Law Practice Management
Downturn’s Losers: BigLaw, ‘Entitled’ Associates, Top Schools
Posted May 7, 2009 9:12 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
The downturn has likely ended the traditional BigLaw model that produces $160,000 starting salaries and relies on elite law schools to supply new associates.
The situation is so bleak, according to Indiana University law professor William Henderson, that some law firm hiring managers believe associate start dates will be pushed back even further, possibly from January 2010 to September 2010. Henderson makes his observations on the downturn’s likely winners and losers in a comment to a post at Brian Leiter’s Law School Reports.
The winners, in Henderson’s view, are regional law firms that will take work away from their larger competitors and the associates they employ. The losers will be big law firms with armies of associates and the elite law schools that supply the talent.
“There is a fairly general consensus that the bubble has permanently burst on the traditional BigLaw model that produces the $160K salary structure,” Henderson writes. “The high-leverage firms in major markets are reeling the most, primarily because there is a lot less money being spent by GCs, and they are imposing brutal cost-containment strategies.” Even if starting pay remains at $140,000 or $160,000, Henderson says, every extra dollar above that will be “merit-based.”
Henderson says two managers at large law firms predicted the September 2010 associate start dates and told him, “There are no jobs right now—none.”
As large law firms suffer, so too will the brand-name law schools, he says. “Many, many GCs are less impressed by ‘brand’ than by cost containment and results,” Henderson says.
“Numerous law firm partners have told me about natural experiments in which associate from regional law school A, who everyone underestimated, outperformed entitled and complacent associates from national law school B,” Henderson writes. “The firms are now systematically studying these observations using the techniques of industrial psychology. It is very interesting stuff.”
Hat tip to the Legal Profession Blog.
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Reed Smith Will Ask Nonequity Partners to Pony Up Possibly 15% of Pay
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
B. McLeod
May 7, 2009 9:34 AM CST
Yet, I am oddly at peace with the impact on the large firms, their “entitled associates,” and “top” schools. Every so often, reality rears its head and a glamour fades, causing everyone to realize that certain marketing images were never real to begin with.
If the firms really want to “experiment,” they should (as I have suggested previously) determine their real “associate” needs and issue an announcement to the effect that the firm will hire/retain x number of “associates,” based on competitive bids submitted by the candidates. Business is business, and in a buyers market such as we have right now, this is the only mode of selection that really makes sense. Firms would receive ample responses, and would be able to sort the bids according to qualifications and proposed salary, thereafter choosing the qualified applicants with the lowest bid cost. I believe the level of savings will actually shock firm maangement committees. The firms that break from the pack and do this first will steal the march on their dinosaur colleagues and move up the pole, even in these troubled times.
Flag this comment
George Patsourakos
May 7, 2009 9:41 AM CST
It is sad that America’s current recession—the worst since the Great Depression—is having such a significant negative impact on large law firms and elite law schools. Perhaps more law school graduates will now begin their own law practice or work with one or two other lawyers. Although recent law school graduates will probably not be making the average $160,000 annual salary they would have made in large law firms, they will gain a more challenging law experience because they will be much more independent in their law practice.
Flag this comment
TN
May 7, 2009 10:38 AM CST
and the Biggest Loser??? Oh, that would be all those law grads from 2004 until present…and those entering law school now because they will have 100k + in nondischargeable law school loans and a worthless degree.
The number of law grads per year needs to drop from 40,000 to about 30,000 and law schools need to be honest about the pathetic cost-benefit of a JD for those not going to top ten schools
Flag this comment
James
May 7, 2009 11:35 AM CST
the market can support a lot more grads than those from the top 10. Most people don’t work at big law and never will.
What it doesn’t need is a bunch of tier 4 schools that aren’t even attached to universities. Say what you will about US news and world report… I think the rankings are great! All you potential students out there… rely on them, employers do.
Finally, if you a potential law student and you can’t get into a top 50 school. Ask yourself why? Do my grades suck? Did I get a 140 on the LSAT? Rather than shell out $40,000+ plus per year to go to a diploma mill think about whether you would do better in another profession OR take the LSAT again and apply again. When you go to a law school you’re paying not only for a JD but also for connections to alumni and employers who will help you get a job in a profession where networking is everything.
If you go to a bottom dwelling diploma mill, you’re paying nearly twice as much for that JD and none of the benefits that go with it. I know there’s going to be alums who have gone to these schools and made tons of money going solo or what-have-you, however, if the majority of your alums don’t practice law or work in a solo setting; ask yourself…. how are they going to help you get a job or employ you.
