If Fordham did that, and I really think they don't because the Dean told us he contributes info to LST, then I have no doubt other schools do it, too. So where does that leave us?
Read the fine print and the footnotes...the deferrals are indeed included...http://law.fordham.edu/career-planning/17281.htm
In the Spring of 2009 some large law firms began to announce that incoming associates' start dates would be deferred by a few months to a year. Each firm had a different situation and not every firm deferred start dates. NALP provided guidance to law schools that they should report these students as employed at their firms regardless of their start date and if they were volunteering at public sector employers during their deferral period; so the above chart reflects that. To assist prospective and admitted students in understanding this situation, we undertook an effort to obtain specific start dates for each of these graduates:
(i) 44% started with their firm in Fall 2009;
(ii) 28% started with their firm in January/February 2010;
(iii) 4% will start with their firm in Spring 2010;
(iv) 9% will start with their firm in Fall 2010; and
(v) 3% will start with their firm in January 2011.
(Of the graduates employed at large law firms 88% responded with their specific start date; the remaining 12% while confirming employment did not provide us with their start date). Those whose start dates were deferred to the Spring 2010 or later, received stipends from their firms and are currently volunteering and gaining legal experience in a variety of public sector settings.
Edit: actually if you read this it seems that many of these folks had already started at their firms by February. I guess if one wanted to critique it one could still speculate whether group iii, iv, and v ever started, but those aren't big numbers.
This info is so convoluted with percentages of percentages of percentages I don't get how they expect that anyone can ever make heads or tails of any of it.