Question about the struggling legal market.

[MrPapagiorgio]

Folks, if you're at a TT/TTT/TTTT, you will be lucky to be working in Shitlaw. End thread.

Not that black and white, so stop with the nonsense.

Excuse me? Stop with what nonsense, exactly? What do you not understand about the job prospects for TT/TTT/TTT graduates? I'm at a low-end T2 right now, and let me assure you, if you snag shitlaw, you should be thankful.

I am under no delusion that the job market for graduates from such schools is by any means "good." I just meant that a few other factors, such as family connections/networking, can help lead to an outcome that is not "shitlaw." For the large majority, yes, I would agree with you. Perhaps nonsense was the wrong word to use and I apologize if that caused some confusion as to what I meant. I simply meant that it is not that simple and straightforward for every graduate, especially for TTT's in secondary markets that are not dominated by better schools (TTT's in the NY metro area may be fucked, but U of Maine grads may have a better chance).

[Anonymous User]

It'll only be true second-guessing if I strike out totally, and I guess you second-guess everything at that point.

Edit: And while I totally believe that Mich [HI I'M THE WORD FILTER. THIS PERSON MIGHT BE A DICK.] are "doing really well overall," ND law reviewers are also "doing really well overall." The problem is with my personal situation.

Even if it doesn't work out, I wouldn't second guess too much. There's still a decent amount of transfers at Mich without a job so far as well. Best of luck.

[Blessedassurance]

Malpractice insurance...

Why do you insist on perpetuating this particular myth? For the umpteenth time, there are problems with going solo. Malpractice insurance is not one of them. I know it sounds counter-intuitive but seriously, just accept it. It's the truth. Not that it matters to you (as you'll probably never find yourself in such a predicament) but stop giving erroneous information.

[mrloblaw]

What needs to be capped is the tuition law schools charge students. When third parties (e.g., the government) are fronting the money to pay for something without regard for the value of what's being bought, and consumers (who are shockingly uninformed in regard to most of their major decisions) are purposefully misled by the seller (law schools), there's absolutely no way to not have an utter disaster.

If students were coming out of law schools with $50k in debt, as opposed to $200k, not being able to find big law, or even small law, wouldn't be nearly as huge a problem. I'd feel safe going solo in my hometown if it wasn't for law school debt.

[Aqualibrium]

I really think there should be a mandatory LSAT score minimum (something like a 155) that is necessary to apply to any law schools. That and getting rid of pathetic TTTT's would help the situation some.

This is an often articulated sentiment, but it's sort of irrelevant imo. Students with very low lsat scores aren't true competition for seats at t1 schools. Desirable clerkships, entry level associate jobs, and government/pi, for the most part go to students at top 25 to top 50 programs. So how are the "pathetic tttt's" hurting you?

The glut of lawyers may dilute the perceived prestige of the profession, but, the fact of the matter is, most desirable options are off the table for law students by virtue of the fact that they aren't top 10%, 20%, 30%, etc... percent at a t25 school, not because there are schools out there that'll admit anyone with a pulse. Sidley Austin isn't going to start hiring at Rutgers-Newark, Carbozo, or LSU just because Cooley, Ave Maria, Hofstra, etc... shut their doors.

[MrPapagiorgio]

I really think there should be a mandatory LSAT score minimum (something like a 155) that is necessary to apply to any law schools. That and getting rid of pathetic TTTT's would help the situation some.

This is an often articulated sentiment, but it's sort of irrelevant imo. Students with very low lsat scores aren't true competition for seats at t1 schools. Desirable clerkships, entry level associate jobs, and government/pi, for the most part go to students at top 25 to top 50 programs. So how are the "pathetic tttt's" hurting you?

The glut of lawyers may dilute the perceived prestige of the profession, but, the fact of the matter is, most desirable options are off the table for law students by virtue of the fact that they aren't top 10%, 20%, 30%, etc... percent at a t25 school, not because there are schools out there that'll admit anyone with a pulse. Sidley Austin isn't going to start hiring at Rutgers-Newark, Carbozo, or LSU just because Cooley, Ave Maria, Hofstra, etc... shut their doors.

