Top schools hired by NLJ 250 firms in 2009!!! Forum

[RVP11]

We need to remember these guys OCI'd in 2007 at the peak of the boom. A lot of them did get no offered, but even more of class of 10 got no offered. Class of 11 just never got the SA jobs in the first place.

Definitely. '10 will be much worse, and '11 worse yet.

From there, '11 will be the new norm with only a slight uptick and then leveling off. There is certainly no indication of a return to the boom levels. Just a new and different era of sorts.

I think some schools will be doing better than others. No offers hit schools indiscriminately, but schools like WUSTL, UIUC and ND will get hammered in the 2011 data. Firms stuck with t14's when shit got bad.

Yep. Early whispers have unnamed lower T14s with 40% or so in big firms for class of 2011. That's not such a catastrophic drop from 50% to 55%. At schools like those named above, that drop could be more like 30% to 10%.

[ZXCVBNM]

I hope everyone realizes that 2010 will be worse than these numbers and 2011 will be much worse. Hopefully for my sake, 2012 will be a little better than 10 or 11.

[OperaSoprano]

I hope everyone realizes that 2010 will be worse than these numbers and 2011 will be much worse. Hopefully for my sake, 2012 will be a little better than 10 or 11.

We could always stay class of '13.

[swc65]

OK excuse my 0L ignorance, but I am completely missing something here.

Why would it matter so much that 09 grads did OCI in 07? Especially when the big crash was in F08. It seems that even if 09 grads did OCI in 07 and then SA in summer of 08 they would be hit hardest by the drastic change in demand (which has picked up according to some firms).

Just from a firm's perspective if I had to layoff lawyers, the first ones to go would be those who never actually worked for the firm rather than current employees. Do firms generally try not to rescind offers once they have made them? Do they really sacrifice current employees rather than people scheduled to graduate in a few months? It seems to me that since the crazy layoffs happened while 09 grads were still in schools and shortly after they graduated then they would get hit the worst.

I get that many 10 grads would get summer position while all of this happened, but does that mean they will be locked out of jobs completely when they graduate? And for 11 grads, they did OCI this fall which was after the bloodletting so why would they be worse or as bad as 10 or 09?

Again, I am a 0L so I am not completely knowledgeable about all of this, so try not to be too harsh.

[RVP11]

OK excuse my 0L ignorance, but I am completely missing something here.

Why would it matter so much that 09 grads did OCI in 07? Especially when the big crash was in F08. It seems that even if 09 grads did OCI in 07 and then SA in summer of 08 they would be hit hardest by the drastic change in demand (which has picked up according to some firms).

Just from a firm's perspective if I had to layoff lawyers, the first ones to go would be those who never actually worked for the firm rather than current employees. Do firms generally try not to rescind offers once they have made them? Do they really sacrifice current employees rather than people scheduled to graduate in a few months? It seems to me that since the crazy layoffs happened while 09 grads were still in schools and shortly after they graduated then they would get hit the worst.

I get that many 10 grads would get summer position while all of this happened, but does that mean they will be locked out of jobs completely when they graduate? And for 11 grads, they did OCI this fall which was after the bloodletting so why would they be worse or as bad as 10 or 09?

Again, I am a 0L so I am not completely knowledgeable about all of this, so try not to be too harsh.

There are a number of reasons why law firms don't follow "first in, first out" layoff policies, but the most important thing you need to recognize here was the mega prestige and reputation hit firms would sustain if they just dropped every one of their SAs. Firms did everything they could to avoid no-offering. Mostly deferrals, which in turn has doubly screwed everyone in class of 2011 who will be dealing with a lot of that backlog.

[09042014]

OK excuse my 0L ignorance, but I am completely missing something here.

Why would it matter so much that 09 grads did OCI in 07? Especially when the big crash was in F08. It seems that even if 09 grads did OCI in 07 and then SA in summer of 08 they would be hit hardest by the drastic change in demand (which has picked up according to some firms).

Just from a firm's perspective if I had to layoff lawyers, the first ones to go would be those who never actually worked for the firm rather than current employees. Do firms generally try not to rescind offers once they have made them? Do they really sacrifice current employees rather than people scheduled to graduate in a few months? It seems to me that since the crazy layoffs happened while 09 grads were still in schools and shortly after they graduated then they would get hit the worst.

I get that many 10 grads would get summer position while all of this happened, but does that mean they will be locked out of jobs completely when they graduate? And for 11 grads, they did OCI this fall which was after the bloodletting so why would they be worse or as bad as 10 or 09?

Again, I am a 0L so I am not completely knowledgeable about all of this, so try not to be too harsh.

Yes firms really try to not rescind offers that were already made. Instead they differed their start dates an year, and hired less at OCI this year.

Class of 2011 OCI was the first one after the crash happened.

[legends159]

OK excuse my 0L ignorance, but I am completely missing something here.

Why would it matter so much that 09 grads did OCI in 07? Especially when the big crash was in F08. It seems that even if 09 grads did OCI in 07 and then SA in summer of 08 they would be hit hardest by the drastic change in demand (which has picked up according to some firms).

