There's still time to withdraw, 0Ls Forum

[anyriotgirl]

UVA sent out a waitlist email that says they're further decreasing this year, but it didn't say to what number. I've seen 300 thrown around as an estimate.

[JCougar]

Number on left is 1Ls in Fall 2010, number on right is 1Ls in Fall 2013

Yale: 205 -> 199
Stanford: 180 -> 179
Harvard: 561 -> 568
Chicago: 205 -> 196
Columbia: 404 -> 352
NYU: 476 -> 437
Penn: 250 -> 251
Virginia: 368 -> 330
Michigan: 376 -> 315
Cal-Berkely: 286 -> 284
Duke: 238 -> 209
Northwestern: 274 -> 229
Cornell: 205 -> 193
Georgetown: 591 -> 544

Total T14 1Ls 2010: 4619
Total T14 1Ls 2013: 4286

Source is law school transparency school reports.

That looks like a pretty negligible drop overall.

I don't know if 300 less people in the T14 is going to change anything. Probably just less anchormen at GeorgeTTTown, UVA, and Michigan will end up completely unemployed. Maybe a few of those NYU/Columbia jobs will go to the trap schools just outside the T14, but that's it.

[sublime]

..

[bugsy33]

I skimmed an article that predicts about 38,390 grads in 2017 on the faculty lounge. I don't know if that is accurate.

http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2014/04 ... -2018.html

That's the number of matrics expected, not the graduation number. The usual graduation rate is 88% overall.

Estimated grads in 2017 is 33,791.

There will probably be around 26-28k FTLT legal jobs available. Best case scenario is that legal employment is over 80%. Not amazing, but certainly much, much better than 2013.

[JCougar]

I skimmed an article that predicts about 38,390 grads in 2017 on the faculty lounge. I don't know if that is accurate.

http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2014/04 ... -2018.html

That's the number of matrics expected, not the graduation number. The usual graduation rate is 88% overall.

Estimated grads in 2017 is 33,791.

There will probably be around 26-28k FTLT legal jobs available. Best case scenario is that legal employment is over 80%. Not amazing, but certainly much, much better than 2013.

Sounds like a pretty optimistic estimate. A good proportion of those "FTLT" "jobs" that people get aren't actually real full-time, long-term, JD required in anything other than name only.

Also, there's an entire trove of attorneys from the classes of 2009 through 2013 doing fellowships, temp-work, and working in the bowels of shitlaw...a lot of them from top schools. While a lot of them will have dropped out of law entirely/jumped out of an office window by the time 2017 rolls around, it's safe to say that some of these people will lateral in and absorb some of these jobs.

From my experience, the BLS number of 20,000 new attorney jobs per year seems a lot more plausible, given that even median students from most Tier 1 schools can't find employment. And some of those 20,000 will be absorbed by prior classes.

[rahulg91]

While a lot of them will have dropped out of law entirely/jumped out of an office window by the time 2017 rolls around, it's safe to say that some of these people will lateral in and absorb some of these jobs.

Why is this safe to say.

[JCougar]

While a lot of them will have dropped out of law entirely/jumped out of an office window by the time 2017 rolls around, it's safe to say that some of these people will lateral in and absorb some of these jobs.

Why is this safe to say.

Because it does happen. People do lateral into good plaintiff firms, government and sometimes even Biglaw depending on what they're volunteering/clerking for. It doesn't happen very often, and your chances are very slim, but it does happen. Given that there's so many underemployed JDs from the last 4 classes out there right now--and given that law firms are consciously trying to be more efficient in light of client pressure and bring in people that at least know how to handle a case--I can see this pool of underemployed attorneys filling a bit more spots in the near future.

[rahulg91]

While a lot of them will have dropped out of law entirely/jumped out of an office window by the time 2017 rolls around, it's safe to say that some of these people will lateral in and absorb some of these jobs.

Why is this safe to say.

Because it does happen. People do lateral into good plaintiff firms, government and sometimes even Biglaw depending on what they're volunteering/clerking for. It doesn't happen very often, and your chances are very slim, but it does happen. Given that there's so many underemployed JDs from the last 4 classes out there right now--and given that law firms are consciously trying to be more efficient in light of client pressure and bring in people that at least know how to handle a case--I can see this pool of underemployed attorneys filling a bit more spots in the near future.

