How many 2Ls at a t10 are still jobless? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Median at T6 with no job. What went wrong: limited self to non-NYC market. If you don't want to work in NYC, T6 isn't going to garuantee you a job...

[Anonymous User]

Median at T6 with no job. What went wrong: limited self to non-NYC market. If you don't want to work in NYC, T6 isn't going to garuantee you a job...

Do you mind sharing which market?

Good luck.

[Anonymous User]

Things seems back to pre-disaster times at CLS.

People that wanted big law that didn't get it seem to be bottom of the barrel, or made serious mistakes in bidding.

That isn't pre-disaster time placement. People on TLS in 2008 weren't bullshitting when they said t14 = biglaw.

This is something I wonder about. Looking at Chambers, many firms have slashed their classed 50-75%. Admitting it was really fucking hard to find a job and lots of my friends still can't find work, exactly who was getting jobs in 2008? Even 100% of the T14s would fill all the historical summer slots that no longer exist.

Are you asking who outside the T14? Top 10% at most schools had a good shot.

I think we're at pre-boom levels. But I also worry that some firms (Cleary, DPW) have been binging themselves again.

As someone planning to summer at one of those 2 firms, mind elaborating?

[Old Gregg]

I think we're at pre-boom levels.

Not even close. At "pre-boom levels," bottom 10% of CCN were getting 19-20 offers (yes, offers), and sometimes those offers would be within the V10. In the "good years," being at a T14 got people a ton of offers. I realize that people are getting offers today, but the number of offers is still dramatically less.

Re: hiring levels at places like Cleary, etc. They're fine. Those kinds of firms know what they're doing (and, to be fair, they had close to 100% offer rates even in 2008-2009 and most of those firms didn't defer associates... and that was back then).

These guys have a very good idea/model/sense of how many people will voluntarily leave every 2 years, how many they'll let go, how many they'll advance and how many they eventually will make partner. It's a pure numbers game for these guys. If they can have all juniors billing 2,000 hours a year, they're minting money. Yeah, the associate numbers get smaller as you go higher, but their billable rate goes higher as well.

[Tiago Splitter]

I think we're at pre-boom levels.

Not even close. At "pre-boom levels," bottom 10% of CCN were getting 19-20 offers (yes, offers), and sometimes those offers would be within the V10. In the "good years," being at a T14 got people a ton of offers. I realize that people are getting offers today, but the number of offers is still dramatically less.

So what were things like at "boom" levels? I assume "pre-boom" means prior to the run up in biglaw hiring from 2006-2008. There isn't much data on hiring in the pre-boom stage, but in 1999 firms of 251+ hired 13% of new grads while in 2012 they hired 10.5%. A real difference, to be sure, but not the massive gulf that people typically assume. For the class of 2007 this number was closer to 20%, and I'm guessing that's when coming from a T14 and being able to breathe meant you'd get a dozen offers.

ETA: Class of 2005 had about 15% in firms of 100+. For class of 2012 this number was about 12.3%. But the absolute number of people going into these jobs was basically the same (~5600) in both years; the lower percentage is just the result of a lot more people graduating from law schools. Assuming T14 classes are about the same size now as they were then I'd guess that hiring is about the same.

[Old Gregg]

I think we're at pre-boom levels.

Not even close. At "pre-boom levels," bottom 10% of CCN were getting 19-20 offers (yes, offers), and sometimes those offers would be within the V10. In the "good years," being at a T14 got people a ton of offers. I realize that people are getting offers today, but the number of offers is still dramatically less.

So what were things like at "boom" levels? I assume "pre-boom" means prior to the run up in biglaw hiring from 2006-2008. There isn't much data on hiring in the pre-boom stage, but in 1999 firms of 251+ hired 13% of new grads while in 2012 they hired 10.5%. A real difference, to be sure, but not the massive gulf that people typically assume. For the class of 2007 this number was closer to 20%, and I'm guessing that's when coming from a T14 and being able to breathe meant you'd get a dozen offers.

ETA: Class of 2005 had about 15% in firms of 100+. For class of 2012 this number was about 12.3%. But the absolute number of people going into these jobs was basically the same (~5600) in both years; the lower percentage is just the result of a lot more people graduating from law schools. Assuming T14 classes are about the same size now as they were then I'd guess that hiring is about the same.

