RECESSION PANIC MEGAPOST: Bad economy threads go here!

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
ZXCVBNM
Posts: 422
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 9:45 pm

Re: Student loans and Biglaw salary cuts coming!

Postby ZXCVBNM » Wed Apr 01, 2009 7:50 pm

CALM DOWN!!! This too shall pass. And going to GULC is still a pretty sweet gig unless you can go to a better school...either way shut up. This posts make me nauseated.

User avatar
spinsta
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:16 pm

Re: Student loans and Biglaw salary cuts coming!

Postby spinsta » Wed Apr 01, 2009 7:52 pm

The title of this thread implies that both Biglaw salaries AND student loans will be cut. Is there any actual information about student loans being cut?

Farts - I think you are just jealous that lots of TLSers have better future prospects than you. Sorry, but that's the only conclusion that seems to make sense of your relentless posts concerning how "bad" the law field is right now.

User avatar
Mulliganstew
Posts: 251
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 11:41 pm

Re: Student loans and Biglaw salary cuts coming!

Postby Mulliganstew » Wed Apr 01, 2009 7:54 pm

stateofbeasley wrote:Regardless of what you think of Skadden's posts, what he is saying has a lot of substantive truth.


Lost your credibility here. Just thought I'd let you know. :lol:

interestedbyestander
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 10:44 am

Re: Student loans and Biglaw salary cuts coming!

Postby interestedbyestander » Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:09 pm

You may want to shoot the messenger, but heed the message.

Most of us here (over 50%) will be making $30-$50 a year in 3 years with huge debt to repay. Life will suck for many.

User avatar
RVP11
Posts: 2774
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:32 pm

Re: Student loans and Biglaw salary cuts coming!

Postby RVP11 » Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:10 pm

interestedbyestander wrote:Most of us here (over 50%) will be making $30-$50 a year in 3 years with huge debt to repay. Life will suck for many.


:roll:

I'd love to find out how you *know* this. There are gazillions of more likely possibilities. TLS is hardly representative of the average law student and you can't claim to know the debt situation of so many people.

User avatar
Mr. Matlock
Posts: 1360
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 6:36 pm

Re: Student loans and Biglaw salary cuts coming!

Postby Mr. Matlock » Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:30 pm

Skadden Farts, AKA L4L, AKA Scott Bullok:

Image

interestedbystander, stateofbeasley -- take your pick

Image

TEAM JDU

--ImageRemoved--

User avatar
spinsta
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:16 pm

Re: Student loans and Biglaw salary cuts coming!

Postby spinsta » Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:36 pm

interestedbyestander wrote:You may want to shoot the messenger, but heed the message.

Most of us here (over 50%) will be making $30-$50 a year in 3 years with huge debt to repay. Life will suck for many.



I disagree. There was a thread a while back that polled the top-ranked acceptance of TLSers. According to the poll, over 50% of TLSers have been accepted at T14 schools. I agree that over 50% of total law school graduates will be making significantly less than the 160k golden Biglaw standard, but TLS is not a representative sample - it is a self-selective group that is favored by individuals who have better-than-average prospects. I would say that over 50% of TLSers will be making over $100,000 a year three years from now, even including PI. Just a guess...

huckabees
Posts: 322
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 11:38 pm

Re: Student loans and Biglaw salary cuts coming!

Postby huckabees » Wed Apr 01, 2009 10:01 pm

:(

For the record, some of us will likely not be "stuck in" jobs paying $30-50K because some of us already make 2X that right now, and returning to our current jobs would be an option after graduation, though not a great one.

I am much more worried about the economy as a whole than TLSers' ability to land a Biglaw job per se.

law_fun
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:40 am

New York Times article on Legal Profession

Postby law_fun » Thu Apr 02, 2009 12:08 pm

Dated 1 April 09

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/opinion/02thu4.html

The economic downturn is hitting the legal world hard. American Lawyer is calling it “the fire this time” and warning that big firms may be hurtling toward “a paradigm-shifting, blood-in-the-suites” future. The Law Shucks blog has a “layoff tracker,” and it is grim reading. Top firms are rapidly thinning their ranks, and several — including Heller Ehrman, a venerable 500-plus-lawyer firm founded in 1890 — have closed.

The employment pains of the legal elite may not elicit a lot of sympathy in the broader context of the recession, but a lot of hard-working lawyers have been blindsided, including young associates who are suddenly finding themselves with six-figure student-loan debts and no source of income.

Leading firms have historically avoided mass layoffs, concerned that their reputations would take a hit. But some have been putting those inhibitions aside, perhaps calculating that the stigma of pushing out their colleagues has faded. Law firm managers and bar associations should be looking for more creative ways to deal with the hard times — like reducing pay for both partners and associates to save jobs, as a few firms have begun doing.

The silver lining, if there is one, is that the legal world may be inspired to draw blueprints for the 21st century.

