Incoming Associates Getting Deferred Forum

[HarrisonK]

NY is a UBE jurisdiction. If there aren't enough seats in NY for the people registered to take the NY bar, NY should coordinate with other UBE jurisdictions (NJ, CT, MA, etc) to allow NY's overflow to sit in other jurisdictions for purposes of taking the exam. The exams could be sent to the NY board of law examiners (or whatever it's called in NY) for grading and admission purposes. Presumably NY has already processed all the applications. Thus, it seems like the sole issue is one of physical space. The above recommendation makes sense.

That seems like the best result. Even though it'll be an added burden for certain people to get to NJ or MA or any other UBE jurisdiction, that burden seems to be greatly outweighed by the benefits of taking the bar on time.

[mtf612]

Email to students last night from dean of Penn:

Dear Class of 2020 graduates who intend to take the NY Bar,

By now many of you are aware of the update issued a few hours ago by the NY Board of Law Examiners, giving preference for scarce Bar exam spots to the graduates of New York's fifteen in-state law schools at the expense of all others.

...

The order is misguided and quite possibly unlawful. It comes as a surprise to us, and to the deans at similarly situated top law schools outside of New York, with whom I have been in communication this evening. We plan to work collectively and individually in every way possible in the coming week to advocate against this decision. I am also meeting with our Law School board tomorrow at 9:00 am, and have alerted them about the order and that this will be our main agenda item. The Board includes several leaders at major NY firms to whom this also came as an unwelcome surprise, and they have let me know they will work with us to challenge this unfair rule.

While I understand the feeling that the order is "unfair," there aren't enough seats! Not everyone who wants to take the exam can sit--this whole situation is unfair! But it seems to me like prioritizing NY schools is the least unfair option.

Is Penn's argument really going to be that because they have more grads working at big NYC firms they should get priority over Brooklyn Law School? The optics for that are going to be horrible. Interested to hear if people have other solutions in mind that they think would be fairer.

Penn has nearly half of its graduates going to NY. The July 2019 bar had 2,981 applicants from NY ABA schools, 2,536 from ABA schools outside of NY, and 2,398 foreign-educated applicants. Roughly 2/3 of applicants are being screwed. While there are "not enough seats," the preferential treatment is going to create cascade effects on other UBE jurisdictions. Also, this announcement came on April 30. Many other UBE jurisdictions have imminent application deadlines, so now a bunch of us need to scramble to get an application ready - some states require character and fitness upfront (NY does not). Most states do not offer courtesy seating either, so now we will need to go through the entire admissions process in those states prior to transferring to NY. Moreover, NY has not even announced whether it will be waiving the UBE transfer fees for applicants who were planning on taking the NY exam but must now take the test in another state. Also, this situation causes problems for the hypothetical student from long island, who went to Columbia undergrad, but then went to HLS, and is now quarantining with family on long island. They would need to travel (and potentially bring the virus) to another state to take the exam.

Out of the ordinary problems call for out of the ordinary solutions.

NY could have followed Massachusetts/California and offered an online exam (either the UBE or something similar) if in-person testing was not practicable.

NY could have followed Utah and offered some sort of diploma-privilege "plus" system, given that ABA pass rate in NY is very high (86%).

NY could have forged a new path by administering the UBE at each of the NY ABA schools, and at ABA out of state schools where more than 1/4* of graduates were applying for NY. (Covering most, if not all, of the t14). The questions regarding proctoring an exam in Michigan / Pennsylvania / Virginia / etc. and having it scored in NY could certainly be answered between now and September.

These are just some ideas I'm spitballing. NY has had six weeks to figure it out. There has been a slow drip of information and very little compassion from the NY COA regarding the impact their decisionmaking has on career prospects for 2020 graduates

[FU2016]

While I understand the feeling that the order is "unfair," there aren't enough seats! Not everyone who wants to take the exam can sit--this whole situation is unfair! But it seems to me like prioritizing NY schools is the least unfair option.