QFTMFT

[DoubleChecks]

Malpractice insurance...

Why do you insist on perpetuating this particular myth? For the umpteenth time, there are problems with going solo. Malpractice insurance is not one of them. I know it sounds counter-intuitive but seriously, just accept it. It's the truth. Not that it matters to you (as you'll probably never find yourself in such a predicament) but stop giving erroneous information.

Last I recall from that thread, you had not definitively proven your point either...so how is this erroneous information? The fact of the matter is, for some people starting their solo practice, malpractice insurance kills it. I may only have anecdotal evidence backing that up...but I'm also waiting for your credible sources.

ps - if you noticed, it was also why it was just one item on the list, not the be-all-end-all

[Blessedassurance]

Malpractice insurance...

Why do you insist on perpetuating this particular myth? For the umpteenth time, there are problems with going solo. Malpractice insurance is not one of them. I know it sounds counter-intuitive but seriously, just accept it. It's the truth. Not that it matters to you (as you'll probably never find yourself in such a predicament) but stop giving erroneous information.

Last I recall from that thread, you had not definitively proven your point either...so how is this erroneous information? The fact of the matter is, for some people starting their solo practice, malpractice insurance kills it. I may only have anecdotal evidence backing that up...but I'm also waiting for your credible sources.

ps - if you noticed, it was also why it was just one item on the list, not the be-all-end-all

Which is why I did not take issue with any other part(s) of your assertion. The malpractice insurance part is wrong. I provided links (including one from ATL) to that effect and a poster backed my assertion. It is a very popular myth due to the counter-intuitive nature of it. Even JDU posters will corroborate my claim. Ceteris paribus, the longer you practice, the higher your malpractice insurance will be. The dynamics of medicine are not applicable to law for new solo-practitioners. The credited response is to gain some experience before going that route but people who go straight through are - for the most part - forced to do so by circumstances which renders the point, moot. Notwithstanding his penchant for comedic antics and doomsday prophecies, Areyouinsane is quite the expert on this matter. My point is, you dilute the validity of your message by throwing in malpractice insurance. Your sentiments would otherwise be valid. You can Google this.

[DoubleChecks]

Which is why I did not take issue with any other part(s) of your assertion. The malpractice insurance part is wrong. I provided links (including one from ATL) to that effect and a poster backed my assertion. It is a very popular myth due to the counter-intuitive nature of it. Even JDU posters will corroborate my claim. Ceteris paribus, the longer you practice, the higher your malpractice insurance will be. The dynamics of medicine are not applicable to law for new solo-practitioners. The credited response is to gain some experience before going that route but people who go straight through are - for the most part - forced to do so by circumstances which renders the point, moot. Notwithstanding his penchant for comedic antics and doomsday prophecies, Areyouinsane is quite the expert on this matter. My point is, you dilute the validity of your message by throwing in malpractice insurance. Your sentiments would otherwise be valid. You can Google this.

But why google it when you can provide the links! Yes please /Colbert gimme hand gesture

I only recall reading 1 article which was very unconvincing, but I may have missed another. Only one way to tell! And malpractice going up over time doesn't preclude the possibility of malpractice being a barrier of entry into solo practice for newly minted grads.

[Blessedassurance]

More importantly, the ABA is somewhat powerless. Every time it has tried to regulate through accreditation (or more accurately, lack thereof), it gets hit or threatened with an Anti-trust lawsuit. One could argue that the government should get out of the student loan business but that argument could be extended to the undergraduate level which opens a pandora's box. In fact, part of the problem is the fact that too many people acquire unmarketable degrees at the undergrad level and fall on the study of law by default.

