Newly minited lawyers how is the job outlook and salaries? Forum

[Miracle]

He might of not "worded" the issue at question very well but his concerns is valid.

lol

What did you find so funny?

[ksllaw]

Firms smaller than 200 attorneys.

I don't think Campos is wrong so much as he's very conservative with his figures because he's operating with less information. He knows that firms of 250+ attorneys all pay good salaries, but knows that there are some firms smaller than 250 that are insurance defense firms that pay very low salaries. So he makes conservative assumptions and counts only people at firms with over 250 attorneys. I don't make that conservative assumption, because as a student I can see the internal summer jobs database, etc, and know that those smaller firms are much more likely to be one of the dozen IP boutiques in Chicago, or one of the dozen commercial lit boutiques in Chicago, etc, than an insurance defense firm like Wilson Elsner.

Hmmm, in regards to boutique-y firms, Campos does make mention of them in his calculations that I quoted (earlier page) and can be heard audibly doing so in the video. So, he does include good-paying jobs at smaller firms too.

Nevertheless, I'll be emailing him tonight to see if we can get the exact breakdown. But, thanks for the explanations so far, ray!

[ksllaw]

This range doesn't encompass shit law, but IP boutiques and secondary/tertiary market big law (e.g. $120k in Milwaukee).

One more follow-up question(s). ...

I'm embarassed to even ask, but what do people mean when they say "s**t" law on these forums? I've been seeing such TLS terms/jargon quite often and have asked around elsewhere as well. It seems there's almost a unique online legal parlance related to TLS and other law school forum sites, is there not? I normally wouldn't even want to include such terms in my vocabularly, but felt the need to ask only because of the surprising regularity with which I see these terms and as an effort to avoid any confusion over them when reading something of interest.

Secondly, what exactly are "boutique" firms and why are these ostensibly smaller firms "better" than the typical small or solo practices we generally think of on "Main Street" that offer family, bankruptcy, estate planning, etc. type of services?

And what salary ranges would these "boutique" firms offere compared to big law? Thanks so much!

[spaceman82]

I was referring to people at my T14. Most people have big law. A sizeable minority have nothing. Some of the people who don't had bad grades, but most had good grades but wanted PI or government jobs, which are impossible to get.

Are PI jobs really that hard to get, even in comparison to big law jobs?

[IAFG]

I was referring to people at my T14. Most people have big law. A sizeable minority have nothing. Some of the people who don't had bad grades, but most had good grades but wanted PI or government jobs, which are impossible to get.

Are PI jobs really that hard to get, even in comparison to big law jobs?

At a T14, it's easier to get a full time big firm job than PI. By a lot.

[spaceman82]

Even coming out of someplace like NYU?

[ksllaw]

I was referring to people at my T14. Most people have big law. A sizeable minority have nothing. Some of the people who don't had bad grades, but most had good grades but wanted PI or government jobs, which are impossible to get.

Are PI jobs really that hard to get, even in comparison to big law jobs?

At a T14, it's easier to get a full time big firm job than PI. By a lot.

I actually did read that public interest jobs are among the toughest to come by today on Paul Campos' blog (on an older entry he made).

Why is that the case, though, given that big law pays more? Is it simply too few slots and too many applicants for PI?

[rayiner]

I was referring to people at my T14. Most people have big law. A sizeable minority have nothing. Some of the people who don't had bad grades, but most had good grades but wanted PI or government jobs, which are impossible to get.

Are PI jobs really that hard to get, even in comparison to big law jobs?

At a T14, it's easier to get a full time big firm job than PI. By a lot.

I actually did read that public interest jobs are among the toughest to come by today on Paul Campos' blog (on an older entry he made).

Why is that the case, though, given that big law pays more? Is it simply too few slots and too many applicants for PI?

These are desirable jobs doing interesting, meaningful work, but there aren't many of them out there these days, especially given tightened state budgets. The extra pay of big law is to a small degree offset by loan forgiveness.

