LOL at "government" work Forum

[areyouinsane]

Now even the US Attorney's Office in NJ has awoken to the "market," and is offering a salary of 0 dollars:

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... _attorneys

This is probably modeled after the NJ State Attorney General Program, also offering a salary of 0 dollars:

http://blogs.findlaw.com/strategist/200 ... teers.html


Perhaps they can hire some of the lawyers laid off from here:

http://articles.philly.com/2010-08-14/n ... ewer-cases

and/or here:

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/0 ... en_co.html

See how it works, kids? You bust your ass to actually get a paying job, then a year or two into practice get axed and encouraged to "volunteer" your services to "build more experience."

At this point going to law school isn't even a laughable proposition: it's downright insane. Imagine if the state told all the bridge painters that they could "volunteer," or the prison guards, or the guys dumping hotpatch into potholes. They'd all laugh hysterically at the idea and move to another career. Only lawyers are stupid enough to fall for these scams, as they're the ultimate "believers" in the system. Fresh off 3 years of Brown v. Board of Ed and Roe v. Wade, they're loaded for bear and itching to collect some "experience," by Golly, even if they do so sans salary. What fucking dolts you guys are. What in the name of God would compel any literate human being (other than backup plan kids like Robot with def. dropout plans) to attend any non T-14 school w/ substantial scholly? Do you think I'm making these articles up? Do you now see why I'm out of work? How can you compete with those willing to give away labor for FREE?


Gotta really ROTFL at the clowns thinking of Rutgers or uber-toilet Seton Hall. Both probably count these volunteers as "employed" for US News and NALP purposes.

Do you guys understand the "snowball" effect of these programs? Once the gov't get used to not having to pay attorneys a salary, what's to stop them from just making all gov't legal work a "volunteer" job? Hell, the supply/demand ratio is already so out of whack that they could replace every paid attorney with a volunteer and still have 30,000 or so "alternates" waiting if anyone actually found a paying gig.

And obviously doing good work or being sharp is not a requirement. See the Clemens, Roger mistrial for more on this topic. The anchorman at Cooley could do just as well as 99% of these clowns, and do it happily for free. He/she would, after all, be "building experience," which is "important". After all, what kind of lunatic would actually expect a salary after 4 years of college, 3 years of grad school, and a professional license exam?

[johndhi]

forgeev me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of the special assistant AUSA position was for a local DA or law firm associate to take like six months off to work for the other office, all the while being paid by their previous office. I know of a guy, for example, who worked for a DA for six months while his law firm paid his salary.

[Cavalier]

I don't like this thread so I'm going to think about models and bottles.

--ImageRemoved--

[beach_terror]

I don't like this thread so I'm going to think about models and bottles.

--ImageRemoved--

+1000 for asian models

[Renzo]

I don't like this thread so I'm going to think about models and bottles.

--ImageRemoved--

I think they took that picture in the cafeteria of my biglaw office.

[bjsesq]

At this point going to law school isn't even a laughable proposition: it's downright insane.

Stopped reading right here. Going to any law school at any price is downright insane? You're a fucking retard. I can appreciate you thinking you are doing god's work, but stop with the fucking hyperbole.

[glewz]

At this point going to law school isn't even a laughable proposition: it's downright insane.

Areyouinsane submitted 10 puns to a contest. He was hoping that a few would win him the grand prize, but no pun in ten did.

puahahha...ha..ha...sorry

[Borhas]

At this point going to law school isn't even a laughable proposition: it's downright insane.

Areyouinsane submitted 10 puns to a contest. He was hoping that a few would win him the grand prize, but no pun in ten did.

puahahha...ha..ha...sorry

"wish he said going to lawl school isn't even a laughable proposition..."

[robotclubmember]

forgeev me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of the special assistant AUSA position was for a local DA or law firm associate to take like six months off to work for the other office, all the while being paid by their previous office. I know of a guy, for example, who worked for a DA for six months while his law firm paid his salary.

forgeeven

that's not what's happening here. you must commit to one year of unpaid labor. another year for interest to accumulate on your student loans.

one year is a long time to be working and not getting paid. i wonder how satisfied these unpaid staffers are with this arrangement. is it better or worse than being unemployed?

At this point going to law school isn't even a laughable proposition: it's downright insane.