There are valid arguments for and against unmarketable liberal arts degrees. Does learning possess intrinsic value beyond the wage a particular degree commands? Is education merely a factory designed to churn out automatons pursuant to the whims and caprices of businesses? One good argument is that the willingness to extend loans, contributes to the ever-increasing costs of a legal education, not unlike the housing bubble. The eradication of loans has a pursuit-of-happiness argument to it but why has this not been extended to the practices of the AMA. Eradication will probably not affect certain urms but that also opens up various issues related to equal opportunity.

In fact the best policy in my opinion, is to do nothing and let the market sort this out, but this depends on consumers being rational. If enough people graduate without jobs etc, hopefully, future consumers would think twice before going to law school. Then again, everyone knows a rich lawyer who graduated in 1964 and the cousin of a girlfriend is a lawyer who makes money, and so on and so forth. This bubble simply ought to crash, just like housing.

[Blessedassurance]

I only recall reading 1 article which was very unconvincing, but I may have missed another. Only one way to tell! And malpractice going up over time doesn't preclude the possibility of malpractice being a barrier of entry into solo practice for newly minted grads.

In such a scenario, malpractice would not be a barrier to entry but a barrier to continuance, if there ever was such a thing.

--LinkRemoved--

The above is one link. You pay $250 for the first two years or so and it increases to $500 after two years, I think. Malpractice for newly minted JD's is really not expensive. Also note that not all states require solo's to maintain malpractice insurance. Then there are issues related to degree of exposure which is precisely why malpractice for newly-minted JD's is relatively inexpensive. In fact, most claims stem from silly little stuff like refusing to return calls etc.

[DoubleChecks]

I only recall reading 1 article which was very unconvincing, but I may have missed another. Only one way to tell! And malpractice going up over time doesn't preclude the possibility of malpractice being a barrier of entry into solo practice for newly minted grads.

In such a scenario, malpractice would not be a barrier to entry but a barrier to continuance, if there ever was such a thing.

--LinkRemoved--

The above is one link. You pay $250 for the first two years or so and it increases to $500 after two years, I think. Malpractice for newly minted JD's is really not expensive. Also note that not all states require solo's to maintain malpractice insurance. Then there are issues related to degree of exposure which is precisely why malpractice for newly-minted JD's is relatively inexpensive. In fact, most claims stem from silly little stuff like refusing to return calls etc.

While not the best link, it is a pretty decent one that makes your point, and it does trounce my anecdotal evidence. Obviously this issue may vary a bit from state to state, and I still feel it could be a barrier to entry to newly minted grads in some practice areas/states (though granted, it costs even more later on), I am more inclined to agree with your overall point now. I will refrain from stating that malpractice insurance should be a significant factor against setting up shop solo out of law school from now on.

[Julio_El_Chavo]

This bubble simply ought to crash, just like housing.

The problem is that people can't just walk away from student loan debt like they can walk away from their mortgage. The government is seriously fucking unsuspecting 18-25 year olds over by giving them an unlimited supply of student loan money that they will never be able to pay back because seven years of liberal arts + TTT law school education will render them useless and jobless.

[Anonymous User]

This profession still remains a great option for students who have a parent or close relative that is a lawyer. It's amazing how much nepotism there is, especially in smaller markets. The nepotism helps to explain why there's so little diversity.

Let's be honest: a lot of the work is BS, and doing the work does not require technical skill at the level of an engineer or doctor. I would bet that a lot of the people striking out at OCI and not getting jobs consist of people who do not have a lawyer relative or a wealthy ancestor.

If you want meritocracy, find another profession.

[Anonymous User]

This profession still remains a great option for students who have a parent or close relative that is a lawyer. It's amazing how much nepotism there is, especially in smaller markets. The nepotism helps to explain why there's so little diversity.

Let's be honest: a lot of the work is BS, and doing the work does not require technical skill at the level of an engineer or doctor. I would bet that a lot of the people striking out at OCI and not getting jobs consist of people who do not have a lawyer relative or a wealthy ancestor.

If you want meritocracy, find another profession.