Is Penn's argument really going to be that because they have more grads working at big NYC firms they should get priority over Brooklyn Law School? The optics for that are going to be horrible. Interested to hear if people have other solutions in mind that they think would be fairer.

I don't think their argument isn't that "they should get priority over Brooklyn Law School." No one is saying that out-of-state schools should get "priority." They're saying that in-state schools should not get priority.

[LHand1993]

While I understand the feeling that the order is "unfair," there aren't enough seats! Not everyone who wants to take the exam can sit--this whole situation is unfair! But it seems to me like prioritizing NY schools is the least unfair option.

Is Penn's argument really going to be that because they have more grads working at big NYC firms they should get priority over Brooklyn Law School? The optics for that are going to be horrible. Interested to hear if people have other solutions in mind that they think would be fairer.

I don't think their argument isn't that "they should get priority over Brooklyn Law School." No one is saying that out-of-state schools should get "priority." They're saying that in-state schools should not get priority.

Given the current set up (which there are valid criticisms of), some students have to be prioritized over others. Is their argument going to be that the prioritization should be random? Seems like not giving NY schools (who almost certainly agreed to allow the board to use their space with that caveat) is more unfair than just having it randomized or a first-come-first-serve basis.

[FU2016]

Seems like not giving NY schools (who almost certainly agreed to allow the board to use their space with that caveat) is more unfair than just having it randomized or a first-come-first-serve basis.

Sounds close to a quid pro quo. That doesn't sound fair either. The entire thing is going to produce chaos and make things unfair. I don't see how it is less unfair to draw an arbitrary line at the border. Isn't the easiest way to achieve the fairness you're longing for to put everyone on an even playing field to the extent that's possible? That would mean putting all applicants into the pool and letting it randomize.

[LHand1993]

Seems like not giving NY schools (who almost certainly agreed to allow the board to use their space with that caveat) is more unfair than just having it randomized or a first-come-first-serve basis.

Sounds close to a quid pro quo. That doesn't sound fair either. The entire thing is going to produce chaos and make things unfair. I don't see how it is less unfair to draw an arbitrary line at the border. Isn't the easiest way to achieve the fairness you're longing for to put everyone on an even playing field to the extent that's possible? That would mean putting all applicants into the pool and letting it randomize.

If you attended a NY school, it sounds completely absurd to me that an out-of-state applicant would be able to sit before you. That's just my opinion though.

The Penn email also reeks of T14 entitlement to me (full disclosure, I attend one). The reference to "other top law schools" makes it look to me like this is really a dig at the lower-ranked schools in NY that will have priority over every T14 school that isn't NYU or CLS. Again, this is just my opinion.

[basketofbread]

Whether priority or random selection is more fair, Penn and hopefully other schools are right to push back on this. The COA is being absolutely fucking dense with everything it’s done lately. They couldn’t have mandated an online option? They couldn’t have announced additional September dates in sequential weeks? The idea that there aren’t enough seats... yeah okay... why exactly do they have to use law schools alone? They couldn’t seek to use CUNY facilities?

They need to get it together and accommodate people rather than pretend like their hands are tied. And they need to be communicating faster. My school told us weeks ago that they had wrangled guaranteed spots for the September bar. No idea why COA couldn’t have announced its priority policy back then.

[FU2016]

If you attended a NY school, it sounds completely absurd to me that an out-of-state applicant would be able to sit before you. That's just my opinion though.

The Penn email also reeks of T14 entitlement to me (full disclosure, I attend one). The reference to "other top law schools" makes it look to me like this is really a dig at the lower-ranked schools in NY that will have priority over every T14 school that isn't NYU or CLS. Again, this is just my opinion.

Absolutely agree that it reeks of entitlement. But in a real sense, it's unlikely a coalition of Rutgers, UConn, and Quinnipiac is going to get the BOLE to change their minds. A coalition of the T14 schools has that certain heat to it that might make things shift a bit for the benefit of all of those who are getting screwed right now. And I doubt that the rule change would end up benefiting only the T14 schools. Imagine the NY BOLE says, "JK, if you went to one of the NY schools OR Yale, Harvard, Stanford, . . . you can apply now." Now that's a bad look.

