Moving Past the Rankings Forum

[Army2Law]

^ Uh oh, someone doesn't have their sufficient and necessary conditions straight.

P.S. If a guy has been working as an attorney for over 20 years, chances are he is over 40. HTH.

Veyron solidifies his spot as number 1 in my poster prestige rankings with posts like this one.

[Stringer Bell]

The point is that generally, to make tons of money in the legal profession, you need to start out in a biglaw firm or something of equal prestige that will open up doors for you. And, generally, the people getting these prestigious positions went to top schools.

There is an attorney in Texas that has made tens of millions doing hurricane claims. That's not really the path being an associate at Cravath starts you on.

[Patriot1208]

The point is that generally, to make tons of money in the legal profession, you need to start out in a biglaw firm or something of equal prestige that will open up doors for you. And, generally, the people getting these prestigious positions went to top schools.

There is an attorney in Texas that has made tens of millions doing hurricane claims. That's not really the path being an associate at Cravath starts you on.

Hence the word generally. There are certainly stories of tort lawyers who have made a shit ton of money, but that isn't common and that markty is saturated by old guys who jumped on the bandwagon before class action was a popular thing. The are also the attorneys who every other attorney hates, FWIW.

[kapital98]

That's not what Veyron said: "Today, you should go T-14 or go home. HTH."

Take out the 'generally,' and that's his argument. The problem with evaluating his argument is almost no lawyers, T-14 or not, under the age of 40 are in a position to be an outlier. There is no way to empirically test his hypothesis.

[kapital98]

*Note: I agree with what your saying Patriot -- just not with Veyron. The majority of outliers will come from the best schools.

[Veyron]

That's not what Veyron said: "Today, you should go T-14 or go home. HTH."

Take out the 'generally,' and that's his argument. The problem with evaluating his argument is almost no lawyers, T-14 or not, under the age of 40 are in a position to be an outlier. There is no way to empirically test his hypothesis.

I can tell you that you shouldn't buy a lottery ticket even though some people win the lottery.

[kapital98]

And there would be plenty of empirical evidence, and a strong theoretical justification, to defend your argument.

If you're talking about big shot attorneys I'm glad you're willing to admit some will make it even if their not T-14.

[Stringer Bell]

I get it. OP started his thread essentially talking about outlier type attorneys (in terms of earnings, not necessarily prestige of their positions) that went to regional schools. Some folks chime in with something along the lines of that not being possible anymore without a t14 degree. I'm saying that to be an 8 figure type attorney this is probably inaccurate. It's unlikely coming from a TTT and it's unlikely coming from the t14. But I would venture to say that if you did the break down on % of attorneys making those obscene amounts of money twenty years from now in terms of t14 vs. non t14, the TTT's would comprise a greater % of that breakout than the ratio of T14 grads to non t14 grads hired as NLJ 250 associates.

The Jack Nicholson comparison is appropriate. The lottery ticket comparison isn't. This thread is pretty pointless though.