Top Law Schools

that is what the NYT's says (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/ ... ss&emc=rss). While there is another thread for the discussion of the article(http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 2&t=158856), I want this thread to be about their finding that there is a "shortage" of entry level lawyers in DC. The conventional wisdom is that DC is overcrowded with lawyers. I hold this sentiment.

That said, one hypothesis I have is that maybe they are considering different kinds of lawyers. Maybe there is a shortage of personal injury lawyers in DC ? (most people gunning for DC are looking for BigLaw).

How's this for a hypothesis: Study is based on the bar exam. Nobody who works in DC takes the DC bar exam, because they let you wave in via the bar from another state.

See how it suggests only 270 people took the bar in DC? Despite the fact that there are easily 6 times that number of students in the city and dozens of schools sending people into the city to work?

a

tipler4213 wrote:I could imagine it is something along those lines--maybe even the "mid-law" or lower NLJ250. Most people going to DC are going for those politico-BigLaw/Lobbying type jobs I feel like, and many of the lower v100 and NLJ250 DC firms seem to pay in the $110-140k range, right? Maybe at that point, everyone says, "Screw it, I'll take $160k in NYC/LA/Chi/etc"

No. The study is not useful in DC, where you are allowed to take the bar in another state and automatically waive in. Nobody takes the DC bar. I'm shocked even 270 people did. They're probably all unemployed and hoping to get a job in DC after passing. Literally every person I know who is going to work in DC took the bar in another state.

thesealocust wrote:

tipler4213 wrote:I could imagine it is something along those lines--maybe even the "mid-law" or lower NLJ250. Most people going to DC are going for those politico-BigLaw/Lobbying type jobs I feel like, and many of the lower v100 and NLJ250 DC firms seem to pay in the $110-140k range, right? Maybe at that point, everyone says, "Screw it, I'll take $160k in NYC/LA/Chi/etc"

No. The study is not useful in DC, where you are allowed to take the bar in another state and automatically waive in. Nobody takes the DC bar. I'm shocked even 270 people did. They're probably all unemployed and hoping to get a job in DC after passing. Literally every person I know who is going to work in DC took the bar in another state.

yeah I just looked at the reciprocity rules and this is TCR. I'm surprised the NYT failed so hard on this.

that said, I still wonder how many people apply to DC PI firms...

gwuorbust wrote:

thesealocust wrote:

tipler4213 wrote:I could imagine it is something along those lines--maybe even the "mid-law" or lower NLJ250. Most people going to DC are going for those politico-BigLaw/Lobbying type jobs I feel like, and many of the lower v100 and NLJ250 DC firms seem to pay in the $110-140k range, right? Maybe at that point, everyone says, "Screw it, I'll take $160k in NYC/LA/Chi/etc"

No. The study is not useful in DC, where you are allowed to take the bar in another state and automatically waive in. Nobody takes the DC bar. I'm shocked even 270 people did. They're probably all unemployed and hoping to get a job in DC after passing. Literally every person I know who is going to work in DC took the bar in another state.

yeah I just looked at the reciprocity rules and this is TCR. I'm surprised the NYT failed so hard on this.

that said, I still wonder how many people apply to DC PI firms...

A lot?

A third of the class from UVA tries to wind up in DC every year. That's a little over a hundred lawyers. Within DC proper you have Gtown (600 full time, a bunch more part time every year), George washington (something like that number), American (a billion), UDC ( a billion), Mason just over the border, maryland schools, everyone and their brother from HYS, people from Duke, and a handful from the NYC / midwest / western top schools. Yet the article reports 600 openings.

Yeah. I think DC is fairly well covered.

as I said, I agree with that sentiment.

but I think there may be a fatal double counting error that makes this study worthless. it lists 55k passes but there were only ~45 graduates. in order for this "study" to have any value it needs to parse out that extra 10k.

thesealocust wrote:How's this for a hypothesis: Study is based on the bar exam. Nobody who works in DC takes the DC bar exam, because they let you wave in via the bar from another state.

See how it suggests only 270 people took the bar in DC? Despite the fact that there are easily 6 times that number of students in the city and dozens of schools sending people into the city to work?

Yeah, I agree. I was at a training last week with 7 other lawyers from my department. All of us work for the federal government. None of us have the DC bar. Maybe I will apply to waive in in the future. I'm not taking the DC bar exam.

It's plausible that re-takers and delayed takers could make for ~55K passes in any given year?

thesealocust wrote:It's plausible that re-takers and delayed takers could make for ~55K passes in any given year?

well not 55k but maybe like 10-20k. some portion of the 45k graduates will fail, say 5k fail it twice. that leaves 15k. some new graduates take the bar in two places and some current lawyers move to a new states (lateral or whatever) and then have to take that bar. and idk how many LLM student pass each year(or if they are counted into the 45k number).

Ah. Add in LLMs and people taking more than one bar exam (moving practices, etc. - relatively common) and 55K starts looking much more logical.

As thesealocust pointed out, taking the D.C. bar is stupid. I'm surprised that anyone who got into law school (not saying that that's hard mind you) would have the level of stupidity necessary to take the D.C. bar. By taking any bar but D.C. you automatically have two (2) markets you can practice in. Taking the D.C. bar gives you one...except no one will hire you because you were stupid enough to take the D.C. bar.