Stopped reading right here. Going to any law school at any price is downright insane? You're a fucking retard. I can appreciate you thinking you are doing god's work, but stop with the fucking hyperbole.

i don't think that's what was being said if you read the qualification to that statement further down. idk. what do you think about the articles though? i mean i'm genuinely interested in your opinion, if you know people looking at positions like this or if this is unheard of to you, etc.

this is just an online community to share info to help all of us better guide our careers and educations. to that end areyouinsane stands on the shoulders of the 27% of 2010 JD grads that are temps and reaches out to a broader constituency with that reality. we should consider ourselves lucky that people are sharing this info with us, even if we don't agree with the conclusion. ten years ago no one would have had this kind of info going in and wouldn't have even had the option of dismissing it out of hand. what's so wrong with having a conversation about these unpaid positions?

[glewz]

At this point going to law school isn't even a laughable proposition: it's downright insane.

Areyouinsane submitted 10 puns to a contest. He was hoping that a few would win him the grand prize, but no pun in ten did.

puahahha...ha..ha...sorry

"wish he said going to lawl school isn't even a laughable proposition..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yl3UMO-TkE

[SchopenhauerFTW]

After all, what kind of lunatic would actually expect a salary after 4 years of college, 3 years of grad school, and a professional license exam?

Now I'm just upset about how young Americans can be deceived from undergrad up until they're trying to start their 'careers'. It really is like indentured servitude.

[HarveyBirdman]

Hahaha...what's to stop firms from doing the same thing? Offering new grads unpaid one year internships or whatever you want to call it. There'd still be no staffing shortage, eh? There'd still be years worth of supply of qualified, paid labor higher up in the ranks...man.

[vanwinkle]

Hahaha...what's to stop firms from doing the same thing?

Federal labor law?

[tyro]

Discouraging people from attending law school without decent ROI percentage prospects has the potential effect of reducing the pool of candidates for the limited number of legal positions. It's as though these guys are doing what the ABA is being pressured to do.

*conspiracy theory*



What's REALLY going on here?

[bjsesq]

i don't think that's what was being said if you read the qualification to that statement further down. idk. what do you think about the articles though? i mean i'm genuinely interested in your opinion, if you know people looking at positions like this or if this is unheard of to you, etc.

this is just an online community to share info to help all of us better guide our careers and educations. to that end areyouinsane stands on the shoulders of the 27% of 2010 JD grads that are temps and reaches out to a broader constituency with that reality. we should consider ourselves lucky that people are sharing this info with us, even if we don't agree with the conclusion. ten years ago no one would have had this kind of info going in and wouldn't have even had the option of dismissing it out of hand. what's so wrong with having a conversation about these unpaid positions?

I know people in this position. The legal market is insane. Doesn't mean going to law school is insane proposition in all circumstances. Every time this poster falls into his predictable hyperbole, I'm going to call him on it.

[sunynp]

Now even the US Attorney's Office in NJ has awoken to the "market," and is offering a salary of 0 dollars:

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... _attorneys

This is probably modeled after the NJ State Attorney General Program, also offering a salary of 0 dollars:

http://blogs.findlaw.com/strategist/200 ... teers.html


Perhaps they can hire some of the lawyers laid off from here:

http://articles.philly.com/2010-08-14/n ... ewer-cases

and/or here:

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/0 ... en_co.html

See how it works, kids? You bust your ass to actually get a paying job, then a year or two into practice get axed and encouraged to "volunteer" your services to "build more experience."

At this point going to law school isn't even a laughable proposition: it's downright insane. Imagine if the state told all the bridge painters that they could "volunteer," or the prison guards, or the guys dumping hotpatch into potholes. They'd all laugh hysterically at the idea and move to another career. Only lawyers are stupid enough to fall for these scams, as they're the ultimate "believers" in the system. Fresh off 3 years of Brown v. Board of Ed and Roe v. Wade, they're loaded for bear and itching to collect some "experience," by Golly, even if they do so sans salary. What fucking dolts you guys are. What in the name of God would compel any literate human being (other than backup plan kids like Robot with def. dropout plans) to attend any non T-14 school w/ substantial scholly? Do you think I'm making these articles up? Do you now see why I'm out of work? How can you compete with those willing to give away labor for FREE?


Gotta really ROTFL at the clowns thinking of Rutgers or uber-toilet Seton Hall. Both probably count these volunteers as "employed" for US News and NALP purposes.

