Potential Biglaw Understaffing?

(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.
theghostofDrewTate
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 10:43 am

Re: Potential Biglaw Understaffing?

Postby theghostofDrewTate » Sat Jun 12, 2010 2:55 pm

NYAssociate wrote:This information is useless for everyone below a mid-level associate at a big firm (including 0Ls here). There are plenty of juniors around to do junior work, so summer classes won't enlarge anytime soon. Low-level litigation work is being farmed out to Indians in Hyderabad, and that'll stunt any potential growth that could arise from the BP (and other oil-related stuff, like Schlumbarger), Goldman Sachs, and the ensuing shareholder and SEC suits against other major financial firms. Even if that did give rise to great growth, it'll only go to a handful of firms (major NYC players for the financial stuff; top-lit shops for the oil stuff). On the M&A side, dealwork will go only to the major NYC players (with some regionality in preferences, though I was quite surprised to see UAL and Continental go for Cravath and Jones Day respectively).

There's probably going to be a private equity boom from the euro-debt crisis, but again only two to three firms will benefit from that. That too, I think the boom will be in mid-market, as the size of the funds we're dealing with is not nearly as large as they were two years ago (so, IMO, Simpson Thacher might not experience the brunt of this uptick, though my sources there tell me things are extremely busy... having institutional clients like KKR and Blackstone helps a lot, apparently).

I'm getting rather sick of threads like these. The slightest blip on the news-radar and you have 0Ls and 1Ls and now 2Ls going crazy and doing arm-chair analysis. I'd rather people post their GPA, school, and ask for bidding advice. I'd love to give specific recommendations.


I agree this only relates to current mid-levels and above. I am a mid-level and getting multiple calls a week (not like it was when I first started, but the lateral market is heating up). The economy does not need to recover for a new M&A boom to happen. There are three key structural factors that will lead a boom regardless of the economy (so long as we aren't in dire straits like the week of the Lehman/AIG collapses).

First, companies are sitting on a ton of cash. As cash reserves accumulate, companies are stuck in very low yielding instruments. As CFOs become more confident regarding the cash position of companies, more strategic deals for cash will happen (I'm seeing a big pickup in these in the past 6 months with respect to our large cap clients).

Second, PE funds are also sitting on a treasure trove of cash and they are itching to do deals again. In time, financing will free up as fixed income investors and banks start chasing more yield and it will be easier to get deals done. I've provided ancillary work on a couple of PE fund deals in the past few months, and each time that giant commitment letters have come across before signing, I have been shocked. Money's loosening up again, notwithstanding the economic conditions.

Third, PE funds have limited lives. If something is XYZ PE Fund V, that Fund is only set to be in existence for say 10 years. Soon, the PE funds that were on the front end of the last M&A boom are going to start going into liquidation, barring waivers from the limited partners (some will want to stay in to avoid selling low, but others will demand their money back, which will force some sales).

My firm is busy as hell right now and it looks like everyone is going to have a shitty summer. Unfortunately, the juniors have significantly less training than I got as a junior because the dealflow was so crappy and the mid-levels and seniors are in serious demand internally right now. But I wouldn't get excited if I were a 2L or 1L, maybe it will stay really busy until OCI 2011 and the 0Ls will be in heavy demand by then, but with the sea change in the litigation model, I don't know that biglaw class sizes will ever get back to the highs that we saw in the last bubble.

User avatar
let/them/eat/cake
Posts: 595
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:20 pm

Re: Potential Biglaw Understaffing?

Postby let/them/eat/cake » Sat Jun 12, 2010 3:20 pm

profs<3mycomments wrote:
mistergoft wrote:
Scallywaggums wrote:Let's say it's real and it is good news.

Do you folks think that the thousands who've been laid off in '09 (http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wil ... law-2010-1 ) will be pulled back in as openings arise? I would assume yes (at least those with good track records) but I have no basis other than "experience".

Also, what about all the deferred offerings? Think they'll get the call?