[Anonymous User]

I'm in no rush to become an associate necessarily but I'd like some kind of guarantee that my job will exist at some point in the somewhat near future (aka, not 1.5-2 years from now). If I'm going to be deferred for years or rescinded, then I'm going to explore other opportunities. It's shitty for firms to take away our ability to find a way to pay our bills.

Also, I'd rather be a junior and be worried about being fired right now. Caveat: I have no student loans, I'm very frugal so I always have a lot in savings, and I have no family that depends on my income. As a fired junior I'd likely have $50k+ in the bank and at least something on my resume. As an incoming associate deferred indefinitely, I have like $5k and no idea if this will just end with me having a 2-year gap on my resume because I'm deferred over and over again and then rescinded.

[LBJ's Hair]

Penn doesn't have a right to go ahead of Brooklyn lmao. That's completely ridiculous. 50% of Penn grads will work in NY, sure. But like 95% of Brooklyn grads will work in NY, and many of those kids *actually need to be barred* (as DAs, at shitty law firms, to find work at shitty law firms), unlike the Penn kids, who are almost uniformly working at large law firms under the supervision of barred lawyers.

But it's even more ridiculous that NY bar can't figure out a way to seat *everyone* by September.

[objctnyrhnr]

From my totally uninformed perspective (but then again everybody’s pretty uninformed about this cause the issue is so unprecedented), Penn, UVA, and like Harvard banding together and trying to get these low level New York State political Employees, who probably attended TTTs themselves, to change their entire shitty policy because the biglaw kids deserve X Y Z (and even though it won’t be stated, that’s obviously how it’ll come across) is not the best strategy for trying to move the needle here.

However, the fact that penn said they’ve talked to other top law school deans AS OPPOSED to like Uconn and Rutgers deans or whatever (I.e “deans from other surrounding law schools who send a large % of their grads to nyc”) suggests that this is exactly what they’re going to try to do.

[LSATWiz.com]

I think the delayed bar exams provide a rational reason for the deferments. Clerk time is often written off on bills and the postponement of state bar exams extends that timeframe by 3 months. In hindsight, it seems relatively easy to give a bar exam with social distancing. I mean if Disney and Six Flags can open theme parks with social distancing measures in place for lines and moving around the park, there's no reason why you can't space desks six feet apart. If you need to increase the number of testing centers, then you charge more for the test while keeping October as an option for those who can't afford it. To the extent anyone is to blame, some of the blame for your deferral may be misplaced.

Any chance I can take credit? 99 percent not but I like 1 percent odds if they benefit me.

[LHand1993]

From my totally uninformed perspective (but then again everybody’s pretty uninformed about this cause the issue is so unprecedented), Penn, UVA, and like Harvard banding together and trying to get these low level New York State political Employees, who probably attended TTTs themselves, to change their entire shitty policy because the biglaw kids deserve X Y Z (and even though it won’t be stated, that’s obviously how it’ll come across) is not the best strategy for trying to move the needle here.

However, the fact that penn said they’ve talked to other top law school deans AS OPPOSED to like Uconn and Rutgers deans or whatever (I.e “deans from other surrounding law schools who send a large % of their grads to nyc”) suggests that this is exactly what they’re going to try to do.

Let's also not forget the reference to meeting with "leaders of major NY firms" in case there was any doubt that this is solely about getting their kids in the door of big firms asap. If that means Billy from BLS can't start working at the Brooklyn DA until March 2021, so be it!

[objctnyrhnr]

From my totally uninformed perspective (but then again everybody’s pretty uninformed about this cause the issue is so unprecedented), Penn, UVA, and like Harvard banding together and trying to get these low level New York State political Employees, who probably attended TTTs themselves, to change their entire shitty policy because the biglaw kids deserve X Y Z (and even though it won’t be stated, that’s obviously how it’ll come across) is not the best strategy for trying to move the needle here.