[rayiner]

Secondly, what exactly are "boutique" firms and why are these ostensibly smaller firms "better" than the typical small or solo practices we generally think of on "Main Street" that offer family, bankruptcy, estate planning, etc. type of services?

And what salary ranges would these "boutique" firms offere compared to big law? Thanks so much!

Boutiques usually do high-end work and pay comparable salaries to big law.

[ksllaw]

Just as a note: I emailed Paul Campos about the statistics and will await a response. If one does come (it would be great), then I'll be sure to post it (but if not, you guys can assume that there was not one).

Boutiques usually do high-end work and pay comparable salaries to big law.

Thank you, rayiner.

Out of curiosity, what size are these boutique firms that you're talking about? It was previously said that big law firms that pay well are generally over 250 attorneys. How large are these boutique firms?

[unc0mm0n1]

Just as a note: I emailed Paul Campos about the statistics and will await a response. If one does come (it would be great), then I'll be sure to post it (but if not, you guys can assume that there was not one).

Boutiques usually do high-end work and pay comparable salaries to big law.

Thank you, rayiner.

Out of curiosity, what size are these boutique firms that you're talking about? It was previously said that big law firms that pay well are generally over 250 attorneys. How large are these boutique firms?

You do know there is a website called google? If you type in easily defined terms like "boutique law firms" it will give you a definition or a website that will describe what said term means. You seem to constantly ask the most basic questions without doing any research yourself. People here are very helpful but you should try to help yourself sometimes instead of asking a million easily answered questions.

[ksllaw]

You do know there is a website called google? If you type in easily defined terms like "boutique law firms" it will give you a definition or a website that will describe what said term means. You seem to constantly ask the most basic questions without doing any research yourself. People here are very helpful but you should try to help yourself sometimes instead of asking a million easily answered questions.

Point taken, unc0mm0n1!! I actually just said the same thing in another thread. I apologize for past posts that may have contained questions too elementary for discussion here. I am genuinely a newbie to many things law-related, so sometimes the simplest terms or concepts are foreign to me (particularly the slang used here online). That's why I fire away and ask.

But, I also recognize the need to be mindful of others' interests and time and will make sure to try to post only questions that a reasonable internet search would not be able to answer accurately and thoroughly. My apologies.

[ksllaw]

I'm happy to report that I actually received an email response from Professor Paul Campos when inquiring about the formula he used for his Stanford lecture/presentation mentioned earlier in this thread.

W/o posting the full email (as I'm not sure whether that would be OK - although it was relatively short, friendly, and straight to the point), he referred me to a linked paper where we can see one "version" of these figures for "acceptable employment outcomes" that he said were intended to be conservative (giving every benefit of the doubt to the law schools):

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=2102702 (see Part III)

Hope this helps in our analysis here!

[ksllaw]

Here is a sample of the said paper (which already looks quite interesting to me):

"Another particularly notable subcategory of dubious “long-term” positions were those funded by law schools themselves, which provided some of their otherwise unemployed graduates with “full-time, long-term employment requiring bar admission “during the NALP nine-month, post-graduation reporting period. The June 2012 ABA data reveals that this practice is becoming quite common, especially at many of the highest-ranked schools. In addition, many schools funded short-term positions --less than one year -- for their graduates.

The following high-ranked schools funded large numbers of what the schools reported as long-term, full-time, bar-admission-required jobs held by their 2011 graduates nine months after graduation:

Yale: 22 of 205 graduates

Harvard: 33 of 583 graduates

Columbia: 38 of 456 graduates

Chicago: 24 of 203 graduates

NYU: 56 of 466 graduates

Virginia: 64 of 377 graduates

George Washington: 80 of 518 graduates

Several other high-ranked schools, by contrast, funded large numbers of what the schools reported as either short-term full-time, or short-term part-time, or long-term part-time positions requiring bar admission for graduates, which those graduates held as of February 15, 2012.
These jobs thus improved the schools’ overall nine-month after-graduation employment rate, but not the schools’ core employment rate, which includes only full-time “long-term” bar-required positions. Schools with these sorts of positions include;

Cornell: 26 of 201 graduates held short-term full-time law school-funded jobs.

