Top Law Schools

Why are people more likely to get jobs at a firm near their law school? Why is region so important to law firms?

Easier/More convenient to interview at a nearby school then sending people to OCI across the country, the only people that do that our firms/orgs recruiting at T14s

Easier to go to OCI.

Partners are more likely from local schools.

Lawyers from local schools are known commodities.

Clients, who are mostly local, will reckanize.

Law is primarily a local and regional profession.

JSUVA2012 wrote:Easier to go to OCI.

Clients, who are mostly local, will reckanize.

\

A lot of what you'll learn in law school is state or at least region-specific. (statutes, etc)

reasonabledoubt wrote:A lot of what you'll learn in law school is state or at least region-specific. (statutes, etc)

Not really.

Profs here will often throw in the VA rule on something as kind of a sidebar, but it's not the law that's being taught. VA just happens to adhere to some archaic (and pretty crappy) law and always seems to be in the minority. But it's more for illustrative purpose and because profs find it interesting. It's not what's being tested and is not an official part of the curriculum.

JSUVA2012 wrote:

reasonabledoubt wrote:A lot of what you'll learn in law school is state or at least region-specific. (statutes, etc)

Not really.

Profs here will often throw in the VA rule on something as kind of a sidebar, but it's not the law that's being taught. VA just happens to adhere to some archaic (and pretty crappy) law and always seems to be in the minority. But it's more for illustrative purpose and because profs find it interesting. It's not what's being tested and is not an official part of the curriculum.

Maybe because they're catering to the DC or NYC legal market? I have no idea as I'm a 0L, but my thoughts were that schools (at least somewhat) focus on statues, specific laws, etc. of the region or state the school is in.

Because with law school, unlike college, a lot of people end up going to a school in the area where they want to practice. This isn't uniformly true, especially with the T14s, but it's true often enough to make sense.

Why should firms bother to go 3,000 miles for an education that can be found at several places within 300 miles? Unless the school has a reputation to distinguish its degrees, the fresh JDs with zero experience are relatively interchangeable.

reasonabledoubt wrote:

JSUVA2012 wrote:

reasonabledoubt wrote:A lot of what you'll learn in law school is state or at least region-specific. (statutes, etc)

Not really.

Profs here will often throw in the VA rule on something as kind of a sidebar, but it's not the law that's being taught. VA just happens to adhere to some archaic (and pretty crappy) law and always seems to be in the minority. But it's more for illustrative purpose and because profs find it interesting. It's not what's being tested and is not an official part of the curriculum.

Maybe because they're catering to the DC or NYC legal market? I have no idea as I'm a 0L, but my thoughts were that schools (at least somewhat) focus on statues, specific laws, etc. of the region or state the school is in.

It's not because we're catering to DC and NYC. It's because we're an ABA-accredited law school. I can't think of a single ABA-accredited law school that teaches, with any special emphasis, its own state's law. The Louisiana schools (LSU, Loyola, and UNO) might be the only exceptions - I don't know about them.

JSUVA2012 wrote: I can't think of a single ABA-accredited law school that teaches, with any special emphasis, its own state's law. The Louisiana schools (LSU, Loyola, and UNO) might be the only exceptions - I don't know about them.

This is true. Actually teaching the law is a high crime amongst law faculty; it's too lowbrow an activity for such loft academics. Teaching the law is referred to disparagingly as "bar prep."

Why should firms bother to go 3,000 miles for an education that can be found at several places within 300 miles? Unless the school has a reputation to distinguish its degrees, the fresh JDs with zero experience are relatively interchangeable.

Also, why spend the time and $$ to fly across country when the recruiting yield is low. They may make offers to many other coast grads, but if they ain't gonna move, why spend the time and effort recruiting. (No, not everyone has a burning desire to be in NYC.)

So do big firms (those with 100K+ salaries) hire local students who do well in law school, but aren't necessarily in the top 10%?

Economies of scale. Localization.

vtoodler wrote:So do big firms (those with 100K+ salaries) hire local students who do well in law school, but aren't necessarily in the top 10%?

ITE, from schools that aren't at least T30? No.

JSUVA2012 wrote:

vtoodler wrote:So do big firms (those with 100K+ salaries) hire local students who do well in law school, but aren't necessarily in the top 10%?

ITE, from schools that aren't at least T30? No.

