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

[OperaAttorney]

So be patient- go clerk- work for the government- do Public Interest- save the world. Be nimble, adventurous. Think outside the box. There' are going to be lots of opportunities, maybe just not the traditional ones.

QFT.

Clerk, clerk, clerk, clerk! And, for that matter, clerk just about anywhere! Government work will also provide sustenance and a bit more.

Clerking for a year after law school is not a bad gig, really. You won't be as poor as a church rat if you eat three healthy meals each day, buy affordable work clothes, and live otherwise like a frugal law student.

[OperaAttorney]

So teh apocalypse might not happen.......yet??!? Oh thx gawd.

I think the apocalypse will probably happen for many law students with tunnel-vision--namely, those who think Cravath or bust.

[JohnBoy]

Or, you could attend a school with a solid LARP...that way you're virtually recession proof, right? Hit up public service for a tad, feel good about the work you do and then take over the world sometime later.

[JohnBoy]

So teh apocalypse might not happen.......yet??!? Oh thx gawd.

I think the apocalypse will probably happen for many law students with tunnel-vision--namely, those who think Cravath or bust.

Yes! The zombie apocalypse of crushed dreams.

[let/them/eat/cake]

Shortporch makes many excellent and valid points. I would temper his downer however with the observation (made by others) that the economy is indeed cyclical. The Great Depression did end. When military bases were closed there was a loss of jobs, but the bases were "repurposed" and many new uses, industries and jobs replaced the former.

Green Enrgy and industries are just beginning and will likely form the basis of the next boom (akin to the dot com boom) albeit hopefully without the excess (basketball courts in the back of the office, absurd stock IPOs and profits, etc). There will be regulation, IPOs and M&A. There will be litigation. There will be employment issues-and above all - lots of need for lawyers. But the paradigm has shifted. Firms won't overstaff like they did and will be run more like businesses. Clients wont pay like they did unless profits return to boomtimes (not likely in the near future I fear).

So be patient- go clerk- work for the government- do Public Interest- save the world. Be nimble, adventurous. Think outside the box. There' are going to be lots of opportunities, maybe just not the traditional ones.

Good business people have always made more than most lawyers. It's because they are risk takers and entrepreneurs. Open your eyes. Broaden your horizons. Be all you can be... Stop groveling for the holy grail Big Law jobs. Satisfaction can come in many forms.

OK- end of the anti downer speech. Enjoy.

next person who tells me to "think outside the box" is getting put in one.

[OperaAttorney]

Shortporch makes many excellent and valid points. I would temper his downer however with the observation (made by others) that the economy is indeed cyclical. The Great Depression did end. When military bases were closed there was a loss of jobs, but the bases were "repurposed" and many new uses, industries and jobs replaced the former.

Green Enrgy and industries are just beginning and will likely form the basis of the next boom (akin to the dot com boom) albeit hopefully without the excess (basketball courts in the back of the office, absurd stock IPOs and profits, etc). There will be regulation, IPOs and M&A. There will be litigation. There will be employment issues-and above all - lots of need for lawyers. But the paradigm has shifted. Firms won't overstaff like they did and will be run more like businesses. Clients wont pay like they did unless profits return to boomtimes (not likely in the near future I fear).

So be patient- go clerk- work for the government- do Public Interest- save the world. Be nimble, adventurous. Think outside the box. There' are going to be lots of opportunities, maybe just not the traditional ones.

Good business people have always made more than most lawyers. It's because they are risk takers and entrepreneurs. Open your eyes. Broaden your horizons. Be all you can be... Stop groveling for the holy grail Big Law jobs. Satisfaction can come in many forms.

OK- end of the anti downer speech. Enjoy.

next person who tells me to "think outside the box" is getting put in one.

But you must think outside the box!

[seespotrun]

Or, you could attend a school with a solid *LARP*...that way you're virtually recession proof, right? Hit up public service for a tad, feel good about the work you do and then take over the world sometime later.

Nothing screams recession proof like a grown man dressed like an elf.

[rayiner]

"Obviously we were in the midst of one of the greatest economic downturns in recent history last year," says Steven Sletten, chair of Gibson, Dunn's firmwide hiring committee, commenting on the decrease. "We had to make adjustments on the margin and thought it was prudent to reduce the size of the summer program somewhat." He says he does not expect the size of next year's program to be dramatically different from this year's. Latham did not return calls for comment.

Gibson was one of the largest though. The Gibsons of the world aren't the firms that we're all hoping to see increases - its more the Cravaths and Morgan Lewises (cut by 80%/100%) that we're hoping to see really pick up hiring.

Is ML even doing a program next year?

Yes. And they're doing lots of interviews at all the schools I have seen.

So... maybe they'll hire 1 person after all of that, but the signs such as we have them point to a large(ish) summer program at MLB.

