Big Law vs "Shit" Law. I don't get it.

A forum for applicants and admitted students to ask law students and graduates about law school and the practice of law.
User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: Big Law vs "Shit" Law. I don't get it.

Postby rayiner » Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:11 pm

utlaw2007 wrote:Congratulations. You are the first one to imply I haven't a clue about my own personal professional experiences. I'm a practicing lawyer. And you want to point to some statistics that combine transactional law practices with trial law practices. Furthermore, you kids need to understand that not all practice areas of law are created equal. And then on top of that, not all industries of a given practice area are created equal. I said earlier that you need to work smart when you have your own practice. Going off of statistics that fail to distinguish different practice areas and fail to distinguish different industries among the same practice area is not working smart to put it politely.

I never said that my experiences are the norm. But, one can help change their fortune by approaching this matter smartly. It's not easy. But to just give up because the stats say one thing and those stats make no important distinctions is a loser mentality that will get you nowhere.


Congratulations, your reading comprehension sucks and your analytical skills are highly questionable. I'm not making the argument that solos can't make money in certain practice areas. I'm making the argument, based on hard data, that most solos do not make very much money and their income has gone down dramatically over the last generation.

User avatar
RedBirds2011
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: Big Law vs "Shit" Law. I don't get it.

Postby RedBirds2011 » Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:13 pm

rayiner wrote:
RedBirds2011 wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
RedBirds2011 wrote:We get it. Things are so much harder now and it's not fair.


Just do bootstraps bro (shitboomer).


I'm not a boomer, but a lot of them are right by the way. we are the whiniest generation of all generations to ever be in this country. It makes me want to vomit sometimes.

Loans are an issue, but nobody forces anybody to take out those kinds of loans. Even though I agree with this aspect of a typical boomer argument, I will concede boomers can annoy the hell out of me too sometimes.


The boomers are utterly wrong on this issue. Take the moralizing ("nobody is forcing you to take loans") out of the equation. That's irrelevant shit. Look at the underlying mechanics of the system. In 1985 (when a boomer might have graduated), tuition and fees at the University of Virginia was $1,800. In 2011 it was $11,600. That means in 1985, you could pay your year's tuition at a top-notch public school for about 550 hours of minimum wage work (basically working weekends). Today, you have to put in about 1,600 hours of minimum wage work (almost a full-time job the whole year).



Dude, it is absolutely relevant. Those that need to take out huge loans to go to a lesser ranked school make the choice. They probably shouldn't have gone or at least be prepared to live with the consequences.

User avatar
RedBirds2011
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: Big Law vs "Shit" Law. I don't get it.

Postby RedBirds2011 » Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:14 pm

rayiner wrote:
utlaw2007 wrote:Congratulations. You are the first one to imply I haven't a clue about my own personal professional experiences. I'm a practicing lawyer. And you want to point to some statistics that combine transactional law practices with trial law practices. Furthermore, you kids need to understand that not all practice areas of law are created equal. And then on top of that, not all industries of a given practice area are created equal. I said earlier that you need to work smart when you have your own practice. Going off of statistics that fail to distinguish different practice areas and fail to distinguish different industries among the same practice area is not working smart to put it politely.

I never said that my experiences are the norm. But, one can help change their fortune by approaching this matter smartly. It's not easy. But to just give up because the stats say one thing and those stats make no important distinctions is a loser mentality that will get you nowhere.


Congratulations, your reading comprehension sucks and your analytical skills are highly questionable. I'm not making the argument that solos can't make money in certain practice areas. I'm making the argument, based on hard data, that most solos do not make very much money and their income has gone down dramatically over the last generation.


Off of one ABA study that has many flaws. It is very hard to know what the average salary for a solo is.

Edit: they data points for solos, even if they could sample all of them, would literally be all over the place. From zero to 20,000 to over a million dollars. Way too much variety
Last edited by RedBirds2011 on Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18424
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Big Law vs "Shit" Law. I don't get it.

Postby bk1 » Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:17 pm

RedBirds2011 wrote:Dude, it is absolutely relevant. Those that need to take out huge loans to go to a lesser ranked school make the choice. They probably shouldn't have gone or at least be prepared to live with the consequences.


You realize that (a) people who make shitty choices are responsible for their actions, and (b) kids deciding on law school today are in a much shittier position than kids 30 years ago, are not mutually exclusive, right?

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

Re: Big Law vs "Shit" Law. I don't get it.

