Big Law vs "Shit" Law. I don't get it. Forum

[utlaw2007]

Hell, the higher you are on the pyramid scheme that is legal employment the less you work in shitlaw. The partners might work 30 a week..

Very true! My hours are not much at all. Again, this is not the norm and I'm making no representation that "if it has happened to me, it can happen to you" kind of thing. I'm only stating what MIGHT be possible.

One last example, I have a former high school classmate who went to a regional tier 4 school here in Texas. He just made half a million dollars off of a wrongful death case. He made 733 grand off of a case he had years ago. He is partnered with two other law school classmates of his. I have another high school classmate who went to a regional tier two who is part of the one million dollar verdict club. He works by himself. If you get a 1 million dollar verdict, that's $333,333 or $400,000 depending on whether you practice contracts on a contingency fee basis or personal injury which is all contingency fee at 40%. This is far from the norm, but I seem to know a lot of attorneys who do very well for themselves outside of biglaw, myself included.

[dood]

big law = firms that do important deals and litigation, often between multinational fortune 100 corps.

ie
AT&T FTC antitrust review
FB IPO

shit law = private for-profit practices that do everything else, typically advertising on billboards, TV, bus stops

ie
insurance defense
DUI defense

[utlaw2007]

It actually looks kind of fun (hell, it looks fun as fuck compared to BL), but the skills that get you ahead are clearly not legal skills. Given the aspieness of the average student at a good law school, see generally Top-Law-Schools.com, most of them would be terrible at it.

I totally agree. I went to Texas. Most of my classmates and most of the people on this site would be bad at relating to a jury and be bad at marketing their own firm.

[utlaw2007]

But your ability definitely contributes to your success if it relates to very good courtroom skills. If you have them, there is a lot you can do to make a very difficult case highly winnable.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

Thanks McDuff, interesting stuff. You provide light in a seemingly dark TTT world. Are you currently attending TT+?

Onto your post: Would I be wrong to assume the partners at your firm attended a top school, though? Not trying to challenge your response at all. However, I've done some serious Googling, and alot of the small firms around my area have partners with some lofty educational and big-firm pedigrees, and these guys eventually opened their own practices.

Firm would fit in the 2-10 category. Theres two T10 people (ones a partner, ones not) and the rest are T1, sep for one person who I think he went to UT-Knoxville back in the 80s. Most people are from CU-Boulder, where I go, but there is a T2 in the state that offers access to shitlaw as well, it just so happens that none of them work here.

Dude there may not be much of a difference between your school and a T1, just depends on your school. There is a cutoff at 14 then another one probably osculates somewhere around 20, but the rest of the schools are pretty similar in terms of access to regional job markets. Some schools happen to be located in big cities where 500+ law firms hire the grinders from the top of the class to make them money, some schools are located in rural areas where we enjoy "shit-law." There are lots of individual exceptions and a ton of stuff in between and all around that, but that provides a way to think about it. Ha don't worry, if your TTT is in a rural area, you can do shitlaw just like me.

FWIW, no one around here would call what I do shit-law-- that is just some TLS insecure elitist bullshit, unless you are actually talking about literally chasing ambulances or opening up a one man shop an advertising DUI defense in the phone book. Most of what TLS refers to as shit law is actually far from that, just don't tell the trolls because its not worth your time.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

big law = firms that do important deals and litigation, often between multinational fortune 100 corps.

ie
AT&T FTC antitrust review
FB IPO

shit law = private for-profit practices that do everything else, typically advertising on billboards, TV, bus stops

ie
insurance defense
DUI defense

So shitlaw is everything else, but the truth is only probably 1% of "shit law" advertises on billboards, TV, or bus stops. Also you don't really think the middle to upper middle class can afford big law? So where do they go to get their legal work done? I guess they only need help with insurance defense/DUI defense.......

[utlaw2007]

big law = firms that do important deals and litigation, often between multinational fortune 100 corps.

ie
AT&T FTC antitrust review
FB IPO

shit law = private for-profit practices that do everything else, typically advertising on billboards, TV, bus stops

ie
insurance defense
DUI defense

So shitlaw is everything else, but the truth is only probably 1% of "shit law" advertises on billboards, TV, or bus stops. Also you don't really think the middle to upper middle class can afford big law? So where do they go to get their legal work done? I guess they only need help with insurance defense/DUI defense.......