---

For the record, I have seen a metric fuckton of data, and I firmly believe there will be more Class of 2012 (Summer of '11, recruiting of '10 - god this system can be hard to keep track of) offers than there were for the Class of 2011 (Summer of '10, recruiting of '09). Everyone was a little shocked to see current OCI numbers, but the actual # of interviews and # of firms hiring is up most places I look. This year will be hard as compared to the boom, but I'd bet every dollar I have it's better than last year.

This article, to repeat, does not tell us anything knew. We had and reviewed and discussed this very data when it was released months ago. We've been operating under its assumptions all along.

Strong words coming from broke-ass law student.

[shortporch]

To clarify a few points, either intentionally or unintentionally mis-read.

First, I never stated that legal employment at big law firms would "never" return to previous levels. I indicated that a number of practice groups or niches, at the time cash cows and driving the growth of firms, would never return. And I'll stand by that statement. No one's making wooden carriages or rotary telephones like they used to, either.

Second, there are certainly areas of future growth. But, at the moment, I, and law firms, don't see them at the moment. Maybe you do. But to the extent that regulatory work or tax law could be "booming" fields, these are fairly small, largely DC-based groups. While there's an increase in regulatory work, there's been such an increase all the time. Whatever regulatory legislation has been enacted recently is just the next stage of the regulatory state; it's not suddenly going to drive big law back from the brink. The same goes for tax law. And even more problematic, neither of these fields are even necessarily JD-required positions. There are plenty of registered lobbyists who majored in economics or political science, or CPAs, or others out there who can seize a chunk of these "booming" fields in a fairly significant way.

Finally, I conceded that there will always be IPOs, and litigation work, and large law firms hiring a number of young, talented law school graduates to pay them top dollar. And I emphasized that there are a number of excellent legal opportunities for graduates out there in a variety of fields.

My claim is narrow, but it is to refute a claim that is frequently and constantly bandied about by so many entering-level law students with access to an Internet connection. Elite, top-paying, big law firm hiring is down for a number of reasons that go simply beyond the cyclical economy, and it will remain down for a very long time, if not in many respects permanently, for the reasons cited.

[Veyron]

[/quote]Oh, my point wasn't to entirely disagree with you. Like you said, I know bankruptcy lawyers that are doing very well right now. However, as shortportch mentions, it's easy to fathom that real estate law, mergers/acquisitions, etc. will continue to struggle mightily.

Do you think we'll see an even heavier concentration/demand for lawyers in NYC (financial regulation) and DC (lobbying, other governmental regulation) markets?

Unfortunately, I think markets like mine (Phoenix, Las Vegas), which are heavily dependent on real estate development, will be down for quite some time.[/quote]

Fuck you, you better be wrong about this *shakes fist*.

On an slightly related topic, I'd love to compare notes with you sometime on the Valley legal market. I've been doing some research/talking up some attorneys (BIGLAW and non) and if you've (or anyone else has) been doing the same, we might build up a nice body of information.

[Anonymous User]

Work at my firm is at pre-ITE levels. Does that necessarily mean we need more people? Not really. It could just mean that we're pretty well staffed at the moment. But I've been glancing at the billables of my classmates, and we all appear to be on track for well above 2400 (and I know a few on tack for 3000+). It's crazy.

It won't get to be NYC to 190 anytime soon, however. There's just no reason to do that. I think many firms are still experiencing a downturn in work (and I think there's a corresponding race to the top from clients who are willing to pay big bucks only for the best), so associates don't have anywhere "better" to go. On top of that, it's still a law firm's recruiting market. But am I darn well certain my job is secure? Pretty much. If I get laid off, it won't be because I didn't bill enough...

[rayiner]

The staggering calculation is that of 3586 associate spots, probably 1600 or so were snagged by YHSCCN grads (Yalies can't clerk 2L summer, obviously, so they do firm jobs), assuming 70% placement at CCN and 90% at YHS (some people just don't want to do an SA). Another 1250 were probably taken by MVPBDNCG grads, assuming 40-50% placement at T7-14.

That leaves about 700 spots.

There are 400 people in the top 1% of the other 190 law schools.

[bwv812]

.

[MrKappus]

The staggering calculation is that of 3586 associate spots, probably 1600 or so were snagged by YHSCCN grads (Yalies can't clerk 2L summer, obviously, so they do firm jobs), assuming 70% placement at CCN and 90% at YHS (some people just don't want to do an SA). Another 1250 were probably taken by MVPBDNCG grads, assuming 40-50% placement at T7-14.

That leaves about 700 spots.

There are 400 people in the top 1% of the other 190 law schools.

Didn't another TLS thread list a 30% strikeout rate at Columbia's OCI? If that's true, 70% of CCN getting biglaw is probably an overestimate.

