Last Days of Big Law - New Republic article Mayer Brown Forum

[guano]

Edit: apart from the fact that top ibanks and consulting firms only interview at a very limited number of schools to begin with, there isn't much point. They only hire from the top, but how many top students would take entry level Ibanking/consulting, when those same candidates can choose between a number of law firms that are paying nearly double?

Your average double-HLS/V5 corporate lawyer would give his left nut to get an ibanking gig.

At half the salary? Fresh law school grads starting as an associate in Ibanking would earn closer to $100k, and because of the number of fresh MBAs and HYP UGs starting as analysts and working their way up, the only people who are competitive can take their pick of law firms, all of which guarantee a lot more money over the first 3 years
Sure, the higher ups make bank, but that's like trying to make partner - it ain't happening for most people.

[johndhi]

FYI the author of this article is doing an AMA on Reddit right now:

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1 ... writer_at/

[Cobretti]

FYI the author of this article is doing an AMA on Reddit right now:

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1 ... writer_at/

This AMA is great, TY

[manofjustice]

FYI the author of this article is doing an AMA on Reddit right now:

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1 ... writer_at/

This AMA is great, TY

Can someone challenge him on two points: revenues at the AM Law 100 are at al all-time high and Big Law is dying? And "transparency in billing" is what will bring Big Law down? But even when Big Law sent one-line "for services rendered" bills, those responsible for paying them were former Big Law partners as general counsels. How does "billing transparency" really bring down an entire industry? (The rather offensive implication is that Big Law partners are thieves that have built their empires over the past hundred years on outright fraud.)

[Bronte]

Meh, the AMA is frustrating. It's frustrating to read people's questions like, "So, given that big law is going away, XYZ?" and his responses like, "Well, after big law is gone, boutiques will blah blah."

You haven't proved that point dude. In fact, your article was about Mayer Brown's pay structure and culture. It had almost nothing to do with the decline of big law.

[Cobretti]

Meh, the AMA is frustrating. It's frustrating to read people's questions like, "So, given that big law is going away, XYZ?" and his responses like, "Well, after big law is gone, boutiques will blah blah."

You haven't proved that point dude. In fact, your article was about Mayer Brown's pay structure and culture. It had almost nothing to do with the decline of big law.

He retracted biglaw shrinking to 20 firms at least, but in general it was a lot of uninformed pandering

Also found out a reddit legend (karmanaut) is a biglaw bro

[Bronte]

Meh, the AMA is frustrating. It's frustrating to read people's questions like, "So, given that big law is going away, XYZ?" and his responses like, "Well, after big law is gone, boutiques will blah blah."

You haven't proved that point dude. In fact, your article was about Mayer Brown's pay structure and culture. It had almost nothing to do with the decline of big law.

He retracted biglaw shrinking to 20 firms at least, but in general it was a lot of uninformed pandering

Yeah, and to be fair he does kind of cop to the fact that the article wasn't really about the demise of big law, here:

yeah, to be honest, the point of the piece was really to pull back the curtain on a big firm and show people how it works in practice. the broader economic arguments are important, but they've clearly been out there for a while, and i didn't think of myself as advancing the ball on ton there. it was more the backdrop for my piece than the point of it.

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1 ... at/cb9cxt5

[AreJay711]

Good to see hope springs eternal, bros

[Samara]

Meh, the AMA is frustrating. It's frustrating to read people's questions like, "So, given that big law is going away, XYZ?" and his responses like, "Well, after big law is gone, boutiques will blah blah."

You haven't proved that point dude. In fact, your article was about Mayer Brown's pay structure and culture. It had almost nothing to do with the decline of big law.

He also claimed that increased transparency in billing will have a large detrimental impact on biglaw hiring.

But the only statistic he used to back up his claims is that overall, a decreasing percentage of law school graduates find a BP-required job in recent years. Aside from the fact that such a statistic is a lagging indicator that has as much to do with schools increasing enrollment by fudging employment numbers, his use of the statistic shows that he doesn't understand how biglaw hiring works. Biglaw is a small percentage of overall hiring and the health of the overall job market doesn't really tell us anything about the sustainability of the biglaw model.

[ZyzzBrah]

Edit: apart from the fact that top ibanks and consulting firms only interview at a very limited number of schools to begin with, there isn't much point. They only hire from the top, but how many top students would take entry level Ibanking/consulting, when those same candidates can choose between a number of law firms that are paying nearly double?

im at a school in the 30-40 range, two blue chip investment firms interview on my campus, one took a kid outside 33%.

[rayiner]

Edit: apart from the fact that top ibanks and consulting firms only interview at a very limited number of schools to begin with, there isn't much point. They only hire from the top, but how many top students would take entry level Ibanking/consulting, when those same candidates can choose between a number of law firms that are paying nearly double?