Also, what about the low % of offers to summer associates. Many of those no-offers were qualified folk who were only turned down due to a tightened purse. Think they'll keep trying, with a leg up?

Lastly, what about T-14 students with X class rank, where X definitely would have made them contenders before ITE, but ITE they were forced to look elsewhere. Do you think they'll be competing to get back into the biglaw scene they feel jipped out of?

In other words, even if firms stop shedding jobs and actually start adding some, won't the competition for a still-less-than-before-ITE number of jobs pit fresh grads against a backlog of qualified folk?

I don't think I am alone when I glaze over every post in every thread you contribute to.

Just saying, chill out 0L.


whoa read my mind


+1. also, funny tar.

User avatar
ConMan345
Posts: 577
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 1:08 pm

Re: Potential Biglaw Understaffing?

Postby ConMan345 » Sat Jun 12, 2010 3:33 pm

I think the unwillingness of companies to pay for entry-level associates is the most terrifying part of this, in conjunction with outsourcing the work they're typically assigned. (commence armchair wondering) If I were a Biglaw managing partner, I would keep a small class of entry-level associates and actually train them to be of value to clients and farm out all of the rote work to India/laid-off/unemployed/whatever for a fraction of the cost. Giving the associates more substantive work and training would decrease attrition, keep clients happy and maintain the flow of experienced mid-levels. Charge clients less for the farmed out work, but reap the benefits of huge profit margins of near-slave labor to make up for the dearth of leveraged entry-level associates.

NotANoob
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 2:28 pm

Re: Potential Biglaw Understaffing?

Postby NotANoob » Sat Jun 12, 2010 4:18 pm

theghostofDrewTate is right. I will add to it, as I saw how this played out in the late 90s.

There is a cap as to how much productivity firms can squeeze out of associates. At the point at which firms start turning away work for lack of staff, you will start seeing a lot of movement in the lateral market. The "lost" generation will have hope, if they have been able to land work. Firms will take experienced midlevels over fresh grads. There are distinct levels of skill sets that you develop as you move through the ranks of a BigLaw firm. Firms have put themselves in the position where they may be understaffed for some skills in a few years.

If the economy slowly heats up, they should be able to keep pace. The first line they will have is to move more senior associates off of less advanced work and loosen up their law school recruiting. Right now some associates are languishing for lack of work. They will get asked to step up and push work down to the more junior associates coming in and you might see a bit of an uptick in recruiting. Firms could also selectively hire from midlaw/gov't, etc.

If there is a fast spike in work, then you get into the land of big bonuses -- both for retention and signing for laterals. Firms will have to compete with each other to get the attorneys that have the experience to do the work. They will need to pull up more people from midlaw/gov't to get the skills set -- don't kid yourself that as a new grad from a top school you are going to get hired in place of the "lost classes." There are plenty of people with strong academic backgrounds, and if they have been able to find legal work, they will be more valuable to BigLaw firms. That being said, more work means more work all the way down, and in a fast heat up, they will need people at the bottom as well, so law school recruiting should pick up as well.

Firms are in my area are seeing a significant uptick in work and I know some are grousing that they don't have enough people starting in the fall to help take the pressure off. Also, companies are relaxing their hiring freezes. The in house legal departments I am familiar with have been understaffed for awhile. They are now starting to hire. That is creating movement in BigLaw as well, as people who have wanted out, but haven't been able to move are starting to leave.

As theghostofDrewTate said, there is a lot of cash sloshing around in companies now. Assuming Wall Street can hold steady for a bit, there should be some M&A work picking up, with the companies who have made it through the crash starting to pick targets to acquire. There is potential for an upswing. Right now, I'm more cautious and think that for now we'll see a more rationalized legal market. It's not going to be crazy hiring, but it's also not going to be the deep freeze we've had.