Looking at it now, I realize I misread her post. Meant boom levels, not pre-boom.

Still stand by my Cleary, Davis Polk, etc. point.

[BruceWayne]

Median at T6 with no job. What went wrong: limited self to non-NYC market. If you don't want to work in NYC, T6 isn't going to garuantee you a job...

Not to be harsh, but the idea of a "Top 6" is only relevant in so far as you're trying to increase your chances of a NYC firm job (or maybe Chicago if you're talking about UChi). Other than that there isn't a meaningful difference between the schools below HYS and above the rest of the top 14. People on this site ca be a little draconian when it comes to interpreting differences between the top 14 based on U.S News rank.

[Anonymous User]

It's not a 1:1 correlation b/w grades, work experience and jobs. You're safe when you have a job. I wish there were a way that schools could offer data with a GPA, age and offers so the process would be more transparent. There has to be a way to do this without revealing the person's identity. I think it's a little offensive to just presume those without jobs had poor grades, particularly if the only evidence is those at the top are likely to have them.

[NYstate]

so is it the case that the hiring for t10s, at least, is back to the pre-recession level?

Why would you think this?

[NYstate]

I'd say that as a whole, people here are at less preftigious firms than they would've gotten in 2008, if that's what's most important to them in a biglaw jerb.

however, i think the difficulty of getting a biglaw job period--i.e. salary-wise--is probably close to what it was pre-recession, if not on its way there.

I don't think the ease of getting a job is the same. Because it seems like a lot of people are skating by with 1 offer, or having to hustle mass mailing. People with shitty grades are worse off because there isn't a huge demand for t14 jds. They have to show their worth somehow.

Though I think the chances of getting a jerb are within 10% of what they were, at the T14 at least.

But I think if you are willing to hustle smartly t14= biglawl with you don't have autism.

No way is getting a biglaw job close to pre-recession. My firm is not even close to hiring firmwide the number of SAs that they were hiring at just the NYC office. Many biglaw firms are the same although I admit I haven't paid any attention to summer class sizes at other biglaw firms.

I don't know if T14 equals biglaw. I wouldn't count on it. Maybe it depends on how you define biglaw?

[NYstate]

It's not a 1:1 correlation b/w grades, work experience and jobs. You're safe when you have a job. I wish there were a way that schools could offer data with a GPA, age and offers so the process would be more transparent. There has to be a way to do this without revealing the person's identity. I think it's a little offensive to just presume those without jobs had poor grades, particularly if the only evidence is those at the top are likely to have them.

Well there are grade cutoffs at firms, so you can't ignore that grades matter. I do think that stupid bidding strategies and poor interview skills are major causes of not getting a job regardless of grades. But people with good grades and good personalities still miss out for whatever reason.

I agree that it is not a correlation of grades means jobs. I wish 0Ls would understand that getting a biglaw job is not like applying to schools where if you have the numbers you are almost guaranteed a place. I feel that some 0Ls think that when they get an acceptance that means they have a biglaw job in hand.

[84651846190]

so is it the case that the hiring for t10s, at least, is back to the pre-recession level?

Why would you think this?

What makes it even funnier is that this comment was posted two years ago. Think about that. It's been TWO YEARS since people in 2012 thought things might be looking better (when they really weren't) and we have seen no improvement at all in the intervening time period: no rise in market salary (in fact, it's gone down on an inflation-adjusted basis), no rise in bonuses, no notable rise in summer associate positions, no good news at all.

Look, here's the deal, kiddies: Hiring is not at pre-recession levels right now and it probably never will be ever again. You see, there are these things called economic bubbles. Law firms were in a huge one until about 2008. Today, client demand is waaaaay down, especially for corporate, as compared to pre-recession. Some V5 dickhead might come in here with "LOL, BUT OUR CORP GROUP IS SLAMMED!" but that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of corporate groups are hurting pretty bad right now. Litigation has declined quite a bit too. The best a biglaw firm can hope for is a giant investigation like the LIBOR investigation that they can throw all of their litigation associates onto. High-end IP lit is way down recently (lowest filings in the past two months than any time in the past five years or something like that). Securities lit is dead. I could go on....