Postby rayiner » Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:18 pm

RedBirds2011 wrote:Also, it is relevant to those that MADE the CHOICE not to incur high debt from a non top law school.


The original poster asked why people characterize small firm practice as "shit law." On its face this is a question about typical outcomes, because that's where those characterizations come from. The typical TTT student did not turn down a high-ranked school for a full-ride. The typical solo practitioner is not doing lucrative small-scale patent litigation. I don't see why people who made particular choices need to get so defensive in discussions like these. Nobody is saying that it's necessarily a bad idea to take a full ride to a low-ranked school or that you can't make money as a solo practitioner. They are saying that the average person who attends a low-ranked school is taking a ton of debt, and going into a practice where they, on the average, don't make much money. That's why people who don't want to end up in that situation call it "shit law." That's the answer to OP's question, that making $35k in a small town with $25k in debt in 1990 seems entirely respectable while making $45k in a small town with $100k in debt doesn't seem the same way.
Last edited by rayiner on Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Big Law vs "Shit" Law. I don't get it.

Postby rayiner » Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:20 pm

RedBirds2011 wrote:Dude, it is absolutely relevant. Those that need to take out huge loans to go to a lesser ranked school make the choice. They probably shouldn't have gone or at least be prepared to live with the consequences.


Think of it ex-ante instead of ex-post. As a bright high school student in 1985 you had the option of going to a great state school (UVA) for $6,000 in total tuition, which you could easily work off doing part-time work. In 2012, you have the option of going to a great state school for $35,000 in total tuition, which you will have a very difficult time paying without taking loans, even if you work part-time.

User avatar
RedBirds2011
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: Big Law vs "Shit" Law. I don't get it.

Postby RedBirds2011 » Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:22 pm

bk1 wrote:
RedBirds2011 wrote:Dude, it is absolutely relevant. Those that need to take out huge loans to go to a lesser ranked school make the choice. They probably shouldn't have gone or at least be prepared to live with the consequences.


You realize that (a) people who make shitty choices are responsible for their actions, and (b) kids deciding on law school today are in a much shittier position than kids 30 years ago, are not mutually exclusive, right?


Oh no, I don't disagree with this statement at all. Im just saying I'm sick of people blaming everything but themselves on a situation. And then whining about it instead of trying to do something about it. All I'm saying is boomers are right about the whining of our generation. We are the whiniest. There is no question in my mind. I will not disagree on the legal education cost. I will also not disagree with kids from lower ranked schools having a higher barrier than 30 years ago...just that they should have thought of the debt.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18424
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Big Law vs "Shit" Law. I don't get it.

Postby bk1 » Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:26 pm

RedBirds2011 wrote:Oh no, I don't disagree with this statement at all. Im just saying I'm sick of people blaming everything but themselves on a situation. And then whining about it instead of trying to do something about it. All I'm saying is boomers are right about the whining of our generation. We are the whiniest. There is no question in my mind. I will not disagree on the legal education cost. I will also not disagree with kids from lower ranked schools having a higher barrier than 30 years ago...just that they should have thought of the debt.


Things are not as black and white as you seem to think they are.

User avatar
RedBirds2011
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: Big Law vs "Shit" Law. I don't get it.

Postby RedBirds2011 » Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:27 pm

rayiner wrote:
RedBirds2011 wrote:Dude, it is absolutely relevant. Those that need to take out huge loans to go to a lesser ranked school make the choice. They probably shouldn't have gone or at least be prepared to live with the consequences.


Think of it ex-ante instead of ex-post. As a bright high school student in 1985 you had the option of going to a great state school (UVA) for $6,000 in total tuition, which you could easily work off doing part-time work. In 2012, you have the option of going to a great state school for $35,000 in total tuition, which you will have a very difficult time paying without taking loans, even if you work part-time.


Not disagreeing here. I never intended to imply that boomers were right that tuition isn't expensive...I don't think I have met a boomer that actually disagrees with this education problem.

User avatar
RedBirds2011
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: Big Law vs "Shit" Law. I don't get it.

Postby RedBirds2011 » Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:29 pm

bk1 wrote:
RedBirds2011 wrote:Oh no, I don't disagree with this statement at all. Im just saying I'm sick of people blaming everything but themselves on a situation. And then whining about it instead of trying to do something about it. All I'm saying is boomers are right about the whining of our generation. We are the whiniest. There is no question in my mind. I will not disagree on the legal education cost. I will also not disagree with kids from lower ranked schools having a higher barrier than 30 years ago...just that they should have thought of the debt.