My analysis is overly simplistic yes, but in the majority of cases it seems to be true. I went to a large Tier 1 public university for law school and most of my classmates either had jobs or had made good connections toward getting them and landed them soon after graduation. The Tier 4 school on the otherside of my city turns out twice as many grads and most of them struggle. Are there good potential lawyers in that bunch… you bet just as there are probably bad potential lawyers in my class; however, we’re in a snobby profession where school name means something. Keep that in mind or you might graduate into a bad economy with your school name working against you and not for you.
Flag this comment
Kim
May 7, 2009 12:12 PM CST
This article is rubbish. The elite and privileged always come out on top. It is natural to hope for some silver lining in this. Indeed, those of us whose earnings rest on the left side of the bimodal legal salary distribution may be tempted to rejoice in biglaw’s hardships. But that is really stupid. The only reason I can make any modicum of a decent living at all is because the elites (usually) don’t want my job. Now, I know for sure I’ll never get a raise. After all, if I don’t like it, I can just step aside for some laid off Ivy League grad.
I wonder how those new law school accreditations are going . . .
Flag this comment
3L student
May 7, 2009 1:03 PM CST
What a difference a year makes. Ivy League lawyers getting laid off. WOW. Hello James. It is not nice to insult others with unfounded myths and rumors. I know people in T4 schools that are working in BigLaw and doing well. I know some law grads from T1 schools not doing well or just gave up on the legal profession. The problem with the world now is that people like to generalize and group everyone in the same category. These hiring managers are correct. You have to analyze people individually on their skills and not just from the schools that they attended. The rules have changed. If T1 associates are so intelligent, why do top caliber corporate clients refuse to have their legal affairs handled by these associates?
Flag this comment
JN
May 7, 2009 1:49 PM CST
I’m looking for an article I read that (warning) had a lot of math in it, showing the plotting of jobs after law school. To be brief, it demonstrated that you’re either making 40k or 140k. If I manage to find it, I’ll be happy to post it.
Flag this comment
Charis P
May 7, 2009 1:59 PM CST
@ Kim - Your analysis suffers from two fundamental flaws. The first is that law school graduates that want big law firm jobs would be interested in a position outside of a big law firm. They generally aren’t, which leads to the second flaw in your reasoning, that employers outside of big law firms are interested in hiring lawyers that have no loyalty and will abandon their post when the job market turns around.
Loyalty issues aside, there are also many employers that look at things other than grades and pedigree for indications that a candidate is suitable for employment which is one of the reasons so many laid off big law firm associates are getting the cold shoulder from government and public service law employers.
This isn’t about gloating over the misery of junior associates at big law firms. It’s about the big law firm business model finally coming to terms with more realistic compensation for value in its salary structure for associates.
Flag this comment
James
May 7, 2009 2:13 PM CST
To #6
Not meant as an insult to any specific person, unless you run a T4 diploma mill. I think that the people who attend those facilities are victims for the most part. I agree that I am generalizing and I’m sure you can find people who don’t fit my statement, but sadly my statement is the norm. I’m not saying that the government should come in and take away the licenses of someone who graduated from a t4 school but rather that the ABA should tighten what it requires to continue to be an accreditated law school, wise up to the scams that are being played, and adjust scores accordingly. Then yank the accrediation fo the non-performing schools. That will limit the number of lawyers and thus provide the profession a modicum of protection. Isn’t that why we have a professional organization that supposed to look out for us? The only reason a lot of t4 diploma mills exist is because it’s cheap to start a law school and easy to collect $40,000 per year from its students. All you have to promise them in exchange is that you’ll give them a piece of paper that says JD on it at the end. Why else to stand alone law schools spring up in every major urban city. IT’S CHEAP!!! These schools don’t care about their students in the slightest as long as they’re paying. The best trick is the “1st year Scholarship” which they yank 90% of after the 1L year becasue you weren’t in the top 10%. Now you’re at a crappy school and not in the top of your class. Where are you going to go? NOWHERE. They’ve got you right where they want you.
I also love how T4 defenders try to justify their existance by the “clinical programs” they have. EVERY SCHOOL has clinicals now. Look at the US News list for top clinical programs… most of those schools are in the top tier as well.