However, the fact that penn said they’ve talked to other top law school deans AS OPPOSED to like Uconn and Rutgers deans or whatever (I.e “deans from other surrounding law schools who send a large % of their grads to nyc”) suggests that this is exactly what they’re going to try to do.

Let's also not forget the reference to meeting with "leaders of major NY firms" in case there was any doubt that this is solely about getting their kids in the door of big firms asap. If that means Billy from BLS can't start working at the Brooklyn DA until March 2021, so be it!

+1

[lawschoolnewbie2018]

According to this reddit thread, a few more firms have communicated a wide variety of information about first years as of today...such a varied response is worrisome to me.

https://www.reddit.com/r/LawSchool/comm ... rst_years/

[basketofbread]

Not that I disagree that it's supremely arrogant to prioritize big-law students above the average New York law school student, but I think this is missing the point. The schools should pressure NY Bar to actually solve this problem, using one of the myriad solutions that other states are coming up with, rather than throw up their hands and pretend that seats are too scarce to accommodate everyone. If this devolves into fighting about who deserves priority, we let NY bar off the hook. Everyone should be applauding this effort and hoping that it results in additional September dates or an online test.

[wishywashy]

According to this reddit thread, a few more firms have communicated a wide variety of information about first years as of today...such a varied response is worrisome to me.

https://www.reddit.com/r/LawSchool/comm ... rst_years/

I see it as the NYC centric firms feeling good about the practice order and figuring they can remote on-board associates and then just give them time off later if the bar is a hot-mess.

Everything going on is very regional and different firms are hit by that in different ways (same goes for each firm's major clients).

I see it as a good sign but I know that doesn't do much for the craving certainty complaints (I too crave some certainty, especially over finances). I thinks firms are doing their best in a very fast moving situation - some doing better than others for sure.

[Anonymous User]

Covington announcing normal start date while A&P delays until Q1 2021... the amount of variation is weird.

[Excellent117]

the amount of variation is weird.

Actually, the uniformity in biglaw is what stands out as weird relative to every other industry. What we're seeing is potentially the beginning of biglaw firms behaving like other businesses.

[LHand1993]

Covington announcing normal start date while A&P delays until Q1 2021... the amount of variation is weird.

FWIW, A&P's 2019 profit margin was 39% while Cov's was 47%. Seems like firms with >40% profit margins have been first movers for deferrals/pay cuts. See, e.g., Orrick (23%), DLA Piper (26%), CWT (30%), Nixon (35%).

[mtf612]

From my totally uninformed perspective (but then again everybody’s pretty uninformed about this cause the issue is so unprecedented), Penn, UVA, and like Harvard banding together and trying to get these low level New York State political Employees, who probably attended TTTs themselves, to change their entire shitty policy because the biglaw kids deserve X Y Z (and even though it won’t be stated, that’s obviously how it’ll come across) is not the best strategy for trying to move the needle here.

However, the fact that penn said they’ve talked to other top law school deans AS OPPOSED to like Uconn and Rutgers deans or whatever (I.e “deans from other surrounding law schools who send a large % of their grads to nyc”) suggests that this is exactly what they’re going to try to do.

While I can understand why some view this as elitist, I think the point being made by Penn's Dean is that a lot of the top schools send a disproportionate number of their students to NY. Many regional schools send the overwhelming majority of their graduates to jobs in the state that the school is located. With the t14 schools outside of NY, other than the two in California, the number of students headed to New York are quite significant. (See Penn 47%, Northwestern 43%, Harvard 38%, Yale 33%, Duke 33%, Michigan 28%, UVA 26%, GULC 24%, UChi 20%, Berkeley 14%, Stanford 13%).

There are also top schools outside of the T14 with similarly high out-of-state placement (See, e.g., Vanderbilt 17.8%, Boston U 17%, Boston College 17%, WUSTL 15%).

