V25 hiring director: non-T20 hiring to decline permanently Forum

[holydonkey]

After reading this and some of the comments, my question is, do you think this sort of thinking at BigLaw firms will allow mid-law firms to snatch up some of that business and won't this even out the job market a bit for those in the lower T1 and even T2?

This means biglaw would go deeper into T20 classes if the economy improves, so people in the T20 that would have gone to midlaw will now go to biglaw, "allowing" midlaw firms to "snatch up" the non-T20 students in the top 20% of their classes. Yeah, I guess that makes sense, but that's not a good thing for people outside of the T20. "Congrats! You've got a better chance at midlaw because you have no chance at biglaw!"

[ughOSU]

Interesting... I feel oddly reassured.

[thebookcollector]

Just to be clear: in re-posting this material I was not endorsing, nor was I hoping for, a border war about which schools properly belong in (or were contemplated by the hiring director as being within) the "top 20." Frankly, there's a cadre of schools that hover between 19 and 25 and I'm sure they'll all be affected in a roughly similar manner--for good or bad.

+1. I would assume it operates more like a sliding scale. There is no hard and fast line where some people are okay and other people are SOL. The T14 will still place the best, with T20-25 schools doing alright as well. (And by alright, I mean relative to other schools ITE). A lot of the firm's decisions to attend OCI's will probably be fueled by region once you get out of the T14 or so. A NYC firm is probably more likely to cut back from attending Illinois for OCI than a Chicago firm would be.

Romo is the voice of reason here... it is always a sliding scale. You won't see a T-20 cliff... that's not how these things work.

A few years ago, the "Big Four" accounting firms focused on recruiting at fewer schools (and hiring more grads from those schools). After a couple of years, they decided that they didn't like that strategy, and instead opted to go back to hiring *quality* graduates from as many schools as they could find (i.e. the top of the class from a variety of schools rather than those half-way back through a few schools). They'll stick to this from now on... I think Big Law will do the same.

[Kobe_Teeth]

People aren't going to quit sueing each other, especially businesses. If BigLaw is only focused on the large bet-the-company type cases then smaller cases will still need to be litigated. These smaller cases can still be profitable just not the type of profitable that BigLaw is interested in.

These smaller cases have to be taken by somebody.

[Kobe_Teeth]

After reading this and some of the comments, my question is, do you think this sort of thinking at BigLaw firms will allow mid-law firms to snatch up some of that business and won't this even out the job market a bit for those in the lower T1 and even T2?

This means biglaw would go deeper into T20 classes if the economy improves, so people in the T20 that would have gone to midlaw will now go to biglaw, "allowing" midlaw firms to "snatch up" the non-T20 students in the top 20% of their classes. Yeah, I guess that makes sense, but that's not a good thing for people outside of the T20. "Congrats! You've got a better chance at midlaw because you have no chance at biglaw!"

Also, outside of the top20, the majority of attorneys don't make BigLaw and get hired at mid and small firms. So it always has been, as you said, "Congrats! You've got a better chance at midlaw because you have no chance at biglaw!"

[AngryAvocado]

Long engaged the law firm recruiters in the audience in a bit of a workshop, in terms of how to tell a school that their firm won’t be coming for OCI.

I'll make it easy on the hiring partners...here's a template:

"This year, an unprecedented number of schools asked us to come to their OCI. Unfortunately, we only have room for 20 on our schedule and we will be unable to commit to coming to your OCI at this time. However, if you're still interested in having us attend, please write an essay detailing your school's interest in this firm."

[savagecheater]

Of course, outside of the T-14, there's a pretty significant drop-off for placement, but I have a feeling that the T18-25 will have a vastly better experience than everyone else.

[romothesavior]

People aren't going to quit sueing each other, especially businesses. If BigLaw is only focused on the large bet-the-company type cases then smaller cases will still need to be litigated. These smaller cases can still be profitable just not the type of profitable that BigLaw is interested in.

These smaller cases have to be taken by somebody.

The legal ecnomy doesn't fluctuate based on the number of people "suing each other." I'd venture a guess that about 95% of people on TLS have no interest in doing small claims, ambulance chasing, and the "suits" that you are referring to (often called shitlaw on TLS).

People on here want to do transactional work, litigation, tax law, in-house, etc. The economy is obviously going to have a major impact on these types of work (less mergers, less business, etc. ----> less legal work needed). Midlaw isn't the little firm in Akron helping Bob Smith down the corner sue for compensation in a small claim. It is similar to the work that a lot of big law firms do, only on a smaller scale (and with less attorneys).

[romothesavior]

After reading this and some of the comments, my question is, do you think this sort of thinking at BigLaw firms will allow mid-law firms to snatch up some of that business and won't this even out the job market a bit for those in the lower T1 and even T2?