Sorry for the long rant and sorry if you happen to be offended. Like I said, I don’t have a problem with the lawyers who come out of these facilities and do well for themselves. I do, however, think the profession would be far FAR better off if these facilities didn’t exist. Methinks the same types of people who graduated from these facilities and still managed to do well in spite of that will do well anywhere.
Flag this comment
hmmm
May 7, 2009 2:35 PM CST
James -
you wouldn’t happen to be talking about John Marshall in Chicago with that scholarship comment, would you?
Flag this comment
GHF
May 7, 2009 3:22 PM CST
I will repeat: Law school is a terrible financial decision for the vast majority of law school grads.
There is simply no way most of you will get a ROI on the $40,000 a year most private TTTs charge for tuition.
People had better start facing reality.
Flag this comment
Leo
May 7, 2009 6:05 PM CST
James-
In your first post you distinguished top 50 schools from Tier 4 schools. I’m wondering where Tier 2 schools fit into your analysis. There are several in New York, Chicago, and Philly that have median LSAT scores above 160. Do you think that these are diploma mills?
Flag this comment
James
May 7, 2009 10:22 PM CST
to #10
It’s funny you mention that particular… ahem facility. I had a buddy who went there and that did happen to him. He still did well enough to transfer out to a better school. When he got to that school however (a top 25 school) he was told by the people conducting the on campus interviews that they didn’t want to interview “transfer students” from T4 schools. Therefore even a year at a T4 school can screw you. However, no I wasn’t talking about that school in particular, but there are plenty of schools that do the same thing.
to #12
I don’t know where tier 2 schools fall. I never attended one and there aren’t any in my geographical area. I guess my opinion would depend on whether the grads from these schools are able to find meaningful work. Many T2 schools are public and attached to major universities so tuition is a lot more affordable and thus the student loan debt isn’t as bad. I tend to think that if private T3 and T4 schools that were not attached to universities were eliminated the marketplace would open up quite a bit and T2 grads would likely be the ones who benefit the most.
Flag this comment
Oliver Wright
May 8, 2009 5:11 AM CST
As day follows night, blawg comment whores que up to celebrate and spit venom before the ink even dries on newspaper headlines announcing top tier grads’ long overdue comeuppance. That LSAT’s a biitch aint it guys? Follows you around like a shadow.
Flag this comment
Cat
May 8, 2009 6:05 AM CST
“it doesn’t need is a bunch of tier 4 schools that aren’t even attached to universities.”
Again with the hate for Tier 4 schools. Guess the former US Attorney for our area went to a ‘not needed’ school.
“Say what you will about US news and world report… I think the rankings are great! All you potential students out there… rely on them, employers do.”
While I realize that some employer do go by these rankings, anyone who relys on them really needs to ask themselves why. A lot of the factors (number of books in the library) have little to no impact on the education. How about evaluating shools on how well they actually teach?
“Finally, if you a potential law student and you can’t get into a top 50 school. Ask yourself why? Do my grades suck?”
Wow…judgmental much? Lots of perfectly good students don’t get into or don’t go to a Top 50 for a variety of reasons. This is exactly the type of attitude that perpetuates this horrible system.
“I guess my opinion would depend on whether the grads from these schools are able to find meaningful work.”
How do you define ‘meaningful’? Lots of people don’t want to put up with the billable hour expectations and politics of BigLaw. Some people - get this - actually went to law school because they wanted to help people! Some are perfectly happy in solo, small firm, or government jobs.
Flag this comment
associate
May 8, 2009 6:36 AM CST
How about evaluating me on my work skills and likelihood of surviving over the years as a good attorney, instead of just my GPA? Oh wait, employers never do that either. This is just the same whine you see from undergrads who bomb the LSAT and then blame the law school admissions for not looking at the “whole person.” There isn’t time, folks. LSAT, GPA, law school, ranking - it’s just a quick way to look at the *likelihood* of success, it’s not a guarantee, but it is a good predictor. (You might want to ask one or two questions during the interview, too.)
Flag this comment
AttorneyX
May 8, 2009 6:45 AM CST
Generally, graduates of top law schools have performed well in school over time and are consistent hard workers. If law firm managers are noting “entitled, complacent” graduates from elite schools, it’s most likely because the complacent graduate of an elite school is a noticeable exception to a generally very hard-working and achievement-driven pool. But if it makes everyone feel better to take potshots at associates who have worked very hard over time just to get laid off, do what you have to do.