(Oh, and as to clients and their bills -- I'm not worried about that. Fee negotiations always flex with the markets. When a company needs legal services, they need them. If firms are at capacity, they get to set the fees. When, as now, firms are hungry for work, clients get to be more demanding. There is nothing "permanent" about the current client push-back. It's just part of the business cycle.)

miamiman
Posts: 1486
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:55 pm

Re: Potential Biglaw Understaffing?

Postby miamiman » Sat Jun 12, 2010 5:12 pm

It looks like I harbor similar concerns to Conman. I suppose what I don't understand is why litigation support shops in India can't assume an enlarged share of the lit work in the states? Is it because firms don't trust work the product, or because state bar requirements preclude it? Are clients wary of the quality of their work (even at reduced rates)? I really just don't understand in principle what privileges american lawyers over foreign-trained ones besides tradition/familiarity and perhaps training....? If one of the current associates could address that question I'd be tremendously grateful.

In addition, there's been a lot of talk of a sea change in the hiring model, a move away from Cravath to something else (perhaps this new Howrey model, or the Orrick face lift)..Or, as a lot of other firms do now, a move towards greater reliance upon mid-levels and senior counsel. What I don't get is why it is that firms, all of the sudden, are unable to justify the work product of junior associates as they presumably had been able to for so long. NotANoob (nice moniker, btw) sees this clearly as more symptomatic of a weak economy and/or the leverage clients have over vendors right now but others, ATL etc., look it as an ominous sign of a paradigm shift in firm billing. I really just don't understand how the model could be so broken when AmLaw 100-200 revenue in 2009 was virtually identical to what it had been in years past even acknowledging that many firms instituted layoffs to get their cost structures down. But weren't those layoffs just a function of workload, not necessarily a signal that the hiring model is irreparably doomed to failure?

NotANoob
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 2:28 pm

Re: Potential Biglaw Understaffing?

Postby NotANoob » Sat Jun 12, 2010 6:19 pm

miamiman wrote:It looks like I harbor similar concerns to Conman. I suppose what I don't understand is why litigation support shops in India can't assume an enlarged share of the lit work in the states? Is it because firms don't trust work the product, or because state bar requirements preclude it? Are clients wary of the quality of their work (even at reduced rates)? I really just don't understand in principle what privileges american lawyers over foreign-trained ones besides tradition/familiarity and perhaps training....? If one of the current associates could address that question I'd be tremendously grateful.

In addition, there's been a lot of talk of a sea change in the hiring model, a move away from Cravath to something else (perhaps this new Howrey model, or the Orrick face lift)..Or, as a lot of other firms do now, a move towards greater reliance upon mid-levels and senior counsel. What I don't get is why it is that firms, all of the sudden, are unable to justify the work product of junior associates as they presumably had been able to for so long. NotANoob (nice moniker, btw) sees this clearly as more symptomatic of a weak economy and/or the leverage clients have over vendors right now but others, ATL etc., look it as an ominous sign of a paradigm shift in firm billing. I really just don't understand how the model could be so broken when AmLaw 100-200 revenue in 2009 was virtually identical to what it had been in years past even acknowledging that many firms instituted layoffs to get their cost structures down. But weren't those layoffs just a function of workload, not necessarily a signal that the hiring model is irreparably doomed to failure?


Depending on what type of law career you are looking at, outsourcing probably won't affect you, and will probably make your life more pleasant. Many BigLaw firms have already transitioned much of this work out of the "regular" associate program. They have banks of contract attorneys that handle a lot of that work as it is. Honestly, though, I don't see much legal work being outsourced. Attorney client privilege is entirely too big of a deal, and issues of confidentiality can be difficult enough to maintain as it is.

As for ATL moaning about the end of the billable hour -- they are a blog that needs to attract eyeballs. Every down cycle has proclaimed the death of the billable hour. It's not going to die. The reason it isn't going to die is because it is beneficial to both sides. When you don't know how long a project is going to take, you don't want to under bid (if you are a firm) or over pay (if you are a client). Scope of legal projects evolve as you get into them. Sophisticated parties know this and this is why the billable hour will stick around. There have always been projects that have be negotiated as fixed rates (usually with very detailed scopes, which will trigger hourly charges, or other fee step ups if they are expanded). There is a lot more push back now because the economy is soft. Firms are willing to take a hit to guarantee the work. They've already done the cuts they want to, so they might as well pay their associates to get experience, even if they aren't recouping the costs at the moment.

