New York Times article about surplus of lawyers.....YIKES

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )

justhockey31
Posts: 312
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:35 pm

Re: New York Times article about surplus of lawyers.....YIKES

Postby justhockey31 » Mon Jun 27, 2011 8:35 pm

This is my surprised face.... :|

jarofsoup
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 2:41 am

Re: New York Times article about surplus of lawyers.....YIKES

Postby jarofsoup » Mon Jun 27, 2011 8:36 pm

Wow D.C. did a lot better than I thought it would.

User avatar
thesealocust
Posts: 8442
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:50 pm

Re: New York Times article about surplus of lawyers.....YIKES

Postby thesealocust » Mon Jun 27, 2011 8:39 pm

jarofsoup wrote:Wow D.C. did a lot better than I thought it would.


The data are screwed up. It's based on bar passage, and you don't have to take the DC bar to practice in DC. As a result, almost nobody who practices in DC takes the DC bar - but a lot of the people taking it in VA, MD, etc. are practicing in DC. As a result this particular method of looking at the data makes it look like DC is undersubscribed, when in fact probably the exact opposite is true.

User avatar
Bronx Bum
Posts: 474
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 6:02 pm

Re: New York Times article about surplus of lawyers.....YIKES

Postby Bronx Bum » Mon Jun 27, 2011 8:40 pm

I feel bad for anyone in NY.

User avatar
risktaker
Posts: 687
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:10 pm

Re: New York Times article about surplus of lawyers.....YIKES

Postby risktaker » Mon Jun 27, 2011 8:43 pm

Feeling good about my decision to not attend law school.

User avatar
Bildungsroman
Posts: 5548
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 2:42 pm

Re: New York Times article about surplus of lawyers.....YIKES

Postby Bildungsroman » Mon Jun 27, 2011 8:43 pm

Bronx Bum wrote:I feel bad for anyone in NY.

:(

User avatar
Bronx Bum
Posts: 474
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 6:02 pm

Re: New York Times article about surplus of lawyers.....YIKES

Postby Bronx Bum » Mon Jun 27, 2011 8:43 pm

risktaker wrote:Feeling good about my decision to not attend law school.


Worst mistake of my life. Sucks I'm already knee deep.

justhockey31
Posts: 312
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:35 pm

Re: New York Times article about surplus of lawyers.....YIKES

Postby justhockey31 » Mon Jun 27, 2011 8:45 pm

Articles like that makes it painfully obvious that there are too many law schools...TTT/TTTT in oversaturated markets leads to nothing but unemployment and its terribly sad

overunderachiever
Posts: 115
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 5:47 pm

Re: New York Times article about surplus of lawyers.....YIKES

Postby overunderachiever » Mon Jun 27, 2011 9:20 pm

They counted only people who passed the bar in each state, so would the numbers be a little off since there are many people who take the bar exams in multiple states?

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

Re: New York Times article about surplus of lawyers.....YIKES

Postby robotclubmember » Mon Jun 27, 2011 9:24 pm

In 2009, 9,787 people passed the bar exam in the Empire State. The analysts estimated, though, that New York would need only 2,100 new lawyers each year through 2015. That means that if New York keeps minting new lawyers apace, it will continue having an annual surplus of 7,687 lawyers.


the real problem isn't just over-saturation, but cumulative over-saturation as well. consider for NY (assuming that passing the bar exam makes you a job seeker, which it certainly should after three years of lol school:

2009: 9,800 JD job seekers, 2,100 jobs, 7,700 surplus JDs.
2010: 9,800 JD job seekers plus 7,700 surplus JDs from prior year, 2,100 jobs, 15,400 surplus JDs.
2011: 9,800 JD job seekers plus 15,400 surplus JDs from prior year, 2,100 jobs, 23,100 surplus JDs.
2012: 30,800 surplus JD's etc...

and so it goes.

now let's assume a few things. clearly the surplus JD's who couldn't find legal employment aren't going to be sitting around with their thumb up their ass like a bump on a log, they'll find jobs elsewhere. so that will draw down the surplus of JD's (though is that the ideal way to draw down the surplus?)

let's also assume these numbers from the article might be grossly exaggerated as new grads may take bar in other states, or other statistical unreliabilities may be present (i.e., are contract doc review jobs being counted? prob not). even then we still have a serious problem in the legal market. the overcrowding of the field doesn't just result in a ton of unemployed people, changing the supply demand EQ changes the price. the only thing holding high median salaries in tact is that high wages and billing rates is what makes the top firms lucrative, but even they at some point will start yielding on comp.

the effects of cumulative overcrowding won't be known for a while, but it will reach a point where you aren't competing just against this year's grads, but this plus prior year's grads for limited jobs. the market is bottlenecking.

another thing. 26,239 openings per year, and let's assume that of those 4,000 go to T14 grads (which graduate 4,000 to 4,500 a year). if you aren't T14, you're going to b fighting for table scraps in the next few years. get used to it. now i can't wait to hear the 0L's reply back to tell me how unemployment will never happen to them, how only losers don't get jobs and that the people questioning the stability of the economy (yes we're double dippin') and legal market are just pessimists and chicken littles. the numbers are there. the T14 or bust mantra is in place for a reason, because the reast of you will be fighting for table scraps, and just because everyone knows at least one of those guys who got a table scrap, doesn't mean you'll be that guy.

DON'T GO TO LAW SCHOOL. END OF DISCUSSION.

AnyRandChangedmylife
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 5:31 pm

Re: New York Times article about surplus of lawyers.....YIKES

Postby AnyRandChangedmylife » Mon Jun 27, 2011 9:29 pm

robotclubmember wrote:
In 2009, 9,787 people passed the bar exam in the Empire State. The analysts estimated, though, that New York would need only 2,100 new lawyers each year through 2015. That means that if New York keeps minting new lawyers apace, it will continue having an annual surplus of 7,687 lawyers.


the real problem isn't just over-saturation, but cumulative over-saturation as well. consider for NY (assuming that passing the bar exam makes you a job seeker, which it certainly should after three years of lol school:

2009: 9,800 JD job seekers, 2,100 jobs, 7,700 surplus JDs.
2010: 9,800 JD job seekers plus 7,700 surplus JDs from prior year, 2,100 jobs, 15,400 surplus JDs.
2011: 9,800 JD job seekers plus 15,400 surplus JDs from prior year, 2,100 jobs, 23,100 surplus JDs.
2012: 30,800 surplus JD's etc...

and so it goes.

now let's assume a few things. clearly the surplus JD's who couldn't find legal employment aren't going to be sitting around with their thumb up their ass like a bump on a log, they'll find jobs elsewhere. so that will draw down the surplus of JD's (though is that the ideal way to draw down the surplus?)

let's also assume these numbers from the article might be grossly exaggerated as new grads may take bar in other states, or other statistical unreliabilities may be present (i.e., are contract doc review jobs being counted? prob not). even then we still have a serious problem in the legal market. the overcrowding of the field doesn't just result in a ton of unemployed people, changing the supply demand EQ changes the price. the only thing holding high median salaries in tact is that high wages and billing rates is what makes the top firms lucrative, but even they at some point will start yielding on comp.

the effects of cumulative overcrowding won't be known for a while, but it will reach a point where you aren't competing just against this year's grads, but this plus prior year's grads for limited jobs. the market is bottlenecking.

another thing. 26,239 openings per year, and let's assume that of those 4,000 go to T14 grads (which graduate 4,000 to 4,500 a year). if you aren't T14, you're going to b fighting for table scraps in the next few years. get used to it. now i can't wait to hear the 0L's reply back to tell me how unemployment will never happen to them, how only losers don't get jobs and that the people questioning the stability of the economy (yes we're double dippin') and legal market are just pessimists and chicken littles. the numbers are there. the T14 or bust mantra is in place for a reason, because the reast of you will be fighting for table scraps, and just because everyone knows at least one of those guys who got a table scrap, doesn't mean you'll be that guy.

DON'T GO TO LAW SCHOOL. END OF DISCUSSION.


But some are dyin'!

User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

Re: New York Times article about surplus of lawyers.....YIKES

Postby vanwinkle » Mon Jun 27, 2011 9:32 pm





Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Leliana and 4 guests