[rayiner]

The staggering calculation is that of 3586 associate spots, probably 1600 or so were snagged by YHSCCN grads (Yalies can't clerk 2L summer, obviously, so they do firm jobs), assuming 70% placement at CCN and 90% at YHS (some people just don't want to do an SA). Another 1250 were probably taken by MVPBDNCG grads, assuming 40-50% placement at T7-14.

That leaves about 700 spots.

There are 400 people in the top 1% of the other 190 law schools.

Didn't another TLS thread list a 30% strikeout rate at Columbia's OCI? If that's true, 70% of CCN getting biglaw is probably an overestimate.

100 - 30 = 70...

Almost all OCI employers at CLS are biglaw (even if it's tertiary market or whatever).

[romothesavior]

100 - 30 = 70...

Almost all OCI employers at CLS are biglaw (even if it's tertiary market or whatever).

What about people who didn't do OCI for whatever reason? Or is that just unheard of at Columbia?

[miamiman]

How many people sabotage themselves in their bidding? I have a friend at CLS who struck out and it sounds like he/she bid too high given sub-median grades. Is this common?

[270910]

How many people sabotage themselves in their bidding?

Many. Career services offices tend not to provide very helpful data, and it takes an enormous amount of effort to climb the learning curve enough to know what to do with Symplicity. 1L is exhausting and most people don't have a lot of time to focus on learning about the entire business of law firms / hiring / practice + finding data + pouring over data. There isn't much time at all between getting 1L grades and bid deadlines, especially factoring in summer employment.

[MrKappus]

The staggering calculation is that of 3586 associate spots, probably 1600 or so were snagged by YHSCCN grads (Yalies can't clerk 2L summer, obviously, so they do firm jobs), assuming 70% placement at CCN and 90% at YHS (some people just don't want to do an SA). Another 1250 were probably taken by MVPBDNCG grads, assuming 40-50% placement at T7-14.

That leaves about 700 spots.

There are 400 people in the top 1% of the other 190 law schools.

Didn't another TLS thread list a 30% strikeout rate at Columbia's OCI? If that's true, 70% of CCN getting biglaw is probably an overestimate.

100 - 30 = 70...

Almost all OCI employers at CLS are biglaw (even if it's tertiary market or whatever).

Fails to account for clerks, PhD's, non-biglaw, etc.

Edit: SA's. Right. Oops.

[rayiner]

100 - 30 = 70...

Almost all OCI employers at CLS are biglaw (even if it's tertiary market or whatever).

What about people who didn't do OCI for whatever reason? Or is that just unheard of at Columbia?

There are those people, but there are also people who get biglaw through mass mailing, etc. Not a lot, but they exist, particularly at CLS which has a very NYC-focused OCI, so people with good grades might mass-mail secondary markets they have ties to to get back there. It's probably a wash.

[clintonius]

And this outsourcing has led to other related issues. Let's set aside the very real issue. Gargantuan firms began to experience break-outs as partners (who, perhaps, didn't like their shares, or feared getting ousted when they turned a certain age) trekked out on their own with a client book. And they could undercut the gargantuan firms and offer the same services. While this is nothing new, lower costs were a significant motivating interest for many companies over the last few years looking for legal services. Companies would look to smaller firms to handle issues more efficiently. You may have read much about the "death of the billable hour"; and while reports of its death are greatly exaggerated, it certainly has led to a number of alternative or fixed-fee arrangements at firms, even the biggest firms, to drop the prices for clients.

I would be curious to see numbers, or even anecdotes, to back up the idea that this is a gargantuan issue. What I have seen is that firms pay lip service to the idea of dropping the billable hour by providing discounts, but that the billable hour remains king.

If you want to do transactional or corporate work, you will live and die by what happens in the regulatory world in Washington.

Originally I quoted this with a response that indicated I was unsure about what you meant. But after your last post, I know what you mean, and I'm even more skeptical. I won't challenge the notion that DC is the heart of regulation itself, but I question the proposition that most of the work regarding regulation will be centered in DC. New York remains the king of finance. That includes an in-depth knowledge of the financial world that the people fighting against regulation, or at least looking to explore its repercussions and boundaries, covet. I work at a large NYC firm (not as a lawyer), and I know for a fact that we play a large role in advising some of these groups. I'm also fully willing to admit that my experience may be a unique one. I'd just like some justification for the statements here, because they ring hollow to me.

Yes. And they're doing lots of interviews at all the schools I have seen.

So... maybe they'll hire 1 person after all of that, but the signs such as we have them point to a large(ish) summer program at MLB.

---

For the record, I have seen a metric fuckton of data, and I firmly believe there will be more Class of 2012 (Summer of '11, recruiting of '10 - god this system can be hard to keep track of) offers than there were for the Class of 2011 (Summer of '10, recruiting of '09). Everyone was a little shocked to see current OCI numbers, but the actual # of interviews and # of firms hiring is up most places I look. This year will be hard as compared to the boom, but I'd bet every dollar I have it's better than last year.