The Cravath model is an entirely different issue. Cravath was the first firm to really move to the leveraged system -- prior to that, law firms hired with the idea that a good percentage of the people they brought in at year one would someday make partner. Cravath rejected that model and set up the "burn and turn" model. They threw a lot of money at well educated attorneys, increased hours expectations and expected them to burn out at certain rate. The idea was to break projects into small bits, with more senior attorneys pushing down the more mundane and granular issues to more junior associates. A number of firms are rethinking this strategy. Personally, I think it is good for the industry. There are certain types of work where this model works well. But it is not a model that should have been universalized. I think firms are coming around to recognize that there is room for niches within BigLaw. Not all attorneys are after insane PPPs, and not all legal industries will support them. Clients of the top firms are pretty sophisticated -- they learn what different firms are good at, and what type of lawyer is at each and generally move work in chunks to get the right fit for different projects.

I would pay particular attention when interviewing to what kind of models firms are following. They will let you know a lot about the culture. They can also be clues to the long term stability. In another thread someone mentioned how important it is to "know" the firm you are interviewing with. Looking at how a firm is structuring itself can give you an idea about how to approach them in interviews.

miamiman
Posts: 1486
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:55 pm

Re: Potential Biglaw Understaffing?

Postby miamiman » Sat Jun 12, 2010 7:59 pm

NotANoob, your response was wonderfully helpful; thank you. The question that lingers for me is this issue of junior associate work product. Why is it that clients suddenly refuse to accept junior associates to be staffed on cases when, I presume, they had been used extensively in the past? Do you see this as a temporary issue, another manifestation of clients having power over firms during the market downturn, or are we witnessing a new normal?

Further, how is that leveraging, a model which seemed perfectly functional prior to the recession and -- if the AmLaw 100-200 numbers are any indication -- remains quite functional now, comes suddenly under scrutiny as if it never worked well at any point?

Also, have you heard anything from management as to how they intend to move forward with law school recruitment / associate compensation / etc

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: Potential Biglaw Understaffing?

Postby romothesavior » Sat Jun 12, 2010 8:04 pm

Great post, Notanoob.

Fark-o-vision
Posts: 590
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 6:41 pm

Re: Potential Biglaw Understaffing?

Postby Fark-o-vision » Sat Jun 12, 2010 8:12 pm

I thought the entire thinking behind Biglaw was that fresh graduates were 1) trainable to the methods of a particular firm, 2) Eager (not just willing) to do the crappy work because we don't know any better and 3) Ignorant of the realities of the nightmare that is working for those people.

Also, I may be misunderstanding, but if there is a huge hole at the mid-level then won't that, by default, open up lower level jobs as people move up? Even if they are trying to fill these holes with laterals that can't fill all of them. That's what makes it a shortage.

To think they would reap up from the screwed classes doesn't seem to make a lot of obvious sense, either. I thought the OCI method was used simply because it was effective. Need 200 lawyers? Stop at Harvard and scoop up 40 of them on your way to Yale, where you might get another 30-40.

That said, the opinions int his thread are nuanced and intelligent, so I'm not suggesting they are wrong. I'm simply a little confused as to why the above isn't true, or why it wouldn't be the assumption.

User avatar
Mickey Quicknumbers
Posts: 2177
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:22 pm

Re: Potential Biglaw Understaffing?

Postby Mickey Quicknumbers » Sat Jun 12, 2010 8:20 pm

NotANoob wrote:theghostofDrewTate is right. I will add to it, as I saw how this played out in the late 90s.