Your logic just seems a little off on this point. You're saying this is how things typically are, this is how things typically are, and then you bring about this point of this pool of underemployed lawyers who (a) at this point will have been un/underemployed for 3-4 years, and (b) are not typically hired by firms, and try to make the argument that they will be hired at semi-significant numbers.

Either someone that hasn't traditionally happened will all of a sudden start happening, or firms will not start hiring these attorneys are significant numbers. I guess I need to know more about hiring practices, but from what I've read/heard firms mostly recruit new grads/laterals from other firms, not those who struck out originally.

[twenty]

At the risk of source bias, that does make a lot of sense. Which person is a firm more likely to hire, a median kid at a T1, or a median kid at a T1 that's been underemployed for the past three years?

Not to say firms won't hire grads from previous classes, but I can't imagine firms passing on students from CO17 to hire grads that couldn't get jobs before with the kind of veracity that would make a substantial impact on CO17's ability to place students in FT legal positions.

[JCougar]

At the risk of source bias, that does make a lot of sense. Which person is a firm more likely to hire, a median kid at a T1, or a median kid at a T1 that's been underemployed for the past three years?

Not to say firms won't hire grads from previous classes, but I can't imagine firms passing on students from CO17 to hire grads that couldn't get jobs before with the kind of veracity that would make a substantial impact on CO17's ability to place students in FT legal positions.

Because if you give an underemployed grad with the same alumni prestige (and yet who probably had a higher LSAT since medians were dropping) with 4 years of experience an assignment, he or she will know a lot better what to do with it than a fresh graduate.

A lot of Biglaw firms in my practice area and location have just gotten rid of their summer programs completely or reduced them by something like 90%, and switched to hiring laterals in the 3-4 years of experience range. I don't think this is as widespread in other practice areas, but it's possible it may catch on. Probably less so in the NYC M&A market, but probably moreso in other locations of the country where thrift is more valuable to clients than is prestige.

[timbs4339]

If the pool of entry-level resumes declines, some of the underemployed JDs/JD Advantage folks will undoubtedly have a shot at entry-level positions. Maybe there's some crap job out there for which 90 underemployed JDs applied and 10 fresh JDs, for which the firm always prefers a fresh JD. With the class size reduction, those 10 JDs don't apply, maybe the firm finds someone who'd been working PT for 1 year. Or maybe there are less law students to intern/work PT during law school and thus small firms open up these jobs to a wider group of people. It's not going to be a large group of people, but it's enough so that a 10% reduction in the class size probably won't lead to a proportional increase in the employment rate in 3 years.

For biglaw, though, they do not hire from outside the club (this is a gross generalization but its true enough for 0L purposes). You can move around the club, but if you are not in the club by doing an SA program (maybe you can get there with a prestigious enough clerkship), then you are not getting in.

[Power_of_Facing]

But those underemployed candidates are like 1-2 LSAT points more qualified than the fresh JDs. Surely this has to factor into the hiring equation somehow!

http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 1&t=232286

[JCougar]

But those underemployed candidates are like 1-2 LSAT points more qualified than the fresh JDs. Surely this has to factor into the hiring equation somehow!

http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 1&t=232286

The LSAT is barely going to make any difference, but if you're comparing people with exactly the same grades at exactly the same school, and there's no other reason to choose between the two of them, you'd naturally go for the candidate with more experience from a stronger class.

I think these preferences depend on the market, though. NYC is always going to go for the prestige and the fresh grads. But I've seen other markets turn to hiring more experienced laterals, as long as you can get into an area of practice at a small firm that is more than just insurance defense or slip n' fall stuff.

[hawk5]

But those underemployed candidates are like 1-2 LSAT points more qualified than the fresh JDs. Surely this has to factor into the hiring equation somehow!

http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 1&t=232286

The LSAT is barely going to make any difference, but if you're comparing people with exactly the same grades at exactly the same school, and there's no other reason to choose between the two of them, you'd naturally go for the candidate with more experience from a stronger class.

I think these preferences depend on the market, though. NYC is always going to go for the prestige and the fresh grads. But I've seen other markets turn to hiring more experienced laterals, as long as you can get into an area of practice at a small firm that is more than just insurance defense or slip n' fall stuff.

