Salary Reporting?

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

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

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
User avatar
Doritos
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 8:24 pm

Salary Reporting?

Postby Doritos » Mon Nov 30, 2009 12:05 am

I hear that finding jobs is near impossible nowadays in the legal profession but i see high median salaries reported on this very site (in the rankings). I have heard that this is due to small reporting. I am looking @ George Mason right now and it says 80% reporting and the median is 150k. This is class of 2008. Utah's median is 80k w/ 80% reporting. UConn median is 115k with 70% reporting. It seems like a reasonably high number of people are reporting decent salaries. I hear doom and gloom but i see stats that don't seem to line up. I am confused. Help me TLS...

User avatar
reasonable_man
Posts: 2200
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:41 pm

Re: Salary Reporting?

Postby reasonable_man » Mon Nov 30, 2009 12:37 am

Doritos wrote:I hear that finding jobs is near impossible nowadays in the legal profession but i see high median salaries reported on this very site (in the rankings). I have heard that this is due to small reporting. I am looking @ George Mason right now and it says 80% reporting and the median is 150k. This is class of 2008. Utah's median is 80k w/ 80% reporting. UConn median is 115k with 70% reporting. It seems like a reasonably high number of people are reporting decent salaries. I hear doom and gloom but i see stats that don't seem to line up. I am confused. Help me TLS...



30k, 30k, 40k, 45k, 115k, 115k, 120k, 125k, 160k = Median of 115k, despite the fact that more than half the people reporting earn 45k. Moreover, what they don't tell you is that a good number of the high salary earners are employed as temp attorneys with no benefits and no steady pay check and have traded a salary of 40k to 60k in full time firm employment in exchange for higher pay and a scarlet letter (Temp Attorney work) on their resume that will make it very hard to obtain any meaningful employment down the line. Further, many of these high paid positions are not attorneys positions at all and in some cases may have been held by the student before school, especially at schools with night programs, where many students were employed contemporaneously with obtaining their degree.

I've told this story 19 times on here, so at the risk of being repetitive, I'll say it again. When I graduated, I had a job at a midsized firm with a salary toward the upper end of my school's reported stats for the years prior. Thus, when the 9month report was due, I recieved phone calls, emails, snail-mail, facebook messages, etc. (everything but a fucking courier pigeon), reminding me to report my salary data. My roommate and other several students that had low paying/no jobs were not reminded to respond to the survey. They simply received a non-descript form in the mail with no return envelope asking them to reply with salary data. In short, schools use whatever means at their disposal to avoid reporting data that hurts their bottom line.

This year may be interesting insofar as the regular economy is shot (probably hurting students currently employed in night programs), and the availability of slave-labor err Doc-review projects is WAY DOWN. Thus, it will be harder for shit-holes like BLS, NYLS, Hofstra, Pace, Cardozo, Suffolk, etc. to hide behind temp-attorney data.
Last edited by reasonable_man on Mon Nov 30, 2009 12:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

Kant
Posts: 119
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 5:47 pm

Re: Salary Reporting?

Postby Kant » Mon Nov 30, 2009 12:43 am

tagged

User avatar
Doritos
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 8:24 pm

Re: Salary Reporting?

Postby Doritos » Mon Nov 30, 2009 12:53 am

reasonable_man wrote:
Doritos wrote:I hear that finding jobs is near impossible nowadays in the legal profession but i see high median salaries reported on this very site (in the rankings). I have heard that this is due to small reporting. I am looking @ George Mason right now and it says 80% reporting and the median is 150k. This is class of 2008. Utah's median is 80k w/ 80% reporting. UConn median is 115k with 70% reporting. It seems like a reasonably high number of people are reporting decent salaries. I hear doom and gloom but i see stats that don't seem to line up. I am confused. Help me TLS...



30k, 30k, 40k, 45k, 115k, 115k, 120k, 125k, 160k = Median of 115k, despite the fact that more than half the people reporting earn 45k. Moreover, what they don't tell you is that a good number of the high salary earners are employed as temp attorneys with no benefits and no steady pay check and have traded a salary of 40k to 60k in full time firm employment in exchange for higher pay and a scarlet letter (Temp Attorney work) on their resume that will make it very hard to obtain any meaningful employment down the line. Further, many of these high paid positions are not attorneys positions at all and in some cases may have been held by the student before school.