There is a cap as to how much productivity firms can squeeze out of associates. At the point at which firms start turning away work for lack of staff, you will start seeing a lot of movement in the lateral market. The "lost" generation will have hope, if they have been able to land work. Firms will take experienced midlevels over fresh grads. There are distinct levels of skill sets that you develop as you move through the ranks of a BigLaw firm. Firms have put themselves in the position where they may be understaffed for some skills in a few years.

If the economy slowly heats up, they should be able to keep pace. The first line they will have is to move more senior associates off of less advanced work and loosen up their law school recruiting. Right now some associates are languishing for lack of work. They will get asked to step up and push work down to the more junior associates coming in and you might see a bit of an uptick in recruiting. Firms could also selectively hire from midlaw/gov't, etc.

If there is a fast spike in work, then you get into the land of big bonuses -- both for retention and signing for laterals. Firms will have to compete with each other to get the attorneys that have the experience to do the work. They will need to pull up more people from midlaw/gov't to get the skills set -- don't kid yourself that as a new grad from a top school you are going to get hired in place of the "lost classes." There are plenty of people with strong academic backgrounds, and if they have been able to find legal work, they will be more valuable to BigLaw firms. That being said, more work means more work all the way down, and in a fast heat up, they will need people at the bottom as well, so law school recruiting should pick up as well.

Firms are in my area are seeing a significant uptick in work and I know some are grousing that they don't have enough people starting in the fall to help take the pressure off. Also, companies are relaxing their hiring freezes. The in house legal departments I am familiar with have been understaffed for awhile. They are now starting to hire. That is creating movement in BigLaw as well, as people who have wanted out, but haven't been able to move are starting to leave.

As theghostofDrewTate said, there is a lot of cash sloshing around in companies now. Assuming Wall Street can hold steady for a bit, there should be some M&A work picking up, with the companies who have made it through the crash starting to pick targets to acquire. There is potential for an upswing. Right now, I'm more cautious and think that for now we'll see a more rationalized legal market. It's not going to be crazy hiring, but it's also not going to be the deep freeze we've had.

(Oh, and as to clients and their bills -- I'm not worried about that. Fee negotiations always flex with the markets. When a company needs legal services, they need them. If firms are at capacity, they get to set the fees. When, as now, firms are hungry for work, clients get to be more demanding. There is nothing "permanent" about the current client push-back. It's just part of the business cycle.)


Hi, so far I really like you, please stick around this website, kthanks.

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: Potential Biglaw Understaffing?

Postby romothesavior » Sat Jun 12, 2010 8:23 pm

delBarco wrote:
Hi, so far I really like you, please stick around this website, kthanks.


+1. Huge breath of fresh air.

NotANoob
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 2:28 pm

Re: Potential Biglaw Understaffing?

Postby NotANoob » Sat Jun 12, 2010 8:55 pm

miamiman wrote:NotANoob, your response was wonderfully helpful; thank you. The question that lingers for me is this issue of junior associate work product. Why is it that clients suddenly refuse to accept junior associates to be staffed on cases when, I presume, they had been used extensively in the past? Do you see this as a temporary issue, another manifestation of clients having power over firms during the market downturn, or are we witnessing a new normal?

Further, how is that leveraging, a model which seemed perfectly functional prior to the recession and -- if the AmLaw 100-200 numbers are any indication -- remains quite functional now, comes suddenly under scrutiny as if it never worked well at any point?

Also, have you heard anything from management as to how they intend to move forward with law school recruitment / associate compensation / etc


Clients are refusing to pay for junior associates. And if junior associate work product shows lack of experience, then they are refusing to have them staffed on their projects. This is a function of the softness of the market. First, there is a perception that firms are over billing. Not that they are unethically billing, but rather, because they have more time on their hands than usual, projects are being researched beyond the point of diminishing returns. Second, clients also know that they can be more demanding of firms right now. If you can get the top partner working on your issue, why wouldn't you want him to? When there is more sophisticated legal work than there are firms to do it, clients understand that a lot of their work is going to get pushed down to the junior associates. Trust me, they have never liked it, but they know that this is how it works. Hopefully the firm is careful enough about the product that is going out (some aren't), and has appropriately pegged its rate structure in such a way that junior associates aren't costing more than having a partner do the work (some haven't).

