AM LAW: SUMMER ASSOCIATE HIRING DOWN 44 PERCENT OVER 2009 Forum

[270910]

Am Law: NY TO 190

http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdail ... r2011.html

[2009 Prospective]

Am Law: NY TO 190

http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdail ... r2011.html

edit for RC fail

[Sell Manilla]

Generally speaking, isn't it like 30,000 JD jobs to be filled per year right now with about 45,000 new JDs per year? I'm positive I've run across that statistic on TLS and it's backed up by some reliable source. I know that doesn't tell you much sell manila, but I think that speaks to a snapshot of the macro legal situation.

I have also heard that statistic, but I think it is 1) outdated and 2) not very helpful. Of those 30,000 legal jobs, how many of those are just downright atrocious jobs?

And does "legal jobs" include support staff type of jobs, ie paralegal?

That's intense competition. & as romo puts it, when is this alleged statistic from, & how much may it have changed? Ideally we could know the number of non-doc review jobs.

RPK, we can only hope that "JD" jobs does not include paralegals, as they do not necessarily need a JD, although I'm sure there are plenty of JD grads working as paralegals right now

Anyone else heard of this statistic with a link?

[Matthies]

Good post. Which is all true, and good numbers to keep in the back of your mind, so long as you also realize that only the largest employers tend to do OCI (and for the most part only large employers pay to be part of NALP or report to them), and that most lawyers, some 70% says the ABA work in firms of less than 50 total employees. The info in the report (which again I think is very good to understand in context) takes into account only on campus/SA pregraduation hiring, which is not how most law students actually end up getting jobs. hence the problem with these numbers being taken out of context is that prospective, and even current law students, seem them as the total pie, when they are actually just a small slice and most won't even be in the position to be affected by them. Yet they will fixate on them 100%.

But this is wrong at so many levels. First, it assumes that smaller employers were not hurt to the same degree, or were not hurt *more* so, than larger firms. Second, it ignores the trickle-down effect; that is, better students will start scooping to lower jobs, on down the line, putting the strain at the bottom of the class, where "most" of the students will most definitely "be affected by them." If a guy on law review can't get a Vault 100 job, he's going to look down the line; and that secondary journal guy who two years ago might've gotten that 40-person firm job will be left out in the cold. And on and on and on.

You're acting like the fact that the top firms at OCI, where what used to be the most stable, most lucrative, and most desirable positions, are dramatically cutting back will just result in no effect on the rest of the class. In reality, it has a massive effect.

But in fact this is not hapening. What you all seem to not underatdn is that many people are without jobs becuase they don't know how to find them. They don't automticlly shift down and get jobs they never knew how to get before. This trickel down shit where every little firm is flooded with Yale apps ain't happening folks in most parts of the country. Yes large markets are seeing this more, but those are the same markets that have allawys been targeted.

[bwv812]

.

[Sell Manilla]

Ah, I ignored your most recent post after I saw that it opened with a reprimand. My bad (note: I'm actually being serious).