The changes are likely to begin with compensation. Years ago, law firm starting salaries were not that different from government or public-interest jobs. But the gap has become a chasm. First-year salaries at top firms are around $160,000, compared with $48,000 to start for state and local prosecutors and $40,000 for legal-services lawyers. New associates often earn more than the judges they appear before.

The downturn will probably rein in salaries at the high end. Top firms are already under pressure to lower the $160,000 starting salary; one industry-watcher says it could fall as low as $100,000. And fewer firms will feel the need to pay the top salary.

Lower pay should mean that associates will not need to work the grueling hours many have been forced to. And it will mean less pressure to go into private practice for law graduates who would rather do something else.

Clients are also likely to benefit — and consumers, since legal fees are built into the cost of almost everything. Even before the downturn, big-firm clients, led by the Association of Corporate Counsel, were pushing to phase out the billable hour — which can go as high as $1,000. Tight corporate budgets will give clients more leverage to push to pay by the project or for successful outcomes.

For years, law school tuition rose along with big-firm salaries. Between 1990 and 2003, the cost of private law schools rose at nearly three times the rate of consumer prices. The average graduate now leaves with more than $80,000 in debt. In one survey, 66 percent of students said debt prevented them from considering government or public-interest jobs.

If the downturn is prolonged, law schools will need to keep tuition and other costs in check so students do not graduate with unmanageable debt. More schools may follow the lead of Northwestern, the first top-tier law school to offer a two-year program.

Law schools may also become more serious about curriculum reform. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching released an influential report that, among other things, urged law schools to make better use of the sometimes-aimless second and third years. If law jobs are scarce, there will be more pressure on schools to make the changes Carnegie suggested, including more focus on practical skills.

They may also need to pay more attention to preparing students for nonlegal careers. Law graduates have always ended up in business, government, journalism and other fields. Law schools could do more to build these subjects into their coursework.

The past few decades of prosperity made a lot of lawyers wealthy, but they were not always good for the profession. Law school deans, bar association leaders and firm managers should follow Rahm Emanuel’s advice about never allowing a crisis to go to waste and start planning for what comes next.

GO GO LEMMINGS...will you ever get it? the legal "BUSINESS" is bleeding. I cannot believe it is still considered a "profession"

User avatar
CaptainCubicle
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 8:41 pm

Re: New York Times article on Legal Profession

Postby CaptainCubicle » Thu Apr 02, 2009 12:09 pm

law_fun wrote:GO GO LEMMINGS...will you ever get it? the legal "BUSINESS" is bleeding. I cannot believe it is still considered a "profession"


I agree completely. I'm glad I still have my job in the more stable banking sector to fall back on.

rjl
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 8:24 pm

Re: New York Times article on Legal Profession

Postby rjl » Thu Apr 02, 2009 12:13 pm

law_fun wrote:GO GO LEMMINGS...will you ever get it? the legal "BUSINESS" is bleeding. I cannot believe it is still considered a "profession"


90% of other industries are "bleeding" right now too. Maybe take a second or two between your internet trolls and check the news. There's a recession/depression going on.

It might hit home for you when, faced with budget shortfalls, the Internet institutes the caplock tax.

smalltown
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 1:51 pm

Re: New York Times article on Legal Profession

Postby smalltown » Thu Apr 02, 2009 12:29 pm

Yes, I too am glad I have this journalism job I've poured my heart and soul into for the last 10 years to fall back on. The economy sucks. Ask people in the car, banking, newspaper, or nearly any other industry. Hell, even roughnecks in Wyoming are getting laid off, and that used to be a sure bet if you could handle the cold and ensuing meth addiction.

There are plenty of aspiring attorneys out there who aren't looking to make more than a hundred thousand dollars - or are simply wanting to be public servants. As the story says, it's hard to weep for the legal elite who went into it purely for greed when people just trying to make an honest, simple living can't even do that for 30,000 a year. For those that made honest plans that are contingent on those massive salaries, this is really a shitty situation. Hopefully they land on their feet. Luckily, the people who made those plans are pretty sharp. They usually will succeed in whatever they do, so they likely will land on their feet.

Those attorneys who are making over six figures had the ability to save a lot of money for a rainy day. While anybody losing their job is awful, they have a better chance of surviving it than most Americans.

And we understand you weren't too sharp and made a bad decision. But most people here understand the current situation and are planning accordingly. You're not really doing anything than just hoping to whine away your problems, which is understandable.
Last edited by smalltown on Thu Apr 02, 2009 12:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
kbigs
Posts: 62
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 7:06 pm

Re: Interesting article in NY Times today.....

Postby kbigs » Thu Apr 02, 2009 12:31 pm

The downturn will probably rein in salaries at the high end. Top firms are already under pressure to lower the $160,000 starting salary; one industry-watcher says it could fall as low as $100,000. And fewer firms will feel the need to pay the top salary.