Georgetown: 58 of 644 graduates were in short-term full-time law school-funded jobs, while 19 were in long-term full-time law school-funded positions.

UCLA: 55 short-term part-time positions, eight short-term full-time, and one long-term full-time position out of 344 graduates.

Vanderbilt; 31 long-term part-time positions out of 198 graduates

Notre Dame: 41 short-term full-time positions and two long-term full-time positions out of 190 graduates.

Boston University: 50 short-term part-time and ten short-term full-time positions out of 273 graduates. ..."

[ksllaw]

It looks like Section C of Part III is where many on these forums may find the most interesting content (although most of Part III is relevant to our discussion here as well):


(an excerpt from Sec. C)
" C. Current Employment Outcomes For Graduates of Elite Law Schools

Based on the above definitions, here are estimates of what percentage of the graduating classes of 2011 at the nation’s 20 highest-ranked law schools had undesirable employment outcomes as of February 15, 2012:

Yale: 18.4%
Stanford: 7.9%
Harvard: 17.9%
Columbia: 16.0%
Chicago: 23.6%
NYU: 23.6%
Penn: 17.0%
Berkeley: 19.2%
Duke: 22.5%
Michigan: 26.5%
Virginia: 28.1%
Northwestern: 22.8%
Cornell: 28.8%
Georgetown: 31.3%
Vanderbilt: 34.9%
Texas: 42.0%
UCLA: 47.0%
USC: 42.9%
George Washington: 44.3%
Minnesota: 66.3% ..."

[rayiner]

It looks like Section C of Part III is where many on these forums may find the most interesting content (although most of Part III is relevant to our discussion here as well):


(an excerpt from Sec. C)
" C. Current Employment Outcomes For Graduates of Elite Law Schools

Based on the above definitions, here are estimates of what percentage of the graduating classes of 2011 at the nation’s 20 highest-ranked law schools hadundesirable employment outcomes as of February 15, 2012:

Yale: 18.4%
Stanford: 7.9%
Harvard: 17.9%
Columbia: 16.0%
Chicago: 23.6%
NYU: 23.6%
Penn: 17.0%
Berkeley: 19.2%
Duke: 22.5%
Michigan: 26.5%
Virginia: 28.1%
Northwestern: 22.8%
Cornell: 28.8%
Georgetown: 31.3%
Vanderbilt: 34.9%
Texas: 42.0%
UCLA: 47.0%
USC: 42.9%
George Washington: 44.3%
Minnesota: 66.3% ..."

This looks about right. Note these are quite a bit lower than the numbers you originally gave: "over 50% of Michigan grads...30% of Columbia grads...33% of Duke grads...etc." These are along the lines of the analysis I did a few months ago (http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=181723) so I obviously think the methodology is reasonable. These also seem consistent with what I've observed "on the ground" with C/O 2012 at NU.

[manofjustice]

I think the upshot to any 0L is easy: a) never go to a school at sticker and b) never go to a school you don't think you can handle (that's top third of the class at a lower-ranked school, and staying out of the bottom third at a higher ranked school).

I would like to know what the historical data is. I think law school has always been a slightly different thing than medical school: have law schools ever graduated just as many JDs as there was demand? I think the nature of law, or perhaps just law school admissions, is that you have to probably need interview-adaptive skills to be a good lawyer and get a good job. I feel that going back however many decades, there have been law graduates with undesirable outcomes. Just completely guessing? Perhaps 1/3 to 1/4 as many graduates as have undesiriable outcomes now.

But there is no doubt we are crunching right now. When top grads from top schools are not getting jobs, there will be qualified graduates without jobs. That is an unambiguously inefficient and unfair result.