Thanks for your thoughtful reply I really appreciate it. You listed 9 salaries w/ the median being 115k. 5 out of those 9 were six figure so it goes to figure that one would have to be in the top 1/2ish to get a six figure job. It seems w/ median salaries that if one were to be in the 50th percentile they would expect to make that figure or more (definition of median). What befuddles me is how these stats can exist and yet there seems to be a prevailing sense of doom and gloom wrt post law school job prospects. I am not trying to make the case that everything is peachy I am just trying to get the truth before i decide where to attend and for how much. Also, your point about some of the higher salaries being from previous jobs is a very good one. I wonder how many of those salaries are in fact previous jobs. I would expect a higher number @ a place like Northwestern than a school like Ohio State where the avg. student age is like 24. Most 24 year olds don't have 80k or more jobs they obtained between undergrad and law school....

anymore thoughts???

User avatar
rondemarino
Posts: 529
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:29 am

Re: Salary Reporting?

Postby rondemarino » Mon Nov 30, 2009 12:54 am

reasonable_man wrote:
Doritos wrote:I hear that finding jobs is near impossible nowadays in the legal profession but i see high median salaries reported on this very site (in the rankings). I have heard that this is due to small reporting. I am looking @ George Mason right now and it says 80% reporting and the median is 150k. This is class of 2008. Utah's median is 80k w/ 80% reporting. UConn median is 115k with 70% reporting. It seems like a reasonably high number of people are reporting decent salaries. I hear doom and gloom but i see stats that don't seem to line up. I am confused. Help me TLS...



30k, 30k, 40k, 45k, 115k, 115k, 120k, 125k, 160k = Median of 115k, despite the fact that more than half the people reporting earn 45k. Moreover, what they don't tell you is that a good number of the high salary earners are employed as temp attorneys with no benefits and no steady pay check and have traded a salary of 40k to 60k in full time firm employment in exchange for higher pay and a scarlet letter (Temp Attorney work) on their resume that will make it very hard to obtain any meaningful employment down the line. Further, many of these high paid positions are not attorneys positions at all and in some cases may have been held by the student before school.


I think the bigger problem is that the c/o 2008 was allowed to show up to work, while a good portion of the c/o 2009 has not. c/o 2008 data = useless, unless it tells you how many of them still have jobs. Stories like this are not uncommon (link (LinkRemoved)).

User avatar
Doritos
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 8:24 pm

Re: Salary Reporting?

Postby Doritos » Mon Nov 30, 2009 12:54 am

Kant wrote:tagged



not sure what this means. wrong forum?

User avatar
reasonable_man
Posts: 2200
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:41 pm

Re: Salary Reporting?

Postby reasonable_man » Mon Nov 30, 2009 12:57 am

I edited all of this heavily, so for clarity, I'll restate it:


30k, 30k, 40k, 45k, 115k, 115k, 120k, 125k, 160k = Median of 115k, despite the fact that more than half the people reporting earn 45k. Moreover, what they don't tell you is that a good number of the high salary earners are employed as temp attorneys with no benefits and no steady pay check and have traded a salary of 40k to 60k in full time firm employment in exchange for higher pay and a scarlet letter (Temp Attorney work) on their resume that will make it very hard to obtain any meaningful employment down the line. Further, many of these high paid positions are not attorneys positions at all and in some cases may have been held by the student before school, especially at schools with night programs, where many students were employed contemporaneously with obtaining their degree.

I've told this story 19 times on here, so at the risk of being repetitive, I'll say it again. When I graduated, I had a job at a midsized firm with a salary toward the upper end of my school's reported stats for the years prior. Thus, when the 9month report was due, I recieved phone calls, emails, snail-mail, facebook messages, etc. (everything but a fucking courier pigeon), reminding me to report my salary data. My roommate and other several students that had low paying/no jobs were not reminded to respond to the survey. They simply received a non-descript form in the mail with no return envelope asking them to reply with salary data. In short, schools use whatever means at their disposal to avoid reporting data that hurts their bottom line.