Flag this comment
Jennifer A. Stiller
May 8, 2009 6:48 AM CST
I find the article fascinating. In the 90’s, when I was a partner in what then was considered a BigLaw firm, I argued that we should forget about hiring from Harvard and pay less than our competitors, but focus on hiring associates from good schools that didn’t have the name brand. I told them we’d get young lawyers who didn’t feel so entitled and who would be grateful to be given a chance at a firm like ours.
My partners thought I was nuts.They said if we didn’t do what all the other BigLaw firms were doing, our prestige would suffer.
I even proposed that we try a program that paid much less than the going rate for the first 2 years (I suggesteded $40K) in exchange for a much lower billable hour quota, with a lot of the old-fashioned kind of “come to this deposition and watch how it’s done” training (with the associate’s time not billed to the client). The salary/billable hours requirement would jump up to the standard arrangement after the first 2 years, and the young lawyer would be contractually obligated to stay with the firm for at least 5 years.
When challenged that no one with law school debts could afford such a job, I suggested that the firm pay the first 2 years of student loan obligations directly to the lender, so as to level the playing field for access to such jobs.
My partners thought I was REALLY nuts. They told me that no one would work for such a low salary, and if the firm had to pay the law school debts, the firm would lose money on the deal. (Like they didn’t lose money on baby lawyers anyway?)
I wonder how the training program would have worked. Maybe now someone will want to try it.
Flag this comment
TrollStar
May 8, 2009 6:49 AM CST
To Number 15, I realized that the LSAT meant nothing when about 10 of my classmates transferred from my Tier 4 School to a Tier 1 School in the same state, solely based on 1L performance. Sure it’s not going anywhere, standardized testing I mean, but there should be less emphasis placed on it…Another Tier 4 in my state just had an 80% bar passage rate shouldn’t that be what counts? Btw I’ll be out with 60k in debt and would never dream of paying twice that much. Rather have an MBA for 30k in that case…
Flag this comment
Jason
May 8, 2009 6:54 AM CST
Went to Texas Tech which is Tier 3 (though most believe it isn’t ranked high enough) - best decision I ever made from a cost analysis standpoint. Recently ranked as a top 10 “value school” - and I was able to get a fantastic job and pay off my school debt in less than a year. My point is that there is more to value than just the rankings. Private T4s do seem to be a rip-off for most though.
Flag this comment
Proud UConn Grad
May 8, 2009 6:55 AM CST
I came out of an Ivy League undergrad and CHOSE to go to my state law school (go UConn!), which at the time was in the high 30s/low 40s in the rankings, but has since slipped out of the top 50. I graduated near the top of my class, got a federal clerkship, and left school with only $50K in loans, most of which had gone towards rent, since I was only paying $8K/year (yes, that’s right—eight thousand dollars per year) in tuition.
I work for a top regional firm and make $140K. I’m less than two years out of school, and my student loans are down to about $15K. Plus, I’m only expected to bill 160 hours/month.
How’s that for a return on investment?
Flag this comment
T3 and ok
May 8, 2009 6:59 AM CST
Maybe it’s just me, but I went to a stand-alone T3 that is one of the oldest law schools in the country. Not a diploma mill by any stretch of the imagination, despite its lack of affiliation to a “university.” The only detriment I suffered was having to do my job search largely on my own, because I wasn’t interested in staying in the area.
Good students who perform well in school and work hard can do well for themselves, no matter where they attend school. True, my institution didn’t line me up for a huge job at a huge firm with a salary disproportionate to my skill set, but I am happy and fulfilled and, most importantly, employed where I want to be.
Flag this comment
C
May 8, 2009 7:01 AM CST
Your life isn’t just about making $160K a year. As of 2007, there were 1,143,358 of us (lawyers) in the U.S., so that means each and every one of us has the ability to go out and help more than 300 people with their legal issues. And as far as this 1st tier v. 4th tier crap, you all know that there were some major idiots as well as geniuses in your class whether you went to Harvard or the Thomas M. Cooley Law School. Law School is in my opinion, a poor substitute for the apprenticeships of the past where lawyers were allowed to become established in their professions. On the other hand, Law School also gives people a chance to take charge of their own destiny through hard work and join the establishment when previously they would have been excluded. As far as money is concerned, the reality is, there aren’t that many “poor” lawyers relatively speaking, and if you do very well you have a chance of hitting the big money.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
May 8, 2009 7:04 AM CST
A number of the state-sponsored schools are great deals. The concept of public universities has been a great contributor to U.S. culture and social mobility.