Nepotism doesn't always work. I got straight rejected from both BigLaw firms where I have close family members without a screening interview (neither came to my T10's OCI) and despite competitive grades for both firms AND expressing an interest in the firm to the family member.

[rayiner]

This profession still remains a great option for students who have a parent or close relative that is a lawyer. It's amazing how much nepotism there is, especially in smaller markets. The nepotism helps to explain why there's so little diversity.

Let's be honest: a lot of the work is BS, and doing the work does not require technical skill at the level of an engineer or doctor. I would bet that a lot of the people striking out at OCI and not getting jobs consist of people who do not have a lawyer relative or a wealthy ancestor.

If you want meritocracy, find another profession.

Nepotism doesn't always work. I got straight rejected from both BigLaw firms where I have close family members without a screening interview (neither came to my T10's OCI) and despite competitive grades for both firms AND expressing an interest in the firm to the family member.

Big firms tend to have official anti-neopotism policies.

[introversional]

Is the struggling legal market a product of the legal profession itself, or a product of the bad economy as a whole? Meaning when the economy gets better, is the legal market expected to bounce back as well?

I sort of cringe whenever I hear or read someone refer to our system of law in conjunction with it functioning as a "market." How is our legal system a market? Is there a bull or bear market with regards to justice? If everyone (corporations included) decided not to break any laws for a week, would the legal market "crash?" Would there be a "run on the law" to make it more strict, so that more potential claims can arise? How is a system of common law a market?

[YourCaptain]

Folks, if you're at a TT/TTT/TTTT, you will be lucky to be working in Shitlaw. End thread.

Not that black and white, so stop with the nonsense.

Excuse me? Stop with what nonsense, exactly? What do you not understand about the job prospects for TT/TTT/TTT graduates? I'm at a low-end T2 right now, and let me assure you, if you snag shitlaw, you should be thankful.

I am under no delusion that the job market for graduates from such schools is by any means "good." I just meant that a few other factors, such as family connections/networking, can help lead to an outcome that is not "shitlaw." For the large majority, yes, I would agree with you. Perhaps nonsense was the wrong word to use and I apologize if that caused some confusion as to what I meant. I simply meant that it is not that simple and straightforward for every graduate, especially for TTT's in secondary markets that are not dominated by better schools (TTT's in the NY metro area may be fucked, but U of Maine grads may have a better chance).

It's not even "Not good." It is awful, straight-up awful, and your thickheaded refusal to believe otherwise is mystifying. Connections are very limited in scope. You still need the credentials in the ballpark range just to get the interview.

Two things about secondary and even tertiary markets that people need to understand.

1. Secondary markets are extremely heavy on ties. Going to LS in that area is not a connection to the area. I have several friends at schools like Kansas, Vermont, North Dakota, and Idaho. The markets care much more about your pre-LS connection to the area and give very little weight to your attendance at the LS. I had CBs in my home market where the only school is a TTT/TTTT; with my grades at my T25 I had CBs from every "major" firm in the state. I am good friends with kids at the top of the 2L class at the local school and they've all confirmed that only 4 people in the class have an SA. At two of the CBs I saw 1 kid from the local school but 2 others from MVP; people who go to "good" schools can easily reach back home and outclass the top students from the local TTT.

2. Secondary markets are too small to handle an influx of new grads. Many of the markets where there's only a TTT/TTTT have spots open for maybe 50 entry-level grads per year between local government, state court clerkships, and firm jobs. If you have a tiny class (140-190) that means anywhere from 2/3 to 3/4 of your grads don't get jobs, and the ones who do are at the top of the class or hustled like hell to get them.

People need to stop believing that it's acceptable to go to a TTT if it's the only school in the state. With the way the market is now, grads from better schools will try to reach back home and they will beat out kids from the local schools for those precious few spots.


Also flcath, I hope you end out alright man.

[rayiner]

It's not even "Not good." It is awful, straight-up awful, and your thickheaded refusal to believe otherwise is mystifying. Connections are very limited in scope. You still need the credentials in the ballpark range just to get the interview.