Your average double-HLS/V5 corporate lawyer would give his left nut to get an ibanking gig.

At half the salary? Fresh law school grads starting as an associate in Ibanking would earn closer to $100k, and because of the number of fresh MBAs and HYP UGs starting as analysts and working their way up, the only people who are competitive can take their pick of law firms, all of which guarantee a lot more money over the first 3 years
Sure, the higher ups make bank, but that's like trying to make partner - it ain't happening for most people.

Banks aren't going to bring in 25-26 year olds with graduate degrees as analysts. If you make the jump at all, you'd be coming in as an associate ($200k+ at a BB). At that point making VP isn't any harder than making senior associate at a firm, and you're making twice as much money. Entry-level MD's make less than junior V5 partners, but making MD is statistically more likely, at least partly because BB's cull aggressively at the MD and PMD level creating more openings.

[NYstate]

One response to this article from American Lawyer, saying biglaw is doing great, thank you very much.
http://m.americanlawyer.com/module/alm/ ... 1058186368

[rayiner]

Choice quote:

Certainly, law firms are not in the heyday of the boom years. A decade ago, the industry watched profits rise 7–12 percent annually and gross revenue leap 8–12 percent every year. Aggregate revenues soared from $31 billion to over $67 billion between 2000 and 2008.

This is what the doom-saying is all about. That's 9 years of revenue growth averaging 9% per year, and for the last 5 years the industry has been struggling to eke out a few %.

[t-14orbust]

Edit: apart from the fact that top ibanks and consulting firms only interview at a very limited number of schools to begin with, there isn't much point. They only hire from the top, but how many top students would take entry level Ibanking/consulting, when those same candidates can choose between a number of law firms that are paying nearly double?

Your average double-HLS/V5 corporate lawyer would give his left nut to get an ibanking gig.

At half the salary? Fresh law school grads starting as an associate in Ibanking would earn closer to $100k, and because of the number of fresh MBAs and HYP UGs starting as analysts and working their way up, the only people who are competitive can take their pick of law firms, all of which guarantee a lot more money over the first 3 years
Sure, the higher ups make bank, but that's like trying to make partner - it ain't happening for most people.

Banks aren't going to bring in 25-26 year olds with graduate degrees as analysts. If you make the jump at all, you'd be coming in as an associate ($200k+ at a BB). At that point making VP isn't any harder than making senior associate at a firm, and you're making twice as much money. Entry-level MD's make less than junior V5 partners, but making MD is statistically more likely, at least partly because BB's cull aggressively at the MD and PMD level creating more openings.

How strong of a finance background would you need to go this path?

[Blessedassurance]

They only hire from the top, but how many top students would take entry level Ibanking/consulting, when those same candidates can choose between a number of law firms that are paying nearly double?

??

it's not a choice between Wachtell and Deloitte's Des Moines Office.

[guano]

They only hire from the top, but how many top students would take entry level Ibanking/consulting, when those same candidates can choose between a number of law firms that are paying nearly double?

??

it's not a choice between Wachtell and Deloitte's Des Moines Office.

First year associate at a BB, even Goldman, is not making much more than $100k base, and bonuses should not be assumed to be significant that early on

[dstars823]

How strong of a finance background would you need to go this path?

to get into a BB ibank or like a BCG, Bain or Mckinsey.... i would say its just as hard as getting biglaw sometimes harder depending on the schools since they wont recruit at every school. I know for our undergrad b school (kenan flagler) only 1 person my year got Goldman

[shawn1234]

Saw this posted in another thread and thought it deserved its own. Definitely worth a read for anyone approaching OCI or contemplating full time offers.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1139 ... oney-dries#

thanks for posting this. goes way beyond the usual "the legal profession is dead"... actually goes in-depth to explain why it's in such disarray

[Blessedassurance]

to get into a BB ibank or like a BCG, Bain or Mckinsey.... i would say its just as hard as getting biglaw sometimes harder depending on the schools since they wont recruit at every school. I know for our undergrad b school (kenan flagler) only 1 person my year got Goldman

it is harder to get at the law schools they recruit from (e.g., hls), probability-wise, compared to Biglaw, even though it is easy to get a first round interview at said schools. the latter observation is irrelevant due to the number of rounds you have to go through in order to secure an offer.