Things are not as black and white as you seem to think they are.


Just calling it as I see it. Our generation is very "woe is me." I didn't say everyone was, but a lot are. And a lot refuse to do some work because they see it as "beneath them" which ties directly into the notion of shitlaw.

Edit: Occupy Wall Street

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18424
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Big Law vs "Shit" Law. I don't get it.

Postby bk1 » Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:31 pm

RedBirds2011 wrote:Just calling it as I see it. Our generation is very "woe is me." I didn't say everyone was, but a lot are. And a lot refuse to do some work because they see it as "beneath them" which ties directly into the notion of shitlaw.


Looking at this specifically for law school: the number of grads who accept working part time or doing doc review makes me think that, whether they think shitlaw is beneath them or not, they are taking those shitlaw jobs if they have to.

User avatar
RedBirds2011
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: Big Law vs "Shit" Law. I don't get it.

Postby RedBirds2011 » Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:34 pm

bk1 wrote:
RedBirds2011 wrote:Just calling it as I see it. Our generation is very "woe is me." I didn't say everyone was, but a lot are. And a lot refuse to do some work because they see it as "beneath them" which ties directly into the notion of shitlaw.


Looking at this specifically for law school: the number of grads who accept working part time or doing doc review makes me think that, whether they think shitlaw is beneath them or not, they are taking those shitlaw jobs if they have to.


A lot are yes, but I KNOW for a fact that there are law grads, who end up unemployed for a long time because they refused to look or accept anything less than a sky rise with high pay and then act like its not fair nobody gave them a great job.

Edit: and then they join OWS lol being facetious here, but some probably have.

Last edit: really, the only thing I'm agreeing with boomers is our whining and I'm IN this generation. All these articles coming out and screaming about the lost generation, etc etc etc makes it seem like the sky is falling. It's not. We don't have it that BAD folks! Things could be and HAVE BEEN in the past worse.
Last edited by RedBirds2011 on Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
tedalbany
Posts: 1697
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 11:15 pm

Re: Big Law vs "Shit" Law. I don't get it.

Postby tedalbany » Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:40 pm

I don't think salary is what distinguishes shitlaw. There are a lot of good legal areas that still pay crap.
To me shitlaw is mostly used to describe work that lacks respect or any sort of prestige.

This includes: DUI, Traffic Tickets, Personal Injury (slip and fall aka ambulance chasers), Individual Bankruptcy, Family Law, Foreclosure (Plaintiff or Defendant side), Creditor's Rights (aka debt collectors), Insurance Defense.

These all seem to be the areas where you can find the sleaziest attorneys and lowest job satisfaction. I've worked in a shitlaw office and you just aren't typically working with the 'best and brightest' (see, areyouinsane's posts).

User avatar
tedalbany
Posts: 1697
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 11:15 pm

Re: Big Law vs "Shit" Law. I don't get it.

Postby tedalbany » Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:42 pm

RedBirds2011 wrote:
bk1 wrote:
RedBirds2011 wrote:Dude, it is absolutely relevant. Those that need to take out huge loans to go to a lesser ranked school make the choice. They probably shouldn't have gone or at least be prepared to live with the consequences.


You realize that (a) people who make shitty choices are responsible for their actions, and (b) kids deciding on law school today are in a much shittier position than kids 30 years ago, are not mutually exclusive, right?


Oh no, I don't disagree with this statement at all. Im just saying I'm sick of people blaming everything but themselves on a situation. And then whining about it instead of trying to do something about it. All I'm saying is boomers are right about the whining of our generation. We are the whiniest. There is no question in my mind. I will not disagree on the legal education cost. I will also not disagree with kids from lower ranked schools having a higher barrier than 30 years ago...just that they should have thought of the debt.


We wouldn't be such whiners if the boomers didn't destroy the global economy as they head out the door.

User avatar
RedBirds2011
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: Big Law vs "Shit" Law. I don't get it.

Postby RedBirds2011 » Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:44 pm

tedalbany wrote:
RedBirds2011 wrote:
bk1 wrote:
RedBirds2011 wrote:Dude, it is absolutely relevant. Those that need to take out huge loans to go to a lesser ranked school make the choice. They probably shouldn't have gone or at least be prepared to live with the consequences.


You realize that (a) people who make shitty choices are responsible for their actions, and (b) kids deciding on law school today are in a much shittier position than kids 30 years ago, are not mutually exclusive, right?