Just from a firm's perspective if I had to layoff lawyers, the first ones to go would be those who never actually worked for the firm rather than current employees. Do firms generally try not to rescind offers once they have made them? Do they really sacrifice current employees rather than people scheduled to graduate in a few months? It seems to me that since the crazy layoffs happened while 09 grads were still in schools and shortly after they graduated then they would get hit the worst.

I get that many 10 grads would get summer position while all of this happened, but does that mean they will be locked out of jobs completely when they graduate? And for 11 grads, they did OCI this fall which was after the bloodletting so why would they be worse or as bad as 10 or 09?

Again, I am a 0L so I am not completely knowledgeable about all of this, so try not to be too harsh.

3rd year associates make more than 1st years yet do not produce much more $$ in terms of hourly billable rate. Further, 1st years keep the pipeline flowing. Schools are more likely to protect their newly minted JD's than those 3 years removed for PR reasons.

Finally the 3rd or 4th years that got axed first were perceived not to be "biglaw material." whether that is true or not (most likely not b/c women and minorities disproportionately got the axe) firms seem more willing to take a chance on a 1st year than someone who has been there for 3-4 years.

[swc65]

OK excuse my 0L ignorance, but I am completely missing something here.

Why would it matter so much that 09 grads did OCI in 07? Especially when the big crash was in F08. It seems that even if 09 grads did OCI in 07 and then SA in summer of 08 they would be hit hardest by the drastic change in demand (which has picked up according to some firms).

Just from a firm's perspective if I had to layoff lawyers, the first ones to go would be those who never actually worked for the firm rather than current employees. Do firms generally try not to rescind offers once they have made them? Do they really sacrifice current employees rather than people scheduled to graduate in a few months? It seems to me that since the crazy layoffs happened while 09 grads were still in schools and shortly after they graduated then they would get hit the worst.

I get that many 10 grads would get summer position while all of this happened, but does that mean they will be locked out of jobs completely when they graduate? And for 11 grads, they did OCI this fall which was after the bloodletting so why would they be worse or as bad as 10 or 09?

Again, I am a 0L so I am not completely knowledgeable about all of this, so try not to be too harsh.

There are a number of reasons why law firms don't follow "first in, first out" layoff policies, but the most important thing you need to recognize here was the mega prestige and reputation hit firms would sustain if they just dropped every one of their SAs. Firms did everything they could to avoid no-offering. Mostly deferrals, which in turn has doubly screwed everyone in class of 2011 who will be dealing with a lot of that backlog.

That's what I don't get though, wouldn't the prestige hit of laying off a bunch of seasoned employees in order to keep noobs be just as bad or worse? Add that to the experience gap you're left would get rid of new hirs who are months from starting before I would get rid of current employees.

Ya it will sick for 11 because of the backlog, but some firms are already calling in their deferrals. Hopefully for 11 that trend will continue.

[swc65]

OK excuse my 0L ignorance, but I am completely missing something here.

Why would it matter so much that 09 grads did OCI in 07? Especially when the big crash was in F08. It seems that even if 09 grads did OCI in 07 and then SA in summer of 08 they would be hit hardest by the drastic change in demand (which has picked up according to some firms).

Just from a firm's perspective if I had to layoff lawyers, the first ones to go would be those who never actually worked for the firm rather than current employees. Do firms generally try not to rescind offers once they have made them? Do they really sacrifice current employees rather than people scheduled to graduate in a few months? It seems to me that since the crazy layoffs happened while 09 grads were still in schools and shortly after they graduated then they would get hit the worst.

I get that many 10 grads would get summer position while all of this happened, but does that mean they will be locked out of jobs completely when they graduate? And for 11 grads, they did OCI this fall which was after the bloodletting so why would they be worse or as bad as 10 or 09?

Again, I am a 0L so I am not completely knowledgeable about all of this, so try not to be too harsh.

3rd year associates make more than 1st years yet do not produce much more $$ in terms of hourly billable rate. Further, 1st years keep the pipeline flowing. Schools are more likely to protect their newly minted JD's than those 3 years removed for PR reasons.

Finally the 3rd or 4th years that got axed first were perceived not to be "biglaw material." whether that is true or not (most likely not b/c women and minorities disproportionately got the axe) firms seem more willing to take a chance on a 1st year than someone who has been there for 3-4 years.

OK that makes a little more sense to me if that's true. I was thinking in terms of what's good for the business economically in the short run. Usually seasoned employees are much proftable than new ones. Noobs make a lot of mistake and have to be trained and everything.

[jawsthegreat]

We need some CCN trolls in here to explain these numbers, and somehow explain to us how these schools are objectively better than MVPB. I haven't done a good enough job in their place.

[rayiner]

1) A lot of firm structure is built around having a pipeline of associates and a certain attrition rate at every step. Just up and not hiring anyone in order to keep more senior associates is problematic. A big problem with firms is that a lot of associates who would voluntarily jump to other jobs (in-house, etc) weren't because of the economy. If the firm ceased hiring in order to preserve those jobs, then when the economy recovered and those associates left anyway, the firm would face a deficit.