New normal.

[Tiago Splitter]

so is it the case that the hiring for t10s, at least, is back to the pre-recession level?

Why would you think this?

What makes it even funnier is that this comment was posted two years ago. Think about that. It's been TWO YEARS since people in 2012 thought things might be looking better (when they really weren't) and we have seen no improvement at all in the intervening time period: no rise in market salary (in fact, it's gone down on an inflation-adjusted basis), no rise in bonuses, no notable rise in summer associate positions, no good news at all.

Look, here's the deal, kiddies: Hiring is not at pre-recession levels right now and it probably never will be ever again. You see, there are these things called economic bubbles. Law firms were in a huge one until about 2008. Today, client demand is waaaaay down, especially for corporate, as compared to pre-recession. Some V5 dickhead might come in here with "LOL, BUT OUR CORP GROUP IS SLAMMED!" but that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of corporate groups are hurting pretty bad right now. Litigation has declined quite a bit too. The best a biglaw firm can hope for is a giant investigation like the LIBOR investigation that they can throw all of their litigation associates onto. High-end IP lit is way down recently (lowest filings in the past two months than any time in the past five years or something like that). Securities lit is dead. I could go on....

New normal.

Again, the number of people hired by biglaw firms in 2012 was the same as it was in 2005. We aren't going back to the way things were in 2007-2008, but 2007-2008 was insane relative to the period just before it.

[NYstate]

so is it the case that the hiring for t10s, at least, is back to the pre-recession level?

Why would you think this?

What makes it even funnier is that this comment was posted two years ago. Think about that. It's been TWO YEARS since people in 2012 thought things might be looking better (when they really weren't) and we have seen no improvement at all in the intervening time period: no rise in market salary (in fact, it's gone down on an inflation-adjusted basis), no rise in bonuses, no notable rise in summer associate positions, no good news at all.

Look, here's the deal, kiddies: Hiring is not at pre-recession levels right now and it probably never will be ever again. You see, there are these things called economic bubbles. Law firms were in a huge one until about 2008. Today, client demand is waaaaay down, especially for corporate, as compared to pre-recession. Some V5 dickhead might come in here with "LOL, BUT OUR CORP GROUP IS SLAMMED!" but that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of corporate groups are hurting pretty bad right now. Litigation has declined quite a bit too. The best a biglaw firm can hope for is a giant investigation like the LIBOR investigation that they can throw all of their litigation associates onto. High-end IP lit is way down recently (lowest filings in the past two months than any time in the past five years or something like that). Securities lit is dead. I could go on....

New normal.

Again, the number of people hired by biglaw firms in 2012 was the same as it was in 2005. We aren't going back to the way things were in 2007-2008, but 2007-2008 was insane relative to the period just before it.

I know that isn't true at my firm and many others. My firm had classes of well over 100 people in NYC for years and not just in 2007. I don't know where those numbers are from, but in my experience it is wrong. I don't know if NALP has data from past years summer class sizes or not, but I don't believe for a minute that biglaw hiring is the same now as it was in 2005.

[84651846190]

Why would you think this?

What makes it even funnier is that this comment was posted two years ago. Think about that. It's been TWO YEARS since people in 2012 thought things might be looking better (when they really weren't) and we have seen no improvement at all in the intervening time period: no rise in market salary (in fact, it's gone down on an inflation-adjusted basis), no rise in bonuses, no notable rise in summer associate positions, no good news at all.

Look, here's the deal, kiddies: Hiring is not at pre-recession levels right now and it probably never will be ever again. You see, there are these things called economic bubbles. Law firms were in a huge one until about 2008. Today, client demand is waaaaay down, especially for corporate, as compared to pre-recession. Some V5 dickhead might come in here with "LOL, BUT OUR CORP GROUP IS SLAMMED!" but that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of corporate groups are hurting pretty bad right now. Litigation has declined quite a bit too. The best a biglaw firm can hope for is a giant investigation like the LIBOR investigation that they can throw all of their litigation associates onto. High-end IP lit is way down recently (lowest filings in the past two months than any time in the past five years or something like that). Securities lit is dead. I could go on....