Oh no, I don't disagree with this statement at all. Im just saying I'm sick of people blaming everything but themselves on a situation. And then whining about it instead of trying to do something about it. All I'm saying is boomers are right about the whining of our generation. We are the whiniest. There is no question in my mind. I will not disagree on the legal education cost. I will also not disagree with kids from lower ranked schools having a higher barrier than 30 years ago...just that they should have thought of the debt.


We wouldn't be such whiners if the boomers didn't destroy the global economy as they head out the door.


They did mess things up, but your anger should be more directed towards politicians than boomers in general.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18424
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Big Law vs "Shit" Law. I don't get it.

Postby bk1 » Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:47 pm

RedBirds2011 wrote:A lot are yes, but I KNOW for a fact that there are law grads, who end up unemployed for a long time because they refused to look or accept anything less than a sky rise with high pay and then act like its not fair nobody gave them a great job.


I'm sure similar people existed 10, 20, 30, 100 years ago. Maybe in less numbers, but honestly don't see how it's at all relevant to this conversation. You basically said it in response to rayiner pointing out that things are systemically worse now. It's a nonsensical response because what people choose to doesn't in any way alter the fact that the system is far more rigged than it used to be.

While I agree with your general point that there is an issue with people feeling entitled, I do not think there's anything wrong with expecting that things be better than they used to be (which for law grads they decidedly are not).

User avatar
RedBirds2011
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: Big Law vs "Shit" Law. I don't get it.

Postby RedBirds2011 » Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:57 pm

bk1 wrote:
RedBirds2011 wrote:A lot are yes, but I KNOW for a fact that there are law grads, who end up unemployed for a long time because they refused to look or accept anything less than a sky rise with high pay and then act like its not fair nobody gave them a great job.


I'm sure similar people existed 10, 20, 30, 100 years ago. Maybe in less numbers, but honestly don't see how it's at all relevant to this conversation. You basically said it in response to rayiner pointing out that things are systemically worse now. It's a nonsensical response because what people choose to doesn't in any way alter the fact that the system is far more rigged than it used to be.

While I agree with your general point that there is an issue with people feeling entitled, I do not think there's anything wrong with expecting that things be better than they used to be (which for law grads they decidedly are not).


That's the point, I think they were far far fewer in number than today. And they were in decidedly worse situations than we are (i.e. great depression, world war 2, Vietnam, carter administration economy). This isn't the first time the economy sucked. It sucked a ton of different times and all of them in unique ways. This is also not unique in that there are too many lawyers and starving ones. The only new thing is tuition.

This whining stems from the parental phenomenon of "everyone is a special snowflake, everyone gets a participation trophy, etc.".

I responded to Rayiner the way I did because I have encountered him in other threads using that same ABA study to show how things have changed. The more he has posted ITT, the more I think we really don't disagree on a lot of it. When a lot of people post stuff like this, it is often someone talking about how much harder we have it, etc etc so my reaction to it is the same as here. But I appreciate why he posted it for purposes of defining why some see shitlaw as shit. I will stop derailing now.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18424
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Big Law vs "Shit" Law. I don't get it.

Postby bk1 » Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:02 pm

RedBirds2011 wrote:I responded to Rayiner the way I did because I have encountered him in other threads using that same ABA study to show how things have changed. The more he has posted ITT, the more I think we really don't disagree on a lot of it. When a lot of people post stuff like this, it is often someone talking about how much harder we have it, etc etc so my reaction to it is the same as here. But I appreciate why he posted it for purposes of explaining a defining why some see shitlaw as shit. I will stop derailing now.


Makes sense. Even if the study is flawed, I think it's pretty safe to say that solos on average do not do well.

As for the main point of this thread, I think shitlaw is two different things:

1. Less glamorous areas of law (e.g. what tedalbany posted).
2. Areas of law with little room for growth (e.g. doc review, working PT, temping, etc).

There is some overlap between 1 and 2 (and pretty much all of the examples in 2 overlap with each other).

User avatar
IHeartPhilly
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2012 4:19 pm

Re: Big Law vs "Shit" Law. I don't get it.

Postby IHeartPhilly » Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:52 pm

Thanks for the contributions everyone. Its obvious that there is a huge dichotomy as to what fits into the label of "shit law" on this site. Some of it truly is actual shitty work:doc review, temping, small firm grunt. While other "shit law" can be extremely lucrative and rewarding, and it is merely labeled shit law because it is not "biglaw". The latter jobs I'm assuming are nearly as competitive as big law? (<--- Anyone wanna take this assumption on for me, please do). One anecdote I can provide for context stems from prior work experience. A client of a former employer worked in healthcare law. This lawyer was in a 10-15 person firm, making big law money as a litigator. Jaded from TLS, I assumed this would be "shit law". Nonetheless, I wouldn't mind the pay and the interesting cases the firm took on. In this vein, throwing around the term "shit-law" is extremely misleading.

utlaw2007
Posts: 783
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:49 pm

Re: Big Law vs "Shit" Law. I don't get it.

