlikely. We climbed a few inches out of the hole in 2010, but we have a long way to go, and the stimulus spending didn't work. Problems in the economy are also the systemic results of emerging markets across the globe that we can't necessarily will away with domestic policies, but if we could, the policies are failing. Not trying to be internet political douche here, but my point is, if you actually possess the ability to look forward, you will find that the economy is not a pretty picture in 2 or 3 years, and neither is the legal market (not a disaster, but don't rely on a huge recovery happening from 2009). Of course, opportunities will always exist for people with the right talents and a little luck.

User avatar
NR3C1
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 10:52 pm

Re: A WSJ Article: Lawyers Settle... for Temp Jobs

Postby NR3C1 » Wed Jun 15, 2011 3:04 pm

robotclubmember wrote:...More temp work, more computers doing the work, because why pay someone $160K to do something that some software and a temp making $30 an hour could do? New technologies will emerge. As was stated, the trend of temp hiring will continue its uptick because companies are finding that they save cost without sparing significant work quality.

Not to mention, the economy is heading into another downturn....

I hope you are wrong, but I am afraid you are not.

User avatar
Br3v
Posts: 4174
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:18 pm

Re: A WSJ Article: Lawyers Settle... for Temp Jobs

Postby Br3v » Wed Jun 15, 2011 3:06 pm

Curry wrote:
Br3v wrote:
Br3v wrote:What tier is American U?


....it was in article posted which I actually read for unknown reasons

What the fuck?


Why was this such a weird question? I dont know why I read this flame article but I did and the person in the article went to American U and I wanted to know what tier that was.

User avatar
robotclubmember
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 7:53 am

Re: A WSJ Article: Lawyers Settle... for Temp Jobs

Postby robotclubmember » Wed Jun 15, 2011 3:11 pm

Br3v wrote:
Curry wrote:
Br3v wrote:
Br3v wrote:What tier is American U?


....it was in article posted which I actually read for unknown reasons

What the fuck?


Why was this such a weird question? I dont know why I read this flame article but I did and the person in the article went to American U and I wanted to know what tier that was.


http://lmgtfy.com/?q=usnwr+law+rankings

User avatar
robotclubmember
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 7:53 am

Re: A WSJ Article: Lawyers Settle... for Temp Jobs

Postby robotclubmember » Wed Jun 15, 2011 3:12 pm

The non-dickhead answer is it's ranked 50th, which makes it Tier 1. Why is the article a flame exactly?

User avatar
Br3v
Posts: 4174
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:18 pm

Re: A WSJ Article: Lawyers Settle... for Temp Jobs

Postby Br3v » Wed Jun 15, 2011 3:14 pm

robotclubmember wrote:The non-dickhead answer is it's ranked 50th, which makes it Tier 1. Why is the article a flame exactly?


Thanks. And its just someone else posting something about the law market so I called it how I saw it.

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

Re: A WSJ Article: Lawyers Settle... for Temp Jobs

Postby shoeshine » Wed Jun 15, 2011 3:16 pm

I honestly thought that graduating from a borderline T1 meant you were guaranteed big law. This is terrible news.

User avatar
Br3v
Posts: 4174
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:18 pm

Re: A WSJ Article: Lawyers Settle... for Temp Jobs

Postby Br3v » Wed Jun 15, 2011 3:17 pm

shoeshine wrote:I honestly thought that graduating from a borderline T1 meant you were guaranteed big law. This is terrible news.


+1

User avatar
robotclubmember
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 7:53 am

Re: A WSJ Article: Lawyers Settle... for Temp Jobs

Postby robotclubmember » Wed Jun 15, 2011 3:38 pm

shoeshine wrote:I honestly thought that graduating from a borderline T1 meant you were guaranteed big law. This is terrible news.


Dismissing the whole of the article on the basis of one part (fallacy of composition), and presenting an assumed binary choice between big law or contract work (false dilemma) is a viewpoint not really worth giving a response to. I don't think the graduate expected big law. Mid or small law maybe would have been fine. Maybe government work would have been fine. He likely enrolled before all of the hiring freezes now in effect, on the basis of materially misleading data reported under the auspices of the ABA, which he could not have predicted. I don't really get why people won't acknowledge the situation the legal market is in. It's not all the person's fault, though to my point before, this story is about trends and statistics which are real, and the people are vessels to relay those statistics in a compelling read, as that's how journalists compile articles.

User avatar
Br3v
Posts: 4174
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:18 pm

Re: A WSJ Article: Lawyers Settle... for Temp Jobs

Postby Br3v » Wed Jun 15, 2011 6:25 pm

robotclubmember wrote:
shoeshine wrote:I honestly thought that graduating from a borderline T1 meant you were guaranteed big law. This is terrible news.


Dismissing the whole of the article on the basis of one part (fallacy of composition), and presenting an assumed binary choice between big law or contract work (false dilemma) is a viewpoint not really worth giving a response to. I don't think the graduate expected big law. Mid or small law maybe would have been fine. Maybe government work would have been fine. He likely enrolled before all of the hiring freezes now in effect, on the basis of materially misleading data reported under the auspices of the ABA, which he could not have predicted. I don't really get why people won't acknowledge the situation the legal market is in. It's not all the person's fault, though to my point before, this story is about trends and statistics which are real, and the people are vessels to relay those statistics in a compelling read, as that's how journalists compile articles.


hahaha I subtracy my +1 from shoeshine and award it to robot

User avatar
Mick Haller
Posts: 1258
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:24 pm

Re: A WSJ Article: Lawyers Settle... for Temp Jobs

Postby Mick Haller » Wed Jun 15, 2011 7:00 pm

Nulli Secundus wrote:
Notice how I do not claim that T1 makes you immune to supply & demand. Quite the contrary, I say that T1 graduation gives you the necessary tools for success, your failure to utilize those (since to do so you need at least basic interviewing skills, a decent personality etc.) is, shockingly, your failure. Yes the market is grim for all TTT grads and for all T1 grads that fail to give the right message. Boo effing hoo.


you're kinda silly dude. I know many people with great personalities, good interviewing skills, and top 15% grades at a T1 school who got nothing from OCI. each of these are necessary but insufficient conditions to getting a job through OCI. there's no sense in blaming all of the victims of the bad economy in one fell swoop.

lawschoolROCKS22
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 7:45 pm

Re: A WSJ Article: Lawyers Settle... for Temp Jobs

Postby lawschoolROCKS22 » Wed Jun 15, 2011 7:42 pm

Nulli Secundus wrote:As with "NoJob" before you, you are peddling your wares in the wrong forum. The ones that post here without being ripped apart to shreds or trolled to extinction are people with at least T1 grade numbers. And if you graduate from a T1 and still can find only a Temp Job, well, chances are law school did not negatively affect your prospects in the first place. You just fail at life. Hth.



Wow, this 0L is pretty retarded. The basic problem is that he assumes that good grades and good jobs are there for anyone going to a T1 school that, gosh darn it, puts in his or her best effort. As someone to finish in the top 5% of my 1L class at a T1, I can think of several people off the top of my head who a) had higher LSATs, b) had higher UGPAs, AND c) put in at least as many hours studying and doing law school related work as I did yet ended up in the bottom half of the class. A huge part of law school grades comes down to luck, and until you actually go through a round of law school exams you have no reason to assume that you'll be able to do well on them. I don't care if you got a 175 on your LSAT and had a 4.0 in college. Law school exams are completely different from college and high school exams. Throw in the fact that maybe 50% of people going to schools ranked between 20 and 50 will land full-time attorney positions (excluding doc review) in this economy, and you'll actually find a lot of people with "T1 grade numbers" working these doc review jobs despite having utilized all of the resources that were available to them.

User avatar
MTal
Posts: 854
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 6:47 pm

Re: A WSJ Article: Lawyers Settle... for Temp Jobs

Postby MTal » Wed Jun 15, 2011 7:57 pm

If you are paying for law school and are not at a T6, you are basically doomed at this point.

User avatar
NYC Law
Posts: 1569
Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 3:33 pm

Re: A WSJ Article: Lawyers Settle... for Temp Jobs

Postby NYC Law » Wed Jun 15, 2011 8:51 pm

scammedhard wrote:
NYC Law wrote:I've read that one before. It is an issue, but not one unique to the legal field. I still don't think there's a reason to believe it will take up the bulk of the legal industry since many aspects will need a higher level of skill, but it will increase competition and tighten things up a bit.

I completely agree that there are too many law schools/law grads, but idk if I believe all the hype about permanent restrictive structural change to the legal system.

Like I said before, you can believe in whatever you want to believe. I am sorry if some of my posts/links bother you. That's certainly not my intention. I merely want to share with others what I believe is relevant and important data/information. In the future, you can always avoid the threads that I have started. No one is forcing you (or anyone else) to read them; and/or you can complain to TLS staff about them if you deem them inappropriate. It's always your choice.


After thinking about it a bit, I withdraw my overly harsh criticism. I'm not offended by this kind of stuff, but it can just be demoralizing for those of us who have done our research and due diligence, have heard every horror story and stat there is, but are still committed to the industry. But I think constantly bringing up these kinds of articles and criticizing law schools plays an important role in hopefully one day bringing about reform (which may or may not already be under way, we'll see what happens), or at the very least save a few souls who have no idea what they're getting into.

User avatar
Br3v
Posts: 4174
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:18 pm

Re: A WSJ Article: Lawyers Settle... for Temp Jobs

Postby Br3v » Wed Jun 15, 2011 9:16 pm

MTal wrote:If you are paying for law school and are not at a T6, you are basically doomed at this point.


sarcasm?

User avatar
NYC Law
Posts: 1569
Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 3:33 pm

Re: A WSJ Article: Lawyers Settle... for Temp Jobs

Postby NYC Law » Wed Jun 15, 2011 9:19 pm

Br3v wrote:
MTal wrote:If you are paying for law school and are not at a T6, you are basically doomed at this point.


sarcasm?


lolno, thats just MTal

User avatar
Br3v
Posts: 4174
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:18 pm

Re: A WSJ Article: Lawyers Settle... for Temp Jobs

Postby Br3v » Wed Jun 15, 2011 9:23 pm

NYC Law wrote:
Br3v wrote:
MTal wrote:If you are paying for law school and are not at a T6, you are basically doomed at this point.


sarcasm?


lolno, thats just MTal


haha got it

liLtuneChi
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu May 19, 2011 8:28 pm

Re: A WSJ Article: Lawyers Settle... for Temp Jobs

Postby liLtuneChi » Thu Jun 16, 2011 1:01 am

this is actually pretty sad

i work at a biglaw firm as a SA and the firm has given me a nice big office with great views of the city and a secretary

when I get up to go to the bathroom every now and then I walk past the area where they keep the "staff attorneys" aka the doc review folks and my goodness its like a dungeon in there

even the rooms they give seasoned paralegals is terrible...small cramped spaces with large boxes filled with paper

I almost feel bad about getting treated like a king compared to them.

joefow91
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 2:06 am

Re: A WSJ Article: Lawyers Settle... for Temp Jobs

Postby joefow91 » Thu Jun 16, 2011 2:33 am

Just a point....Newspapers focus on bad news. This article wouldn't be about the lawyers that do have jobs......

scammedhard
Posts: 642
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 1:17 pm

Re: A WSJ Article: Lawyers Settle... for Temp Jobs

Postby scammedhard » Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:03 am

I almost feel bad about getting treated like a king compared to them.

I am sure that's how law professors, deans, and the ABA feel as well; and thus the situation continues.

I think I am beginning to see some of the underlying factors that lead to this dysfunction in the legal profession: lack of solidarity and complete disregard for others.
Just a point....Newspapers focus on bad news. This article wouldn't be about the lawyers that do have jobs......

I thought that in this WSJ article lawyers had jobs... temp jobs.

NYC Law wrote:After thinking about it a bit, I withdraw my overly harsh criticism. I'm not offended by this kind of stuff, but it can just be demoralizing for those of us who have done our research and due diligence, have heard every horror story and stat there is, but are still committed to the industry. But I think constantly bringing up these kinds of articles and criticizing law schools plays an important role in hopefully one day bringing about reform (which may or may not already be under way, we'll see what happens), or at the very least save a few souls who have no idea what they're getting into.

I hope so too.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests