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

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
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 » Thu Jul 07, 2011 12:23 am

scammedhard wrote:
monarchylover wrote:So if I can't get into T14 with lots of money. I should say throw away my life goal of being an attorney and go be an airline pilot like my father and grandfather which pays very well and hate my life living in an airport/tin can tube because it would be a better investment? I think you need to look at life investments not only in monetary terms...

I also think that you are romanticizing the legal profession, making it sound that lawyers are happy. Maybe in TV they are, but in the real world they are not. Most of them hate being lawyers and great deal of them leave the legal profession.


Maybe this only applies to me, but I hate the way lawyers are portrayed on TV. I never want to be in a courtroom, I don't care for any of that. I just like research, analysis, drafting, working with clients, sales, everything. I've worked in a law office and I know what's entailed, and meh, some people truly want to do that.

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

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

Postby scammedhard » Thu Jul 07, 2011 12:25 am

NYC Law wrote:I don't think anyone is arguing that law school is a good financial investment (unless going to upper T14 for cheap, anything for free). But many people here put a high value on the subjective characteristic of pursuing a career route they actually desire. Some people truly do want to be lawyers. It's not a good idea to 'follow your emotions' and be a lawyer at all costs if that involves going to a true TTTT at sticker, shelling out $150k+, but if it's a reputable school and there are some feasible routes to paying off the debt, go for it.

True. All I am saying is that people need to better understand the risk/reward from a financial point of view. There is nothing wrong with going to law school (or wanting to be a lawyer) as long as one understands what they are getting into.

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

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

Postby scammedhard » Thu Jul 07, 2011 12:30 am

NYC Law wrote:Maybe this only applies to me, but I hate the way lawyers are portrayed on TV. I never want to be in a courtroom, I don't care for any of that. I just like research, analysis, drafting, working with clients, sales, everything. I've worked in a law office and I know what's entailed, and meh, some people truly want to do that.

Yeah. As long as you know how it is in the real world, that's great! Then you know what you are getting into. I do think that most people that go to law school go there with Law+Order in their minds.
Last edited by scammedhard on Thu Jul 07, 2011 12:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

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

Postby robotclubmember » Thu Jul 07, 2011 12:31 am

NYC Law wrote:
2011Cycle wrote:What's National Association of Law Placement? Does the writer mean National Association of Legal Professionals?


:lol: Nice catch

ROTFL! Just ask the class of 2008 & '09 about those "permanent" offers. The economy is headed right down the toilet and I wouldn't be surprised to see another bloodbath right around the corner.


Learn from MTal - people will start to not take you seriously if you come off as a paranoid fuckwad


Some of my local mid-market firms really did retract the offers they made in '09. They deferred them for half a year first to keep them antsy, then retracted all offers. Paranoia is a kind of delusional fear. There is nothing delusional about the prospects of having your offers retracted if the economy goes south. That won't happen in time to affect this class, but a second recession looms.

BoriquaEsquire
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 12:04 pm

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

Postby BoriquaEsquire » Thu Jul 07, 2011 8:10 pm

...a second recession looms.


Ok, first off, if you took macroeconomics 101 you should know that just saying this makes it true so please stop saying it. Ugh...this is why our economy is doing badly...it's made up of a bunch of greedy, self-absorbed assholes who don't know what they're talking about.

Second, I may be stuck in my ivory tower, but what ever happened to going to school for the sake of learning? I go to law school because I like to learn. Yes, I like it so much I would rather spend $200,000 on law school than on 100 cruises to the Caribbean. Being a student is what makes me happy and what I'm interested in studying is law.

No one wants to end up sitting in a dungeon doing doc review, but I suspect that a lot of those people are tied to their particular metropolitan areas because of marriage/children/family. Most of us are young and can move around. So, get your ass up and check out other parts of the country.

For instance...

Alaska has the 3rd fastest growing/healthy economy in the country, a 7% unemployment rate, and projections only foresee future growth. Lawyers can fill jobs in unconventional positions such as Native American/Tribal Law, Energy Law, or Natural Resources Law. Alaska also has to import all of its lawyers from the lower 48 because it does not have its own law school. It is tied for the 3rd (with Delaware) least-competitive legal job market in the country.

Wyoming has the 2nd fastest growing/healthy economy in the country, a 6% unemployment rate, and a $0 corporate tax rate (and is thus becoming an increasingly attractive area for employers). There are only 2.6 lawyers per 1,000 people in Wyoming (compare 8 lawyers per 1,000 people in New York) making the legal market fairly ripe. The average attorney in Wyoming makes just a bit under $100,000 annually but the cost of living is much lower than the big market areas like New York or DC. It is the 9th least competitive legal job market in the country.

North Dakota has the fastest growing/healthiest economy in the country, a 3% unemployment rate, and has the 6th least-competitive legal job market in the country.

Nebraska has the 5th fastest growing/healthiest economy in the country, a 4% unemployment rate, and has the least-competitive legal job market in the country. Less people pass the Nebraska Bar each year than are required to fill the legal positions that open up every year in the state. Nebraska is the only state without a "lawyer surplus".

Vermont has the 21st fastest growing/healthiest economy in the country, a 5% unemployment rate, and has the 2nd least competitive legal job market in the country.

Wouldn't you rather be out on an Alaskan glacier or skiing in Vermont than doing doc review in a crowded office in New York? I would.

As for money, loan repayment isn't as scary as everyone says it is. Everyone has bills they pay every month, this is just another one. If you choose an IBR (Income-Based Repayment Plan), make $40,000 a year, have a fixed interest rate of 7.9%, and have $200,000 in loans, your monthly payment is just under $300. The above calculation is a "worst case scenario" as many of us will not take out that much in loans, will have Stafford loans with a lower interest rate, and/or will make a higher salary than $40K. Some of you may not believe me, but this is really enough money to live comfortably on, especially if you live in one of the above states because their costs of living are relatively low. Personally, I'd rather have a full-time legal job in Nebraska than a doc review job in New York, and the former will pay better, too.

The only way to get by without wanting to kill yourself in this market is to stop being so greedy, start figuring out what your passions are (they should be law), and start opening up your mind to possibilities that you haven't reconsidered before. If you're constantly vying for a Cravath associateship and/or that $160,000+ salary, you're more likely to end up in one of these temp dungeons because you don't have room for the creativity and open-mindedness it takes to get a job in this economy that will actually make you happy.

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

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

Postby robotclubmember » Fri Jul 08, 2011 12:04 am

i don't see how anything you said has to do with my assertion that a second recession looms. i'm glad you're passionate about the law, but it is my opinion that we will dip into recession again (as someone who has in fact taken macroecon, and has worked at a large public accounting firm and an investment company). if you want to talk stats i'll jive with ya, sure. but this sanctimonious stuff has nothing to contribute to my life. and believe it or not, not everyone is clamoring to live in armpit, north dakota.

User avatar
monarchylover
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 5:17 pm

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

Postby monarchylover » Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:02 am

robotclubmember wrote:i don't see how anything you said has to do with my assertion that a second recession looms. i'm glad you're passionate about the law, but it is my opinion that we will dip into recession again (as someone who has in fact taken macroecon, and has worked at a large public accounting firm and an investment company). if you want to talk stats i'll jive with ya, sure. but this sanctimonious stuff has nothing to contribute to my life. and believe it or not, not everyone is clamoring to live in armpit, north dakota.



A. You are not an economist for taking an undergrad course in it...

B. Even if you had a Phd in econ from MIT economist who claim to know the economic future are for one shunned by the economic community and normmally end up looking like fools.

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

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

Postby robotclubmember » Fri Jul 08, 2011 3:27 pm

monarchylover wrote:
robotclubmember wrote:i don't see how anything you said has to do with my assertion that a second recession looms. i'm glad you're passionate about the law, but it is my opinion that we will dip into recession again (as someone who has in fact taken macroecon, and has worked at a large public accounting firm and an investment company). if you want to talk stats i'll jive with ya, sure. but this sanctimonious stuff has nothing to contribute to my life. and believe it or not, not everyone is clamoring to live in armpit, north dakota.



A. You are not an economist for taking an undergrad course in it...

B. Even if you had a Phd in econ from MIT economist who claim to know the economic future are for one shunned by the economic community and normmally end up looking like fools.


I never claimed to be an economist. That poster insinuated I've never taken any econ courses, and that I'm among some group of "greedy, self-absorbed assholes who don't know what they're talking about." I didn't mention the other four economics courses I took because its irrelevant, I was countering something absurd the previous poster said. I won't even delve into how logically fallacious it is to claim the economy as a whole is fine because a handful of very small states are growing faster than the states that are our major population centers, in fact, I'd say that when North Dakota is your beacon of hope for economic growth, it indicates the contrary to his point: that the economy taken as a whole is fucked.

I don't see your point either. If you want to jive on stats fine, I'll jive. All I stated is that "it is my opinion that we will dip into recession again," not that i "claim to know" anything. I think my opinion is founded in reality and opinions to the contrary are founded in wishful thinking. I'd get into your last sentence if I could find a way to read it where it made sense but you can't string together coherent sentences so I'm not sure what you mean.

User avatar
monarchylover
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 5:17 pm

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

Postby monarchylover » Fri Jul 08, 2011 4:29 pm

Bless your heart about my last sentence. I'm sorry for misinterpreting your insinuation that the economy will double dip. I completely mischaracterized your opinion as a factual claim. Now that you have clarified your statement as nothing more than an ex-big four rank and file’s opinion of macro-economic theory, I find your input in line with the majority of talking heads and popularity driven economist. Call me a fool, an idiot, what have you, I believe the economy starts with you so the fact that you believe the economy will double dip means it will double dip because in the end without your dollar that you saved in fear and the dollars of the rest of the world saved in fear, the multiplier effect works both ways… and as Keynes said Nothing mattered except states of mind, chiefly our own. The greatest thing FDR did was lie to the American people about the state of the economy which in the end brought it back, because it is ideas that change the future.

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

Postby robotclubmember » Sat Jul 09, 2011 11:42 am

monarchylover wrote:Bless your heart about my last sentence. I'm sorry for misinterpreting your insinuation that the economy will double dip. I completely mischaracterized your opinion as a factual claim. Now that you have clarified your statement as nothing more than an ex-big four rank and file’s opinion of macro-economic theory, I find your input in line with the majority of talking heads and popularity driven economist. Call me a fool, an idiot, what have you, I believe the economy starts with you so the fact that you believe the economy will double dip means it will double dip because in the end without your dollar that you saved in fear and the dollars of the rest of the world saved in fear, the multiplier effect works both ways… and as Keynes said Nothing mattered except states of mind, chiefly our own. The greatest thing FDR did was lie to the American people about the state of the economy which in the end brought it back, because it is ideas that change the future.


Before Lehman collapsed at the height of the last bubble, Wall Street firms were carrying risky financial derivatives on their books with a value of a $183 trillion (13 times the size of the U.S. economy). Have we learned our lesson? Well, now we're at $248 trillion. No kidding. There has been literally zero legislation passed to enact any regulation that would correct the problems in the financial market that led to the last recession. I didn't ask for that. Despite all of the government spending, which is designed to create jobs, the government itself is now freezing hiring or laying workers off, and unemployment ticks higher and higher. The legitimacy of our dollar is now subject to open questions regarding its legitimacy throughout the world, because we devalued it so much by reducing interest rates and printing new money supply. People say companies have tons of "cash on the balance sheet," but that's only financial companies sitting on TARP money, and those companies tend not to do much in terms of job growth. The real companies right now (U.S. nonfinancial corporations) overall are deeply in debt, ($7.3 trillion). That’s a record level of debt. The money just isn't there for companies to expand hiring and they've shown they don't want to. The unemployment numbers ore being sorely understated as well, with even the Labor Department’s fine print admitting that one middle-aged man in four lacks a full-time job (a stat that warms the heart as much as ABA's stat that only 2 in 3 JD grads find work that requires a JD).

These realities suck but people considering law school need to know the shitstorm they are walking into. You do a disservice to everyone on this forum by trying to cheerlead a broken economy and deny the facts that people shouldn't be taking on debt to go to law school unless they have a VERY good plan.

To the extent the economy starts with me, I'm an active member of the economy who is hopeful about his own lot and that's the most I can be asked to be. But I'm not going to listen to some lulzy sermon about how people like me, you know, ones who actually acknowledge facts, are the reason why we're in this mess. If anything, we're careening towards recession because too many rank and file citizens like you have been content to deny facts and do nothing to hold any politicians or companies accountable. The people that cash out with millions and leave the middle class on the side of the road like a used hooker rely on your ignorance to do so. Keynes favored optimism, but not blind optimism, and not at the expense of facts. Reduce his vast volumes of work to a simple out of context quote though if it makes you feel educated.

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

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

Postby scammedhard » Sat Jul 09, 2011 12:04 pm

I couldn't agree more with Robot, and here is a graph [from http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/] that illustrates how deep in the hole we are:
Image
At this rate, it's going to take the US until 2014 just to make up for the job losses of the "last" (or current) recession, without even considering the increase of the labor force due to population growth, where about 175000/month new jobs are needed just to keep up. Last employment report: +18000.

User avatar
monarchylover
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 5:17 pm

Re:

Postby monarchylover » Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:21 pm

robotclubmember wrote:
monarchylover wrote:Bless your heart about my last sentence. I'm sorry for misinterpreting your insinuation that the economy will double dip. I completely mischaracterized your opinion as a factual claim. Now that you have clarified your statement as nothing more than an ex-big four rank and file’s opinion of macro-economic theory, I find your input in line with the majority of talking heads and popularity driven economist. Call me a fool, an idiot, what have you, I believe the economy starts with you so the fact that you believe the economy will double dip means it will double dip because in the end without your dollar that you saved in fear and the dollars of the rest of the world saved in fear, the multiplier effect works both ways… and as Keynes said Nothing mattered except states of mind, chiefly our own. The greatest thing FDR did was lie to the American people about the state of the economy which in the end brought it back, because it is ideas that change the future.


You do a disservice to everyone on this forum by trying to cheerlead a broken economy and deny the facts that people shouldn't be taking on debt to go to law school unless they have a VERY good plan.

You would be a fool to do anything in life without a very good plan. The economy is shit. Does the economy being in the shitter mean it will stay that way forever? Could be but I doubt it. I doubt it because I have to. Could the economy fall off the deep end and the value of all currencies turn to good firewood like what our great grand parents witnessed? Possibly, but again I can't think that way. When you live in Manhattan and they shut down the 6 train for a day because of terrorist threats mean that your will die in a subway bomb? Possible but you can't think that way you have to live your life. Do the very best you can with what you have, because in the end you only have one life to live and if you give up on your dreams before you even try then you're a selfish and worthless soul who is slapping the face of each and every soul that was never even given a chance. I hope I fail a million times before I ever give up. I would rather die knowing I tried and failed miserably than settling for anything.

BoriquaEsquire
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 12:04 pm

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

Postby BoriquaEsquire » Mon Jul 11, 2011 1:51 pm

I never claimed to be an economist. That poster insinuated I've never taken any econ courses, and that I'm among some group of "greedy, self-absorbed assholes who don't know what they're talking about." I didn't mention the other four economics courses I took because its irrelevant, I was countering something absurd the previous poster said. I won't even delve into how logically fallacious it is to claim the economy as a whole is fine because a handful of very small states are growing faster than the states that are our major population centers, in fact, I'd say that when North Dakota is your beacon of hope for economic growth, it indicates the contrary to his point: that the economy taken as a whole is fucked.


I should post, just for clarity, that my post was meant to be read as two separate comments. That's why I began the relevant paragraphs with "First" and "Second". Please do a close read before you post about someone else's opinion. You'll need to do this in law school.

I was not saying that "the economy as a whole is fine because a handful of very small states are growing faster than the states that are our major population centers". I was saying that 1) The economy does start and end with you and saying (not to mention prosthelytizing) that the economy is going to double-dip is a self-fulfilling prophecy and 2) even IF the economy is headed for a nose dive, there are places to find work where you won't end up in a legal temp agency if that's not what you want to do. Yes, we all are going to have to make compromises in our careers, like maybe moving to Nebraska, but when you want a successful career, you do what you gotta do.

Also, even though I'm from Jersey and attend a Manhattan law school, I find it extremely offensive and snobby to rip on the smaller states. Different people have different preferences of how to live, but assuming that any place is an "armpit" or that working there will make or break your career is just ignorant. Your career will be as good as you make it, no matter where you start it after law school.

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

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

Postby robotclubmember » Mon Jul 11, 2011 2:17 pm

BoriquaEsquire wrote:
I never claimed to be an economist. That poster insinuated I've never taken any econ courses, and that I'm among some group of "greedy, self-absorbed assholes who don't know what they're talking about." I didn't mention the other four economics courses I took because its irrelevant, I was countering something absurd the previous poster said. I won't even delve into how logically fallacious it is to claim the economy as a whole is fine because a handful of very small states are growing faster than the states that are our major population centers, in fact, I'd say that when North Dakota is your beacon of hope for economic growth, it indicates the contrary to his point: that the economy taken as a whole is fucked.


I should post, just for clarity, that my post was meant to be read as two separate comments. That's why I began the relevant paragraphs with "First" and "Second". Please do a close read before you post about someone else's opinion. You'll need to do this in law school.