Agreed. That is the biggest problem with this site and it is primarily the reason why I am on it. I want to dispel myths for those who are being misled due to the misinformation on this site. There are too many kids on here that comment on the profession that know NOTHING about the profession. Not all banks and smaller corporations can afford or even want to pay for biglaw services. But like I always say, let those who know nothing continue acting on their flawed thinking. It does you no harm if they think that way.

[Aberzombie1892]

I agree with what everyone says about "sh*tlaw" not really being sh*t. It's just not as prestigious, and you probably won't see a salary of $100k+ in that career unless (1) you get paid from contingent fee cases that have the potential to have significant amount of punitive damages or (2) you start your own firm and actually try to grow it.

As for the upper and middle class - there are many issues that can be resolved without resorting to paying NLJ firms to handle, if for no other reason that there is no added value in using a large firm over a smaller one. Straightforward wills, state law criminal defense (including speeding tickets and DUIs), simple taxation matters (assuming that they do not already have an accountant to do this), and so on are usually performed by small firm lawyers. There is no point in paying a larger (50+) lawyer firm their fees to handle these issues when a smaller firm (>10) lawyers can handle it just fine for a lower fee.

The clients of most large firms are corporations and extremely wealthy people that have many investments, which often include ownership of a corporation/LLC/Partnership/etc.

[09042014]

People on Xo and JDUnderground seem to make it out to be worse than hell though.

[rayiner]

Dear TLS, I will be attending a regional TTT on an almost full scholly, and will have to pay no COA. I am hedging my bets at said school by taking on virtually no debt. I'm concerned though, as the school has no specialty offerings in "shit law". Consensus on TLS suggests that I should become acquainted with shit-law, as it is the type of law that my school is really passionate about, and geared towards teaching. Thus, if any TLSers out there could clarify what is meant by "Shit-law" in terms of type of law practiced, firm sizes, salaries, etc. vs Big Law, it would be much appreciated.

Assuming genuine curiosity, I'll bite. I think most people refer to "Shit Law" as being small (<20, more likely 2-10 attorneys per "firm") and low paying ($40k-60K/year). They typically practice under the guise of "general practice", which could mean tickets, misdemeanors, wills and trusts, real estate, or whatever they can find. The pay is substantially less than BigLaw and the work is much less prestigious. There are worse case scenarios, and the work isn't entirely uninteresting - just not particularly well respected.

ETA: 0L here, didn't realize the forum. Do have experience in the area though.

Also assuming genuine curiosity, the pay is generally lower at least at the beginning stages of your career. But I never understand why someone would consider it not well respected. Doing work for fortune 500= respect; doing work for individuals=no respect? Being originally from a small town, I always felt small law was where all lawyers worked. it's classic real lawyering. It was only later I even knew what biglaw was.

(someone with experience in small law environment on both client and law firm side)

Edit: most lawyers in this country do not work for big law firms

It's a byproduct of the changes in law over the past generation. The real income of solo attorneys has gone down 30% over the last generation, from $65k (adjusted for inflation) to $45k. At the same time, tuition has exploded. Consider the lawyers you have encountered in your small town. The ones that are in the middle of their career (~45 y/o) graduated in the early 1990s. At the time, you could get a law degree from the University of Michigan for $22,000 in tuition (in-state), or about $33,000 in today's dollars. Tuition today for the same degree is about $140,000 (in-state). Even at a third-tier in-state school it will be close to $90,000 (in-state).

So back in 1992, when you graduated from a local school with maybe $25,000 in debt and went to go to work for a small firm for $35,000, life wasn't so bad. Yeah, the folks who went to Cravath were making $80,000, but your own personal situation was reasonable. In 2012, most people will graduate from a local school with $100,000 in debt, and will be making $45,000 at a small firm. That's where the "shit" part comes in.