As to leveraging -- it depends on what you mean by works. It has always been a burden on some firms, and forced them into strategies they might not otherwise have taken up, were they not trying to "keep up." The firm implosions we've seen are a result of the leveraging model not working. Straight up corporate and lit work can usually support the leveraged model. Any field that is about developing an expertise in an area doesn't really. Some of the firms that made the deepest cuts were ones that did not balance their leveraged and non-leveraged practices well. Ones that rode things out better usually had either counter-cyclical practice areas, or things like tax, ERISA, antitrust, etc. to help balance them out. The Cravath model pushes firms away from more balanced practices.

I'm not on the inside at a firm anymore, so I can only speak generally on hiring and comp. Recruiting and compensation are classic prisoners dilemma issues. The current recruiting model doesn't really work well for any firm, especially in this economy. Trying to guess what staffing needs will be 5-7 years out (when rising 2Ls will really start to become valuable to the firm) is an extremely difficult task. Most firms don't like screwing over law students. For the most part lawyers are human :) Plus, its bad business.

Compensation has been a little less sticky, with some firms dropping/freezing comp, moving to tiered systems, etc. I think we might see a revival of the "lifestyle" firm, and a move to more bonus compensation. Jones Day has been heavily criticized for their system, but there is some merit to it. As long as firms are straight forward about announcing their comp programs, I don't think it will be too much to the detriment of associates. Since the hiring market is seeing more movement, there can be some self-sorting. People who like firm life but would like to roll back the hours a bit, can move to firms that have lower/staggered comp. People who love to grind, can go to the shops that pay you appropriately for burning the candle at both ends. Of course, if the economy goes into overdrive, then you'll see across the board salary pressures and the hours requirements that go with it. (This what happened in the tech boom.)

miamiman
Posts: 1486
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:55 pm

Re: Potential Biglaw Understaffing?

Postby miamiman » Sat Jun 12, 2010 9:03 pm

Got it. Again, your commentary is invaluable. So, quick follow-up: which firms could you use examples as departures from the Cravath model aside from obvious ones -- lit/IP/tax shops?

User avatar
Scallywaggums
Posts: 249
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 12:52 pm

Re: Potential Biglaw Understaffing?

Postby Scallywaggums » Sat Jun 12, 2010 9:06 pm

bwv812 wrote:
Scallywaggums wrote:Do you think they'll be competing to get back into the biglaw scene they feel jipped out of?

Gonna assume you are unaware that this is widely viewed as a racial slur.


Correct, I was unaware. ::Urban Dictionary:: ... ... Gypsies gave us awesome music. No beef with 'em.
Not that it's important, but KMaine's right: jipped actually means cheated, but it's a branch-off from gypped, so not exactly PC. Thanks for pointing this out.

Regarding the "lost generation", thanks to MiamiMan for links & NotANoob for analysis.

NotANoob
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 2:28 pm

Re: Potential Biglaw Understaffing?

Postby NotANoob » Sat Jun 12, 2010 9:17 pm

Fark-o-vision wrote:I thought the entire thinking behind Biglaw was that fresh graduates were 1) trainable to the methods of a particular firm, 2) Eager (not just willing) to do the crappy work because we don't know any better and 3) Ignorant of the realities of the nightmare that is working for those people.


Yes, for many firms that is true. There are firms that have a strong preference for organically growing their practices. They like to bring people in as summer and mold them to fit the culture and practices of the firms. These firms do little lateral hiring, if they can avoid it. Other firms, though, are the opposite. They prefer to let junior associates cut their teeth elsewhere and then poach them once they actually have some skills. These firms are usually less heavily leveraged and don't have the staff to train new attorneys. Then there are firms that fall in the middle. They feel they get a critical mass of attorneys starting out as first years, but regularly hire laterals as staffing needs change.


