Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:Yes Pufet, because you are just like all of the other residents of Denver. I looked through the CU threads before deciding to go here and couldn't help but notice that you have been stinking them up for years. You graduated, please move on.
I'd hate to see what you'd write if I actually disagreed with your conclusion. Step back from the ledge, buddy.
Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:The point you missed is simple. Vast majority people who live in OKC are from OK. Vast majority who live in Birmingham are from AL, in Houston are from TX.
I'm not sure how you figure I missed your unannounced reasoning in my one sentence dismissal of your ultimate conclusion. Now that you have made clear your argument, I assure you that it is precisely what I presumed your argument to be in dismissing your argument.
There are at least three problems with your argument. First, your definition of Denver as a "destination city" appears to be wildly overbroad. In effect, you are making a claim that is true of any sizable western city. I will use two of the cities that you listed yourself in establishing this point.
The Houston metro area grew from 600k folks to over 6M in the last fifty years, and it was not because a few million people decided that they no longer liked the west Texas oil fields and dry-land bean farms they were living on or something. Similarly, metro OKC grew from 40k people to over 1.2M, and it was not because all the folks in the panhandle started reproducing like rabbits and moving to the city.
Houston and OKC have been the beneficiaries of the prevailing shift of Americans to the south and west, and the migration north from Mexico and other Latin American countries. Denver is no exception to this. While OKC does appear to keep more citizens of its state than does Denver, Denver is not anywhere near as full of out-of-staters as Las Vegas or Phoenix, or even Cheyenne on a per capita basis, and is fairly comparable to Houston (although the first wave of transplants hit Texas about a decade before Denver), a lot of California, and smaller cities like Albuquerque and Salt Lake City.
The issue here is that you're not really saying anything about Denver in particular. Denver is really no more a "destination city" under this definition than are Houston, Albuquerque, or Phoenix. However, how insular each of those cities' legal communities are varies significantly (Phoenix is extremely open, Albuquerque is extremely insular, and I understand that Houston is fairly Texas-centric; Denver is somewhere in the middle, leaning towards being less insular).
The second issue with your argument is that it infers something about the legal community from the prevailing demographic change. You're basically looking at a wild oversimplification of who has generally gravitated towards Denver in the last couple decades (where I presume you're getting your "progressive" label from) and assuming that the legal community has moved in the same direction. While it has moved in that direction to a certain extent, that's not the generation that is in charge of the Denver legal community.
As there are everywhere, the powers-that-be in the Denver firms are a bunch of 70-year-olds who have lived here forever (there isn't a particularly huge biglaw community here, so most of the significant firms are predominantly local). These were the folks who were joining the legal community in Denver back when there were mines in the hills, smelters downtown, schools under desegregation orders, and judges' homes were being bombed for standing up for civil rights.
The first waves of major migration came in because of the wealth of federal jobs in the area (7 military bases in the Denver-Colorado Springs corridor, plus the Rocky Mountain Arsenal (nerve gas) and Rocky Flats (uranium production)) and heavy industry in the city itself. As you would expect, a bunch of military families and folks working in a uranium enriching plant aren't the most liberal of folks. It's really only been since the 80s that the yuppies have begun to show up with their kids, and those kids are only recently starting to become lawyers.
The Denver-native who is a partner at his firm predates Denver being a progressive town or being anything but a dusty military town with a Purina plant and a bunch of smelting plants just north of downtown stinking up the joint, and the nation's primary nerve gas production facility and a uranium plant just outside of town, poisoning the air. This will eventually change (well, except for the Purina plant), but it hasn't yet. Legal communities in general are fairly progressive, but Denver's is, overall, no more progressive than, say, Phoenix's is.
Third, you're assuming that, even if Denver is a "destination city" and is "progressive" that the bar would accordingly react in some particular way. In places like Albuquerque and Cheyenne, however, experience has shown that the influx of out-of-state lawyers has caused the local bars to circle the wagons. Metro Albuquerque has grown at a similar rate to Denver and has what is probably a much more liberal bar than Denver does. However, they tend to see the outsiders as being one of two things: (1) opportunists trying to take over a rising community and stealing the bread off their tables, or (2) amateurs who are in Albuquerque only to get a few years of legal experience before moving on to greener pastures. Now, I think that both perceptions are nonsense, but they are present. Accordingly, Albuquerque's bar has a lot of very insular tendencies (ties to the community are basically the whole game for admissions to UNM Law and for most legal jobs in the city). A progressive destination city does not an open city make.
All that said, I still wasn't disagreeing with you.
Denver is not a particularly insular legal community compared to Cheyenne or Albuquerque (or, I would assume, Birmingham or even many Texas cities). It's just that the lack of insularness doesn't have that much to do with the effects of the large migration of Americans west in the last half century.
The issue someone moving to Denver will have getting a job will be the fact that law jobs are hard to come by for anyone in Denver, not that Denver is particularly insular. Thus, as I said, your connections really do matter in getting any kind of job in Denver given the general scarcity, but not necessarily because Denver is particularly insular.
Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:In terms of the legal market, try to name another state school outside the T-14 that has more OOS than in-state students?
I explicitly noted that where one went to law school—CU or DU—may matter because of connections. Where you spent your time before law school doesn't very much because Denver is not a particularly insular legal community.
Anyway, I'd argue that their OOS numbers are skewed. CU admits a lot of people who were born and raised in Colorado, but went elsewhere for undergrad/a first career. They count as out-of-staters on the stats, but they have a lot of ties to the community.
Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:Pufet, aren't you from NM?
Yup. Going quite a few generations back on my mother's side. Not sure what role this plays in your argument.
Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:Its harder to have a backward "good ol boys" network in a progressive city where there is such a massive influx of new people.
By the same reasoning, it is harder to have a backward "good ol boys" network in any
city given the massive influx of new lawyers that have joined the profession since the 70s. Insofar as such groups exist anywhere, they do exist in Denver, and favor the local school. However, the "good ol boys" network isn't that big or influential a club any longer virtually anywhere because the legal profession has become so diluted.
Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:Sure, it probably helps a tad to have HS like network in Denver. But the Q was about if it would matter "as much."
As I said, Denver is not particularly insular. We do not disagree on our ultimate points. I was taking issue with your reasoning, which I maintain has nothing to do with the fact that Denver is not insular (if I had known what an affront my off-hand comment would have been to your delicate sensibilities, I wouldn't have mentioned it in the first place).
Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:Enjoy doc review, hope to see you out there in a few years.
The DOJ frowns on its lawyers doing doc review on the side.