Pre-ITE I'm told our local school's top third had a shot at local biglaw, even though I think the total number hired was significantly less than one third of the class.

Aeroplane wrote:

JSUVA2012 wrote:

vtoodler wrote:So do big firms (those with 100K+ salaries) hire local students who do well in law school, but aren't necessarily in the top 10%?

ITE, from schools that aren't at least T30? No.

Pre-ITE I'm told our local school's top third had a shot at local biglaw, even though I think the total number hired was significantly less than one third of the class.

Yeah. There are fewer strict cutoffs than people like to think.

Even ITE, I'd say over 50% of people at lower T14s have a shot at BigLaw. But there are still people with top quarter grades missing out. A ton depends on what you do in the interview room.

I also think that for a few regional markets, firms are hesitant to extend summer offers to those attending T-14's out of the fear that they will leave once something better comes along! I think that there is a lot of truth to this. As much as I wouldn't mind returning home to the regional market where I grew up, the minute that I have something better in hand from a major-market, I am no longer interested.

reasonabledoubt wrote:

JSUVA2012 wrote:

reasonabledoubt wrote:A lot of what you'll learn in law school is state or at least region-specific. (statutes, etc)

Not really.

Profs here will often throw in the VA rule on something as kind of a sidebar, but it's not the law that's being taught. VA just happens to adhere to some archaic (and pretty crappy) law and always seems to be in the minority. But it's more for illustrative purpose and because profs find it interesting. It's not what's being tested and is not an official part of the curriculum.

Maybe because they're catering to the DC or NYC legal market? I have no idea as I'm a 0L, but my thoughts were that schools (at least somewhat) focus on statues, specific laws, etc. of the region or state the school is in.

You thought wrong.

"Drive over there, we'll reimburse gas" is a lot cheaper than "Fly out there and get 3 nights hotel."

It's also a clear leg up on regional roots/loyalty, which matters anywhere that's not a global alpha city or DC. The "local" component of most non-T14 schools is pretty high. If someone is from the state and going to school in the state, he's probably at least reasonably likely to stay around long enough to justify the recruiting and training expense. He still needs good grades, but those are available when you're only looking to hire a handful from the school anyway.

what is ITE?

edit: never mind

wannabealonghorn wrote:what is ITE?

It is a phrase I really hate and actively avoid using. I don't mind talking about the effects that the phrase is trying to sum up, but for some reason those specific words make me feel like punching a hole in something. I am not exactly sure why the words fill me with such seething rage, but they do.

Not really.

Profs here will often throw in the VA rule on something as kind of a sidebar, but it's not the law that's being taught. VA just happens to adhere to some archaic (and pretty crappy) law and always seems to be in the minority. But it's more for illustrative purpose and because profs find it interesting. It's not what's being tested and is not an official part of the curriculum.

Oh man, VA has some great ones. My favorite is the one about more than 4 women occupying a house that is illegal due to something about constituting a brothel. I believe PA has it on the books as well, as it just surfaced for someone I know trying to rent a house at Villanova.

I once came across one of those "1000 wacky law" bathroom books and I remember a good amount being from the commonwealths.

Oh man, VA has some great ones. My favorite is the one about more than 4 women occupying a house that is illegal due to something about constituting a brothel.

http://www.snopes.com/college/halls/brothel.asp

BTW: a lot of those interesting laws that are "still on the books" aren't actually law. For instance, I believe Texas still has the anti-sodomy law that was invalidated by the SCOTUS a few years ago in the state code just because the statute hasn't been formally repealed by the legislature. It's not law and it's not enforceable. Quite a few of those laws were unconstitutional from the start and could never have actually been enforced.

As far as state law being taught: I've never gotten a whiff of state law here. Some lower-tier schools will require state law specific classes as bar prep. For example, I remember someone from Brooklyn Law telling me they had to take a NY practice and procedure class. I have a cousin studying law at a T2 in Texas whose crim class used the Texas Penal code.

This is true. Actually teaching the law is a high crime amongst law faculty; it's too lowbrow an activity for such loft academics. Teaching the law is referred to disparagingly as "bar prep."

Frankly, that's because unless you are going to do some sort of general practice (which is become extraordinarily rare), it is just bar prep. If I'm going to be a corporate tax lawyer, why should I spend my time memorizing state civil procedure?