Remember when sticker at T10 seemed like a good idea? Forum

[sinfiery]

They were posted then but I sure hope they weren't emailed in February.

ETA: Nvm, yeah probably.

18 months from the end of 2010 for one. Can't tell for the other.


Still, wish more data was available

I believe UVA is more like mid 200s.

My bad, survey was for the class of 1990, conducted in 07 I believe. Life before ITE
http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/manus ... wanson.pdf
cliffs:

[NYstate]

....there is no incentive to pay you any more than they need to. Law students are far more fungible than center fielders.

Let’s make this our secret. If not law firms will bypass the T14 entirely and only hire from Tier-5 at $25K a year, because as you say, what the heck, they are all the same.

You know that firms are already doing this, right? Look at the firms who have started back offices in West Virginia and Dayton, Ohio, among other places, and put fulltime associates there making much less than market to run discovery,etc. Recent reports by Citibank and Hildebrant strongly suggested that more biglaw firms follow this model. These are non-partner track positions or maybe called career associates. Orrick and WilmerHale do this now, not sure about others.

These jobs don't pay $25,000 but maybe more like $50,000 I think, not sure.

https://peermonitor.thomsonreuters.com/ ... visory.pdf

Also the Georgetown Law Center has a report on the profession that also details the increasing use of career associate,staff attorneys and contract attorneys.

https://www.law.georgetown.edu/continui ... report.pdf

From Campos' discussion about the Georgetown report:

Law firms do find one bright spot in today's legal market: it is the oversupply of lawyers. The Georgetown report recognizes this quite candidly: "While excess capacity in the market is certainly not good news for young lawyers or, for that matter, law schools, it provides an environment in which law firms should have the flexibility to redesign their staffing models to respond to client demands. By embracing alternative approaches to staffing--including increased use of staff attorneys and non-partner track associates, contract lawyers, and part-time attorneys--firms can create more efficient and cost effective ways to deliver legal services." (p. 17)

It's hard to find a more brutal statement of market reality than that one: the glut of lawyers created by law schools is allowing law firms to hire those graduates on increasingly contingent and unattractive terms. These new jobs are not designed to train new lawyers in skills they can take to other job sites. Once you have worked two years as a back-office document reviewer, what professional skills do you have--other than reviewing documents? These jobs will serve the economic interest of law firms.

http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot. ... eport.html

Here is Orrick page on career associates:
http://www.orrick.com/Careers/UnitedSta ... iates.aspx

[TripTrip]

They were posted then but I sure hope they weren't emailed in February.

ETA: Nvm, yeah probably.

18 months from the end of 2010 for one. Can't tell for the other.


Still, wish more data was available

I believe UVA is more like mid 200s.

My bad, survey was for the class of 1990, conducted in 07 I believe. Life before ITE
http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/manus ... wanson.pdf
cliffs:

I know this is pre-the late 2000s, but holy shit those numbers look awesome. Seventeen years out and just about everyone is employed with a great job. Unless I'm reading something wrong?

[sinfiery]

I know this is pre-the late 2000s, but holy shit those numbers look awesome. Seventeen years out and just about everyone is employed with a great job. Unless I'm reading something wrong?

nope, that's basically about right.

someone commented earlier that it had a ridiculously high response rate for a survey of its type too.

[NYstate]

Re UVa study: I know everyone realizes that it covered some of the boom years for the legal profession and is no longer relevant.

What I want to know, is who are the respondents? Did they get everyone from the class of 1990? I don't want to wade through the entire document. The graphs talk about respondents. Can someone explain who that includes?

Nevermind it looks like about 77%? Is that correct? Was there any follow up to see if the respondents were truthful in their reported salaries?

[TripTrip]

I know this is pre-the late 2000s, but holy shit those numbers look awesome. Seventeen years out and just about everyone is employed with a great job. Unless I'm reading something wrong?

nope, that's basically about right.

someone commented earlier that it had a ridiculously high response rate for a survey of its type too.

Huh. I wonder what it would look like if we surveyed the class of 2000 today.

[sinfiery]

Huh. I wonder what it would look like if we surveyed the class of 2000 today.

Same. This type of study is what I hope one day will be common place information for prospective students.

Nevermind it looks like about 77%? Is that correct? Was there any follow up to see if the respondents were truthful in their reported salaries?

Yeah, 77% responded 17 years from graduation. Shockingly impressive.

ETA: 72.2 responded for salary info

I don't think they asked for their tax returns though.

[NYstate]

Huh. I wonder what it would look like if we surveyed the class of 2000 today.

Same. This type of study is what I hope one day will be common place information for prospective students.

Nevermind it looks like about 77%? Is that correct? Was there any follow up to see if the respondents were truthful in their reported salaries?

Yeah, 77% responded 17 years from graduation. Shockingly impressive.

I don't think they asked for their tax returns though.

Yes they don't need tax returns. It is pretty easy to find salary information if you know where someone works. At least to verify some of these results.

Oh wait, the survey wasn't about establishing salaries, it was about career satisfaction. They would probably have no reason to check what was reported.

This is different from the criticisms of law schools not getting salary data they could easily access. Schools are supposed to be accurately reporting salary information; this study is focused on something entirely different.

[TripTrip]

I'm actually still pretty impressed even if the other 23% are taking notes at city council meetings for $40k/yr.

[sinfiery]

Yeah, my jaw dropped the first time I saw that study. I'm still very unsettled by the future of a T14 JD ITE but at least the data that is full of holes paints a damn good picture.

[Elston Gunn]

Here's Yale's study for 5 years out for the classes of '96-2000.

Response rate was 59%. Most important part for people starting in Biglaw:

Almost half (48%) of respondents who worked for law firms as their first non-clerkship position earned between $75,000 - $150,000 and 42% earned between $150,000 - 300,000 [5 years out].

Think Biglaw salaries were significantly lower then in absolute terms, though 2005 might have been right when they raised salaries.

Also of interest (and perhaps more important):

Law firm respondents are the least satisfied with their current positions (24% “very satisfied”) and academics are the most satisfied (75% “very satisfied”).

PI was 60% "very satisfied."

[Younger Abstention]

Well, remember when first-year associates used to get a 60k bonus...

[NYstate]

Yeah, my jaw dropped the first time I saw that study. I'm still very unsettled by the future of a T14 JD ITE but at least the data that is full of holes paints a damn good picture.

So it that saying that 70% of the class started at a firm of more than 100 lawyers or clerkships? (57.6% at firms and 12.5 in government) Not sure if government means clerkship.i

I'm trying to find if there is any aspect of that report that could possibly be applicable now.

( I would rather discuss the more current reports on the law market from the past few months that I posted but I see the appeal of this one that looks so good.)

[Elston Gunn]

Yeah, my jaw dropped the first time I saw that study. I'm still very unsettled by the future of a T14 JD ITE but at least the data that is full of holes paints a damn good picture.

So it that saying that 70% of the class started at a firm of more than 100 lawyers or clerkships? (57.6% at firms and 12.5 in government) Not sure if government means clerkship.i

I'm trying to find if there is any aspect of that report that could possibly be applicable now.

( I would rather discuss the more current reports on the law market from the past few months that I posted but I see the appeal of this one that looks so good.)

It's first non-clerkship job."Section 1 addressed the
respondent’s first employment after law school (excluding judicial clerkships)" (p.11)
So 57.6% at big firms, and 12.5% in career-type gov jobs.

[sinfiery]

@Yale: Damn, good numbers for Yale, but it's Yale after all..

TYFT, didn't know it existed.


Also interesting to note that the grads working in Business work far more hours than even those in the law firm category, on average.

I'm trying to find if there is any aspect of that report that could possibly be applicable now.

This is the latest data available, that's really the only reason I keep it in my mind.

[NYstate]

@Yale: Damn, good numbers for Yale, but it's Yale after all..

TYFT, didn't know it existed.


Also interesting to note that the grads working in Business work far more hours than even those in the law firm category, on average.

I'm trying to find if there is any aspect of that report that could possibly be applicable now.

This is the latest data available, that's really the only reason I keep it in my mind.

I wonder if it is too misleading to consider now. I mean the report is ancient history in many respects. Looking at how good people used to have it in law isn't that helpful.

[Rahviveh]

Yeah, my jaw dropped the first time I saw that study. I'm still very unsettled by the future of a T14 JD ITE but at least the data that is full of holes paints a damn good picture.

So it that saying that 70% of the class started at a firm of more than 100 lawyers or clerkships? (57.6% at firms and 12.5 in government) Not sure if government means clerkship.i

I'm trying to find if there is any aspect of that report that could possibly be applicable now.

( I would rather discuss the more current reports on the law market from the past few months that I posted but I see the appeal of this one that looks so good.)

But the current reports you posted like the Georgetown report are too vague for anyone to rely on. I read that report and the bottom line seemed to be that firm hiring will never approach pre-ITE levels. Well I think everyone knew that. And the report mostly references 2012 and 2011. We've seen c/o 2012 and 2013 hiring numbers and they are quite good. And from what I heard c/o 2014 has been steady as well

[NYstate]

Yeah, my jaw dropped the first time I saw that study. I'm still very unsettled by the future of a T14 JD ITE but at least the data that is full of holes paints a damn good picture.

So it that saying that 70% of the class started at a firm of more than 100 lawyers or clerkships? (57.6% at firms and 12.5 in government) Not sure if government means clerkship.i

I'm trying to find if there is any aspect of that report that could possibly be applicable now.

( I would rather discuss the more current reports on the law market from the past few months that I posted but I see the appeal of this one that looks so good.)

But the current reports you posted like the Georgetown report are too vague for anyone to rely on. I read that report and the bottom line seemed to be that firm hiring will never approach pre-ITE levels. Well I think everyone knew that. And the report mostly references 2012 and 2011. We've seen c/o 2012 and 2013 hiring numbers and they are quite good. And from what I heard c/o 2014 has been steady as well

You are right, those reports aren't written for students to make decisions on. I referenced them so people would be aware of the changing nature of the biglaw hiring model. I didn't know that people considered the 2012 or 2013 hiring numbers to be quite good. If so, I probably don't have much to add that people don't already know.

[IAFG]

@Yale: Damn, good numbers for Yale, but it's Yale after all..

TYFT, didn't know it existed.


Also interesting to note that the grads working in Business work far more hours than even those in the law firm category, on average.

I'm trying to find if there is any aspect of that report that could possibly be applicable now.

This is the latest data available, that's really the only reason I keep it in my mind.

I wonder if it is too misleading to consider now. I mean the report is ancient history in many respects. Looking at how good people used to have it in law isn't that helpful.

It's certainly part of the picture.

[84651846190]

Well, remember when first-year associates used to get a 60k bonus...

[20141023]

.

[eric922]

Do you all have any links that show data about how long associates last in biglaw? I keep hearing stats thrown around on TLS and elsewhere which state that [any number between 50 and 80] percent of biglaw associates only last for [any number between 2 and 5] years, and it isn't that I doubt this, but what is this based off of?

Also, what do current bonuses look like for new associates (assuming bonuses still exist), and is there anything that shows general trends of how much salaries/bonuses in biglaw increase each year?

According to this link, Cravath gave a 10,000 bonus to the class of 2012 and most firms followed their lead. Link: http://abovethelaw.com/2012/11/breaking ... son-begin/

[bk1]

Do you all have any links that show data about how long associates last in biglaw? I keep hearing stats thrown around on TLS and elsewhere which state that [any number between 50 and 80] percent of biglaw associates only last for [any number between 2 and 5] years, and it isn't that I doubt this, but what is this based off of?

In 2007, 80% of biglaw associates had left biglaw by year 5.

Source: NALP

[20141023]

.

[Elston Gunn]

Do you all have any links that show data about how long associates last in biglaw? I keep hearing stats thrown around on TLS and elsewhere which state that [any number between 50 and 80] percent of biglaw associates only last for [any number between 2 and 5] years, and it isn't that I doubt this, but what is this based off of?

In 2007, 80% of biglaw associates had left biglaw by year 5.

Source: NALP

If anyone has a source that breaks it down attrition rate by class year that would be awesome.