This year may be interesting insofar as the regular economy is shot (probably hurting students currently employed in night programs), and the availability of slave-labor err Doc-review projects is WAY DOWN. Thus, it will be harder for shit-holes like BLS, NYLS, Hofstra, Pace, Cardozo, Suffolk, etc. to hide behind temp-attorney data. Sadly, its likely that they will hide behind ITE instead of admitting that a huge portion of the drop off is that the smoke and mirror statistical game that was played by utilizing temp attorney salary data is now essentially gone and that for the past decade most schools used this garbage form of post grad employment as a means of distorting salary data upward.

Also keep in mind that most law school admins at T30-TTTT =

Image

User avatar
reasonable_man
Posts: 2200
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:41 pm

Re: Salary Reporting?

Postby reasonable_man » Mon Nov 30, 2009 1:03 am

Doritos wrote:
Kant wrote:tagged



not sure what this means. wrong forum?



Nope. He was "tagging" it to follow the thread. Thats all.

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: Salary Reporting?

Postby rayiner » Mon Nov 30, 2009 1:13 am

Selective reporting.

Eg: at GMU

http://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/car ... 8_3_09.pdf

47% private practice, 70% overall salary reporting rate, $150k private practice median.

47% * 70% * 50% = 16% over $150k.

This assumes that all those not reporting are not making $150k, but using the sorts of tactics that reasonable_man reported (only following up with those who found work at big firms), this is not unbelievable.

Plus, the C/O 2008 data is from the peak of the boom. These days, there are plenty of median T14 students who can't pull $100k+.

User avatar
General Tso
Posts: 2289
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 6:51 pm

Re: Salary Reporting?

Postby General Tso » Mon Nov 30, 2009 1:16 am

reasonable_man wrote:30k, 30k, 40k, 45k, 115k, 115k, 120k, 125k, 160k = Median of 115k, despite the fact that more than half the people reporting earn 45k.


I generally agree but I think this is just a tiny bit off. If you look at the salary midranges in USNWR (which is just 25th-75th) you will generally see a range of 75-150 or something. So it's probably not quite as steep a dropoff as the one you list.

There again though the whole picture is not shown, because USNWR only publishes the midrange for private practice, and only ~50% of most schools' grads enter private practice, and that 50% is reduced again by the effect that RM mentions (something like a 50-60% report rate among those private practice employees).

But yeah, RM is generally correct as usual.

User avatar
Doritos
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 8:24 pm

Re: Salary Reporting?

Postby Doritos » Mon Nov 30, 2009 1:19 am

reasonable_man wrote:
Doritos wrote:
Kant wrote:tagged



not sure what this means. wrong forum?



Nope. He was "tagging" it to follow the thread. Thats all.



ah ok. thanks again for your insight. I still don't quite get why temp attorney stuff is bad. I mean its not ideal but as far as starting salary data its not inaccurate. Also, I understand that a school would really want their top earners to report their baller incomes and be less enthusiastic about the people who aren't making that much. What I don't get is how the stats can be manipulated THAT much if 80% of the students are reporting. It's not 100% so its not statistically full proof but 80% seems like a nice sample size. If 80% of 2008 George Mason grads are reporting and 150k is the median it seems reasonable (in a similar economic climate as those grads) to expect to get near that salary if one does around 50th percentile (probably a bit better since the 20% who did not report probably are at the bottom of the class). That seems pretty good. Now I know its 09 and not 08 but is it reasonable to assume that the economy will eventually turn around and those stats from 08 will be relevant? It seems to me that the data suggests better job prospects than I hear about on here. This does not mean I believe the data over people who are actually doing the damn thing and are lawyers and 2L's and 3L's but I want to understand how this all fits together. Let me know if my reasoning is falling apart I'm pretty tired right now...

User avatar
rondemarino
Posts: 529
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:29 am

Re: Salary Reporting?