[utlaw2007]

And not everyone wants to go biglaw even if they had the choice. I had the choice at Texas. I graduated 2007 before the economy went bad. Half of the class at UT Law was eligible for biglaw. We have grads that went to New York, DC, and California. And we dominated biglaw in Texas, which happens to pay just as much as biglaw in other states.

But if you want to be a trial lawyer, you just do not go biglaw because you may NEVER see a courtroom. Plus, not everyone is content with having not much of a life. This site acts as though biglaw is the main goal of everyone who goes to a biglaw eligible law school. And that is far from the case. Again, I'm one of those individuals who did not want biglaw, but could have gotten it.

All I can say is that the OP may not be able to get a law firm job, depending on how well he does in school. But you can always hang your own shingle. My best friend's step dad does transactional work and bankruptcies by himself. I would hardly categorize what he does as sh@#t law. He makes 150k a year. I would say that is very good, especially considering the fact that 150k goes a lot further in Texas than 160k does in New York or California.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

big law = firms that do important deals and litigation, often between multinational fortune 100 corps.

ie
AT&T FTC antitrust review
FB IPO

shit law = private for-profit practices that do everything else, typically advertising on billboards, TV, bus stops

ie
insurance defense
DUI defense

So shitlaw is everything else, but the truth is only probably 1% of "shit law" advertises on billboards, TV, or bus stops. Also you don't really think the middle to upper middle class can afford big law? So where do they go to get their legal work done? I guess they only need help with insurance defense/DUI defense.......

Agreed. That is the biggest problem with this site and it is primarily the reason why I am on it. I want to dispel myths for those who are being misled due to the misinformation on this site. There are too many kids on here that comment on the profession that know NOTHING about the profession. Not all banks and smaller corporations, can afford or even want to pay for biglaw services. But like I always say, let those who know nothing continue acting on their flawed thinking. It does you no harm if they think that way.

Haha I think my favorite is he put "for-profit" by shitlaw and not big law. Yeah those altruists who work for the very richest people on the planet, god love em.

[RedBirds2011]

People on Xo and JDUnderground seem to make it out to be worse than hell though.

I imagine those sites are self selected for students who took out high loans not really originally interested in law, but moreso interested in having a high profile skyrise office job. A lot of them have probably never worked in the real world outside higher education so don't get how the real world really is (i.e. nobody gives you money for participating or getting an A on a test).

However, I actually like a lot of what's on JDU. The new admin has really cleaned it up and I have found lots of great advice from practicing lawyers on there. It's not nearly as bad as it used to be.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

Dear TLS, I will be attending a regional TTT on an almost full scholly, and will have to pay no COA. I am hedging my bets at said school by taking on virtually no debt. I'm concerned though, as the school has no specialty offerings in "shit law". Consensus on TLS suggests that I should become acquainted with shit-law, as it is the type of law that my school is really passionate about, and geared towards teaching. Thus, if any TLSers out there could clarify what is meant by "Shit-law" in terms of type of law practiced, firm sizes, salaries, etc. vs Big Law, it would be much appreciated.

Assuming genuine curiosity, I'll bite. I think most people refer to "Shit Law" as being small (<20, more likely 2-10 attorneys per "firm") and low paying ($40k-60K/year). They typically practice under the guise of "general practice", which could mean tickets, misdemeanors, wills and trusts, real estate, or whatever they can find. The pay is substantially less than BigLaw and the work is much less prestigious. There are worse case scenarios, and the work isn't entirely uninteresting - just not particularly well respected.

ETA: 0L here, didn't realize the forum. Do have experience in the area though.

Also assuming genuine curiosity, the pay is generally lower at least at the beginning stages of your career. But I never understand why someone would consider it not well respected. Doing work for fortune 500= respect; doing work for individuals=no respect? Being originally from a small town, I always felt small law was where all lawyers worked. it's classic real lawyering. It was only later I even knew what biglaw was.