New normal.

Again, the number of people hired by biglaw firms in 2012 was the same as it was in 2005. We aren't going back to the way things were in 2007-2008, but 2007-2008 was insane relative to the period just before it.

Link? I was referring to 2007-2008 as "pre-recession" because I think this is what most people think of when they say "pre-recession" (because this was the kind of job market that drove the classes of 2011-2012 to law school in the first place and, therefore, what they were expecting it to be like when they got their degrees).

Also, the 2005 associates had bonuses that were 2-6 times as large as today's bonuses (in real terms).

If you really want to go back in time, we didn't even have a bi-modal salary distribution before the early 90s or so, but I think people (especially recent college grads) base their expectations on what the job market is like at they time they graduate or when they are considering law school, not what it was like 10-20 years earlier.

[Tiago Splitter]

Well fuck me. I could have sworn I came across something earlier today that showed 5600 spots going to people in firms of 100+ in 2005, but I can't find it now and the numbers I'm putting together from NALP's hard-to-use data from that time show the number was over 7,000. By comparison, it was well over 8,000 for 2007 and 2008.

But yeah, definitely shittier in 2012 than even pre-recession. Class of 2011 came in at a pathetic 4,700, so thank god that's behind us.

EDIT: Looks like you have to go back to 1998-1999 to find the last time big firms were hiring fewer than 6,000 people.

[Old Gregg]

You've got to remember that while the usual suspects are still hiring a ton of summers every year (roughly speaking, the V15), a lot of the middle tier firms that used to take on gargantuan summer classes are simply hiring a lot more conservatively (and those middle tier firms' satellite offices, at least most of them, axed summer programs altogether), and then the lower tier firms are also just hiring 15-20 summers as opposed to 30-40. All that stuff adds up.

[beachbum]

I think the "new normal" scenario seems pretty obvious at this point. Hiring has been fairly stable (stagnant?) the past few years, and I can't imagine it picking up by any significant amount in the near-term future. Which is absolutely fine, if tuition and law school class sizes (and students' expectations) adjust accordingly.

[Anonymous User]

It's not a 1:1 correlation b/w grades, work experience and jobs. You're safe when you have a job. I wish there were a way that schools could offer data with a GPA, age and offers so the process would be more transparent. There has to be a way to do this without revealing the person's identity. I think it's a little offensive to just presume those without jobs had poor grades, particularly if the only evidence is those at the top are likely to have them.

Well there are grade cutoffs at firms, so you can't ignore that grades matter. I do think that stupid bidding strategies and poor interview skills are major causes of not getting a job regardless of grades. But people with good grades and good personalities still miss out for whatever reason.

I agree that it is not a correlation of grades means jobs. I wish 0Ls would understand that getting a biglaw job is not like applying to schools where if you have the numbers you are almost guaranteed a place. I feel that some 0Ls think that when they get an acceptance that means they have a biglaw job in hand.

Right. I don't necessarily think it's poor interview skills. Firms are not exactly progressive thinkers, and there's a lot of discrimination. If you have a disability, like a limp or a hearing problem you are very likely to strikeout with top grades. The only reason why they stopped blanket saying, "No minority lawyers" is because our society's reached a point where it's universally accepted to be disgusting behavior to discriminate based on race. However, their thinking is still a few generations behind in most other areas of social progression. I'm sure they work crazy hours, but many of these people probably haven't been to the theater their entire lives, don't read the news and haven't been outside of their social bubble. You're speaking about an industry that is ubiquitous for its outdated economics and its historical close-mindedness.

It can also be something about your work experience. For instance, if you have an atypical background that might come up and turn some places off because you are now not fitting the checklist. You can have the best answers in the world, but at a callback you're relying on 4-5 people all being open-minded enough to actually care.

Luck does also factor in, not just bidding poorly. It's likely to have just missed out on an offer at 4 places, because the same people from your school are generally going to be rated in front of you. Let's be honest. You're getting the interviews based off of your grades being above their cutoff, and your resume not being too off putting. Maybe sometimes a partner liked something in your resume, and called you in. Most of the time the people you're meeting with don't even know your name until you knock on their door, and the yes/no is based off of how they happen to feel about you after the first 30 seconds.

