NY GOES TO 180k! IT HAPPENED!!!! (CovingTTTon does a 180! Holder wept.) Forum

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

responding to some of the 'quality of associates' discussion above: fewer 'high quality' associates are likely to be more tolerable as I think we're going to see one of two things: 1. commoditization of work that allows for lower skill (and thus lower paid) workers to take on more work traditionally done by associates (for example, Doc review was once primarily in the hands of associates, then first level review shifted to contract attorneys, and now you're seeing doc review management and other higher level functions being outsourced to contract attorneys and consulting firms) or 2. a reduction in the need or utilization of junior associates (automation rather than just commoditization of basic tasks - we're seeing this in doc review for lit and in contract analysis in transactional stuff). Number 2 might become even more likely if we shift away from the billable hour model - it encourages efficiencies which might drive down raw number of man hours needed in Big Law work.

tl;dr just lol if you think there's ever going to be a shortage of associates or that quality of associates will affect base rate comp.

I think a lot about how much of a typical associate's workload predictive coding/Law Watson could eliminate in 20 years.

That would imply that the average quality of associates would increase, if you only have them for higher-order thinking/writing and you no longer need closing checklist monkeys. So maybe eventually higher-paid associates, but far fewer of them.

We might be able to leave the Biglaw disaster just in time. Next generation could be fucked even more than we were.

[UnicornHunter]

When I said NODEBT might cause me to have fewer regrets, I'm talking about $100,000+, not $30k

And its not the amount of the raise itself in monetary terms that matters so much, its the fact that salaries are completely stagnant over nearly a decade with essentially no hope of upward momentum that depresses me. Even if it was just NY to 170 in 2016 that would have been huge for my outlook on the profession I'm about to enter.

You must have been aware of this going in to law school, you don't strike me as someone who didn't do their homework about the decision?

E. But yeah, big nodebt is p. cool. GI Bill to 200k.

[BigZuck]

responding to some of the 'quality of associates' discussion above: fewer 'high quality' associates are likely to be more tolerable as I think we're going to see one of two things: 1. commoditization of work that allows for lower skill (and thus lower paid) workers to take on more work traditionally done by associates (for example, Doc review was once primarily in the hands of associates, then first level review shifted to contract attorneys, and now you're seeing doc review management and other higher level functions being outsourced to contract attorneys and consulting firms) or 2. a reduction in the need or utilization of junior associates (automation rather than just commoditization of basic tasks - we're seeing this in doc review for lit and in contract analysis in transactional stuff). Number 2 might become even more likely if we shift away from the billable hour model - it encourages efficiencies which might drive down raw number of man hours needed in Big Law work.

tl;dr just lol if you think there's ever going to be a shortage of associates or that quality of associates will affect base rate comp.

I think a lot about how much of a typical associate's workload predictive coding/Law Watson could eliminate in 20 years.

That would imply that the average quality of associates would increase, if you only have them for higher-order thinking/writing and you no longer need closing checklist monkeys. So maybe eventually higher-paid associates, but far fewer of them.

We might be able to leave the Biglaw disaster just in time. Next generation could be fucked even more than we were.

I mean, I've been an SA too but I'm not going to pretend that I know what it's like to do work that young associates do

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

I don't have any idea, I'm just saying that elimination of anything "rote" (everything that could be automated) changes the nature of an associate's job at least a little. I don't think anyone can predict the full extent of an associate's duties in ten or fifteen years.

[Glasseyes]

responding to some of the 'quality of associates' discussion above: fewer 'high quality' associates are likely to be more tolerable as I think we're going to see one of two things: 1. commoditization of work that allows for lower skill (and thus lower paid) workers to take on more work traditionally done by associates (for example, Doc review was once primarily in the hands of associates, then first level review shifted to contract attorneys, and now you're seeing doc review management and other higher level functions being outsourced to contract attorneys and consulting firms) or 2. a reduction in the need or utilization of junior associates (automation rather than just commoditization of basic tasks - we're seeing this in doc review for lit and in contract analysis in transactional stuff). Number 2 might become even more likely if we shift away from the billable hour model - it encourages efficiencies which might drive down raw number of man hours needed in Big Law work.

tl;dr just lol if you think there's ever going to be a shortage of associates or that quality of associates will affect base rate comp.