This article, to repeat, does not tell us anything knew. We had and reviewed and discussed this very data when it was released months ago. We've been operating under its assumptions all along.

Strong words coming from broke-ass law student.

GOD DAMMIT I WANTED TO SAY THAT

[Sell Manilla]

...there are certainly areas of future growth. But, at the moment, I, and law firms, don't see them at the moment. Maybe you do. But to the extent that regulatory work or tax law could be "booming" fields, these are fairly small, largely DC-based groups. While there's an increase in regulatory work, there's been such an increase all the time. Whatever regulatory legislation has been enacted recently is just the next stage of the regulatory state; it's not suddenly going to drive big law back from the brink. The same goes for tax law. And even more problematic, neither of these fields are even necessarily JD-required positions. There are plenty of registered lobbyists who majored in economics or political science, or CPAs, or others out there who can seize a chunk of these "booming" fields in a fairly significant way.

I agree with your post, but I think this anonymous poster may also be on the right track, regarding the bolded portion:

Green Energy and industriesare just beginning andwill likely form the basis of the next boom...There will be regulation, IPOs and M&A. There will be litigation. There will be employment issues-and above all - lots of need for lawyers.

One example as food for thought: if a green company gets BPI-certified today, for weatherization-type improvements such as improving insulation, there is a serious system of watchdoggery to make sure companies don't waltz around performing sub-par work. But take solar thermal technology; heating water to heat buildings and provide domestic hot water: this technology is FAAAAR more cost-efficient than the laughable state of solar electricity (Photovoltaics), and can offset a larger magnitude of annual expenses as well (heating & hot water bills vs. electricity bill?). It should be skyrocketing in the coming decades if the US wakes the hell up and starts following in the footsteps of China & Europe.


But the framework for checks & balances is laughable at best. You don't even need to pass any certification to install the stuff, let alone worry about your work being checked out every once in a while. To get new collectors on the market, a distributor needs to run it through the Solar Rating and Certification Corporation, which is an underfunded joke. It can take well over a year in line, which is stifling technological advancement.

All this had better change if we actually are to grow into the technology as a nation, & this will open up a legal can of worms. As a 0L, I won't try to wrap my head around how it may wind up creating JD jobs. A wild guess though, is you'll have technical people on the field, working together with in-house JD's etc. I dunno, but it at least seems plausible. Here's to hoping...

I realize this is a regulatory example, but I hope it's the tip of a massive iceberg.

[JohnBoy]

I know this is a side note and not relevant to the original post. But since were on the topic of alternative sources of energy, you guys are confusing the real issues.

The United States of space! Write this down, M-A-R-S...Mars bitches! Plus, we all know the future of energy is nuclear. What is more powerful than trying capture some of the suns energy? Creating the same type of reactions the sun uses to produce all of its energy. I'm talking the stuff that powers universes. Although, there is quite a bit of speculation on dark energy now. Regardless, have fun heating your water in pipes...

[Sell Manilla]

Plus, we all know the future of energy is nuclear... Regardless, have fun heating your water in pipes...

Spoken like a truly clueless American.

Yes, nuclear has a bright future, but so does solar thermal.

Nuclear Giant Areva Predicts Solar Thermal Boom
Dr. Joseph Romm, editor of ClimateProgress.org and author of "Straight Up," was acting assistant secretary of energy in 1997.
http://blogs.forbes.com/energysource/20 ... d-by-2020/

Snippet:
"Areva SA of France predicts the global use of solar-thermal power will grow by about 30-fold this decade, a forecast that spurred the world’s largest maker of nuclear reactors to buy a California-based equipment maker."

This article discusses the larger-scale potential, which is prolly gonna have a better shot at creating BigLaw jobs than the relatively puny scale stuff I was discussing, which will prolly create more local positions.

[como]

The staggering calculation is that of 3586 associate spots, probably 1600 or so were snagged by YHSCCN grads (Yalies can't clerk 2L summer, obviously, so they do firm jobs), assuming 70% placement at CCN and 90% at YHS (some people just don't want to do an SA). Another 1250 were probably taken by MVPBDNCG grads, assuming 40-50% placement at T7-14.

That leaves about 700 spots.

There are 400 people in the top 1% of the other 190 law schools.

When going through the NALP data for six markets (NY, DC, SF, CH, BO, LA), I got 4,967 SA spots for the V100 in 2009. 4,174 offers were extended to these SAs. That is an offer rate of 84%.

Where did the 3,586 number come from? Is it just NYC and DC? I always like to go with the more conservative number, but I also went through the painstaking process of going through each V100 office on NALP.