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

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

do you think you can do the work? because statistically you are the dumb people that biglaw would be trying to hire around.

until you work in biglaw, you won't understand how being a good lawyer and delivering a good service is not something needed to be really smart for. everyone that sets foot in a biglaw firm for the most part has the brain power to excel and become a partner. its the other factors that weed people out.

But it's not just intelligence. It's work ethic, writing ability, the general state of having your shit together, etc. that are desirable traits more commonly found in top students from top schools.

Maybe the incoming crops that are worse are still acceptable students for now. But eventually, there could be a decline profound enough that it really matters. If the average LSAT of an incoming associate is 169 instead of 170, no one is gonna lose sleep. If it became 150? The business model would probably change.

As I've said before, I think it'll be years before these differences turn into meaningful change. But I'm also not going to say they're entirely irrelevant.

[Tiago Splitter]

If the average LSAT of an incoming associate is 169 instead of 170, no one is gonna lose sleep. If it became 150? The business model would probably change.

Yeah but that's well beyond NY to 190. If law students are universally idiots NY to 190 isn't gonna change anything.

I do think the firms' concern about hiring staff attorneys that aren't useless suggests you're on to something.

[Johann]

do you think you can do the work? because statistically you are the dumb people that biglaw would be trying to hire around.

until you work in biglaw, you won't understand how being a good lawyer and delivering a good service is not something needed to be really smart for. everyone that sets foot in a biglaw firm for the most part has the brain power to excel and become a partner. its the other factors that weed people out.

do you really think this is true? at least in lit, while it's not rocket science, it does seem like some people are just better writers than others

do you really think settlements are struck because of something someone wrote? its all about the facts of the case, circumstances surrounding the company, and realities of the risk of litigation, which can be needled/moved by trial experience. writing is a binary yes/no do you convey what you need to, and i have yet to see anything in practice written that is other than fine.

i dont want to take it here because this is getting down to the 1 in 10,000s rather than the other 9,999, but there's really no way of knowing who the best trial litigator will be based on resume either. these are some of the biggest names: http://www.chambersandpartners.com/1278 ... torial/5/1. sure there are some from harvard and yale, but there are just as many from schools that are thought of as traditionally awful on here: illinois, penn state, loyola, etc. if you think the lsat and an undergrad gpa can accurately capture courtroom presence, thinking on your toes, shredding someone on cross, then no.

but for the most part, litigation is moving a case through discovery which anyone can do and then assessing the risks based on the information learned in discovery and agreeing to something based on those risks. its kindergarteners trading lunches.

[smaug]

i disagree with you here johann

clients switch firms midstream because you can take a good set of facts and still manage to fuck up a case, and that happens more often than you'd think...

[sublime]

..

[Johann]

that's kind of why i went where i did which shows that's theres no correlation between 170 lsats vs 165 lasts on being a good trial lawyer. whether a firm goes with boies or a boutique led by an illinois grad and boston grad really does nothing for the points they are trying to make.

of course, if lawyers are pumping out 160 lsats, firms might change something to get smarter people in the door, but arguing that there aren't enough qualified lawyers when we have more law grads than ever and medians have changed by 1 point if that is insanity.

[TLSModBot]

The funny thing is that, historically, we've sort of been here before. In the 1960's, there weren't enough new lawyers to handle the explosion in the corporate world/regulatory state and all the work that went with it. Before that, being a lawyer was not a way to get rich - many of the top partners were making little more than what junior associates make now. There began a systematic campaign of aggressive law firm expansion to attract actually talented people in droves which entailed, yes, higher salaries. With that increasing demand, firms could charge higher rates to pay for the higher salaries. Wild profits ensued.

The difference between then and now is that there was a huge market demand for lawyers pushing growth in numbers and salaries (and partners, OF COURSE, got the lion's share of that revenue growth). This time we have stagnating demand and a plethora of law graduates, just maybe not the ones that are needed for the increasingly specialized high-effort work. (Johann: there is a lot of monkey work in law but it's being sucked out of the industry - how much doc review and due diligence shit has been automated, farmed out to contract attorneys, or streamlined by consultants? Enough to seriously ruin Biglaw's day).

So we have a need for top talent lawyers, increasing pressure for the best and brightest not to go given opportunities elsewhere (and transparency in law schools / law firms that help make informed choices). Will partners reverse the course of 40 years and bite the bullet to even out pay to encourage higher quality associates to walk in the door? I'm skeptical - has any other industry done the same, or are CEO salaries relative to the rest of the grunts still rising at alarming rates?

[kcdc1]

Yea but caring about good grades doesn't necessarily correlate with top talent. Really smart people are avoiding law school in increasing numbers, but law schools will still produce Order of the Coifs, Kents and Stones in an age of inflated grades. Law firms can sell these profiles to their clients and clients will still eat it up, even if "the quality has declined". How would firms measure that anyway?

ding ding ding

The way firms (and clients) measure this is when the attorney gets the wrong answer and they lose the case. There are aspects of legal practice that a trained monkey could do (ex making binders) but in a complicated case the quality of the person doing legal research/drafting makes a huge difference.

There's also something to be said for the competent junior who gets shit closer-to-right the first time, and allows the more senior attorney to get home for dinner more often. Unlikely to show up in case dispositions (because seniors will redo the work until it's good), but still valuable.

[juzam_djinn]

do you think you can do the work? because statistically you are the dumb people that biglaw would be trying to hire around.

until you work in biglaw, you won't understand how being a good lawyer and delivering a good service is not something needed to be really smart for. everyone that sets foot in a biglaw firm for the most part has the brain power to excel and become a partner. its the other factors that weed people out.

do you really think this is true? at least in lit, while it's not rocket science, it does seem like some people are just better writers than others

do you really think settlements are struck because of something someone wrote? its all about the facts of the case, circumstances surrounding the company, and realities of the risk of litigation, which can be needled/moved by trial experience. writing is a binary yes/no do you convey what you need to, and i have yet to see anything in practice written that is other than fine.

i dont want to take it here because this is getting down to the 1 in 10,000s rather than the other 9,999, but there's really no way of knowing who the best trial litigator will be based on resume either. these are some of the biggest names: http://www.chambersandpartners.com/1278 ... torial/5/1. sure there are some from harvard and yale, but there are just as many from schools that are thought of as traditionally awful on here: illinois, penn state, loyola, etc. if you think the lsat and an undergrad gpa can accurately capture courtroom presence, thinking on your toes, shredding someone on cross, then no.

but for the most part, litigation is moving a case through discovery which anyone can do and then assessing the risks based on the information learned in discovery and agreeing to something based on those risks. its kindergarteners trading lunches.

i agree that the outcome of the case is largely determined by the facts, but rising through the ranks at a law firm as a litigator seems to require more than just getting lucky and finding the right set of facts...it would appear that, all else being equal, people who are intelligent and write well are in a better position to become partner

I realize that saying "all else being equal" sounds like I'm discounting just how much the other factors matter in biglaw success; I'm not discounting it, just saying that ability does matter to an extent

[snagglepuss]

My firm has decided to tether first-year salary to the individual associate's LSAT score and school rank.

Our offer letters listed the salary calculation as (LSAT * 1,000) + ([15 - USNWR Ranking]*1,000) = ANNUAL SALARY.

E.g., Student with a 176 LSAT at NYU makes $185,000 while a student with 162 at Fordham makes $140,000.

I've heard the dude from Pace has to actually pay the firm to work there this summer!

[TheoO]

My firm has decided to tether first-year salary to the individual associate's LSAT score and school rank.

Our offer letters listed the salary calculation as (LSAT * 1,000) + ([15 - USNWR Ranking]*1,000) = ANNUAL SALARY.

E.g., Student with a 176 LSAT at NYU makes $185,000 while a student with 162 at Fordham makes $140,000.

I've heard the dude from Pace has to actually pay the firm to work there this summer!

Do they not figure in 1L grades?

[smaug]

My firm has decided to tether first-year salary to the individual associate's LSAT score and school rank.

Our offer letters listed the salary calculation as (LSAT * 1,000) + ([15 - USNWR Ranking]*1,000) = ANNUAL SALARY.

E.g., Student with a 176 LSAT at NYU makes $185,000 while a student with 162 at Fordham makes $140,000.

I've heard the dude from Pace has to actually pay the firm to work there this summer!

xo did it better

[Johann]

you keep thinking writing matters worth a shit instead of cross exam. why would someone that scores better on a reading and MC test be better on cross (a listening and oral skill)? and, you're wrong but ill humor you, why would someone that does better on a test with no writing be a better writer?

and capitol, just because clients bitched about doc review costs and its now farmed out for the most part doesn't mean that making privilege logs isnt easy as shit work or managing a deal by forwarding some emails around.
if 95% of being a lawyer is easy monkey work, and 20% pure bitchwork is removed, you've still got the scenario where 75/80 or 94% of the work is monkey do and the shit always flows downhill, so juniors/midlevels are exclusively doing very easy work still.

[Br3v]

Out of curiously, why do you keep talking about trial? We are talking about biglaw

[Johann]

I still got money on law school to 400k! before NYC to 190k

from page 4 itt. ucla or columbia at 400k yet?

[smaug]

you keep thinking writing matters worth a shit instead of cross exam. why would someone that scores better on a reading and MC test be better on cross (a listening and oral skill)? and, you're wrong but ill humor you, why would someone that does better on a test with no writing be a better writer?

and capitol, just because clients bitched about doc review costs and its now farmed out for the most part doesn't mean that making privilege logs isnt easy as shit work or managing a deal by forwarding some emails around.
if 95% of being a lawyer is easy monkey work, and 20% pure bitchwork is removed, you've still got the scenario where 75/80 or 94% of the work is monkey do and the shit always flows downhill, so juniors/midlevels are exclusively doing very easy work still.

why do clients switch firms midstream?