Postby rondemarino » Mon Nov 30, 2009 1:27 am

Doritos wrote:
reasonable_man wrote:
Doritos wrote:
Kant wrote:tagged



not sure what this means. wrong forum?



Nope. He was "tagging" it to follow the thread. Thats all.



ah ok. thanks again for your insight. I still don't quite get why temp attorney stuff is bad. I mean its not ideal but as far as starting salary data its not inaccurate. Also, I understand that a school would really want their top earners to report their baller incomes and be less enthusiastic about the people who aren't making that much. What I don't get is how the stats can be manipulated THAT much if 80% of the students are reporting. It's not 100% so its not statistically full proof but 80% seems like a nice sample size. If 80% of 2008 George Mason grads are reporting and 150k is the median it seems reasonable (in a similar economic climate as those grads) to expect to get near that salary if one does around 50th percentile (probably a bit better since the 20% who did not report probably are at the bottom of the class). That seems pretty good. Now I know its 09 and not 08 but is it reasonable to assume that the economy will eventually turn around and those stats from 08 will be relevant? It seems to me that the data suggests better job prospects than I hear about on here. This does not mean I believe the data over people who are actually doing the damn thing and are lawyers and 2L's and 3L's but I want to understand how this all fits together. Let me know if my reasoning is falling apart I'm pretty tired right now...


The economy will rebound, but it doesn't mean that the sectors hurt by the recession are also going to back to their former level.

User avatar
reasonable_man
Posts: 2200
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:41 pm

Re: Salary Reporting?

Postby reasonable_man » Mon Nov 30, 2009 1:29 am

Doritos wrote:
reasonable_man wrote:
Doritos wrote:
Kant wrote:tagged



not sure what this means. wrong forum?



Nope. He was "tagging" it to follow the thread. Thats all.



ah ok. thanks again for your insight. I still don't quite get why temp attorney stuff is bad. I mean its not ideal but as far as starting salary data its not inaccurate. Also, I understand that a school would really want their top earners to report their baller incomes and be less enthusiastic about the people who aren't making that much. What I don't get is how the stats can be manipulated THAT much if 80% of the students are reporting. It's not 100% so its not statistically full proof but 80% seems like a nice sample size. If 80% of 2008 George Mason grads are reporting and 150k is the median it seems reasonable (in a similar economic climate as those grads) to expect to get near that salary if one does around 50th percentile (probably a bit better since the 20% who did not report probably are at the bottom of the class). That seems pretty good. Now I know its 09 and not 08 but is it reasonable to assume that the economy will eventually turn around and those stats from 08 will be relevant? It seems to me that the data suggests better job prospects than I hear about on here. This does not mean I believe the data over people who are actually doing the damn thing and are lawyers and 2L's and 3L's but I want to understand how this all fits together. Let me know if my reasoning is falling apart I'm pretty tired right now...


I attended LS in the same region as Uconn. Good school. But frankly, most of those grads are making 40 to 60k. I know this for a fact, because this is what that region pays to most new lawyers. CT 'biglaw' which is your midsized shops like Shipman Goodwin, etc, tend to pay around 100k to start. Thus, if the best place you can nail out of Uconn pays around 100k, you have to really look at the numbers and realize there is a lot going on there if they manage to post a 115k 'median.'

As far as temp attorney work is concerned, its a lot worse than just not being ideal. It means being stuffed in a room with 40 other lawyers in a basement to review documents for privilege for 12 to 15 hours a day for months at a time or weeks or days, until you're let go and left to look for more temp work. Moreover, no one goes to LS for this, but when you get started down this path, its very difficult to get out, because firms generally are unwilling to hire people with long stretches of temp work on their resume. This is because the work is essentially barely attorney work and thus provides little substantive experience. Further, there is a stigma attached to it that anyone that gets stuck doing it simply was not good enough to get a 'real' job out of the gate. For this and many other reasons, the temp-attorney becomes less and less employable, the longer they are stuck doing temp work. Its a vicious cycle and its hard to break, if not impossible.

User avatar
rondemarino
Posts: 529
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:29 am

Re: Salary Reporting?