Disclaimer: This is anecdotal and simply through my work experience as a paralegal and through my own interviews as a 0L with many attorneys in my state, but I was pretty thorough because it played a large role in my decision.

The lateral hiring could be a big deal for those outside markets like NYC, DC, Chicago, LA, or from below the top schools. It's definitely something to consider. The biglaw firms in my state used to hire a bunch of SA's, including a large number from the local state school. The majority now won't hire SA's at all or hire so few it's basically unicorn hunting. They just hire attorneys exiting Biglaw firms in NYC from T14 schools. With so many T14 grads exiting NYC Biglaw every year looking for anything with decent pay and less hours, it makes no sense for these firms to spend money training attorneys themselves or paying interns.

I've also talked to mid-law and smaller firm attorneys who have said they won't really hire anyone without 5-10 years of relevant practice experience simply because they can. There are so many qualified attorneys looking for better work or even any work.

I don't know if other markets operate this way, but it wouldn't surprise me because it makes sense from a business perspective. It's just something to think about, and another example of the gap between the haves and have-nots.

[rahulg91]

Just curious, can either of you shed any light on which markets you're taking about? This is the first time I've heard of this trend and I want to know if it's occurring in any significant numbers in major markets (Chi, LA, DC, etc).

[hawk5]

Just curious, can either of you shed any light on which markets you're taking about? This is the first time I've heard of this trend and I want to know if it's occurring in any significant numbers in major markets (Chi, LA, DC, etc).

It's not a major market, i'll just say what i'm referring to, it's Connecticut. It's a smaller market than those large cities and a unique situation that won't have a major impact on hiring statistics. It wont affect students from top schools gunning for big markets. I just thought it was interesting to share because it would effect those in regionals from around here. There are a decent number of T14 graduates that are from here and would like to return. There are a lot of fortune 500 companies (in-house jobs), it's a fairly desirable place to live, and actually a decent number of law firms that pay well/decent hours or biglaw satellite offices. You used to be able to get hired straight into these firms fairly easily from the regionals (UConn/BC/BU/Fordham) or T14, but now it seems to be mostly NYC/Boston biglaw laterals looking for the work-life balance. If you wanted one of those jobs you would most likely have to do a tour of duty in NYC first, so it'd be smart to put yourself in a good position for NYC Biglaw.

[JCougar]

Just curious, can either of you shed any light on which markets you're taking about? This is the first time I've heard of this trend and I want to know if it's occurring in any significant numbers in major markets (Chi, LA, DC, etc).

It's not a major market, i'll just say what i'm referring to, it's Connecticut. It's a smaller market than those large cities and a unique situation that won't have a major impact on hiring statistics. It wont affect students from top schools gunning for big markets. I just thought it was interesting to share because it would effect those in regionals from around here. There are a decent number of T14 graduates that are from here and would like to return. There are a lot of fortune 500 companies (in-house jobs), it's a fairly desirable place to live, and actually a decent number of law firms that pay well/decent hours or biglaw satellite offices. You used to be able to get hired straight into these firms fairly easily from the regionals (UConn/BC/BU/Fordham) or T14, but now it seems to be mostly NYC/Boston biglaw laterals looking for the work-life balance. If you wanted one of those jobs you would most likely have to do a tour of duty in NYC first, so it'd be smart to put yourself in a good position for NYC Biglaw.

That's interesting, because NYC is by far the most highly-leveraged Biglaw market. Given that your chances of making partner there are something like 1 in 100, that means that in any given year, there's about as many people exiting biglaw as entering it...and all those people are looking for jobs somewhere.

I think Chicago is different. It has never been all that highly-leveraged (compared to NYC at least), and the firms here focus more on thrift (you could say that for the entire Midwest). Seems like a lot of firms like to harvest associates with 3-4 years of experience from other Midwestern cities like Minneapolis, St. Louis, Indianapolis, Detroit, etc. If they do hire entry-level associates, it's almost all from C and N. Chicago firms have really reduced their hiring from the Big Ten state schools in the lower Tier 1...to the point where it's almost non-existent now. Same goes for the Midwest-area private schools just outside the T14. I can think of six people total from my school that got Chicago biglaw out of a class of 300. Three were URMs that also happened to grade on to law review, one was a female IP attorney magna cum laude that passed the patent bar, one was disabled and got into ADA consulting/defense and also seemed close to a few in the Obama administration, and another was a Kate Upton doppleganger with very good grades and local ties. And this was from a school where about 25% of the class is from Illinois. Lots of people that wanted Chicago had to find work elsewhere. Even after working here for almost a year, my best prospects for decent employment are in other cities. I doubt I will be here for long.