[Johann]

you keep thinking writing matters worth a shit instead of cross exam. why would someone that scores better on a reading and MC test be better on cross (a listening and oral skill)? and, you're wrong but ill humor you, why would someone that does better on a test with no writing be a better writer?

and capitol, just because clients bitched about doc review costs and its now farmed out for the most part doesn't mean that making privilege logs isnt easy as shit work or managing a deal by forwarding some emails around.
if 95% of being a lawyer is easy monkey work, and 20% pure bitchwork is removed, you've still got the scenario where 75/80 or 94% of the work is monkey do and the shit always flows downhill, so juniors/midlevels are exclusively doing very easy work still.

why do clients switch firms midstream?

partner cranks out a terrible memo and client gets scared for upcoming trial. obviously to get a better cross examiner if trial is looking imminent/drive a better negotiation bargain.

[smaug]

you keep thinking writing matters worth a shit instead of cross exam. why would someone that scores better on a reading and MC test be better on cross (a listening and oral skill)? and, you're wrong but ill humor you, why would someone that does better on a test with no writing be a better writer?

and capitol, just because clients bitched about doc review costs and its now farmed out for the most part doesn't mean that making privilege logs isnt easy as shit work or managing a deal by forwarding some emails around.
if 95% of being a lawyer is easy monkey work, and 20% pure bitchwork is removed, you've still got the scenario where 75/80 or 94% of the work is monkey do and the shit always flows downhill, so juniors/midlevels are exclusively doing very easy work still.

why do clients switch firms midstream?

partner cranks out a terrible memo and client gets scared for upcoming trial. obviously to get a better cross examiner if trial is looking imminent/drive a better negotiation bargain.

partners write memos?

[Johann]

you keep thinking writing matters worth a shit instead of cross exam. why would someone that scores better on a reading and MC test be better on cross (a listening and oral skill)? and, you're wrong but ill humor you, why would someone that does better on a test with no writing be a better writer?

and capitol, just because clients bitched about doc review costs and its now farmed out for the most part doesn't mean that making privilege logs isnt easy as shit work or managing a deal by forwarding some emails around.
if 95% of being a lawyer is easy monkey work, and 20% pure bitchwork is removed, you've still got the scenario where 75/80 or 94% of the work is monkey do and the shit always flows downhill, so juniors/midlevels are exclusively doing very easy work still.

why do clients switch firms midstream?

partner cranks out a terrible memo and client gets scared for upcoming trial. obviously to get a better cross examiner if trial is looking imminent/drive a better negotiation bargain.

partners write memos?

non equity ones sometimes maybe.

[Anonymous User]

do you really think settlements are struck because of something someone wrote?

Having worked in in Chambers (anon for this reason), hell yes it matters a fuck ton. The docket is filled with sloppy pleadings, MSJs, and MTDs.

I've seen a failure to plead a statutory exception (even though one was evident) result in denial of a motion to remand and result in a six figure decrease in settlement amount. Someone who forgets to plead res ipsa as an alternate theory in a workplace injury case. I've seen lazy work fuck up a Class Action Cert and witnessed cases go to trial because of sloppy writing / motions in earlier stages. Note: all of these cases have been resolved and are public record.

More than skill, it is fanatical attention to detail.

The kid who was disciplined enough to figure out the minutiae of the LSAT, who grasped doctrine enough to outpace his/her peers during 1L, who still had the motivation to gun as an editor on LR and spot check hyphens, will, on the average, be the 1st/2nd/3rd year who is vigilant enough to catch errors in his firm's procedural posture and catch mistakes in the opposition's.

A kid like that generally worth his/her weight in gold to a partner. Who gives a fuck about cross examination when you have AspLord McProceduralAccolyte ensuring that you never have to deal with it.

Yes, facts weigh heavily in the settlements. Yes, when you get to the unicorn trial by jury, writing goes out the window.

But, by god, the sloppy "monkeys" and the gunners who catch them are paramount.

That being said I hated litigation and switched to transactional .

[Mr. Peanutbutter]

Speaking of attention to detail, can we stop bumping this except for "PW TO 190"?

Thanks

[Johann]

Speaking of attention to detail, can we stop bumping this except for "PW TO 190"?

Thanks

the thread dies then; thats how they win.

[Mr. Peanutbutter]

Just do surprise mid-year bonuses.

[Johann]

Just do surprise mid-year bonuses.

jesus man, trigger warning. this also used to be much more regular in biglaw. nonexistent today pretty much.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Who gives a fuck about cross examination when you have AspLord McProceduralAccolyte ensuring that you never have to deal with it.

Mods, anon is trying to out me, please edit.