Postby utlaw2007 » Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:53 pm

rayiner wrote:
utlaw2007 wrote:Congratulations. You are the first one to imply I haven't a clue about my own personal professional experiences. I'm a practicing lawyer. And you want to point to some statistics that combine transactional law practices with trial law practices. Furthermore, you kids need to understand that not all practice areas of law are created equal. And then on top of that, not all industries of a given practice area are created equal. I said earlier that you need to work smart when you have your own practice. Going off of statistics that fail to distinguish different practice areas and fail to distinguish different industries among the same practice area is not working smart to put it politely.

I never said that my experiences are the norm. But, one can help change their fortune by approaching this matter smartly. It's not easy. But to just give up because the stats say one thing and those stats make no important distinctions is a loser mentality that will get you nowhere.


Congratulations, your reading comprehension sucks and your analytical skills are highly questionable. I'm not making the argument that solos can't make money in certain practice areas. I'm making the argument, based on hard data, that most solos do not make very much money and their income has gone down dramatically over the last generation.


I'm not even going to dignify that comment with much of a response other than that what good is posting stats about something if they don't distinguish between significant factors that can and can't be controlled by the aspiring lawyer?

Yes, you in all of your expertise and knowledge (you probably haven't even started law school yet) are able to critique my skills.

How many times did I say that my experience was not the norm? But if you are going to post something that says solos or small firms make no money, post something that distinguishes the practices. That study doesn't even distinguish criminal from civil from transactional. We all know that most solos or small firms make little money. I said many a trial lawyer is broke. But it is not far fetched to suggest that a trial lawyer can have a very lucrative practice. It is not the norm, but it is not like winning the lottery either. But as I said earlier, one has to have trial skills because having a lucrative transactional practice is going to be extremely hard. Having a lucrative trial practice is going to be pretty hard, but it's definitely a realistic possibility if you have trial skills and are a good business man.

But if you are going to address my contention, you should do so with a study that actually refutes it. I said that my situation was not the norm. Why is that so hard to understand? Why did that contention necessitate the need to post the study you posted? And you say my reading comprehension is bad. So naturally, I'm going to think that there was another reason why you posted what you did.
Last edited by utlaw2007 on Tue Apr 24, 2012 10:25 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
tedalbany
Posts: 1697
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 11:15 pm

Re: Big Law vs "Shit" Law. I don't get it.

Postby tedalbany » Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:58 pm

IHeartPhilly wrote:Thanks for the contributions everyone. Its obvious that there is a huge dichotomy as to what fits into the label of "shit law" on this site. Some of it truly is actual shitty work:doc review, temping, small firm grunt. While other "shit law" can be extremely lucrative and rewarding, and it is merely labeled shit law because it is not "biglaw". The latter jobs I'm assuming are nearly as competitive as big law? (<--- Anyone wanna take this assumption on for me, please do). One anecdote I can provide for context stems from prior work experience. A client of a former employer worked in healthcare law. This lawyer was in a 10-15 person firm, making big law money as a litigator. Jaded from TLS, I assumed this would be "shit law". Nonetheless, I wouldn't mind the pay and the interesting cases the firm took on. In this vein, throwing around the term "shit-law" is extremely misleading.


I really don't think most people classify shitlaw by firm size or salary. There are a lot of high end boutiques out there doing very interesting work. Like I said, it mostly has to do with practice area and level of respect (or lack thereof) from the legal community.

User avatar
RedBirds2011
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: Big Law vs "Shit" Law. I don't get it.

Postby RedBirds2011 » Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:59 pm

IHeartPhilly wrote:Thanks for the contributions everyone. Its obvious that there is a huge dichotomy as to what fits into the label of "shit law" on this site. Some of it truly is actual shitty work:doc review, temping, small firm grunt. While other "shit law" can be extremely lucrative and rewarding, and it is merely labeled shit law because it is not "biglaw". The latter jobs I'm assuming are nearly as competitive as big law? (<--- Anyone wanna take this assumption on for me, please do). One anecdote I can provide for context stems from prior work experience. A client of a former employer worked in healthcare law. This lawyer was in a 10-15 person firm, making big law money as a litigator. Jaded from TLS, I assumed this would be "shit law". Nonetheless, I wouldn't mind the pay and the interesting cases the firm took on. In this vein, throwing around the term "shit-law" is extremely misleading.