2) Firms had already spent the money to recruit C/O 2009 and to a lesser extent C/O 2010. It made a lot more sense to defer those associates then to drop them and spend another $30k on C/O 2011 summers.

[Kohinoor]

D
E
L
I
C
I
O
S
O

[TigerBeer]

It's actually somewhat benevolent of firms to lay off associates with 2-3 years of experience rather than withdrawing offers to 3Ls. With 2 years of biglaw experience the associate will at least stand a decent chance in the job market, and they've earned enough money to pay off a significant portion of their debt. A 3L graduating with no job, no experience, and huge debt is in a far worse situation. Plus that 3L probably passed up a different job to work with the biglaw firm.

[RVP11]

It's actually somewhat benevolent of firms to lay off associates with 2-3 years of experience rather than withdrawing offers to 3Ls. With 2 years of biglaw experience the associate will at least stand a decent chance in the job market, and they've earned enough money to pay off a significant portion of their debt. A 3L graduating with no job, no experience, and huge debt is in a far worse situation. Plus that 3L probably passed up a different job to work with the biglaw firm.

Can there be benevolence where there is no benevolent motive?

The vast majority do what's best for them and their PPP tomorrow and next year. They don't really care what happens to those they lay off.

And if you unleash a ton of mid-level associates on a terrible economy simultaneously? They might as well be graduating 3Ls, at that point.

[TigerBeer]

It's actually somewhat benevolent of firms to lay off associates with 2-3 years of experience rather than withdrawing offers to 3Ls. With 2 years of biglaw experience the associate will at least stand a decent chance in the job market, and they've earned enough money to pay off a significant portion of their debt. A 3L graduating with no job, no experience, and huge debt is in a far worse situation. Plus that 3L probably passed up a different job to work with the biglaw firm.

Can there be benevolence where there is no benevolent motive?

The vast majority do what's best for them and their PPP tomorrow and next year. They don't really care what happens to those they lay off.

And if you unleash a ton of mid-level associates on a terrible economy simultaneously? They might as well be graduating 3Ls, at that point.

Benevolent probably isn't the right word. But it does feel more fair to me, even if it still sucks.

[thickfreakness]

HYS-CC-NMVPBDNCV--------GTTTown

I'm Observationalist's new Vandy troll in training.

[swc65]

2007/2008 compared

it seems weird that CLS increased the number of JDs by more than 10% between C/O 08 and C/O 09. I know there are fluctuations year to year, but that seems a bit high.

I searched for the number fo 09 grads but couldn't find it. Anyone else know?

[09042014]

HYS-CC-NMVPBDNCV--------GTTTown

I'm Observationalist's new Vandy troll in training.

HYS CC NMVPBDNC GVUU

[spritecan]

can someone post a screenshot of the chart? i'm at work right now and for some reason, none of the charts are popping up.

gracias

--ImageRemoved--
--ImageRemoved--

Why is Berkeley's placement is so low if it doesn't place into NYC? Did the CA markets significantly contract too?

[TTT-LS]

.

[270910]

Why is Berkeley's placement is so low if it doesn't place into NYC? Did the CA markets significantly contract too?

How dare you even suggest that!? Cali economy is great, legal sector even better. CA to 190!

[spritecan]

Why is Berkeley's placement is so low if it doesn't place into NYC? Did the CA markets significantly contract too?

How dare you even suggest that!? Cali economy is great, legal sector even better. CA to 190!

You're right. Our economy is ranked top 5!
(For unemployment.)

[crackberry]

HYS CC NMVPBDNC GVUU

Wow. Rancid anti UT trolling.

[twistedwrister]

Here is the hiring data sorted by percent change 2008 to 2009.

School % Change
Penn -25.8
Cornell -20.5
Chicago -16.4
Columbia -15.8
NYU -15.7
Berkeley -14.8
Fordham -14.3
Duke -12.5
George Washington -11.9
Boston University -11.4
Boston College -11.2
Harvard -9.9
Northwestern -7.4
UCLA -6.7
USC -6.3
Georgetown -6.2
Virginia -5.6
Michigan -4.3
Stanford -2.2
Vanderbilt +2.5

My two cents (from a 2L at NYU): In the boom times, firms were willing to reach farther down into the CCN classes when hiring, hence CCN's 65-70% placement in the NLJ250 in 2007 and 2008. Firms were not willing to go as deep into the class when hiring from T7-14.

When times got tough, firms cut back hiring. The question was (and is) where to cut. Based on the data, firms preferred to hire a median to slightly-above-median student from, say, Michigan or Virginia, over a below median student from CCN. Essentially, firms just stopped reaching as far down into the CCN classes. This makes a lot of sense to me. Even though I love NYU, I would probably hire an above median kid from MVP over a below median kid from NYU.

On another note, the numbers above show that CC were hit just as hard as, if not harder than, N by this downturn, so all the "OMG CC >>>> N!" stuff on this board is a bit overblown.

[miamiman]

What is happening with 2l oci at nyu?