Top Law Schools

A Chicago law firm is apparently offering an unpaid law clerk position with the "promise" of a future associate position. Anybody else have a problem with this?


--LinkRemoved--

However, we believe the likely guarantee of an associates position to be much more valuable than the $10-12 x hour the position could pay now.

the likely guarantee

the likely guarantee

Moreover, if you've asked yourself once "why would I work for free?" while reading this ad - we won't fit well together

The heading of the paragraph immediate preceding:

Why are you asking me to work for free?

So if I read the previous paragraph before reaching this paragraph, I am automatically not fit for the job.

???

Nothing would prevent us from compensating the law clerk once the law clerk begins to generate revenue for the firm.

This part really grinds my gears. Not only do the lawyers of this firm not want to pay their law clerk, but they want that 2L law clerk to generate revenue for the firm. Yikes.

This isn't so unusual. I know TONS of people in this situation. The idea of actually paying the solo for the privilege of working is new, but this goes on every day.

This isn't so unusual. I know TONS of people in this situation. The idea of actually paying the solo for the privilege of working is new, but this goes on every day.

Excluding people getting school credit for their work? And in light of the fact that it's directly against the ABA rules?

??? wrote:

This isn't so unusual. I know TONS of people in this situation. The idea of actually paying the solo for the privilege of working is new, but this goes on every day.

Excluding people getting school credit for their work? And in light of the fact that it's directly against the ABA rules?

Yes, of course. People are desperate. If you take an unpaid job with a solo, you're doing it hoping he'll hire you one day and pay you. All sorts of things like "paying your dues" and that shit. People go against the ABA rules all the time.