Getting smaller law firm jobs can depend on grades, but from what I have seen and been told, it is much much more dependent on your ability to hustle and network. It's important to develop this skill anyway, because this is the skill that will make you a rainmaker and bring in clients. And networking does not equal meet a few people and never talk to them again. You need to keep in touch with them and get very involved. So it's a different competitive than the biglaw top grades or out model.

utlaw2007
Posts: 783
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:49 pm

Re: Big Law vs "Shit" Law. I don't get it.

Postby utlaw2007 » Tue Apr 24, 2012 10:17 pm

I'm not making the argument that solos can't make money in certain practice areas. I'm making the argument, based on hard data, that most solos do not make very much money and their income has gone down dramatically over the last generation.


You could have made this point without referencing my post. But you included my post as if to make a rebuttal to my post. Given that I have emphasized the importance of practice areas and industries within a given practice area, you should have been able to interpret, correctly, what I said.

If you quote what someone else said before you make a point, it usually means you are offering a rebuttal to what they said. Or you are in agreement. But you didn't appear to be in agreement.

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

Re: Big Law vs "Shit" Law. I don't get it.

Postby rayiner » Tue Apr 24, 2012 10:23 pm

utlaw2007 wrote:
rayiner wrote:
utlaw2007 wrote:Congratulations. You are the first one to imply I haven't a clue about my own personal professional experiences. I'm a practicing lawyer. And you want to point to some statistics that combine transactional law practices with trial law practices. Furthermore, you kids need to understand that not all practice areas of law are created equal. And then on top of that, not all industries of a given practice area are created equal. I said earlier that you need to work smart when you have your own practice. Going off of statistics that fail to distinguish different practice areas and fail to distinguish different industries among the same practice area is not working smart to put it politely.

I never said that my experiences are the norm. But, one can help change their fortune by approaching this matter smartly. It's not easy. But to just give up because the stats say one thing and those stats make no important distinctions is a loser mentality that will get you nowhere.


Congratulations, your reading comprehension sucks and your analytical skills are highly questionable. I'm not making the argument that solos can't make money in certain practice areas. I'm making the argument, based on hard data, that most solos do not make very much money and their income has gone down dramatically over the last generation.


I'm not even going to dignify that comment with much of a response other than that what good is posting stats about something if they don't distinguish between significant factors that can be controlled by the aspiring lawyer?

Yes, you in all of your expertise and knowledge (you probably haven't even started law school yet) are able to critique my skills.

How many times did I say that my experience was not the norm? But if you are going to post something that says solos or small firms make no money, post something that distinguishes the practices. That study doesn't even distinguish criminal from civil from transactional. We all know that most solos or small firms make little money. I said many a trial lawyer is broke. But it is not far fetched to suggest that a trial lawyer can have a very lucrative practice. It is not the norm, but it is not like winning the lottery either. But as I said earlier, one has to have trial skills because having a lucrative transactional practice is going to be extremely hard. Having a lucrative trial practice is going to be pretty hard, but it's definitely a realistic possibility if you have trial skills and are a good business man.

But if you are going to address my contention, you should do so that with a study that actually refutes it. I said that my situation was not the norm. Why is that so hard to understand? Why did that contention necessitate the need to post the study you posted? And you say my reading comprehension is bad. So naturally, I'm going to think that there was another reason why you posted what you did.


I'm not saying your contention is wrong, I'm saying it's non-responsive to OP's original post.

OP: "Why is it called shit law?"
You: "You can make a lot of money as a solo."
Me: "Most solos don't make much money which is why it's called shit law."

utlaw2007
Posts: 783
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:49 pm

Re: Big Law vs "Shit" Law. I don't get it.

Postby utlaw2007 » Tue Apr 24, 2012 10:28 pm

I'm not saying your contention is wrong, I'm saying it's non-responsive to OP's original post.

OP: "Why is it called shit law?"
You: "You can make a lot of money as a solo."
Me: "Most solos don't make much money which is why it's called shit law."


I only wanted to point out that non biglaw jobs can be very lucrative since the thread seemed to think they weren't at that time. I apologize if I offended you.




Return to “Ask a Law Student / Graduate”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests