The fundamental problem with practicing lawyers Forum

[Legisperitus]

On another note, I'm curious whether patent prosecution is subject to the same stress, at least with regards to unpredictability in the hours. I know it's harder to make the billable requirement, and still involves long hours, but I'm under the impression that it might be better in terms of predictability (and thus allows you to at least have a marginally better life outside work, compared to lit/transactional work). Let me know if I'm wrong.

Bumping this. Any thoughts?

[Dafaq]

Each year there are a considerable number of people offered 100K (give or take) or are in their second/third associate year and loving it. Why are they are seemingly nonexistent on TLS?

[kaiser]

OK, maybe I'm reading this thread the wrong way, but it seems that virtually everyone here is saying "don't go to law under any circumstances."


Would it make sense for a graduate with a humanities degree to pursue a JD at, say, UVA or NU, if they received full tuition (COA was under 100k) and they had goals for biglaw litigation?

ALmost no one is saying "don't go to law school under any circumstances"

The crux of the argument is that many grads regret taking out as much debt as we did. Its not that we regret going to law school

Yeah, I haven't seen anyone say "don't go under any circumstances." I've seen people say, "don't go assuming you'll get biglaw," "don't go assuming you'll make partner/stay in biglaw," "don't take out debt," and "you, person considering paying sticker at Golden Gate or Cooley, don't go to law school." For some reason people keep reading these comments as "don't go under any circumstances."

Exactly. Its as if some people genuinely aren't reading, and are completely missing the point. And of course they will use this obvious strawman as yet another reason to put their fingers in their ears.

[Workingtitle]

I'm an 0L, and have a question:

My current plan is to try for BigLaw, even though I know it will probably be miserable, with the rationale that in a few years I could exit out for somewhere that would be better (smaller firm, government job, est).

It seems like people earlier were indicating this was a bad idea, so can someone coalesce this for me please? Why is this thinking flawed?

Also, practicing BigLaw attorneys: Do you really not have ANY friends? Is it really that bad? Any practicing BigLaw attorney want to chime in that you actually have some friends?

[IAFG]

I'm an 0L, and have a question:

My current plan is to try for BigLaw, even though I know it will probably be miserable, with the rationale that in a few years I could exit out for somewhere that would be better (smaller firm, government job, est).

It seems like people earlier were indicating this was a bad idea, so can someone coalesce this for me please? Why is this thinking flawed?

Also, practicing BigLaw attorneys: Do you really not have ANY friends? Is it really that bad? Any practicing BigLaw attorney want to chime in that you actually have some friends?

I don't exactly think this is a bad idea, but I do think it's a weird idea. You're narrowing yourself to a certain limited set of jobs, about which you probably don't know much (other than they're things people do after biglaw). That's a sort of random restriction to put on your future.

[09042014]

I'm also not convinced smaller firms are all that better.

[IAFG]

I'm also not convinced smaller firms are all that better.

But $90k to do all appellate for state AG is, which is apparently a thing midlevels do.

[09042014]

I'm also not convinced smaller firms are all that better.

But $90k to do all appellate for state AG is, which is apparently a thing midlevels do.

Appellate slip and fall maybe. But I imagine it's still way better than big law, even at less than half the pay.

[Otunga]

I'm an 0L, and have a question:

My current plan is to try for BigLaw, even though I know it will probably be miserable, with the rationale that in a few years I could exit out for somewhere that would be better (smaller firm, government job, est).

It seems like people earlier were indicating this was a bad idea, so can someone coalesce this for me please? Why is this thinking flawed?

Also, practicing BigLaw attorneys: Do you really not have ANY friends? Is it really that bad? Any practicing BigLaw attorney want to chime in that you actually have some friends?

I don't exactly think this is a bad idea, but I do think it's a weird idea. You're narrowing yourself to a certain limited set of jobs, about which you probably don't know much (other than they're things people do after biglaw). That's a sort of random restriction to put on your future.

Wait a sec. Who pursues biglaw actually wanting to stay in the firm and make partner? It doesn't seem like a lot do, particularly if they know the probability of making partner. Instead, it appears students go for biglaw because of the well-paying but better hours jobs following the stint.

[IAFG]

I'm an 0L, and have a question:

My current plan is to try for BigLaw, even though I know it will probably be miserable, with the rationale that in a few years I could exit out for somewhere that would be better (smaller firm, government job, est).

It seems like people earlier were indicating this was a bad idea, so can someone coalesce this for me please? Why is this thinking flawed?

Also, practicing BigLaw attorneys: Do you really not have ANY friends? Is it really that bad? Any practicing BigLaw attorney want to chime in that you actually have some friends?

I don't exactly think this is a bad idea, but I do think it's a weird idea. You're narrowing yourself to a certain limited set of jobs, about which you probably don't know much (other than they're things people do after biglaw). That's a sort of random restriction to put on your future.

Wait a sec. Who pursues biglaw actually wanting to stay in the firm and make partner? It doesn't seem like a lot do, particularly if they know the probability of making partner. Instead, it appears students go for biglaw because of the well-paying but better hours jobs following the stint.

But what are you jumping through all these hoops FOR? To do appeals for the State AG for $90k? If so knock yourself out. But if you have no idea what you want after law school and then clerking/biglaw, I think it's weird to go down this path that limits you to a narrow subset of jobs which you just assume you will want by then.

[daryldixon]

I'm an 0L, and have a question:

My current plan is to try for BigLaw, even though I know it will probably be miserable, with the rationale that in a few years I could exit out for somewhere that would be better (smaller firm, government job, est).

It seems like people earlier were indicating this was a bad idea, so can someone coalesce this for me please? Why is this thinking flawed?

Also, practicing BigLaw attorneys: Do you really not have ANY friends? Is it really that bad? Any practicing BigLaw attorney want to chime in that you actually have some friends?

1. Trying for biglaw doesn't mean you will get it. Even at a t14 you still have a 20-40% chance at failure.
2. If you have to take out more than 100k in student loans, you won't be able to pay them off before you leave big law.
3. The exit options aren't guaranteed either. You actually get no marketable skills in your first several years of big law. You won't interact with a client, you won't go to court, and you probably won't even take a deposition. No one will want to hire you except other big law firms or mid law firms that do similar mind numbing "paper litigation".

[jbagelboy]

1. Trying for biglaw doesn't mean you will get it. Even at a t14 you still have a 20-40% chance at failure.

Depends on the T14. At HSCC it's more like 10% failure, approaching 0% at Y.

2. If you have to take out more than 100k in student loans, you won't be able to pay them off before you leave big law.

What? That's totally not true unless you are assuming 100% 3-year attrition (which you can't, because it's false). Those who still have substantial loans to pay off are liable to stay at a higher salary range longer. Lots of people are paying off all or nearly all of $150-200K loans during their time in big law.

3. The exit options aren't guaranteed either. You actually get no marketable skills in your first several years of big law. You won't interact with a client, you won't go to court, and you probably won't even take a deposition. No one will want to hire you except other big law firms or mid law firms that do similar mind numbing "paper litigation".

Fair, but the exit options in big law are better than those outside of big law due to name recognition, filtering, and yes, some client contact, generally speaking.

Not sure even sure why I'm defending big law or any of this, I just feel like you say a lot of weirdly exaggerated shit.

[daryldixon]

2. If you have to take out more than 100k in student loans, you won't be able to pay them off before you leave big law.

What? That's totally not true unless you are assuming 100% 3-year attrition (which you can't, because it's false). Those who still have substantial loans to pay off are liable to stay at a higher salary range longer. Lots of people are paying off all or nearly all of $150-200K loans during their time in big law.

3-5 year attrition does exist. And I am not exaggerating. It is almost impossible to live in a major city (NYC, DC, Chi, SF) and payoff 150k of loans in less than 5 years.

[rayiner]

The issue is that you don't seem to have an idea of what you want to do. You just listed some things you heard people do after big law. But saying you want to do an amorphous list of things after big law isn't any better than saying you want to do some amorphous list of things. Don't go to LS without a concrete goal. Going to school hoping to find yourself is what leads a lot of people to do bullshit UG majors and then whine that going to LS is their only option.

[daryldixon]

1. Trying for biglaw doesn't mean you will get it. Even at a t14 you still have a 20-40% chance at failure.

Depends on the T14. At HSCC it's more like 10% failure, approaching 0% at Y.

Also, the NLJ 250 numbers for 2013 disagree with this (even accounting for clerkships). I am not saying there aren't other good opportunities outside of biglaw but the 0L said he wanted biglaw specifically. The numbers trend more towards my 20-40% number. Of course it is impossible to know for sure but 10%-0% is the biggest crock of shit I have ever heard.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... ring#gid=0

[First Offense]

1. Trying for biglaw doesn't mean you will get it. Even at a t14 you still have a 20-40% chance at failure.

Depends on the T14. At HSCC it's more like 10% failure, approaching 0% at Y.

Also, the NLJ 250 numbers for 2013 disagree with this (even accounting for clerkships). I am not saying there aren't other good opportunities outside of biglaw but the 0L said he wanted biglaw specifically. The numbers trend more towards my 20-40% number. Of course it is impossible to know for sure but 10%-0% is the biggest crock of shit I have ever heard.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... ring#gid=0

Self-selection does exist. Biglaw/Clerkships is just a shorthand answer for "desirable outcomes".

[kalvano]

I'm also not convinced smaller firms are all that better.

They can be, but I freely admit my view is colored by both my job and the prevalence of smaller firms that pay decently well in Dallas. Texas is, yet again, weird.

[spleenworship]

I'm also not convinced smaller firms are all that better.

They can be, but I freely admit my view is colored by both my job and the prevalence of smaller firms that pay decently well in Dallas. Texas is, yet again, weird.

I know some small plaintiffs firms and small family law, crim def, and bankruptcy firms where the lawyers make about market (50-75k where I live) and work only about 40-50 hours a week and love working with each other. The managing partners, you know, who have to run the business side, seem less happy and work 60 hours a week. But they take home 6 figures, which probably doesn't hurt. Some are even millionaires. Of course I've worked an awful small firm, and know of several other awful small firms where people work 70 hour weeks for low market. So... I'd say small firms can be amazing, just depends on the firm.

[IAFG]

What? That's totally not true unless you are assuming 100% 3-year attrition (which you can't, because it's false). Those who still have substantial loans to pay off are liable to stay at a higher salary range longer. Lots of people are paying off all or nearly all of $150-200K loans during their time in big law.

I don't many people who pay more than their 10 year payment. One, maybe two.

At least one class at my firm, no one made it past year 5. Out of 20ish. Obviously there are senior associates, but huge attrition is the rule.

[jbagelboy]

1. Trying for biglaw doesn't mean you will get it. Even at a t14 you still have a 20-40% chance at failure.

Depends on the T14. At HSCC it's more like 10% failure, approaching 0% at Y.

Also, the NLJ 250 numbers for 2013 disagree with this (even accounting for clerkships). I am not saying there aren't other good opportunities outside of biglaw but the 0L said he wanted biglaw specifically. The numbers trend more towards my 20-40% number. Of course it is impossible to know for sure but 10%-0% is the biggest crock of shit I have ever heard.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... ring#gid=0

NLJ has been a shitty rubric ever since granulated ABA data became available several years ago.

Strike-out from OCI at these schools tends to be in the 10-15% range and should continue as such unless the market gets even worse again, which I won't rule out. At Stanford it might even be less than 10% strike-out.

(And it's not impossible to know because our schools give us specific data)

[daryldixon]

1. Trying for biglaw doesn't mean you will get it. Even at a t14 you still have a 20-40% chance at failure.

Depends on the T14. At HSCC it's more like 10% failure, approaching 0% at Y.

Also, the NLJ 250 numbers for 2013 disagree with this (even accounting for clerkships). I am not saying there aren't other good opportunities outside of biglaw but the 0L said he wanted biglaw specifically. The numbers trend more towards my 20-40% number. Of course it is impossible to know for sure but 10%-0% is the biggest crock of shit I have ever heard.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... ring#gid=0

NLJ has been a shitty rubric ever since granulated ABA data became available several years ago.

Strike-out from OCI at these schools tends to be in the 10-15% range and should continue as such unless the market gets even worse again, which I won't rule out. At Stanford it might even be less than 10% strike-out.

Will you please cite some stats for this phantom 10-15% range you just made up. Also the ABA data includes firms that are not biglaw. The NLJ data is still best source for biglaw info.

(And it's not impossible to know because our schools give us specific data)

It is impossible to know because we have no data about who specifically "wanted" biglaw and how they went about trying to get it.

[banjo]

It is impossible to know because we have no data about who specifically "wanted" biglaw and how they went about trying to get it.

At CLS OCS tells us what percent of OCI participants got at least one offer out of OCI. 85% for c/o 2012, 92% for c/o 2013, and 86% for c/o 2015. I've never seen an actual figure for c/o 2014, but I've heard it was lower.

We also have a brand new list that compares anticipated and actual outcomes: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=227978

Forgot to add that we also get a list of every firm people bid on, # of screeners, # of callbacks, # of accepted callbacks, # of offers, and # of accepted offers. If you search around TLS you can find a link to this.

[jbagelboy]

It is impossible to know because we have no data about who specifically "wanted" biglaw and how they went about trying to get it.

At CLS OCS tells us what percent of OCI participants got at least one offer out of OCI. 85% for c/o 2012, 92% for c/o 2013, and 86% for c/o 2015. I've never seen an actual figure for c/o 2014, but I've heard it was lower.

We also have a brand new list that compares anticipated and actual outcomes: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=227978

Forgot to add that we also get a list of every firm people bid on, # of screeners, # of callbacks, # of accepted callbacks, # of offers, and # of accepted offers. If you search around TLS you can find a link to this.

Right, hence, 10-15% strike-out for people that wanted big law (and since people who go to offices/large firms not at OCI aren't counted in this data, it's always a smudge lower than that striking out in the end). I know Chicago can post the same range, and I'm giving Harvard and Stanford the benefit of the doubt that they can too due to the deference we give those schools on TLS (and as I said above, I wouldn't be surprised if Stanford had even lower strike-out rates).

daryl: just admit you were wrong and we can move past it this is a silly point.

[daryldixon]

It is impossible to know because we have no data about who specifically "wanted" biglaw and how they went about trying to get it.

At CLS OCS tells us what percent of OCI participants got at least one offer out of OCI. 85% for c/o 2012, 92% for c/o 2013, and 86% for c/o 2015. I've never seen an actual figure for c/o 2014, but I've heard it was lower.

We also have a brand new list that compares anticipated and actual outcomes: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=227978

Forgot to add that we also get a list of every firm people bid on, # of screeners, # of callbacks, # of accepted callbacks, # of offers, and # of accepted offers. If you search around TLS you can find a link to this.

Right, hence, 10-15% strike-out for people that wanted big law (and since people who go to offices/large firms not at OCI aren't counted in this data, it's always a smudge lower than that striking out in the end). I know Chicago can post the same range, and I'm giving Harvard and Stanford the benefit of the doubt that they can too due to the deference we give those schools on TLS (and as I said above, I wouldn't be surprised if Stanford had even lower strike-out rates).

daryl: just admit you were wrong and we can move past it this is a silly point.

I am not wrong and you have conveniently refused to argue all of the other points I made to dispute your crappy arguments.

OCI participation doesn't necessarily equate to the number of people that wanted or got big law. Those figures are leaving out the no-offers, cold offers, or people that wanted big law but chose not to participate in OCI. Also we have no data from the other top schools regarding OCI performance and Columbia is arguably the top big law producing school in the t14.

[jbagelboy]

What? That's totally not true unless you are assuming 100% 3-year attrition (which you can't, because it's false). Those who still have substantial loans to pay off are liable to stay at a higher salary range longer. Lots of people are paying off all or nearly all of $150-200K loans during their time in big law.

I don't many people who pay more than their 10 year payment. One, maybe two.

At least one class at my firm, no one made it past year 5. Out of 20ish. Obviously there are senior associates, but huge attrition is the rule.

It's a strategic choice - and probably a good one, right? - to have some savings rather than liquidate each month on loan payments. But in 5 years, you could pay back $200K relatively comfortably even in a high COL location (paying $40K/year, leaving from $60K to $100K expendable income after tax & payments). And I thought the stat was 70% attrition by the end of year 5.