BoriquaEsquire wrote:Ok, first off, if you took macroeconomics 101 you should know that just saying this makes it true so please stop saying it. Ugh...this is why our economy is doing badly...it's made up of a bunch of greedy, self-absorbed assholes who don't know what they're talking about.


You lumped it into one statement. What you have presented is called a sentence (well two actually); as in, a string of inter-related words. You refer to me specifically, then link me to greedy assholes. The implication is clear, so don't suggest I didn't read what you said. I read it and rejected it on its weak merits. Nice pomposity though, you'll need that in law school.

BoriquaEsquire wrote:I was not saying that "the economy as a whole is fine because a handful of very small states are growing faster than the states that are our major population centers". I was saying that 1) The economy does start and end with you and saying (not to mention prosthelytizing) that the economy is going to double-dip is a self-fulfilling prophecy and 2) even IF the economy is headed for a nose dive, there are places to find work where you won't end up in a legal temp agency if that's not what you want to do. Yes, we all are going to have to make compromises in our careers, like maybe moving to Nebraska, but when you want a successful career, you do what you gotta do.


It's not a self-fulfilling prophecy. When a man spends himself into bankruptcy like a drunken sailor, optimism is not going to suddenly balance his books and eliminate his debt to bring him to solvency. That's just not how it works, How it works is the data points I mentioned above. I'm not the drunken sailor spending like a buffoon on needless hookers and booze, I'm the guy saying "wow, he should really stop, but it looks like he's addicted and he can't stop, so be careful around that guy." The economy has little to do with my attitude, and much to do with a bad financial position.

BoriquaEsquire wrote:Also, even though I'm from Jersey and attend a Manhattan law school, I find it extremely offensive and snobby to rip on the smaller states. Different people have different preferences of how to live, but assuming that any place is an "armpit" or that working there will make or break your career is just ignorant. Your career will be as good as you make it, no matter where you start it after law school.


I spent 12 years living in those smaller states. I'm not ripping on them, I'm saying that's not where good legal careers are. Your career is not "as good as you make it, no matter where you start it after law school." That's bullshit and everyone knows that. Good luck making partner at a big law firm in Wyoming. Good luck getting hired for Fortune 500 corporate counsel with shitlaw from South Dakota on your resume. Those states don't offer jobs to meet the high-trajectory needs of high performers, period. And if the fastest growing states are the little ones like Nebraska, and the slowest growing states are big ones like California, I think that spells trouble for the country. Ideally the growth is being enjoyed by the largest population centers as well, from a utilitarian standpoint, and the standpoint of net production. Thank you for being offended an behalf of those smaller states, one of whichI was born in, I appreciate it.
Last edited by robotclubmember on Mon Jul 11, 2011 3:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

BoriquaEsquire
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 12:04 pm

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

Postby BoriquaEsquire » Mon Jul 11, 2011 3:20 pm

Your career is not "as good as you make it, no matter where you start it after law school." That's bullshit and everyone knows that. Good luck making partner at a big law firm in Wyoming. Good luck getting hired for Fortune 500 corporate counsel with shitlaw from South Dakota on your resume.


Would your job prospects be better if you worked 2 part-time jobs for legal temp agencies in NYC for 5 years after law school? My argument was responding to the article by saying that I'd rather work a full-time legal position in a small market than temp in a large one.

And if the fastest growing states are the little ones like Nebraska, and the slowest growing states are big ones like California, I think that spells trouble for the country.


I'm not arguing this point with you and I never have. I actually agree with this statement. I never denied that the economy was bad, I was simply offering a new way of looking at it.

Thank you for being offended an behalf of the states in which I was born, I appreciate it.


You're welcome. :D

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

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

Postby robotclubmember » Mon Jul 11, 2011 3:25 pm

Oh, and please tell me you go to Fordham and not NYLS (both lulzy options but still)

Would your job prospects be better if you worked 2 part-time jobs for legal temp agencies in NYC for 5 years after law school? My argument was responding to the article by saying that I'd rather work a full-time legal position in a small market than temp in a large one.


And yes I agree with that, but damn, what a hold-your-nose kind of choice

BoriquaEsquire
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 12:04 pm

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

Postby BoriquaEsquire » Mon Jul 11, 2011 3:47 pm

Oh, and please tell me you go to Fordham and not NYLS (both lulzy options but still)


LOL. Why is it so hard to believe that I go to CLS or NYU? Wait...don't answer that.

And yes I agree with that, but damn, what a hold-your-nose kind of choice


Well, it's like you said, the economy is shitty right now.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: inyoureyes89 and 5 guests