This means biglaw would go deeper into T20 classes if the economy improves, so people in the T20 that would have gone to midlaw will now go to biglaw, "allowing" midlaw firms to "snatch up" the non-T20 students in the top 20% of their classes. Yeah, I guess that makes sense, but that's not a good thing for people outside of the T20. "Congrats! You've got a better chance at midlaw because you have no chance at biglaw!"

Also, outside of the top20, the majority of attorneys don't make BigLaw and get hired at mid and small firms. So it always has been, as you said, "Congrats! You've got a better chance at midlaw because you have no chance at biglaw!"

I don't follow you here. You do realize that not everyone at the top schools can get biglaw right, which means they are going to then shoot for midlaw? And you also realize that not everyone at an elite school even wants big law, and many shoot for midlaw for the slightly lower stress or because they prefer a smaller market? I don't get how this article could make someone in the lower T1 feel good about their midlaw chances.

Also, the bolded was not really true in the mid-2000s. A decent number of people got biglaw during the legal boom, and now those jobs don't really exist for these people anymore.

[rando]

People aren't going to quit sueing each other, especially businesses. If BigLaw is only focused on the large bet-the-company type cases then smaller cases will still need to be litigated. These smaller cases can still be profitable just not the type of profitable that BigLaw is interested in.

These smaller cases have to be taken by somebody.

The legal ecnomy doesn't fluctuate based on the number of people "suing each other." I'd venture a guess that about 95% of people on TLS have no interest in doing small claims, ambulance chasing, and the "suits" that you are referring to (often called shitlaw on TLS).

People on here want to do transactional work, litigation, tax law, in-house, etc. The economy is obviously going to have a major impact on these types of work (less mergers, less business, etc. ----> less legal work needed). Midlaw isn't the little firm in Akron helping Bob Smith down the corner sue for compensation in a small claim. It is similar to the work that a lot of big law firms do, only on a smaller scale (and with less attorneys).

And that really doesn't have much to do with what this thread is about anyway. Less recruiting at lower ranked schools does not mean that Biglaw if forfeiting business. It is recruiting more heavily at T20 channels. At least that is the premise.

[Kobe_Teeth]

People aren't going to quit sueing each other, especially businesses. If BigLaw is only focused on the large bet-the-company type cases then smaller cases will still need to be litigated. These smaller cases can still be profitable just not the type of profitable that BigLaw is interested in.

These smaller cases have to be taken by somebody.

The legal ecnomy doesn't fluctuate based on the number of people "suing each other." I'd venture a guess that about 95% of people on TLS have no interest in doing small claims, ambulance chasing, and the "suits" that you are referring to (often called shitlaw on TLS).

People on here want to do transactional work, litigation, tax law, in-house, etc. The economy is obviously going to have a major impact on these types of work (less mergers, less business, etc. ----> less legal work needed). Midlaw isn't the little firm in Akron helping Bob Smith down the corner sue for compensation in a small claim. It is similar to the work that a lot of big law firms do, only on a smaller scale (and with less attorneys).

I guess what I meant was that companies out there are still going to be making large transactions, filing lawsuits, needing tax-attorneys and other in-house legal "stuff." If BigLaw doesn't want this business and they only want the large bet-the-company stuff the other business they aren't taking has to go somewhere.

[Kobe_Teeth]

"In ten years, entry-level, partner-track hiring in litigation will fall 50%, permanently. What you’re finding in large markets is that only large litigations are profitable for large firms…. Bet-the-company matters. That kind of litigation is less diverse, and the role of associates is different."

[cardnal124]

After reading this and some of the comments, my question is, do you think this sort of thinking at BigLaw firms will allow mid-law firms to snatch up some of that business and won't this even out the job market a bit for those in the lower T1 and even T2?

This means biglaw would go deeper into T20 classes if the economy improves, so people in the T20 that would have gone to midlaw will now go to biglaw, "allowing" midlaw firms to "snatch up" the non-T20 students in the top 20% of their classes. Yeah, I guess that makes sense, but that's not a good thing for people outside of the T20. "Congrats! You've got a better chance at midlaw because you have no chance at biglaw!"

Also, outside of the top20, the majority of attorneys don't make BigLaw and get hired at mid and small firms. So it always has been, as you said, "Congrats! You've got a better chance at midlaw because you have no chance at biglaw!"

I don't follow you here. You do realize that not everyone at the top schools can get biglaw right, which means they are going to then shoot for midlaw? And you also realize that not everyone at an elite school even wants big law, and many shoot for midlaw for the slightly lower stress or because they prefer a smaller market? I don't get how this article could make someone in the lower T1 feel good about their midlaw chances.

Also, the bolded was not really true in the mid-2000s. A decent number of people got biglaw during the legal boom, and now those jobs don't really exist for these people anymore.