The people from my school (and similar ones) that are working here but didn't get Biglaw are either working in abjectly shitty conditions: living with their parents and doing shitlaw grunt-work such as endless depositions of slip n' fall cases; living with their parents and doing insurance defense in the suburbs; living in the ghetto and doing public interest volunteering (there isn't a single paid entry-level PI job in this city...even the places that accept volunteers are over-staffed, so they can't even take on people who are willing to work for free). You can't even get a job at a plaintiff's firm paying $60K/year unless you have volunteered at a PI organization for 1-2 years. One girl got lucky and is working for her dad's firm, but she's the only non-biglaw person I know that isn't considering quitting law altogether/committing suicide. A lot of the people I currently work with are a few years out in paid, full-time positions, but they're still either living in the ghetto, dodging the flying bullets in Chiraq and taking a long train-ride to work, or living with their parents. And these are the few suckers from the Tier 1 and 2 local schools that were lucky enough to get jobs at all.

The level of desperation here is impossible to convey to 0Ls. There's about one (non-OCI) paid job opening per month in the entire city for people with less than 2 years of experience, and predictably at least 1,000 people apply. There's no way you're getting your resume even looked at unless you know someone that works there, no matter what your other credentials. And if job prospects are this bad for above-median students at T25 schools, it makes it impossible for me to believe that anywhere close to 50% of JDs across the board are getting real lawyer jobs. At least 50% of these "lawyer jobs" are nothing more than exploiting cheap labor from horrendously desperate JD's in a mind-blowingly over-saturated job market...and involve filing ridiculous, absolutely frivolous claims just for their nuisance value...and than filing appeals on these nuisance claims because the client is just mad and wants to sue no matter what his or her chances. Word to the wise: if a plaintiff's attorney ever asks for a retainer instead of doing the case on contingency, you probably shouldn't be suing in the first place.

As for the other Midewst cities, it seems that if you get regional Biglaw and don't bolt for Chicago, your chances of making partner are closer to like 25-50%. Signifcantly better than the 1% of NYC firms. But the partner pay at regional Midwest Biglaw is often not much higher than an 8th year associate in NYC anyway, if at all, so you're looking at like $200-300K for being a partner, and that's as much as you'll ever get. But that just means they need less new associates to begin with, so getting Biglaw in non-Chicago Midwest is basically just as impossible. And shitlaw is far shittier, and the pay far worse. Loans don't decrease based on a lower cost of living adjustment.

[rahulg91]

Just curious, can either of you shed any light on which markets you're taking about? This is the first time I've heard of this trend and I want to know if it's occurring in any significant numbers in major markets (Chi, LA, DC, etc).

Lots of information about jerb market.

Thanks for this, it's a scary reality check, but much-needed.

[withoutapaddle]

TLS talked me out of law school. T-14+ Vanderbilt or bust became my new montra when I was considering it.

[dowu]

TLS talked me out of law school. T-14+ Vanderbilt or bust became my new montra when I was considering it.

tls talks me out of and into a lot of things.

[rahulg91]

TLS talked me out of law school. T-14+ Vanderbilt or bust became my new montra when I was considering it.

tls talks me out of and into a lot of things.

Other than retaking, what does it talk you into?

[twenty]

TLS talked me out of law school. T-14+ Vanderbilt or bust became my new montra when I was considering it.

tls talks me out of and into a lot of things.

Other than retaking, what does it talk you into?

it tried to talk him into dick pics.