[IAFG]

I think the upshot to any 0L is easy: a) never go to a school at sticker and b) never go to a school you don't think you can handle (that's top third of the class at a lower-ranked school, and staying out of the bottom third at a higher ranked school).

No one who thinks they can pull this off can be trusted to make this decision for themselves.

[rayiner]

I would like to know what the historical data is. I think law school has always been a slightly different thing than medical school: have law schools ever graduated just as many JDs as there was demand? I think the nature of law, or perhaps just law school admissions, is that you have to probably need interview-adaptive skills to be a good lawyer and get a good job. I feel that going back however many decades, there have been law graduates with undesirable outcomes.

Law schools have always graduated more students than there were desirable jobs. The difference is that 20 years ago, tuition and debt wasn't as soul crushing as it is now. As for the T14, prior to the recession, everyone got jobs. NU used to release callback data by GPA. Back in 2006-2007, 30-50% of the bottom 10% of the class had three or more callbacks. Median kids were pulling half a dozen or more.

[manofjustice]

I think the upshot to any 0L is easy: a) never go to a school at sticker and b) never go to a school you don't think you can handle (that's top third of the class at a lower-ranked school, and staying out of the bottom third at a higher ranked school).

No one who thinks they can pull this off can be trusted to make this decision for themselves.

No, I suppose not. But we all have to be self-aware if we ever hope to be successful attorneys. We might as well attempt to start as a 0L. At the very least, I hope we can figure out (and quick) what would hold us back.

[IAFG]

I think the upshot to any 0L is easy: a) never go to a school at sticker and b) never go to a school you don't think you can handle (that's top third of the class at a lower-ranked school, and staying out of the bottom third at a higher ranked school).

No one who thinks they can pull this off can be trusted to make this decision for themselves.

No, I suppose not. But we all have to be self-aware if we ever hope to be successful attorneys. We might as well attempt to start as a 0L. At the very least, I hope we can figure out (and quick) what would hold us back.

wat

[manofjustice]

I think the upshot to any 0L is easy: a) never go to a school at sticker and b) never go to a school you don't think you can handle (that's top third of the class at a lower-ranked school, and staying out of the bottom third at a higher ranked school).

No one who thinks they can pull this off can be trusted to make this decision for themselves.

No, I suppose not. But we all have to be self-aware if we ever hope to be successful attorneys. We might as well attempt to start as a 0L. At the very least, I hope we can figure out (and quick) what would hold us back.

wat

wat?

[IAFG]

wat?

No one can predict how they're going to place on the curve. People who act on their belief that they somehow can predict the outcome are being foolish.

[manofjustice]

wat?

No one can predict how they're going to place on the curve. People who act on their belief that they somehow can predict the outcome are being foolish.

No, no one can predict with certainty, and no one should act entirely on their prediction. But does that mean no prediction is possible? If you are a very bad writer, are a reverse-spliter, hated classes in undergrad that involved analysis, are bad at memorizing things, and you suspect you got into your school because your GPA was above-median and the school needed to boost it's GPA median (but your major was performance arts), and you're not even sure you want to be a lawyer....can you predict with some idea what your place on the curve will be?

I mean, LSAT + GPA yields an index score that predicts, with school-specificity, your place on the curve. It's not perfect, but it's a prediction, isn't it?

[bk1]

wat?

No one can predict how they're going to place on the curve. People who act on their belief that they somehow can predict the outcome are being foolish.

No, no one can predict with certainty, and no one should act entirely on their prediction. But does that mean no prediction is possible? If you are a very bad writer, are a reverse-spliter, hated classes in undergrad that involved analysis, are bad at memorizing things, and you suspect you got into your school because your GPA was above-median and the school needed to boost it's GPA median (but your major was performance arts), and you're not even sure you want to be a lawyer....can you predict with some idea what your place on the curve will be?

I mean, LSAT + GPA yields an index score that predicts, with school-specificity, your place on the curve. It's not perfect, but it's a prediction, isn't it?

You are at a school where people are within a narrow LSAT/GPA band. On top of that, the correlation is weak.