Lower pay should mean that associates will not need to work the grueling hours many have been forced to. And it will mean less pressure to go into private practice for law graduates who would rather do something else.


lower salary + a possibility of having a life outside of the office = nice.

awr2056
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 9:43 am

Re: Interesting article in NY Times today.....

Postby awr2056 » Thu Apr 02, 2009 12:32 pm

kbigs wrote:
The downturn will probably rein in salaries at the high end. Top firms are already under pressure to lower the $160,000 starting salary; one industry-watcher says it could fall as low as $100,000. And fewer firms will feel the need to pay the top salary.

Lower pay should mean that associates will not need to work the grueling hours many have been forced to. And it will mean less pressure to go into private practice for law graduates who would rather do something else.


lower salary + a possibility of having a life outside of the office = nice.


Yes if we can just get those lower tuition rates!!!!! Of course with the expected rise of inflation maybe our loans will be worth much less at graduation (said with tongue firmly implanted in cheek)

O'Shaughnessy
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 10:17 pm

Re: New York Times article on Legal Profession

Postby O'Shaughnessy » Thu Apr 02, 2009 12:33 pm

law_fun wrote:the legal "BUSINESS" is bleeding.


Joking or serious business?

AmicusCuriae
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 7:19 pm

Re: Interesting article in NY Times today.....

Postby AmicusCuriae » Thu Apr 02, 2009 12:34 pm

The only issue I take with the article is the characterization that associates are "Forced" to work long hours. The people that go into BigLaw know what they're getting into and choose that career path. I don't think that reducing the long hours is a legitimate reason to advocate for lower salaries.

User avatar
Lily
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 2:01 pm

Re: New York Times article on Legal Profession

Postby Lily » Thu Apr 02, 2009 12:35 pm

O'Shaughnessy wrote:
law_fun wrote:the legal "BUSINESS" is bleeding.


Joking or serious business?


srs bsns

User avatar
lucydog
Posts: 69
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 7:12 pm

Re: New York Times article on Legal Profession

Postby lucydog » Thu Apr 02, 2009 12:35 pm

Ha! It will take more than this recession (in which the gov. is doing everything in its power to maintain the status quo) to break the high tuition-high salary legal-academic complex.

awr2056
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 9:43 am

Re: Interesting article in NY Times today.....

Postby awr2056 » Thu Apr 02, 2009 12:37 pm

AmicusCuriae wrote:.....I don't think that reducing the long hours is a legitimate reason to advocate for lower salaries.

I don't think that the article is advocating reducing hours as a reason to lower salaries, but rather the reducing of salries will naturally reduce the hours required to work.

User avatar
crystalhawkeye
Posts: 757
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:00 pm

Re: New York Times article on Legal Profession

Postby crystalhawkeye » Thu Apr 02, 2009 12:39 pm

Threads merged, moved.

awr2056
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 9:43 am

Re: New York Times article on Legal Profession

Postby awr2056 » Thu Apr 02, 2009 12:42 pm

crystalhawkeye wrote:Threads merged, moved.

thanks! next time I will check to make sure to avoid the redundancy.... rookie mistake :)

User avatar
crystalhawkeye
Posts: 757
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:00 pm

Re: New York Times article on Legal Profession

Postby crystalhawkeye » Thu Apr 02, 2009 12:45 pm

awr2056 wrote:
crystalhawkeye wrote:Threads merged, moved.

thanks! next time I will check to make sure to avoid the redundancy.... rookie mistake :)

Yo, it's cool, man.

kflyer
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:51 pm

Re: New York Times article on Legal Profession

Postby kflyer » Thu Apr 02, 2009 12:48 pm

Reduced salaries will lead to reduced hours? Somehow I doubt that. Associates that bill 2000 hours are bringing in far more money to the firm than just what covers their salary. Those long hours are what puts money in the partners' pockets. Partners can continue to ask just as much of their associates if there are no higher paying jobs available.

Bankhead
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:50 am

Re: New York Times article on Legal Profession

Postby Bankhead » Thu Apr 02, 2009 12:51 pm

Dow just went over 8,000. At least something is going back up...

User avatar
heyyitskatie
Posts: 93
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: New York Times article on Legal Profession

Postby heyyitskatie » Thu Apr 02, 2009 12:52 pm

It seems like our "generation" of law students will probably have it the worst. We will still be paying the exorbitant tuition to attend while not necessarily having the ability to take on a job for a couple of years pretty much for the purposes of paying back the debt.

Now...before everyone tells that there's always LRAP, and that taking a big firm, high paying job shouldn't be done if you just wanted do to government work/boutique work/PI, etc., lots of LRAP programs have near slavery conditions (e.g. you can't get married)...and if my life is going to be dictated to me for a couple of years, I'd at least rather be making money while being able to make life choices.

Is there any hope for law school tuition actually decreasing to reflect lower salaries? (since I'm assuming that even though most people don't dream about the shitty lifestyle of biglaw, it pretty much has to be done so you won't be in debt for the next 20 years)




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AnMzungu, guybourdin, slimjims27 and 8 guests