[JCougar]

FWIW, what I described goes for anyone at any school who happens to strike out at OCI. I know people who struck out at C that are in the same boat. If you get interviews there but come off as too "public interest" focused in the long run, you won't get any offers. I know one person who didn't have a good answer to "how would it make you feel defending XXX mega-corp against a lawsuit from XXX wildlife foundation" and didn't get any callbacks. She eventually found work at a decent plaintiff firm, but I don't think she was planning on paying off Chicago sticker debt with a salary starting at like $60K. But there's a lot of people that strike out from OCI from either N or C, and if you do that, you're in the same boat as the rest of the crew that is throwing their resume at every job out there, and cold-sending to every recruitment office even if there's no job postings just in case. There's no magic or secret job bank for those that struck out at a T14 OCI. You're basically left scouring Indeed.com for whatever scraps are left, and yes, a lot of the smaller firms are afraid to hire you because they think you will bolt in 4 months for a better opportunity or become so depressed at your job that you'll just leave law completely...because let's face it, the quality of the "work" available at shitlaw firms is basically stuff a decently-smart high school graduate or paralegal could do. It doesn't require an attorney other than for legal ethics purposes, but it's work that's too boring and mind-numbing for shitlaw partners to do every day. They realize that someone smart enough to get into Chicago probably won't cope well with this kind of work, and consider you over-qualified.

FWIW, the people I know that targeted NYC or simply went back to their home state fared a bit better. In fact, this latter group probably did the best. If you don't get anything from OCI, your only hope is to start networking like mad wherever you're from. And you better hope that you're from somewhere other than the Chicago market (or the DC market, it seems). That's the only way you even have a chance.

[Tanicius]

FWIW, what I described goes for anyone at any school who happens to strike out at OCI. I know people who struck out at C that are in the same boat. If you get interviews there but come off as too "public interest" focused in the long run, you won't get any offers. I know one person who didn't have a good answer to "how would it make you feel defending XXX mega-corp against a lawsuit from XXX wildlife foundation" and didn't get any callbacks. She eventually found work at a decent plaintiff firm, but I don't think she was planning on paying off Chicago sticker debt with a salary starting at like $60K. But there's a lot of people that strike out from OCI from either N or C, and if you do that, you're in the same boat as the rest of the crew that is throwing their resume at every job out there, and cold-sending to every recruitment office even if there's no job postings just in case. There's no magic or secret job bank for those that struck out at a T14 OCI. You're basically left scouring Indeed.com for whatever scraps are left, and yes, a lot of the smaller firms are afraid to hire you because they think you will bolt in 4 months for a better opportunity or become so depressed at your job that you'll just leave law completely...because let's face it, the quality of the "work" available at shitlaw firms is basically stuff a decently-smart high school graduate or paralegal could do. It doesn't require an attorney other than for legal ethics purposes, but it's work that's too boring and mind-numbing for shitlaw partners to do every day. They realize that someone smart enough to get into Chicago probably won't cope well with this kind of work, and consider you over-qualified.

FWIW, the people I know that targeted NYC or simply went back to their home state fared a bit better. In fact, this latter group probably did the best. If you don't get anything from OCI, your only hope is to start networking like mad wherever you're from. And you better hope that you're from somewhere other than the Chicago market (or the DC market, it seems). That's the only way you even have a chance.

Hand on the Bible, swear to God, if I hadn't gotten a job in public defense this year, I would have been effectively over. Struck out at OCI for some of the same reasons as the people you talked about -- didn't apply to NYC, and had an obvious bend towards public interest on the resume. If I hadn't had public defense as my main goal anyway, I probably would have dropped out after OCI, cause there was simply no other area of law I could have gotten into that would have realistically paid off my sticker loans. God a PD job in my home state by the bare skin of my teeth in January of 3L and struck out at every single other PD office I applied to (over a dozen, including about 10 callbacks). The difference in hiring odds between a grad from any school with a job and a T-14 grad with no job is pretty much the exact same as a grad from anywhere with a job and a grad from a TTT with no job.

[nightcheese]

0L here. I'm very glad I read this thread. Yes, the info in here is bleak and scary as hell, but it's good to be aware of what the legal market is like nowadays, despite what the folks at Slate might say. I've been going back and forth on law school, and getting an advanced degree in general, for about five years now. And I'm still in no huge hurry to apply. As much as I'd like to drop everything and jump in to a legal career, it would be too much of a risk to do so without giving it some serious thought.

Becoming a lawyer: not a total mistake anymore!

ok so this caption struck me as hilarious. For a second there I thought I was reading The Onion.