(someone with experience in small law environment on both client and law firm side)

Edit: most lawyers in this country do not work for big law firms

It's a byproduct of the changes in law over the past generation. The real income of solo attorneys has gone down 30% over the last generation, from $65k (adjusted for inflation) to $45k. At the same time, tuition has exploded. Consider the lawyers you have encountered in your small town. The ones that are in the middle of their career (~45 y/o) graduated in the early 1990s. At the time, you could get a law degree from the University of Michigan for $22,000 in tuition (in-state), or about $33,000 in today's dollars. Tuition today for the same degree is about $140,000 (in-state). Even at a third-tier in-state school it will be close to $90,000 (in-state).

So back in 1992, when you graduated from a local school with maybe $25,000 in debt and went to go to work for a small firm for $35,000, life wasn't so bad. Yeah, the folks who went to Cravath were making $80,000, but your own personal situation was reasonable. In 2012, most people will graduate from a local school with $100,000 in debt, and will be making $45,000 at a small firm. That's where the "shit" part comes in.

I agree that law school is too expensive, but the shit part in your analysis can certainly be applied to big law. Most people don't realize how long it would take to grind it out in big law and pay off that 200k, considering by the time most of us are 30 yrs old we don't want to live like we're in college.

[RedBirds2011]

Dear TLS, I will be attending a regional TTT on an almost full scholly, and will have to pay no COA. I am hedging my bets at said school by taking on virtually no debt. I'm concerned though, as the school has no specialty offerings in "shit law". Consensus on TLS suggests that I should become acquainted with shit-law, as it is the type of law that my school is really passionate about, and geared towards teaching. Thus, if any TLSers out there could clarify what is meant by "Shit-law" in terms of type of law practiced, firm sizes, salaries, etc. vs Big Law, it would be much appreciated.

Assuming genuine curiosity, I'll bite. I think most people refer to "Shit Law" as being small (<20, more likely 2-10 attorneys per "firm") and low paying ($40k-60K/year). They typically practice under the guise of "general practice", which could mean tickets, misdemeanors, wills and trusts, real estate, or whatever they can find. The pay is substantially less than BigLaw and the work is much less prestigious. There are worse case scenarios, and the work isn't entirely uninteresting - just not particularly well respected.

ETA: 0L here, didn't realize the forum. Do have experience in the area though.

Also assuming genuine curiosity, the pay is generally lower at least at the beginning stages of your career. But I never understand why someone would consider it not well respected. Doing work for fortune 500= respect; doing work for individuals=no respect? Being originally from a small town, I always felt small law was where all lawyers worked. it's classic real lawyering. It was only later I even knew what biglaw was.

(someone with experience in small law environment on both client and law firm side)

Edit: most lawyers in this country do not work for big law firms

It's a byproduct of the changes in law over the past generation. The real income of solo attorneys has gone down 30% over the last generation, from $65k (adjusted for inflation) to $45k. At the same time, tuition has exploded. Consider the lawyers you have encountered in your small town. The ones that are in the middle of their career (~45 y/o) graduated in the early 1990s. At the time, you could get a law degree from the University of Michigan for $22,000 in tuition (in-state), or about $33,000 in today's dollars. Tuition today for the same degree is about $140,000 (in-state). Even at a third-tier in-state school it will be close to $90,000 (in-state).

So back in 1992, when you graduated from a local school with maybe $25,000 in debt and went to go to work for a small firm for $35,000, life wasn't so bad. Yeah, the folks who went to Cravath were making $80,000, but your own personal situation was reasonable. In 2012, most people will graduate from a local school with $100,000 in debt, and will be making $45,000 at a small firm. That's where the "shit" part comes in.

We get it. Things are so much harder now and it's not fair.

Edit: not everyone is taking out ridiculous loans. There are ways to get around those tuition hikes...scholarships, etc.

[09042014]

We get it. Things are so much harder now and it's not fair.

Just do bootstraps bro (shitboomer).

[utlaw2007]

I agree with what everyone says about "sh*tlaw" not really being sh*t. It's just not as prestigious, and you probably won't see a salary of $100k+ in that career unless (1) you get paid from contingent fee cases that have the potential to have significant amount of punitive damages or (2) you start your own firm and actually try to grow it.