Do you guys understand the "snowball" effect of these programs? Once the gov't get used to not having to pay attorneys a salary, what's to stop them from just making all gov't legal work a "volunteer" job? Hell, the supply/demand ratio is already so out of whack that they could replace every paid attorney with a volunteer and still have 30,000 or so "alternates" waiting if anyone actually found a paying gig.

And obviously doing good work or being sharp is not a requirement. See the Clemens, Roger mistrial for more on this topic. The anchorman at Cooley could do just as well as 99% of these clowns, and do it happily for free. He/she would, after all, be "building experience," which is "important". After all, what kind of lunatic would actually expect a salary after 4 years of college, 3 years of grad school, and a professional license exam?

What concerns me the most is that these lawyers will be dealing with the basic rights of residents of the state. I don't trust the gov/t to supervise the quality of the work. How can anyone think this is a good plan?

So anyone volunteering for this job: is forbidden to apply for any actual job that might arise while they are volunteering, can't apply for jobs where they work for 2 years, can't practice law in any paid capacity on the side, but can get paid for non-legal work if they get approved to do so, can't work on the biggest profile cases because they will only be working for free for one year.

What is the benefit of doing this? Here is the CSO of Seton Hall:

Sonia Cunha, career services director at Seton Hall University School of Law, sees two sides to the concept of unpaid jobs.

She says it is "problematic," practically and ideologically, for some law graduates to consider volunteer legal work.

Many graduates -- who are saddled with student-loan debt, facing living expenses or simply averse to the idea of working for free -- recoil at counselors' suggestions that they take an unpaid position, even part time, she says.

Still, Cunha calls the special assistant program "a wonderful idea" and "a great opportunity."

"When you're employed, you're more marketable to the next employer," Cunha says. "I always say, validate the J.D., or try to validate the J.D." by working in law, rather than in an outside field, she adds.

From this article which is linked in the article areyouinsane posted: US attorney in New Jersey

No one in the article mentions inability to repay student loans. Although they do explain, which seems just wrong to me, that the reason a person who works for free CAN'T apply for a job is because they can afford to do so.

Notwithstanding the valuable experience offered by the special assistant positions, hires will not necessarily have an advantage in seeking a job with the office. In fact, they are prohibited from applying for any position in the office that might arise during the unpaid employment term.

That restriction was put in place so that candidates who can financially afford to take on the unpaid position "don't necessarily get an immediate advantage" over outside candidates, Fishman says.

Fishman hesitates to comment on whether his office might favor former special assistants for future paid openings, though he acknowledges that the year of experience likely would benefit the candidate in seeking a paid assistant position in another office.

I wonder how much respect these volunteers get in the office where they work. People must resent them. Also, I wonder if their colleagues assume that the volunteer only "got the job" because they had other money to support themselves, not because they are good lawyers.

I don't know how this is considered a "job" or "employment."

[robotclubmember]

Discouraging people from attending law school without decent ROI percentage prospects has the potential effect of reducing the pool of candidates for the limited number of legal positions. It's as though these guys are doing what the ABA is being pressured to do.

*conspiracy theory*



What's REALLY going on here?

i know i've said it a lot, but the real supply and demand problem i think starts with the employment data that law schools report. because this reality is never reflected in that data.

we assume the economy has rational actors and it does. any rational actor would want to attend even a TTT on the basis of the information they self-report. but the information is deceptive and fundamentally flawed. as soon as the ABA requires fair and accurate reporting of employment data that isn't subject to obfuscation, investors in a legal education will see the true picture of what ROI to expect and the over-supply issue will begin to resolve itself. it's that simple.

reality =/= 160K median 98% employed. but law schools continue to sell this lie as a part of their pyramid scam. rational people are given false information to make their decisions off of. i'm offering the perspective of an auditor who marvels at a field in which people make six-digit financial decisions without the benefit of audited data. it would be like investing in stocks without any SEC or any attestation that the company didn't just make up its financials. this area needs to be regulated because is it stands now, the ABA is rubber-stamping the outright lies of many of its schools.

[ndirish2010]

I really don't understand how these people are "rational." There is information all over the internet and even in the newspapers that gives them a true picture of how things are. There is really no excuse for still attending one of those TTT/TTTTs.

[Nogameisfair]

Hahaha...what's to stop firms from doing the same thing? Offering new grads unpaid one year internships or whatever you want to call it. There'd still be no staffing shortage, eh? There'd still be years worth of supply of qualified, paid labor higher up in the ranks...man.

