Top Law Schools

Before you get too excited,..while this NLJ report doesn't indicate a return to hiring in the pre-2008 era,...it indicates that the worst fears of Biglaw were somewhat unfounded and all things relative the model seems to still be serving them well. Knowing how short the memories are on Wall St maybe they'll start robustly hiring again in the next 1 to 2 years. I think those planning on going to law school should be somewhat optimistic. Especially the classes of '13 and '14.



http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1 ... The_Am_Law_

This would stir up quite a debate in the legal employment forum.

yo! wrote:[strike]http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2010/1/1 ... calCat.jpg[/strike]

--ImageRemoved--

fixt

I hope this will be good news for my classmates, at least:

The 23 firms headquartered in New York, on average, outperformed the rest of the pack. And, of that group, the 13 firms with PPP of $2 million or more did better still, with a 3 percent gain in per-partner profits. In this group, there wasn't any growth in equity partners. The other 10 New York firms showed 1 percent gains in profits, spurred by a 4 percent drop in equity partners, mainly at White & Case and Dewey & LeBoeuf.

I'm not sure how optimistic we can be, but I would love a case for cautious optimism. I don't know how much of this is wishful thinking for our class year (2012).

How is any of this good news? It may be good news for firms in general, but we (the collective mass of TLS) are still boned. Firms are figuring out that they can profit by cutting labor ITE.

RPL, which we regard as the most telling economic indicator, was down $15,697, to $802,381, a 2 percent fall. This was the second consecutive year in which RPL fell, another sign of the toll of the weak economy.

Revenue Per Lawyer is probably the most important factor we (as aspiring associates) should be concerned with. The fact that it has continued to drop is not a good sign...

There were at least two reasons why the average partner profts eked out a small gain. Firms aggressively reduced expenses in 2009. And, the number of equity partners in The Am Law 100 dropped

The massacre at OCI only allowed partner profits to "eke out a small gain?" How many sacrificial lambs did it take for that to happen? Eke. Fewer equity partners also limits the promotions of associates and encouraging lateral movement. This further increases competition for an already dwindling number of spots.

Honestly, if any law student hasn't figured out that they don't have the same interests as the established partners at the firm, they're too stupid for this profession.

Blunt version: You are a labor cost. What the numbers indicate is that they kept PPP from collapsing by gutting recruiting and terminating associates. And sacking perceived dead wood partners.

Its a terrible market right now, but it will inevitably get better than it is (though it will probably never be what it was) This is true for most professions now because the post crash economy was in hyper-drive, which made it really really good, but also unsustainable.

ScaredWorkedBored wrote:Honestly, if any law student hasn't figured out that they don't have the same interests as the established partners at the firm, they're too stupid for this profession.

Blunt version: You are a labor cost. What the numbers indicate is that they kept PPP from collapsing by gutting recruiting and terminating associates. And sacking perceived dead wood partners.

Highly credited. Pointing out that Latham's PPP and RPL has shown modest increase is not an indication that legal hiring is on the rise. Rather, this merely demonstrates that ruthless culling of first year associates has ensured that established partners will continue to benefit from their involvement in the firm despite grossly misjudging hiring needs.



ITT: Biglaw's rebirth greatly exaggerated.

ScaredWorkedBored wrote:Honestly, if any law student hasn't figured out that they don't have the same interests as the established partners at the firm, they're too stupid for this profession.

Blunt version: You are a labor cost. What the numbers indicate is that they kept PPP from collapsing by gutting recruiting and terminating associates. And sacking perceived dead wood partners.

To think that there isn't some good new in the indications that A) Clients apparently are still willing to pay the absurd fees that allow firms to hire new associates every year and B) demand is likely to pick up,..doesn't make much sense.

The firms purged their associate/partner ranks based on the most dire outlook. They didn't avert this worst case scenario because of cost cutting,..the worst case scenario simply never came to fruition. That tells me that firms won't be as gun shy in hiring once work starts picking up a bit (which is what we all feared) knowing that their model is a bit stronger than everyone thought.

This isn't to say everything will be rainbows and chocolates,...but its ridiculous to think this isn't somewhat optimistic.

Anonymous User wrote: To think that there isn't some good new in the indications that A) Clients apparently are still willing to pay the absurd fees that allow firms to hire new associates every year and B) demand is likely to pick up,..doesn't make much sense.

The firms purged their associate/partner ranks based on the most dire outlook. They didn't avert this worst case scenario because of cost cutting,..the worst case scenario simply never came to fruition. That tells me that firms won't be as gun shy in hiring once work starts picking up a bit (which is what we all feared) knowing that their model is a bit stronger than everyone thought.

This isn't to say everything will be rainbows and chocolates,...but its ridiculous to think this isn't somewhat optimistic.

This is wrong. Firms are still doubtful of the previous model, they are merely changing the model to be lower volume/more selective. What does this mean for us? See here: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=116202

Of course big law is doing fine.

The only thing that has changed is that you're no longer going to get a job there.

bigben wrote:Of course big law is doing fine.

The only thing that has changed is that you're no longer going to get a job there.

+amillion

DerrickRose wrote:

bigben wrote:Of course big law is doing fine.

The only thing that has changed is that you're no longer going to get a job there.

+amillion

+another million

You have to give it to biglaw partners, keeping PPP nearly constant at most giant firms was a Herculean feat given ITE. That it happened to require rivers of blood... well, that's really our loss and not theirs

Of course big law is doing fine.

The only thing that has changed is that you're no longer going to get a job there.

But in general, the Amlaw numbers only reaffirm what I've been saying since 2008: Biglaw may be hurting, but it's not going anywhere.

nealric wrote:

Of course big law is doing fine.

The only thing that has changed is that you're no longer going to get a job there.

But in general, the Amlaw numbers only reaffirm what I've been saying since 2008: Biglaw may be hurting, but it's not going anywhere.

The king is dead. Long live the king!