Except you don't need punitive damages to make more than 100k off of one case. The contingency part is correct. Punitive damages are hardly awarded in most cases in Texas. Besides, they are capped. They are virtually never awarded in contracts cases. But I have a contract case right now that has a good chance of making us 200k total without punitive damages.

And there are a quite a few criminal attorneys that make more than 100k. The ceiling for trial lawyers, both criminal and especially civil is just really high.

[FlanAl]

Also you don't really think the middle to upper middle class can afford big law? So where do they go to get their legal work done? I guess they only need help with insurance defense/DUI defense.......

I always thought this. I mean yeah big law is great but there's no way it services any more than 10% of the population of people who purchase legal services.

I also kind of wonder what percentage of people start out in shit law and then just quit the legal profession altogether.

Any thoughts on the path to being a successful shit law attorney?

[rayiner]

All I can say is that the OP may not be able to get a law firm job, depending on well he does in school. But you can always hang your own shingle. My best friend's step dad does transactional work and bankruptcies by himself. I would hardly categorize what he does as sh@#t law. He makes 150k a year. I would say that is very good, especially considering the fact that 150k goes a lot further in Texas than 160k does in New York or California.

http://www.americanbar.org/publications ... ander.html

Given an overall pattern of contraction, the continued growth of the big firms means that the pain felt elsewhere in the law business is all the more severe. For example, the average income of a solo practitioner in the United States in 2004 was less than $46,000—about a 30 percent decline, in real dollars, compared to the previous generation.

[RedBirds2011]

We get it. Things are so much harder now and it's not fair.

Just do bootstraps bro (shitboomer).

I'm not a boomer, but a lot of them are right by the way. we are the whiniest generation of all generations to ever be in this country. It makes me want to vomit sometimes.

Loans are an issue, but nobody forces anybody to take out those kinds of loans. Even though I agree with this aspect of a typical boomer argument, I will concede boomers can annoy the hell out of me too sometimes.

[rayiner]

Assuming genuine curiosity, I'll bite. I think most people refer to "Shit Law" as being small (<20, more likely 2-10 attorneys per "firm") and low paying ($40k-60K/year). They typically practice under the guise of "general practice", which could mean tickets, misdemeanors, wills and trusts, real estate, or whatever they can find. The pay is substantially less than BigLaw and the work is much less prestigious. There are worse case scenarios, and the work isn't entirely uninteresting - just not particularly well respected.

ETA: 0L here, didn't realize the forum. Do have experience in the area though.

Also assuming genuine curiosity, the pay is generally lower at least at the beginning stages of your career. But I never understand why someone would consider it not well respected. Doing work for fortune 500= respect; doing work for individuals=no respect? Being originally from a small town, I always felt small law was where all lawyers worked. it's classic real lawyering. It was only later I even knew what biglaw was.

(someone with experience in small law environment on both client and law firm side)

Edit: most lawyers in this country do not work for big law firms

It's a byproduct of the changes in law over the past generation. The real income of solo attorneys has gone down 30% over the last generation, from $65k (adjusted for inflation) to $45k. At the same time, tuition has exploded. Consider the lawyers you have encountered in your small town. The ones that are in the middle of their career (~45 y/o) graduated in the early 1990s. At the time, you could get a law degree from the University of Michigan for $22,000 in tuition (in-state), or about $33,000 in today's dollars. Tuition today for the same degree is about $140,000 (in-state). Even at a third-tier in-state school it will be close to $90,000 (in-state).

So back in 1992, when you graduated from a local school with maybe $25,000 in debt and went to go to work for a small firm for $35,000, life wasn't so bad. Yeah, the folks who went to Cravath were making $80,000, but your own personal situation was reasonable. In 2012, most people will graduate from a local school with $100,000 in debt, and will be making $45,000 at a small firm. That's where the "shit" part comes in.

We get it. Things are so much harder now and it's not fair.

Edit: not everyone is taking out ridiculous loans. There are ways to get around those tuition hikes...scholarships, etc.

It's not a matter of fairness or not. I'm simply explaining why "shit law" is perceived the way it is perceived. Also, it is irrelevant that "not everyone" is taking out loans. I'm making a point about the whole industry, not specific peoples' choices. The vast majority of students at low-ranked schools will not be receiving scholarships.