If more people from T20 schools go to BigLaw, then more spots are open in MidLaw that lower T1 can go for and get. I think the premise here is that there is a contingent of T20 students that would do either BigLaw or Midlaw, but would prefer BigLaw, while another contingent is looking for clerkships and non-firm legal work. If the firm looking T20 grads get more Biglaw, more midlaw is left for T1 grads outside T20

[romothesavior]

Also, outside of the top20, the majority of attorneys don't make BigLaw and get hired at mid and small firms. So it always has been, as you said, "Congrats! You've got a better chance at midlaw because you have no chance at biglaw!"

I don't follow you here. You do realize that not everyone at the top schools can get biglaw right, which means they are going to then shoot for midlaw? And you also realize that not everyone at an elite school even wants big law, and many shoot for midlaw for the slightly lower stress or because they prefer a smaller market? I don't get how this article could make someone in the lower T1 feel good about their midlaw chances.

Also, the bolded was not really true in the mid-2000s. A decent number of people got biglaw during the legal boom, and now those jobs don't really exist for these people anymore.

If more people from T20 schools go to BigLaw, then more spots are open in MidLaw that lower T1 can go for and get. I think the premise here is that there is a contingent of T20 students that would do either BigLaw or Midlaw, but would prefer BigLaw, while another contingent is looking for clerkships and non-firm legal work. If the firm looking T20 grads get more Biglaw, more midlaw is left for T1 grads outside T20

Completely false assumption. This article is not saying more T14/20 students are going to get big law jobs. All it is saying is that firms are going to recruit at fewer schools, which will hit the non T20s the most.

Big law is not about to vamp up their hiring and start taking everyone from the T14 like they used to. The big law boom is over.

[eldizknee]

.

[AngryAvocado]

Also, outside of the top20, the majority of attorneys don't make BigLaw and get hired at mid and small firms. So it always has been, as you said, "Congrats! You've got a better chance at midlaw because you have no chance at biglaw!"

I don't follow you here. You do realize that not everyone at the top schools can get biglaw right, which means they are going to then shoot for midlaw? And you also realize that not everyone at an elite school even wants big law, and many shoot for midlaw for the slightly lower stress or because they prefer a smaller market? I don't get how this article could make someone in the lower T1 feel good about their midlaw chances.

Also, the bolded was not really true in the mid-2000s. A decent number of people got biglaw during the legal boom, and now those jobs don't really exist for these people anymore.

If more people from T20 schools go to BigLaw, then more spots are open in MidLaw that lower T1 can go for and get. I think the premise here is that there is a contingent of T20 students that would do either BigLaw or Midlaw, but would prefer BigLaw, while another contingent is looking for clerkships and non-firm legal work. If the firm looking T20 grads get more Biglaw, more midlaw is left for T1 grads outside T20

Completely false assumption. This article is not saying more T14/20 students are going to get big law jobs. All it is saying is that firms are going to recruit at fewer schools, which will hit the non T20s the most.

Big law is not about to vamp up their hiring and start taking everyone from the T14 like they used to. The big law boom is over.

This. Hell, the article opens by explicitly saying that the future is bleak for young litigators across the board, but especially so for those coming from outside the USNWR. It doesn't say the future is brighter for T20 students and crappy for everyone else. There's really nothing positive in this article for any biglaw (or midlaw ) hopefuls. Period.

[cardnal124]

Also, outside of the top20, the majority of attorneys don't make BigLaw and get hired at mid and small firms. So it always has been, as you said, "Congrats! You've got a better chance at midlaw because you have no chance at biglaw!"

I don't follow you here. You do realize that not everyone at the top schools can get biglaw right, which means they are going to then shoot for midlaw? And you also realize that not everyone at an elite school even wants big law, and many shoot for midlaw for the slightly lower stress or because they prefer a smaller market? I don't get how this article could make someone in the lower T1 feel good about their midlaw chances.

Also, the bolded was not really true in the mid-2000s. A decent number of people got biglaw during the legal boom, and now those jobs don't really exist for these people anymore.

If more people from T20 schools go to BigLaw, then more spots are open in MidLaw that lower T1 can go for and get. I think the premise here is that there is a contingent of T20 students that would do either BigLaw or Midlaw, but would prefer BigLaw, while another contingent is looking for clerkships and non-firm legal work. If the firm looking T20 grads get more Biglaw, more midlaw is left for T1 grads outside T20

Completely false assumption. This article is not saying more T14/20 students are going to get big law jobs. All it is saying is that firms are going to recruit at fewer schools, which will hit the non T20s the most.

Big law is not about to vamp up their hiring and start taking everyone from the T14 like they used to. The big law boom is over.

You're missing what the assumption is. It is not that BigLaw will hire more T20 students that 2006. It is that BigLaw will hire more T20 students than we previously thought. For instance, if BigLaw was going to hire 10% of T20 grads before this article, this may mean they will hire more like 15% of T20 grads (%'s obviously made up). This still improves prospects for midlaw for lower T1 students relative to expectations before this article.

