what's the lowest salary one can expect with a JD? Forum

[Zapatero]

Seriously? If both of you are going to stick around her for more than a few hundred posts, one of you is going to have to fix that. I'll never keep you straight.

Just remember that I'm the one with the cute cat who is always right. The other is Mr. Bean.

Mr. Bean? Just in case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatero

I'd be willing to change my handle, since it makes it ridiculously easy to identify me. I just need to think of a sweet name first.

[09042014]

Seriously? If both of you are going to stick around her for more than a few hundred posts, one of you is going to have to fix that. I'll never keep you straight.

Just remember that I'm the one with the cute cat who is always right. The other is Mr. Bean.

Mr. Bean? Just in case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatero

I'd be willing to change my handle, since it makes it ridiculously easy to identify me. I just need to think of a sweet name first.

Once you do, talk to the Admin named Hawkeye. He is willing to change names for posters.

[James Bond]

Seriously? If both of you are going to stick around her for more than a few hundred posts, one of you is going to have to fix that. I'll never keep you straight.

Just remember that I'm the one with the cute cat who is always right. The other is Mr. Bean.

Mr. Bean? Just in case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr_bean

I'd be willing to change my handle, since it makes it ridiculously easy to identify me. I just need to think of a sweet name first.

FTFY

[vanwinkle]

Even before ITE, I knew someone who was top 25% at Penn and got cut from a law firm like so many associates do. He ended up doing temp work at one of the big investment firms in NYC, and it took him years to get them to finally take him onto a full-time position. Despite the degree and grades and prior work experience, they did not want to take someone who'd fallen into temp work as a full employee. It was only the fact that he did solid work for them on a series of contracts for more than three years that finally convinced them to hire him.

[Zapatero]

Mr. Bean? Just in case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr_bean

I'd be willing to change my handle, since it makes it ridiculously easy to identify me. I just need to think of a sweet name first.

FTFY

It is a striking resemblance.

Once you do, talk to the Admin named Hawkeye. He is willing to change names for posters.

Awesome. Thanks, man.

[ccs224]

Seriously? If both of you are going to stick around her for more than a few hundred posts, one of you is going to have to fix that. I'll never keep you straight.

Just remember that I'm the one with the cute cat who is always right. The other is Mr. Bean.

Mr. Bean? Just in case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatero

I'd be willing to change my handle, since it makes it ridiculously easy to identify me. I just need to think of a sweet name first.

I'm not the first to make the comparison:
--ImageRemoved--

[Zapatero]

I'm not the first to make the comparison:
--ImageRemoved--

Why are you anonymous?

[ccs224]

I'm not the first to make the comparison:
--ImageRemoved--

Why are you anonymous?

That's a really good question. I must have hit the wrong button. Don't worry now, I'm back to lay stake to my initials.

[OperaSoprano]

Even before ITE, I knew someone who was top 25% at Penn and got cut from a law firm like so many associates do. He ended up doing temp work at one of the big investment firms in NYC, and it took him years to get them to finally take him onto a full-time position. Despite the degree and grades and prior work experience, they did not want to take someone who'd fallen into temp work as a full employee. It was only the fact that he did solid work for them on a series of contracts for more than three years that finally convinced them to hire him.

So, do we know why? I mean, aside from prestige whoring?

[Zapatero]

Why are you anonymous?

That's a really good question. I must have hit the wrong button. Don't worry now, I'm back to lay stake to my initials.

You can have them. I'm brainstorming replacement names and should have a new one picked out soon.

Edit: fixed quotes.

[09042014]

That's a really good question. I must have hit the wrong button. Don't worry now, I'm back to lay stake to my initials.

You can have them. I'm brainstorming replacement names and should have a new one picked out soon.

I vote for Mr Zapatero.

[hiromoto45]

What exactly is temp work? Why is it looked down upon by employers?

[vanwinkle]

Even before ITE, I knew someone who was top 25% at Penn and got cut from a law firm like so many associates do. He ended up doing temp work at one of the big investment firms in NYC, and it took him years to get them to finally take him onto a full-time position. Despite the degree and grades and prior work experience, they did not want to take someone who'd fallen into temp work as a full employee. It was only the fact that he did solid work for them on a series of contracts for more than three years that finally convinced them to hire him.

So, do we know why? I mean, aside from prestige whoring?

There's a huge negative stigma in the industry regarding people who do temp work. It's like, the assumption is that they ended up there for a reason. They'd rather take a chance on a new kid fresh out of law school than someone who had a chance already and got stuck in temp work.

[Zapatero]

That's a really good question. I must have hit the wrong button. Don't worry now, I'm back to lay stake to my initials.

You can have them. I'm brainstorming replacement names and should have a new one picked out soon.

I vote for Mr Zapatero.

I was thinking "Shoemaker," the literal English translation. Or maybe just "Zapatero."

[Kohinoor]

Even before ITE, I knew someone who was top 25% at Penn and got cut from a law firm like so many associates do. He ended up doing temp work at one of the big investment firms in NYC, and it took him years to get them to finally take him onto a full-time position. Despite the degree and grades and prior work experience, they did not want to take someone who'd fallen into temp work as a full employee. It was only the fact that he did solid work for them on a series of contracts for more than three years that finally convinced them to hire him.

So, do we know why? I mean, aside from prestige whoring?

Because if you hire a temp attorney into biglaw, the only difference between you and a temp attorney is a hiring decision. There must be something more substantial that separates the biglawyers from the temps. Surely, it's the criminal slope of the temp skull or that certain skulking demeanor and cravenness about them.

[Anonymous User]

I thought all the temp legal work was getting outsourced to India

[James Bond]

I thought all the temp legal work was getting outsourced to India

Is that really so "bad" and "cutting" that you had to post it anonymously?

[OperaSoprano]

This is a reminder not to abuse the anonymous function. It's meant for sharing news about job offers, and other things that can't be readily discussed using our own names. I trust you guys to follow the rules of the forum.

[Renzo]

That's a really good question. I must have hit the wrong button. Don't worry now, I'm back to lay stake to my initials.

You can have them. I'm brainstorming replacement names and should have a new one picked out soon.

I vote for Mr Zapatero.

I was thinking "Shoemaker," the literal English translation. Or maybe just "Zapatero."

What about Hothhhhay Louethhh Thhhapatero?

[PigNipple]

[LurkerNoMore]

Even before ITE, I knew someone who was top 25% at Penn and got cut from a law firm like so many associates do. He ended up doing temp work at one of the big investment firms in NYC, and it took him years to get them to finally take him onto a full-time position. Despite the degree and grades and prior work experience, they did not want to take someone who'd fallen into temp work as a full employee. It was only the fact that he did solid work for them on a series of contracts for more than three years that finally convinced them to hire him.

So, do we know why? I mean, aside from prestige whoring?

It's about hiring momentum and the risk of decision.

There is such an *enormous* pool of attorneys that it makes distinguishing them very difficult. Additionally, very few legal jobs are "plug and play." There is almost always a significant learning curve that keeps an attorney from being worth their salary for a period of time. This means employers are generally hiring potential, and potential can be very difficult to identify. Add to that, there is often blame passed around when a new hire doesn't work out. No one wants to either catch that blame if the person they pushed for turns out to be a dud or worse, or be the person who got in the way of a candidate being pushed by someone higher up the food chain.

As an applicant, you have two things that can speak on your behalf: your resume and personal connections. One reason personal connections are so important is because they cut through much of the uncertainty. If someone is willing to stake part of their reputation on your skills, that says a lot. But, if you don't have that, then you are left with your resume. Job descriptions are *not* going to distinguish you. They can all be massaged to sound the same and employers know it. Further, ethically they generally need to be rather generic -- you are somewhat limited as to what you can put on your resume by attorney client privilege.

So what does that leave a potential employer with? Your pedigree. If your resume demonstrates that competitive place after competitive place has taken a chance on you, then you have momentum going in your favor. The next employer can rely upon the fact that their positive view about your potential has been shared by others to bolster the decision to put your application through. If you turn out to be a dud, there is usually less blame -- "but school X, and employers Y and Z all shared my view, how should I have known he wouldn't work out." If, however, you have a back slide in your resume, you have shifted the momentum and are forcing the employer to take a greater risk. Even in this economy many of the people who were forced out have landed on their feet. Employers want *those* people (which is why they like hiring laterals). They know that a lot of the people who are doing temp work are just victims of bad circumstances, but they also know that not *all* of them are. Sorting out which is which is difficult and time consuming. In a market where there are more than enough people to choose from that have not done temp work, there is no reason to take either the risk or the time.

So the very short summary to a very long answer is: when the supply of attorneys far exceeds demand, employers can be as picky as they want, and it is rational for them to behave in this manner.

[underachiever]

0$...I mean with so many unemployed lawyers there are tons that are unemployed.

[Kohinoor]

There is almost always a significant learning curve that keeps an attorney from being worth their salary for a period of time.

Bullshit? A first year being billed at $160/hr and billing 2000 hours can bring in $320,000 for the firm in addition to some indivisible fraction of whatever the firm gets if they win. Cutting out salary and assuming that 10% of hours get written off, you'd still have to explain away over $100,000 to suggest that the first year isn't worth his salary.

[270910]

There is almost always a significant learning curve that keeps an attorney from being worth their salary for a period of time.

Bullshit? A first year being billed at $160/hr and billing 2000 hours can bring in $320,000 for the firm in addition to some indivisible fraction of whatever the firm gets if they win. Cutting out salary and assuming that 10% of hours get written off, you'd still have to explain away over $100,000 to suggest that the first year isn't worth his salary.

Your math is off. 1st years can't collect nearly what they bill, and represent substantial overhead for recruitment, equipment, perks, office space, support staff, etc. etc. etc. First year associates are definitely not profitable, though they quickly become so.

[Kohinoor]

There is almost always a significant learning curve that keeps an attorney from being worth their salary for a period of time.

Bullshit? A first year being billed at $160/hr and billing 2000 hours can bring in $320,000 for the firm in addition to some indivisible fraction of whatever the firm gets if they win. Cutting out salary and assuming that 10% of hours get written off, you'd still have to explain away over $100,000 to suggest that the first year isn't worth his salary.

Your math is off. 1st years can't collect nearly what they bill, and represent substantial overhead for recruitment, equipment, perks, office space, support staff, etc. etc. etc. First year associates are definitely not profitable, though they quickly become so.

In my experience doing billing at a large corporate law firm, this idea that first years get a ton of their billable hours written off isn't based in reality. Those that do quickly earn themselves a meeting with a partner or senior associate. Overhead is substantial but likely not nearly enough to offset the profit an associate brings in. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd love to hear it of course. Hm. I guess it would depend entirely on the collection rate of the firm. A firm collecting 50% from the client won't find a first year profitable.