Postby rondemarino » Mon Nov 30, 2009 1:44 am

rayiner wrote:Selective reporting.

Eg: at GMU

http://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/car ... 8_3_09.pdf

47% private practice, 70% overall salary reporting rate, $150k private practice median.

47% * 70% * 50% = 16% over $150k.

This assumes that all those not reporting are not making $150k, but using the sorts of tactics that reasonable_man reported (only following up with those who found work at big firms), this is not unbelievable.

Plus, the C/O 2008 data is from the peak of the boom. These days, there are plenty of median T14 students who can't pull $100k+.


Quoted, just in case OP missed this the first time.

User avatar
MC Southstar
Posts: 1238
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 3:27 pm

Re: Salary Reporting?

Postby MC Southstar » Mon Nov 30, 2009 1:45 am

This thread makes me emo.

User avatar
OperaSoprano
Posts: 4410
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 1:54 am

Re: Salary Reporting?

Postby OperaSoprano » Mon Nov 30, 2009 1:47 am

rayiner wrote:Selective reporting.

Eg: at GMU

http://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/car ... 8_3_09.pdf

47% private practice, 70% overall salary reporting rate, $150k private practice median.

47% * 70% * 50% = 16% over $150k.

This assumes that all those not reporting are not making $150k, but using the sorts of tactics that reasonable_man reported (only following up with those who found work at big firms), this is not unbelievable.

Plus, the C/O 2008 data is from the peak of the boom. These days, there are plenty of median T14 students who can't pull $100k+.


This is quite credited, but schools aren't always phoning it in. In 2008, we had 75.86% of the class go into private practice. 93% of the private practice kids sent in salary data, and the salary reporting percentage was 87% overall. Our school reported an average salary of $131,477, and a median of $160k. I checked into it as well as I could, and accordingly, the NLJ reported that 43.7% of Fordham '08 grads got NLJ250 jobs. I don't know that all of those jobs paid market, though I'm certain nearly all of them were in or around New York. NYC associates probably benefited from being at the high end of the regional pay scale.

In short, the numbers weren't perfect (I lack Ray's ability to do a very precise analysis, and I would need to know what percentage of the NLJ250 jobs paid market), but they were close enough to convince me that Fordham probably acted in good faith. That is, I saw no evidence of flagrant salary tampering.

I want our 2009 numbers. I know they should be due nine months after graduation, or thereabouts, but all this speculation is awful. I just want to rip the goddamn bandage off and see what the wound looks like. RM is right-- this year will be a test for schools. Every school's administration is self serving, but self serving doesn't have to equal dishonest. I guess we'll see what happens, and we can compare Fordham's actions to those of Vandy (the gold standard in transparency), and BLS (the opposite.)

User avatar
rondemarino
Posts: 529
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:29 am

Re: Salary Reporting?

Postby rondemarino » Mon Nov 30, 2009 1:53 am

OperaSoprano wrote:
rayiner wrote:Selective reporting.

Eg: at GMU

http://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/car ... 8_3_09.pdf

47% private practice, 70% overall salary reporting rate, $150k private practice median.

47% * 70% * 50% = 16% over $150k.

This assumes that all those not reporting are not making $150k, but using the sorts of tactics that reasonable_man reported (only following up with those who found work at big firms), this is not unbelievable.

Plus, the C/O 2008 data is from the peak of the boom. These days, there are plenty of median T14 students who can't pull $100k+.


This is quite credited, but schools aren't always phoning it in. In 2008, we had 75.86% of the class go into private practice. 93% of the private practice kids sent in salary data, and the salary reporting percentage was 87% overall. Our school reported an average salary of $131,477, and a median of $160k. I checked into it as well as I could, and accordingly, the NLJ reported that 43.7% of Fordham '08 grads got NLJ250 jobs. I don't know that all of those jobs paid market, though I'm certain nearly all of them were in or around New York. NYC associates probably benefited from being at the high end of the regional pay scale.