The process is not very fair. When I see people still interviewing, they try to keep their spirits up and are optimistic, but there is a deep unspoken sadness beaming off of them. There is nothing wrong with them, and I think it's very convenient to say they deserve to be screwed because they could have studied harder or learned to interview better. Unless you know their transcripts or see their interviews, I think this is a grossly unfair assumption. This is the same kind of, "Well something bad happened to them so they must be bad" reasoning that generally leads people to mistreat others. I understand the impulse. As human beings we need to believe there's some kind of order to the world, and some sort of morality to the whole game, at least some logic we can tap into. If you score the most points you have to win. People on this forum are great at accepting that just because they get into a law school doesn't mean they deserve shit, but it seems like to justify this they have to believe, "Well, if I'm likable and get good grades" then I will be alright. It doesn't work like that. Some people get completely screwed in this game and are in financial hell for the foreseeable future, and there is nothing they could have ever done to change it. That may be life, but I'm sure as hell not going to say they must have done something wrong to get fucked. Some people get fucked, and some people do the fucking. That's the way it works. I'm not directing this at you specifically, but to the general mass of people who feel this way.

[Anonymous User]

Know of at least a handful at M. Some targeted NYC, others did not. Some below median, others just above median. Some with work experience, some without. Now that I think about it, I would actually describe the people who did get offers the exact same way. There honestly doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to this.

[NYstate]

Just to be clear, I don't think that people have to do anything wrong, or have anything wrong with them, to get fucked over by hiring. The bottom line is that there aren't enough jobs even for T14 students.

[objecion]

When my upper T-14 class entered LS all we heard were horror stories. Just the fact that there were unemployed 3Ls wandering the halls was scaring the crap out of everyone. Flash forward to now, everyone I know had multiple suitors and landed nicely on their feet. A few were disappointed because their boutique pays slightly under top dollar or they did not get transferred to a particular satellite. This is a far better outcome than anyone could have imagined three years ago. If this discussion regards the upper T-14 I find it hard to imagine that many are in dire straits.

I was by the office the other day and things were just as hectic as during my SA stint. Come September I expect it will be busy.

(Need to add… three years ago not only were jobs disappearing, the market was flooded by experienced attorneys that had been terminated. It was difficult to stay enthusiastic.)

[Anonymous User]

When my upper T-14 class entered LS all we heard were horror stories. Just the fact that there were unemployed 3Ls wandering the halls was scaring the crap out of everyone. Flash forward to now, everyone I know had multiple suitors and landed nicely on their feet. A few were disappointed because their boutique pays slightly under top dollar or they did not get transferred to a particular satellite. This is a far better outcome than anyone could have imagined three years ago. If this discussion regards the upper T-14 I find it hard to imagine that many are in dire straits.

I was by the office the other day and things were just as hectic as during my SA stint. Come September I expect it will be busy.

(Need to add… three years ago not only were jobs disappearing, the market was flooded by experienced attorneys that had been terminated. It was difficult to stay enthusiastic.)

What happen to these experienced attorneys now? Did they all find lateral opportunities or move onto other non-legal areas?

[Anonymous User]

I don't think that should have much bearing on law students. The experienced attorneys and law students aren't really competing for the same opportunities. I'm sure many veteran attorneys would like a 145k or 160k salary, but they're never going to get those entry level jobs.

[Anonymous User]

This thread seems really optimistic to me. I'm at HYS and I had one offer at a non-Vault firm. This was after extremely conservative bidding in NYC and a secondary market where I had strong ties, dozens of OCI screeners, and an obscene amount of mass mailing. And my grades weren't horrible, either; probably slightly below median. Among the 3L's I know, the majority of them have firm jobs or prestigious clerkships, but I would guess that about 10-15% of the class is either unemployed, doing a school-sponsored fellowship, headed to shitlaw, or something similarly unattractive. Nobody is safe, not even at HYS. (Well, perfect grades at HYS is probably safe, but median can still result in no job 2L summer or being no offered.)