Fark-o-vision wrote:Also, I may be misunderstanding, but if there is a huge hole at the mid-level then won't that, by default, open up lower level jobs as people move up? Even if they are trying to fill these holes with laterals that can't fill all of them. That's what makes it a shortage.

To think they would reap up from the screwed classes doesn't seem to make a lot of obvious sense, either. I thought the OCI method was used simply because it was effective. Need 200 lawyers? Stop at Harvard and scoop up 40 of them on your way to Yale, where you might get another 30-40.

That said, the opinions int his thread are nuanced and intelligent, so I'm not suggesting they are wrong. I'm simply a little confused as to why the above isn't true, or why it wouldn't be the assumption.



I can see why the hiring part doesn't make sense. People don't usually talk about how there are real differences between the "classes" at law firms. You can't easily just "move up." There is a certain set of skills and knowledge that you develop in your career. The work BigLaw firms take on is really sophisticated and usually at the bleeding edge of the law -- they are doing transactions no one has thought of before, litigating issues of first impression, dealing with regulatory matters that statutes and regs are silent on. Business generally moves fast. A firm can't take work on and then say "sorry, that will take us an extra three weeks because we don't have an attorney who has ever ______ before and the second year we have needs to come up to speed." This is why firms are a bit on edge now. A lot of them are thin in the ranks of first years this year and for the next 2 years. If the economy heats up, they are going to need people who actually know how to do things. They will be forced to poach and bring up people from "non peer" legal settings.

OCI recruiting won't fix the immediate need of firms, and increasing class ranks will only be helpful to them if they have enough midlevels to take on the additional work (and thus have work to push down to new attorneys).

User avatar
Scallywaggums
Posts: 249
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 12:52 pm

Re: Potential Biglaw Understaffing?

Postby Scallywaggums » Sat Jun 12, 2010 9:27 pm

NotANoob wrote:...I think we might see a revival of the "lifestyle" firm, and a move to more bonus compensation... People who like firm life but would like to roll back the hours a bit, can move to firms that have lower/staggered comp. People who love to grind, can go to the shops that pay you appropriately for burning the candle at both ends. Of course, if the economy goes into overdrive, then you'll see across the board salary pressures and the hours requirements that go with it. (This what happened in the tech boom.)


If the economy slowly builds up over the coming decade without a sudden shift into "overdrive", do you have any guesses as to how much variance in hours we might see? The upper end has already reached a max for those who opt to "burn the candle at both ends", but how do you see the lower end evolving over the coming 5-ish years for those of us who like the idea of firm life but would most definitely prefer fewer hours? Also, how common might these positions be? ( I realize you don't have a crystal ball, but anything would be appreciated)

User avatar
bwv812
Posts: 548
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 12:18 am

Re: Potential Biglaw Understaffing?

Postby bwv812 » Sat Jun 12, 2010 9:47 pm

.
Last edited by bwv812 on Thu Nov 25, 2010 7:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
badwithpseudonyms
Posts: 815
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 12:48 pm

Re: Potential Biglaw Understaffing?

Postby badwithpseudonyms » Sat Jun 12, 2010 10:09 pm

bwv812 wrote:
Scallywaggums wrote:...how do you see the lower end evolving over the coming 5-ish years for those of us who like the idea of firm life but would most definitely prefer fewer hours?

If you don't like the idea of biglaw hours you don't like the idea of biglaw life; you like the idea of biglaw money.


Not to derail a great thread (Great thread, btw. Thanks to NotANoob, theghostofDrewTate, etc.), but bwv's response made me think of this gem:

--ImageRemoved--

User avatar
Grizz
Posts: 10583
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 6:31 pm

Re: Potential Biglaw Understaffing?

Postby Grizz » Sat Jun 12, 2010 10:29 pm

Great comments.

Why haven't these intelligent thoughts been posted before.

User avatar
Scallywaggums
Posts: 249
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 12:52 pm

Re: Potential Biglaw Understaffing?