Mckinsey pays higher (all in) than what the previous poster suggested.

go down to compensation in the link below

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKinsey_% ... mpensation

[choculamaviva]

It is important to remember that JDs who go into consulting make slightly MORE -- not less -- in their first year than they would have in biglaw. I believe some posters on this thread are confusing these positions with the analyst positions typically taken post-undergrad. It is odd to me that some of the worst information I ever received when I was pursuing this path was from individuals who went to universities where MBB recruit. They all assumed that the positions would still be at the analyst level post JD. As for being harder than biglaw, I don't even think it's comparable. If you go to a T14, getting biglaw isn't hard. What percentage of T14 get or could get(but aren't because they're clerking) biglaw? 50%? I can't consider something with such a high success rate all that difficult. Be in the top half of your class, produce coherent sentences in interviews, here's your offer. Even if you go to one of the feeder schools, i.e. HLS, Chicago, etc, it is very unlikely that you will obtain a consulting job. And to get one, you actually have to perform in the interview, unlike firm interviews. I also think exit options at MBB>>>>>Biglaw, but I suppose that depends on what interests you and whether your are doing transactional work or litigation.

[Balthy]

Really great article. Thanks.

[t-14orbust]

It is important to remember that JDs who go into consulting make slightly MORE -- not less -- in their first year than they would have in biglaw. I believe some posters on this thread are confusing these positions with the analyst positions typically taken post-undergrad. It is odd to me that some of the worst information I ever received when I was pursuing this path was from individuals who went to universities where MBB recruit. They all assumed that the positions would still be at the analyst level post JD. As for being harder than biglaw, I don't even think it's comparable. If you go to a T14, getting biglaw isn't hard. What percentage of T14 get or could get(but aren't because they're clerking) biglaw? 50%? I can't consider something with such a high success rate all that difficult. Be in the top half of your class, produce coherent sentences in interviews, here's your offer. Even if you go to one of the feeder schools, i.e. HLS, Chicago, etc, it is very unlikely that you will obtain a consulting job. And to get one, you actually have to perform in the interview, unlike firm interviews. I also think exit options at MBB>>>>>Biglaw, but I suppose that depends on what interests you and whether your are doing transactional work or litigation.

Would I be able to compete for these spots, even if I don't have an UG Business degree? Thanks for the detailed response.

[dstars823]

It is important to remember that JDs who go into consulting make slightly MORE -- not less -- in their first year than they would have in biglaw. I believe some posters on this thread are confusing these positions with the analyst positions typically taken post-undergrad. It is odd to me that some of the worst information I ever received when I was pursuing this path was from individuals who went to universities where MBB recruit. They all assumed that the positions would still be at the analyst level post JD. As for being harder than biglaw, I don't even think it's comparable. If you go to a T14, getting biglaw isn't hard. What percentage of T14 get or could get(but aren't because they're clerking) biglaw? 50%? I can't consider something with such a high success rate all that difficult. Be in the top half of your class, produce coherent sentences in interviews, here's your offer. Even if you go to one of the feeder schools, i.e. HLS, Chicago, etc, it is very unlikely that you will obtain a consulting job. And to get one, you actually have to perform in the interview, unlike firm interviews. I also think exit options at MBB>>>>>Biglaw, but I suppose that depends on what interests you and whether your are doing transactional work or litigation.

Would I be able to compete for these spots, even if I don't have an UG Business degree? Thanks for the detailed response.

consulting generally will not require a finance background but you can bet ibanking will, that or a math/engineering background. Pretty much you need to be awesome with numbers.

[choculamaviva]

It is important to remember that JDs who go into consulting make slightly MORE -- not less -- in their first year than they would have in biglaw. I believe some posters on this thread are confusing these positions with the analyst positions typically taken post-undergrad. It is odd to me that some of the worst information I ever received when I was pursuing this path was from individuals who went to universities where MBB recruit. They all assumed that the positions would still be at the analyst level post JD. As for being harder than biglaw, I don't even think it's comparable. If you go to a T14, getting biglaw isn't hard. What percentage of T14 get or could get(but aren't because they're clerking) biglaw? 50%? I can't consider something with such a high success rate all that difficult. Be in the top half of your class, produce coherent sentences in interviews, here's your offer. Even if you go to one of the feeder schools, i.e. HLS, Chicago, etc, it is very unlikely that you will obtain a consulting job. And to get one, you actually have to perform in the interview, unlike firm interviews. I also think exit options at MBB>>>>>Biglaw, but I suppose that depends on what interests you and whether your are doing transactional work or litigation.

Would I be able to compete for these spots, even if I don't have an UG Business degree? Thanks for the detailed response.

I answered this question and others in this thread

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 4&t=212073

[bk1]

FYI the author of this article is doing an AMA on Reddit right now:

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1 ... writer_at/

For example, you encounter people who went to litigation-only shops like Quinn Emanuel, who seem pleased with the decision.

I lol'ed.