I'm not saying biglaw will go back to 2006 hiring levels, just that relative to the hiring levels of T20 grads we expected 2 days ago, expectations are slightly higher for T20 grads, leading to slightly higher midlaw prospects for lower T1.

[DerrickRose]

I love how paying junior associates less is never even brought up in these discussions. That one move fixes the entire biglaw model.

[hoopsguy6]

I love how paying junior associates less is never even brought up in these discussions. That one move fixes the entire biglaw model.

1) paying less means losing talent to firms that don't pay less, or to professions such as banking
2) it is significantly cheaper for a firm to hire 1 lawyer @160k for 80 hours a week then it is to hire 2 lawyers @80k for 40 hours a week
3) instead they will simply cut hiring and outsource lower level doc review work more

[AngryAvocado]

You're missing what the assumption is. It is not that BigLaw will hire more T20 students that 2006. It is that BigLaw will hire more T20 students than we previously thought. For instance, if BigLaw was going to hire 10% of T20 grads before this article, this may mean they will hire more like 15% of T20 grads (%'s obviously made up). This still improves prospects for midlaw for lower T1 students relative to expectations before this article.

I'm not saying biglaw will go back to 2006 hiring levels, just that relative to the hiring levels of T20 grads we expected 2 days ago, expectations are slightly higher for T20 grads, leading to slightly higher midlaw prospects for lower T1.

I admire your optimism, but there's simply nothing in the article that supports the "assumption" that biglaw hiring from T20 will go up. Just because hiring will drop disproportionately for non-T20 schools does not = hiring will go up for T14/T20. It just means that they won't suffer as much. Two very different things.

[Kobe_Teeth]

I love how paying junior associates less is never even brought up in these discussions. That one move fixes the entire biglaw model.

Haha, right? I mean why the hell do they think they can't afford to take on smaller but still profitable lawsuits?

[miamiman]

Angry Avocado beat to me to it.

[romothesavior]

You're missing what the assumption is. It is not that BigLaw will hire more T20 students that 2006. It is that BigLaw will hire more T20 students than we previously thought. For instance, if BigLaw was going to hire 10% of T20 grads before this article, this may mean they will hire more like 15% of T20 grads (%'s obviously made up). This still improves prospects for midlaw for lower T1 students relative to expectations before this article.

I'm not saying biglaw will go back to 2006 hiring levels, just that relative to the hiring levels of T20 grads we expected 2 days ago, expectations are slightly higher for T20 grads, leading to slightly higher midlaw prospects for lower T1.

I admire your optimism, but there's simply nothing in the article that supports the "assumption" that biglaw hiring from T20 will go up. Just because hiring will drop disproportionately for non-T20 schools does not = hiring will go up for T14/T20. It just means that they won't suffer as much. Two very different things.

+1. And FWIW, I'm not one of those pessimistic people who thinks that no jobs exist. I just think to read any silver lining into this and think, "Hey! My non-T20 is going to do better now!" is a silly thing to think.

[cardnal124]

You're missing what the assumption is. It is not that BigLaw will hire more T20 students that 2006. It is that BigLaw will hire more T20 students than we previously thought. For instance, if BigLaw was going to hire 10% of T20 grads before this article, this may mean they will hire more like 15% of T20 grads (%'s obviously made up). This still improves prospects for midlaw for lower T1 students relative to expectations before this article.

I'm not saying biglaw will go back to 2006 hiring levels, just that relative to the hiring levels of T20 grads we expected 2 days ago, expectations are slightly higher for T20 grads, leading to slightly higher midlaw prospects for lower T1.

I admire your optimism, but there's simply nothing in the article that supports the "assumption" that biglaw hiring from T20 will go up. Just because hiring will drop disproportionately for non-T20 schools does not = hiring will go up for T14/T20. It just means that they won't suffer as much. Two very different things.

My point: 2 days ago we thought next year's BigLaw T20 hiring would be some percentage (say 10%). This article seems to suggest that percentage is higher for next year's BigLaw T20 hiring (say 15%). So relative to what we previously expected from the next hiring season, more T20 will have biglaw jobs, if the article is accurate about the change in biglaw recruiting/hiring practices in general.

Edit: and FWIW I'm not optimistic about hiring from law schools (the %'s suck and probably will be that way for awhile).

[miamiman]

This article is not cause for any optimism. Anyone who is sane and even the littlest bit read-up on this topic knows that SAs cratered last year. Cut in half or more. The fact that Big Law has now formalized their ostracizing of the the T-20+ should not relieve those fortunate few to be in the T20, T10, T6, or T3 nor should it affect the job hunting strategies of those in the T20+.


It just states into plain english what we all instinctively knew was happening. Ask the kids at Notre Dame.

/rant