I think a lot about how much of a typical associate's workload predictive coding/Law Watson could eliminate in 20 years.

That would imply that the average quality of associates would increase, if you only have them for higher-order thinking/writing and you no longer need closing checklist monkeys. So maybe eventually higher-paid associates, but far fewer of them.

We might be able to leave the Biglaw disaster just in time. Next generation could be fucked even more than we were.

My PR class has to read The Future of the Professions: How Technology Will Transform the Work of Human Experts next semester, which apparently has a lengthy discussion of Watson replacing all of us in the near future. I'll report back and deliver the bad news after we finish it.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Future-Profes ... 0198713398

[mvp99]

responding to some of the 'quality of associates' discussion above: fewer 'high quality' associates are likely to be more tolerable as I think we're going to see one of two things: 1. commoditization of work that allows for lower skill (and thus lower paid) workers to take on more work traditionally done by associates (for example, Doc review was once primarily in the hands of associates, then first level review shifted to contract attorneys, and now you're seeing doc review management and other higher level functions being outsourced to contract attorneys and consulting firms) or 2. a reduction in the need or utilization of junior associates (automation rather than just commoditization of basic tasks - we're seeing this in doc review for lit and in contract analysis in transactional stuff). Number 2 might become even more likely if we shift away from the billable hour model - it encourages efficiencies which might drive down raw number of man hours needed in Big Law work.

tl;dr just lol if you think there's ever going to be a shortage of associates or that quality of associates will affect base rate comp.

I think a lot about how much of a typical associate's workload predictive coding/Law Watson could eliminate in 20 years.

That would imply that the average quality of associates would increase, if you only have them for higher-order thinking/writing and you no longer need closing checklist monkeys. So maybe eventually higher-paid associates, but far fewer of them.

We might be able to leave the Biglaw disaster just in time. Next generation could be fucked even more than we were.

My PR class has to read The Future of the Professions: How Technology Will Transform the Work of Human Experts next semester, which apparently has a lengthy discussion of Watson replacing all of us in the near future. I'll report back and deliver the bad news after we finish it.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Future-Profes ... 0198713398

Interesting. Most of the articles I've read online calculating the likelihood of lawyers being replaced by computers say it's less than 5%.http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/ ... -a-machine

[BigZuck]

I fully believe humanity will be destroyed by bots, Terminator style. So no arguments there. And to that same end, technology is advancing all the time. But hasn't the "Big law is dead, go home kids" thing been a meme for like 30 years? I dunno, I think some boomer told me that once.

[Desert Fox]

Law Watson is a problem for Lexis and west law not associates. Same for predictive coding and doc review contractors.

All that means for associates is slight better research and somewhat less first level doc review.

You need Better than general ai (ai that can totally replace average human) because even average folks such at legal research, if you want to replace associates.

And by that time virtually all office jobs will be donezo.

This isn't happening for while.

[TLSModBot]

It's less the tech and more the downward pressure on billing that I worry about. It seems largely overblown now but I'm more willing to bet that clients will fight to achieve efficiencies than just give up in the long run.

[TLSModBot]

Also I wonder if courts will take the changes in the FRPC as an opportunity to simplify/more meaningfully limit discovery and suck billions out of that market. Probably not but who knows.

[El Pollito]

It's less the tech and more the downward pressure on billing that I worry about. It seems largely overblown now but I'm more willing to bet that clients will fight to achieve efficiencies than just give up in the long run.

It's not overblown if you work on the west coast. holy fuck clients are insanely cheap out here.

[TLSModBot]

It's less the tech and more the downward pressure on billing that I worry about. It seems largely overblown now but I'm more willing to bet that clients will fight to achieve efficiencies than just give up in the long run.

It's not overblown if you work on the west coast. holy fuck clients are insanely cheap out here.

DISRUPTING the traditional legal economy by refusing to pay their bills

[seespotrun]

Changing the world.