In short, the numbers weren't perfect (I lack Ray's ability to do a super precise analysis, and I would need to know what percentage of the NLJ250 jobs paid market), but they were close enough to convince me that Fordham probably acted in good faith. That is, I saw no evidence of flagrant salary tampering.

I want our 2009 numbers. I know they should be due nine months after graduation, or thereabouts, but all this speculation is awful. I just want to rip the goddamn bandage off and see what really happened. RM is right-- this year will be a test for schools. Every school's administration is self serving, but self serving doesn't have to equal dishonest. I guess we'll see what happens, and we can compare Fordham's actions to those of Vandy (the gold standard in transparency), and BLS (the opposite.)


Deferrals will count as "employed." At least that's how Vandy saw it (2009 numbers @ graduation). These numbers will be beyond useless.

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: Salary Reporting?

Postby rayiner » Mon Nov 30, 2009 1:54 am

The Fordham analysis is certainly believable. 75% * 93% * 50% = at least 35% making $160k. With 43% NLJ250, that's entirely believable.

Much less believable for GMU which places ~15% NLJ250 if that.

User avatar
OperaSoprano
Posts: 4410
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 1:54 am

Re: Salary Reporting?

Postby OperaSoprano » Mon Nov 30, 2009 2:22 am

rayiner wrote:The Fordham analysis is certainly believable. 75% * 93% * 50% = at least 35% making $160k. With 43% NLJ250, that's entirely believable.

Much less believable for GMU which places ~15% NLJ250 if that.


Thanks, Ray. 8)

Do you think deferrals should count if they come with a stipend? Do we know what percentage of them fail to pan out? Do deferred associates consider themselves biglaw employees during their deferral periods? I'm not sure how the system works, but if I trust any school not to make things up, given its prior track record, it would be Vandy.

User avatar
reasonable_man
Posts: 2200
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:41 pm

Re: Salary Reporting?

Postby reasonable_man » Mon Nov 30, 2009 2:37 am

OperaSoprano wrote:
rayiner wrote:The Fordham analysis is certainly believable. 75% * 93% * 50% = at least 35% making $160k. With 43% NLJ250, that's entirely believable.

Much less believable for GMU which places ~15% NLJ250 if that.


Thanks, Ray. 8)

Do you think deferrals should count if they come with a stipend? Do we know what percentage of them fail to pan out? Do deferred associates consider themselves biglaw employees during their deferral periods? I'm not sure how the system works, but if I trust any school not to make things up, given its prior track record, it would be Vandy.


As there have already been firms that have sent these 'deferred' associates packing, i think its hardly fair to call them 'employed.' That said, there will be no official rule on this and I'm sure the law schools will use this to their advantage and report them as employed, despite the fact that their jobs are far from certain to be there when the deferral period is over.

User avatar
Doritos
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 8:24 pm

Re: Salary Reporting?

Postby Doritos » Mon Nov 30, 2009 9:57 am

rondemarino wrote:
rayiner wrote:Selective reporting.

Eg: at GMU

http://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/car ... 8_3_09.pdf

47% private practice, 70% overall salary reporting rate, $150k private practice median.

47% * 70% * 50% = 16% over $150k.

This assumes that all those not reporting are not making $150k, but using the sorts of tactics that reasonable_man reported (only following up with those who found work at big firms), this is not unbelievable.

Plus, the C/O 2008 data is from the peak of the boom. These days, there are plenty of median T14 students who can't pull $100k+.


Quoted, just in case OP missed this the first time.



ah, ok thanks. thats a good analysis and makes sense. top 16% to 20% makin' big law seems to make sense for a school ranked around there (in that economy). I have a question. When it comes to clerkships are those primarily graduates unable to find gainful private sector employment? I am wondering because it always seems most graduates go private and clerkships are in 2nd place. I was under the impression clerkships were prestigious (depending on the judge of course). What I am trying to ascertain so that I can better understand the stats LS's put out there, is how many of the grads seeking non-private practice are doing so out of choice or out of need. Are the majority of them taking lower pay because they really want to do the work and could get more doing private if they wanted or are they just taking whatever they can get. I know things are different now but I am talking about 2008 stats since those are the most recent.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273479
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Salary Reporting?

