MBA employment up; for the JDs, not so much.

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
User avatar
nealric
Posts: 2391
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:53 am

Re: MBA employment up; for the JDs, not so much.

Postby nealric » Mon Mar 08, 2010 7:05 pm

Meh, I think a lot of that is because the law profession is a bit of a trailing indicator. The mass layoffs in biglaw came months after banking started to shed jobs. It's perfectly reasonable that hiring would come back before JD hiring.

User avatar
jawsthegreat
Posts: 792
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: MBA employment up; for the JDs, not so much.

Postby jawsthegreat » Mon Mar 08, 2010 7:08 pm

Law jobs will come back after all those MBAs start doing things that need lawyers.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273093
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: MBA employment up; for the JDs, not so much.

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Mar 08, 2010 7:10 pm

+1 for optimism and creativity

User avatar
beesknees
Posts: 458
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 10:46 am

Re: MBA employment up; for the JDs, not so much.

Postby beesknees » Mon Mar 08, 2010 7:11 pm

A rise in MBA hiring can be attributed to the fact that almost ANY kind of employment that an MBA gets can be counted. So, let's say 50 out 60 MBA kids in a class get jobs as store managers at McDonalds, that can be "employment in business."

But getting a legal job is much more specific. Flipping burgers would not constitute legal employment.

Not saying a JD is a golden ticket (as its obviously not for most of us), but I just have a distaste for MBAs because if you think that law schools are saturated with mindless early twenty-somethings who went back to school because they didn't know what else to do, biz school is more so.

User avatar
nealric
Posts: 2391
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:53 am

Re: MBA employment up; for the JDs, not so much.

Postby nealric » Mon Mar 08, 2010 7:29 pm

Given that the billable hour model is fading in to dust


:roll:

No it's not. A few firms are doing alternative fee arrangements for a minority of the work (they were well before the crisis), but that hardly represents the demise of the billable hour. The vast, vast, majority of bills from biglaw firms are still by the hour.

User avatar
A'nold
Posts: 3622
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: MBA employment up; for the JDs, not so much.

Postby A'nold » Mon Mar 08, 2010 7:39 pm

Please go back to your horrible 0L threads. You are the very worst poster on tls and it actually makes me naseous to read your crap in other threads. You are one of the reasons I avoid those threads.

Basically, go away.

User avatar
nealric
Posts: 2391
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:53 am

Re: MBA employment up; for the JDs, not so much.

Postby nealric » Mon Mar 08, 2010 9:37 pm

It's been the talk on "the street" (NY), "in the valley" (Paolo Alto) and everyone else (eg. Boston big law) and everywhere else for a while now.


No kidding.

Every few years the idea of the "demise of the billable hour" gets batted about in the media. It usually coincides with a recession. Every time it happens, the billable hour hangs on despite the punditry forecasting its demise.

In the end, alternative fee arrangements are usually way for firms to give a discount to clients without having to admit that they are doing so. In recessionary times they are more apt to do that. Even so, the 50% increase cited by the WSJ hardly indicates the "crumbling of the billable hour". We are talking about going from 5-10% to 10-15% of fees at most firms. The attitude I hear from most partners I talk to (and I've asked a lot of them about billable hours), is that they are willing to do it if a client insists, but they are in no rush to a revolution. Some (actually a pretty large number) have still never done anything other than billable hours.

User avatar
A'nold
Posts: 3622
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: MBA employment up; for the JDs, not so much.

Postby A'nold » Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:33 pm

Peter North wrote:
nealric wrote:
Given that the billable hour model is fading in to dust


:roll:

No it's not. A few firms are doing alternative fee arrangements for a minority of the work (they were well before the crisis), but that hardly represents the demise of the billable hour. The vast, vast, majority of bills from biglaw firms are still by the hour.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125106954159552335.html

It's been the talk on "the street" (NY), "in the valley" (Paolo Alto) and everyone else (eg. Boston big law) and everywhere else for a while now.

A'nold wrote:Please go back to your horrible 0L threads. You are the very worst poster on tls and it actually makes me naseous to read your crap in other threads. You are one of the reasons I avoid those threads.

Basically, go away.


For someone who claims to have disdain for my posts/threads, you sure do peruse my submissions on here with some interest. That itself is plenty of affirmation for me. :lol: And what's with the "0L" reference? Is that supposed to be an insult? If so, you fail miserably.

If you think I'm some 22 year old undergrad hack enroute to law school, then you might want to try again. FYI: In my current work capacity (almost 7 years out) I do in fact delegate enough transaction and regulatory work to the big laws that I have listed above. Surely I would have some idea as to what I'm talking about. Admittedly, at my intermediate level, I'm not privy to many of the terms & conditions of retainer agreements, but I sure can tell you that we (a Fortune 500) don't pay any of the NY & Paolo Alto big laws by the billable hour, whether it is for IP work, M&A deal transaction, etc. Litigation is the only exception to this.

HTH


Actually, I wasn't commenting on this thread specifically, I was commenting on your overall arrogant blowhardness and douchiness in general and that I'd love it if you'd go away, preferably from this entire site and from the law profession entirely. However, right now I'd take you leaving the big kid area and going back to where you can rant and rave about why the LSAT should not be used for law school admissions and instead we should all go perform "oral arguments" in front of Harvard Admissions personnel and that people with 125's should get in b/c they can "argue well." You have no idea what law school is like or what law school teaches you. Sorry you suck.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.