Postby Scallywaggums » Sat Jun 12, 2010 10:48 pm

bwv812 wrote:If you don't like the idea of biglaw hours you don't like the idea of biglaw life; you like the idea of biglaw money.


*SHHHHH* Keep it on the DL

User avatar
FlightoftheEarls
Posts: 857
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:50 pm

Re: Potential Biglaw Understaffing?

Postby FlightoftheEarls » Sun Jun 13, 2010 3:36 pm

Scallywaggums wrote:
bwv812 wrote:
Scallywaggums wrote:Do you think they'll be competing to get back into the biglaw scene they feel jipped out of?

Gonna assume you are unaware that this is widely viewed as a racial slur.


Correct, I was unaware. ::Urban Dictionary:: ... ... Gypsies gave us awesome music. No beef with 'em.
Not that it's important, but KMaine's right: jipped actually means cheated, but it's a branch-off from gypped, so not exactly PC. Thanks for pointing this out.

You sound like the type of person that calls something "gay" and then justifies it by explaining, "Oh no, I didn't mean homosexual, I just meant lame!"

Just thought you should know.

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: Potential Biglaw Understaffing?

Postby romothesavior » Sun Jun 13, 2010 3:52 pm

rad law wrote:Great comments.

Why haven't these intelligent thoughts been posted before.


I wholeheartedly agree. I'm glad I posted this and notanoob jumped in with some great analysis. I hope he sticks around and continues to provide insight on TLS.

User avatar
Scallywaggums
Posts: 249
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 12:52 pm

Re: Potential Biglaw Understaffing?

Postby Scallywaggums » Sun Jun 13, 2010 4:40 pm

FlightoftheEarls wrote:
Scallywaggums wrote:
bwv812 wrote:
Scallywaggums wrote:Do you think they'll be competing to get back into the biglaw scene they feel jipped out of?

Gonna assume you are unaware that this is widely viewed as a racial slur.


Correct, I was unaware. ::Urban Dictionary:: ... ... Gypsies gave us awesome music. No beef with 'em.
Not that it's important, but KMaine's right: jipped actually means cheated, but it's a branch-off from gypped, so not exactly PC. Thanks for pointing this out.

You sound like the type of person that calls something "gay" and then justifies it by explaining, "Oh no, I didn't mean homosexual, I just meant lame!"

Just thought you should know.


I know what "gay" means, I didn't know where "jipped" came from.

You sound like the type of person who has never read Aristotle, Epictetus, or any other old-school ethical philosopher, and therefore has not come to place value on the role of intention, but rather judges things solely on outcome. Many arrive at this value on their own, without the need to read philosophers, but you have not, and thus sound like the kind of person with the moral framework of a 6 year old.

Just thought you should know.

PS, you're dragging me into the disruption of an incredible thread. PM me in the future when taking jabs.

User avatar
Mickey Quicknumbers
Posts: 2177
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:22 pm

Re: Potential Biglaw Understaffing?

Postby Mickey Quicknumbers » Sun Jun 13, 2010 4:49 pm

Scallywaggums wrote:
I know what "gay" means, I didn't know where "jipped" came from.

You sound like the type of person who has never read Aristotle, Epictetus, or any other old-school ethical philosopher, and therefore has not come to place value on the role of intention, but rather judges things solely on outcome. Many arrive at this value on their own, without the need to read philosophers, but you have not, and thus sound like the kind of person with the moral framework of a 6 year old.

Just thought you should know.

PS, you're dragging me into the disruption of an incredible thread. PM me in the future when taking jabs.

you don't want to be doing this, not in this thread.

Also, notanoob, are you available for pm's?

User avatar
Scallywaggums
Posts: 249
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 12:52 pm

Re: Potential Biglaw Understaffing?

Postby Scallywaggums » Sun Jun 13, 2010 4:56 pm

delBarco wrote:you don't want to be doing this, not in this thread.


FlightoftheEarls instigates, Scallywaggums defends self... Scallywaggums is slapped on wrist.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.