WSGR to 145

[ballouttacontrol]

until people are pissed off enough to do something

what are they gonna do

not take jobs?

1. Stop going to law school at the outset.
2. Take jobs in markets other than NYC.
3. Take alternative jobs. In-house salaries have continued to rise despite the lack of increases in firm salaries and many corporations have started in-house training programs in recent years that weren't available in the past.

Wait are we back to joking around in this thread or is this actually serious?

this individual appears to be serious and is likely a 0L with no actual comprehension of how to get law jerbs

Why? I think all 3 points are true and I'm not an OL. I chose never to interview in nyc b/c fuck that the money is garbage until you get to senior levels, as compared to basically every other market except the bay area

In house hiring and training new lawyers themselves also seems to be on the rise

[El Pollito]

It's less the tech and more the downward pressure on billing that I worry about. It seems largely overblown now but I'm more willing to bet that clients will fight to achieve efficiencies than just give up in the long run.

It's not overblown if you work on the west coast. holy fuck clients are insanely cheap out here.

DISRUPTING the traditional legal economy by refusing to pay their bills

*pays guy they've never met off of skype 300K to sell their fake products in Dubai*

*disputes 2K legal bill*

[Anonymous User]

It's less the tech and more the downward pressure on billing that I worry about. It seems largely overblown now but I'm more willing to bet that clients will fight to achieve efficiencies than just give up in the long run.

It's not overblown if you work on the west coast. holy fuck clients are insanely cheap out here.

DISRUPTING the traditional legal economy by refusing to pay their bills

*pays guy they've never met off of skype 300K to sell their fake products in Dubai*

*disputes 2K legal bill*

*time spent reviewing and disputing the bill = 2k

[Big Shrimpin]

ive been billing 80 hrs/week since early december so haven't been on bort in a while

what i miss?

[TLSModBot]

ive been billing 80 hrs/week since early december so haven't been on bort in a while

what i miss?

We gave up on 190k and are going all in on Powerball. Better odds.

[Anonymous User]

ive been billing 80 hrs/week since early december so haven't been on bort in a while

what i miss?

We gave up on 190k and are going all in on Powerball. Better odds.

+1000

[mt2165]

Accidental anon

[UnicornHunter]

NY to no jobs?

[Johann]

smaug called it. fuck.

[UnicornHunter]

smaug called it. fuck.

I'm very comfortable blaming the recession on Smaug.

[WestOfTheRest]

The decline in bar-exam scores and bar-pass rates is likely to continue through 2018, given the LSAT profiles of current law students, according to a law professor who has examined the data.

However, a turnaround could be ahead for those graduating after that date, says Jerry Organ, a law professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis. Organ looks at the latest LSAT data and draws his conclusions in a post at the Legal Whiteboard. Above the Law notes his findings.

The percentage of entering law students with LSAT scores at or above 160 was 32 percent in 2015, down from 33.5 percent in 2014, 33.4 percent in 2013, 36.3 percent in 2012, 39 percent in 2011 and 40.8 percent in 2010.

Meanwhile, the percentage of entering students with scores below 150 was 23.8 percent in 2015, up from 23 percent in 2014, 22.5 percent in 2013, 19.3 percent in 2012, 15.7 percent in 2011 and 14.2 percent in 2010.

Those figures show that current law grads who will graduate through 2018 had lower LSAT profiles as entering law students than the previous two graduating classes, which have already posted lower median scores on the multistate bar exam and lower bar-pass rates.

Organ anticipates a continued decline through 2018 in median bar exam scores and bar-pass rates—unless there are increases in attrition, significant improvement in academic support programs, or improved bar prep efforts by graduates.

On a positive note, Organ notes that the number and quality of law school applicants, as measured by LSAT and undergraduate grades, appear to be on the upswing this year. “If these trends continue,” he writes, “the fall 2015 entering class may represent the ‘bottom,’ ” he writes.

Another reason to increase salaries over the long term. This article also fails to mention the decline in applicants, which is probably amplifying this issue.

Not necessarily a reason to raise salaries today, but it does create some pressure.

[smaug]

No it doesn't.