Compare that with regionally proximate schools that are not generally considered "top schools." (See, e.g., Penn State College Park 18%, Seton Hall 17%, Vermont 13%, U Conn 9%, Rutgers 9%, New England 9%, Quinnipiac 6%).

This is not to say that the graduates of those schools should not also have an opportunity to sit in NY, and that they shouldn't be involved in the planning/meeting that Penn's dean referred to. It just suggests that the T14 schools (other than CLS, NYU, Cornell, Berkely, Stanford) have a very significant number of applicants (relative to other schools that are generally not referred to as "top schools") that seek admission in New York each year.

I would agree with your general point though, that schools with high percentages of students heading to NY (Penn State, Seton Hall, Vermont, etc.) should be involved.

[LS989]

Covington announcing normal start date while A&P delays until Q1 2021... the amount of variation is weird.

FWIW, A&P's 2019 profit margin was 39% while Cov's was 47%. Seems like firms with >40% profit margins have been first movers for deferrals/pay cuts. See, e.g., Orrick (23%), DLA Piper (26%), CWT (30%), Nixon (35%).

Is there a place to find the 2019 profit margin data? I seem to only be able find the list as it relates to the 2018 amlaw 100

[Anonymous User]

I think it's quite obvious that the bar and the court of appeals have handled this horribly. Perhaps there are no special interests involved in these choices (one can hope), but the people in charge of decisionmaking are doing everything in their power to make it look like there's corruption in this decisionmaking process and make themselves all look incompetent as well. The process of taking the bar probably has big money in the pipeline. I wouldn't be surprised if NY didn't move to waivers because the bar conference, the bar testing companies, and the bar examiners all want to take their cut and are applying pressure to make sure at least some students have to pay and go through the rigamarole. Nobody should have to be disadvantaged in this process; the fact that some people are is utter crap and just goes to show that the people making life-altering decisions during this time only have their own interests at heart, in my opinion.

That being said, with respect to prioritizing new york students--I get why people are mad, but out-of-state students THEORETICALLY have another jurisdiction to test in (the one where they went to law school) and since NY is a UBE jurisdiction that should help those students to sit for it (though those seats will be limited as well most likely). It seems like OOS schools should be negotiating the possibility of being allowed to take the UBE at their sites. The entitled attitude from PENN is also pretty gross.

NY students don't have OOS options; if NY were to tell these students that they don't even have priority as state residents to access the infrastructure set up for this purpose, that would be pretty shitty. An arbitrary line in the sand would be inadequate. NY Schools primarily feed into the NY market, people are told to go to regional schools for that reason. It does make sense to privilege NY students and first-time test-takers as the most fair way to administer the NY bar, despite it having unfair effects on others.

Personally, I think other commenters who have noted there are better systems all around for this are right. But, short of the people making this decision suddenly being dropped on their heads and having the stupid knocked out of them--this is what we have. NY students should not be disadvantaged because other out of state students need to take or prefer the NYS bar when they hopefully and potentially have other options available to them that the in-state, NY students simply do not. This is the state they are residents in, the quasi-public state apparatus shouldn't put them at a competitive disadvantage because the alternative is unfair to non-new york residents.

anon because i'm sure people will roast me

[LHand1993]

Covington announcing normal start date while A&P delays until Q1 2021... the amount of variation is weird.

FWIW, A&P's 2019 profit margin was 39% while Cov's was 47%. Seems like firms with >40% profit margins have been first movers for deferrals/pay cuts. See, e.g., Orrick (23%), DLA Piper (26%), CWT (30%), Nixon (35%).

Is there a place to find the 2019 profit margin data? I seem to only be able find the list as it relates to the 2018 amlaw 100

I'm accessing it via the amlaw portal through my school's library site.

[Sackboy]

IL moving their Bar Exam to Sept 9-10 surely isn't good for 1st years. Definitely gives more reason to any firm with a substantial office to defer.