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Nov 30, 2009 10:40 am

reasonable_man wrote:
As there have already been firms that have sent these 'deferred' associates packing, i think its hardly fair to call them 'employed.' That said, there will be no official rule on this and I'm sure the law schools will use this to their advantage and report them as employed, despite the fact that their jobs are far from certain to be there when the deferral period is over.


There actually is an official rule. NALP, the organization that compiles the 9-month graduate employment data, has instructed law schools to include deferred associate jobs, even if they haven't started as of the 9-month deadline.

User avatar
OperaSoprano
Posts: 4410
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 1:54 am

Re: Salary Reporting?

Postby OperaSoprano » Mon Nov 30, 2009 12:06 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
reasonable_man wrote:
As there have already been firms that have sent these 'deferred' associates packing, i think its hardly fair to call them 'employed.' That said, there will be no official rule on this and I'm sure the law schools will use this to their advantage and report them as employed, despite the fact that their jobs are far from certain to be there when the deferral period is over.


There actually is an official rule. NALP, the organization that compiles the 9-month graduate employment data, has instructed law schools to include deferred associate jobs, even if they haven't started as of the 9-month deadline.


*runs over to the Vandy website* Goodness me- 99% at graduation employment? I've seen enough research to be pretty well convinced that if Vandy says this, it is probably so, especially if the above mentioned NALP rule is in effect. I'm not making a judgment call about the morality here; I think it well might be fair to count deferred associates with $5k/month stipends as employed, as they are no worse off in the short term than their classmates making similar money at small firms (and there are probably a few, even at a school like Vandy). True, they seem to be a lot more vulnerable (though the small firm people could still be laid off quickly), so it would seem fairest to students to designate the percentage deferred.

Unexpected things can happen to the deferred, though. I met a member of the BLS class of 2009 (I told the rest of this story elsewhere, but it was one I won't soon forget.) This kid had accepted a full ride over a seat at Fordham or BU. Of course I thought he was out of his mind to gamble like that, but he won the gamble, came out top 5%, and was deferred from a V50 job. I asked what he was doing during his deferral (I also asked what his classmates were doing, and he answered, but I refuse to make this thread even more depressing.) Anyway, he was working for a well known environmental nonprofit (one of the coolest people on TLS once spent a summer there), and he loved it. I mean, would not stop raving about it, to the point where I questioned why in the hell he wanted the V50 job in the the first place, especially since he had no loans to repay (apart from CoL, I presume). I wished him well, and I hope his option to start there next year will remain, even if he does seem pretty happily deferred. If he did owe $220k, as I will, he could still take advantage of IBR/LRAP, but the picture would look a bit different, and it was unclear whether the firm was paying for his time at the nonprofit (I thought such things were the norm among the V100, but I could be wrong.) This would certainly have some bearing on his ability to stay there if his offer evaporated.

These are just my own recent observations. I will never have an offer from a V100 firm, so I don't suppose I will ever face this situation.

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: Salary Reporting?

Postby rayiner » Mon Nov 30, 2009 1:31 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
reasonable_man wrote:
As there have already been firms that have sent these 'deferred' associates packing, i think its hardly fair to call them 'employed.' That said, there will be no official rule on this and I'm sure the law schools will use this to their advantage and report them as employed, despite the fact that their jobs are far from certain to be there when the deferral period is over.


There actually is an official rule. NALP, the organization that compiles the 9-month graduate employment data, has instructed law schools to include deferred associate jobs, even if they haven't started as of the 9-month deadline.


Considering that the NLJ250 deferred a third of their 2009 associates, this isn't surprising at all. Otherwise T14s would have to show 70% employed 9-months out for C/O 2009.

User avatar
nealric
Posts: 2395
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:53 am

Re: Salary Reporting?

Postby nealric » Mon Nov 30, 2009 2:02 pm

If you are wondering why doc review jobs are no good, read some stories from the following:
http://temporaryattorney.blogspot.com/

The big problems are:
You learn no skills
You get no benefits
You have no job security
You get no respect
You work in awful conditions




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.