Two things about secondary and even tertiary markets that people need to understand.

1. Secondary markets are extremely heavy on ties. Going to LS in that area is not a connection to the area. I have several friends at schools like Kansas, Vermont, North Dakota, and Idaho. The markets care much more about your pre-LS connection to the area and give very little weight to your attendance at the LS. I had CBs in my home market where the only school is a TTT/TTTT; with my grades at my T25 I had CBs from every "major" firm in the state. I am good friends with kids at the top of the 2L class at the local school and they've all confirmed that only 4 people in the class have an SA. At two of the CBs I saw 1 kid from the local school but 2 others from MVP; people who go to "good" schools can easily reach back home and outclass the top students from the local TTT.

2. Secondary markets are too small to handle an influx of new grads. Many of the markets where there's only a TTT/TTTT have spots open for maybe 50 entry-level grads per year between local government, state court clerkships, and firm jobs. If you have a tiny class (140-190) that means anywhere from 2/3 to 3/4 of your grads don't get jobs, and the ones who do are at the top of the class or hustled like hell to get them.

People need to stop believing that it's acceptable to go to a TTT if it's the only school in the state. With the way the market is now, grads from better schools will try to reach back home and they will beat out kids from the local schools for those precious few spots.

Yes, this is key. Job opportunities for an NYC T3's are probably better than ones for T3's in the middle of nowhere. Those places tend to just have very little legal work that is lucrative enough to support firms that have the resources to train fresh graduates. And the few such firms that do exist can meet a lot of their minimal recruiting needs with T30 grads who are looking to come back home.

[bluesplitter]

the 20th century, the american marketplace was kind to the lawyers in the industry.

The 21st century is shaping up to be the era of big corporations.

If you want a "better" chance of making feds and getting a good job, go get a MBA.

Great Lawyers are born, and you know if you got what it takes to be successful lawyer. If you have any doubts, i would seriously begin to think about another profession.

With the wave of tort reform and technological advances, not to mention the new trend for court systems to move towards "settling" a case, rather than go to trial,....

well-- do your research and reflect on what your getting yourself into.

3 year of your time during your prime money making potential years and racking up potentially 90k+ in debt or expenses should weigh heavily in your desicion making proces.

::::full disclosure--iam going because iam gonna get a scholarship and my mentor is gonna hand over his office to me after iam done with school:::

[beachbum]

people who go to "good" schools can easily reach back home and outclass the top students from the local TTT.

God I hope you're right.

[MrPapagiorgio]

::::full disclosure--iam going because iam gonna get a scholarship and my mentor is gonna hand over his office to me after iam done with school:::

Get it in writing.

[bluesplitter]

::::full disclosure--iam going because iam gonna get a scholarship and my mentor is gonna hand over his office to me after iam done with school:::

Get it in writing.

haha- good point my man. Prolly wont ever happen, and it might just be wishful thinking.

either way, ur right. cant depend on that.

And i am having real doubts if i wanna be in ls for three years

So, these next months from now and next sept, i really got a lot of thinking to do.

Im gonna start traveling as soon as i get this ps done. My mind may change,....

[Kabuo]

::::full disclosure--iam going because iam gonna get a scholarship and my mentor is gonna hand over his office to me after iam done with school:::

Get it in writing.

And not as a donative promise.

[bluesplitter]

::::full disclosure--iam going because iam gonna get a scholarship and my mentor is gonna hand over his office to me after iam done with school:::

Get it in writing.

And not as a donative promise.

dont get the wrong idea bros and gals, iam talking a lil one man office in middle of no where texas.


the dude is 76, just waiting to retire.

good friend, and it has been discussed. i wouldnt hold it against him if he forgets aobut me 4 years later the day after i pass the bar.

iam jus saying, i prolly wouldnt go if it werent for his endorsement and encouragment.

he will be the first to tell you that law school is prolly not the best desicion to make right now.