Except that this would violate labor law. The government gets around it because they wrote the law.

[sunynp]

I really don't understand how these people are "rational." There is information all over the internet and even in the newspapers that gives them a true picture of how things are. There is really no excuse for still attending one of those TTT/TTTTs.

Maybe they trust the information from the school more than they trust information on the internet. The false information about employment and salary has been put out for years. And even now schools are still gaming the system by hiring people in temp positions so the school can report a higher percentage of employment. The schools are not going to back down and be truthful about employment and salary without a huge fight. Their livelihood and the money they give to their overall colleges are at stake.

Here is what someone wrote a few posts above in this thread.

Discouraging people from attending law school without decent ROI percentage prospects has the potential effect of reducing the pool of candidates for the limited number of legal positions. It's as though these guys are doing what the ABA is being pressured to do.

*conspiracy theory*



What's REALLY going on here?

While that poster may be joking, there are many people who believe that information about schools being a bad choice is simply to keep them out of the job market.

[robotclubmember]

I really don't understand how these people are "rational." There is information all over the internet and even in the newspapers that gives them a true picture of how things are. There is really no excuse for still attending one of those TTT/TTTTs.

People rely on the info that is published on their website. No one should believe that an institution that teaches how to practice and uphold the law would be blatantly bereft of integrity and give fraudulently misleading employment data. That should not be the default mentality. It takes a true cynic to read it that way, and even though that's the correct way, not everyone is as cynical as TLS. It's not unreasonable to imagine reading that and believing it for the average person (not someone like me who in bordering a thousand posts in this site).

It's like saying that people who invested in Enron "should have known better." The financial data they relied on to make their decisions was materially misleading. They were defrauded. The students are being giving false information from a seemingly reputable source. There needs to be better regulation from the ABA and if not them than government needs to step in to protect the interests of consumers. That's why we have state attorney generals.

Even though you know TTT/TTTT's are a bad investment. do you have any real statistics to back it up? It's a gut feel for all of us when you take it on a school-by-school basis. This is partly the student's fault because they didn't challenge the misconception, but where did the models and bottles misconception originate from? When NYLS reports $160K median and 98% employed, it's clear where the root of all of this is.

[Verity]

Wow. This is fucking depressing.

[TatteredDignity]

Discouraging people from attending law school without decent ROI percentage prospects has the potential effect of reducing the pool of candidates for the limited number of legal positions. It's as though these guys are doing what the ABA is being pressured to do.

*conspiracy theory*



What's REALLY going on here?

i know i've said it a lot, but the real supply and demand problem i think starts with the employment data that law schools report. because this reality is never reflected in that data.

we assume the economy has rational actors and it does. any rational actor would want to attend even a TTT on the basis of the information they self-report. but the information is deceptive and fundamentally flawed. as soon as the ABA requires fair and accurate reporting of employment data that isn't subject to obfuscation, investors in a legal education will see the true picture of what ROI to expect and the over-supply issue will begin to resolve itself. it's that simple.

Aren't you ignoring the snowflake factor? Sure, #s will drop a little, but who's to say the TTTs will have to close their doors?

[robotclubmember]

it's clear that the district attorney's office will suffer for this program. the quality of their cases will be diminished by having unpaid, indebted and demoralized lawyers prosecuting them. but this is a smart way to cut spending.

back to the title... "lol at government work".... it's comforting to know that if you strike out at big law (jobs at firms with more than 250 attorneys fell to 26 percent from 33 percent of total new JD employment in 2009), you can always fall back on government! wait, those positions are unpaid? you can always fall back on solo practice! wait, 85% of divorces are filed pro se and the dwindling middle class is using legalzoom for their docs now? well, at least there's always doc review temp gigs? amirite?

the legal market is cracking at the seams. with a continued surplus of lawyer (66,876 enrolled in the 2011 cycle, though at least 10K of those will probably drop out after the legal market implosion becomes increasingly obvious), and a continued scarcity of jobs (BLS projects 30,000 new JD openings per year), i'm not sure how there are people in this site that are still in denial. fortunately more people are seeming to get it.

[bjsesq]

i'm not sure how there are people in this site that are still in denial. fortunately more people are seeming to get it.

Most of the frequent posters on this site get it, dude. This isn't new information, and you're not part of some small TLS circle that "gets it." Jesus christ.