[RedBirds2011]

All I can say is that the OP may not be able to get a law firm job, depending on well he does in school. But you can always hang your own shingle. My best friend's step dad does transactional work and bankruptcies by himself. I would hardly categorize what he does as sh@#t law. He makes 150k a year. I would say that is very good, especially considering the fact that 150k goes a lot further in Texas than 160k does in New York or California.

http://www.americanbar.org/publications ... ander.html

Given an overall pattern of contraction, the continued growth of the big firms means that the pain felt elsewhere in the law business is all the more severe. For example, the average income of a solo practitioner in the United States in 2004 was less than $46,000—about a 30 percent decline, in real dollars, compared to the previous generation.

The other problem with this study, even though I don't think it's necessarily wrong, is that it's hard to know what a solo is making. There are a lot of solos that won't be included in statistics. It's the same issue of why people criticize placement stats. And placement stats, incomplete as they are, tell us even more than solo average salary does.

[utlaw2007]

All I can say is that the OP may not be able to get a law firm job, depending on well he does in school. But you can always hang your own shingle. My best friend's step dad does transactional work and bankruptcies by himself. I would hardly categorize what he does as sh@#t law. He makes 150k a year. I would say that is very good, especially considering the fact that 150k goes a lot further in Texas than 160k does in New York or California.

http://www.americanbar.org/publications ... ander.html

Given an overall pattern of contraction, the continued growth of the big firms means that the pain felt elsewhere in the law business is all the more severe. For example, the average income of a solo practitioner in the United States in 2004 was less than $46,000—about a 30 percent decline, in real dollars, compared to the previous generation.

Congratulations. You are the second one on this site to imply I haven't a clue about my own personal professional experiences. I'm a practicing lawyer. And you want to point to some statistics that combine transactional law practices with trial law practices. Furthermore, you kids need to understand that not all practice areas of law are created equal. And then on top of that, not all industries of a given practice area are created equal. I said earlier that you need to work smart when you have your own practice. Relying on statistics that fail to distinguish different practice areas and fail to distinguish different industries among the same practice area is not working smartly to put it politely.

I never said that my experiences are the norm. But, one can help change their fortune by approaching this matter smartly. It's not easy. But to just give up because the stats say one thing and those stats make no important distinctions is a defeatist mentality that will get you nowhere.

[rayiner]

We get it. Things are so much harder now and it's not fair.

Just do bootstraps bro (shitboomer).

I'm not a boomer, but a lot of them are right by the way. we are the whiniest generation of all generations to ever be in this country. It makes me want to vomit sometimes.

Loans are an issue, but nobody forces anybody to take out those kinds of loans. Even though I agree with this aspect of a typical boomer argument, I will concede boomers can annoy the hell out of me too sometimes.

The boomers are utterly wrong on this issue. Take the moralizing ("nobody is forcing you to take loans") out of the equation. That's irrelevant shit. Look at the underlying mechanics of the system. In 1985 (when a boomer might have graduated), tuition and fees at the University of Virginia was $1,800. In 2011 it was $11,600. That means in 1985, you could pay your year's tuition at a top-notch public school for about 550 hours of minimum wage work (basically working weekends). Today, you have to put in about 1,600 hours of minimum wage work (almost a full-time job the whole year).

[RedBirds2011]

It's not a matter of fairness or not. I'm simply explaining why "shit law" is perceived the way it is perceived. Also, it is irrelevant that "not everyone" is taking out loans. I'm making a point about the whole industry, not specific peoples' choices. The vast majority of students at low-ranked schools will not be receiving scholarships.[/quote]

Fair enough, I agree here. My point is, the discussion for prospectives should almost always be about how much debt they are taking on and for what (aside from top top schools). As others have mentioned, I also want to dispel the myth that shitlaw is shit in of itself (it absolutely isn't). Again, very few of this countries lawyers work in big firms.

Also, it is relevant to those that MADE the CHOICE not to incur high debt from a non top law school.