Flag this comment
kd
May 8, 2009 7:12 AM CST
The article is way too much hype. We’re in a severe legal spending downturn; but it will pass. For as long as there are legislators and judges, lawyers—and good ones who don’t work for pennies—will be needed. Those lawyers will need associates. Just think of all the new legislation that will be passed in the Obama administration alone, where there is little check on the current power. Lawyers are a necessary evil. It’s not easy being 24/7 available to a GC, and there is a price to pay for well-paid lawyers when you need them.
Flag this comment
Sarah H.S.
May 8, 2009 7:13 AM CST
This article is a breath of fresh air. It’s about time to change the status quo. I dont know how many times I’ve heard that the middle of the road attorneys (school and GPA wise) do a much better job than the top ranked grads.
Flag this comment
Lauryn
May 8, 2009 7:14 AM CST
#9 - that scholarship trick happened to me at a Tier 2 school that was briefly in Tier 3 and then back to Tier 2 (I believe this last move was when my graduating class had the best bar passage rate in years, no thanks to the school, and helped the school jump 3 rankings in state bar passage rates). This even happened over one-onehundreth of a point (0.01), even when the plus from my A+, if considered for scholarship purposes even if not for cumulative average, would have taken me over the threshold. If I knew when I lost the scholarship after first year that I wouldn’t be getting it back, and how the job market would be, I bet I wouldn’t have continued in law school.
Flag this comment
In H
May 8, 2009 7:18 AM CST
I went to a first tier public law school that’s reasonably well respected nationally and very well respected regionally. Tuition wasn’t quite cheap, but it was under $20k per year.
Four years later…great in-house job (which is what I wanted from the get-go - I have a background in business), enjoyable work, decent hours, paid near the top of this particular market, no student loans, etc., etc. I’ve never once regretted law school.
From the business perspective, by the way, only suckers use biglaw (unless you absolutely need to throw lots of bodies at a big acquisition or something along those lines, or need to get in somebody’s ear in DC). Beyond those narrow exceptions, smaller firms do better work for less money.
Flag this comment
Homer
May 8, 2009 7:20 AM CST
to no. 18:
that probably would’ve been a fantastic learning opportunity. one that would help start young lawyers off to great careers. the only problem, is you assume that most young associates want that.
seems that most don’t. they appear to want big bucks right now, appellate brief writing experience right now, and doors kicked open to long-standing clients right now - without actually learning what the heck they’re doing first.
most law schools kids don’t want to be lawyers, they just have useless under grad degrees and few options. (mostly, but not only, biglaw situation, in my own experience.)
18 your idea seems almost draconian. like an old apprentice-ship system. but given 10 years in this profession, i’d bet your idea likely would’ve produced great results. pity.
Flag this comment
2L at "Top 100" School
May 8, 2009 7:29 AM CST
Whether or not to attend law school and what kind of ROI you will receive is a very personal decision. I did well on my LSAT and had solid undergrad grades. I was accepted at two top 50 schools and one significantly lower in the rankings. The lower-ranked school offered me a full tuition scholarship, which I have kept by staying in the top 5% of my class. I have a traditional summer associate position at a mid-size firm (about 100 attorneys) and I also have a good relationship with two small firms (10-30). I can take whatever position works out. I can go to any size firm, whether they pay 80K or 140K. I can go to the government. Yes, I don’t have a “name” on my diploma. But I also don’t have any significant debt and I have that snazzy top 5% and law review working for me. I’m not sure I could have managed that at a top tier school and I know I would’ve been up to my eyeballs in debt. I made my decision because I knew I didn’t want to end up in BigLaw, so not having debt was more important than having a flashy JD. ROI means different things to different people. Just like every other decision in life you have to know what you want before you make a commitment. If you want BigLaw, then a high priced top tier school is for you. If you want options to work at smaller firms, for the government, or public interest, then the cheapest school might be the best. One size does not fit all.
When nearly everyone in the profession is suffering some kind of disappointment or set back, shouldn’t we try to respect each other’s choices and show a little compassion? Or am I setting the bar too high for my future profession?
Flag this comment
179
May 8, 2009 8:25 AM CST
so you all studied your asses off through high school and college and got good grades on effort, convincing yourself and your home town that you were brilliant. then you met the Great Equalizer called the LSAT, couldn’t study your way over a 150. it’s been a while guys, COME TO GRIPS WITH YOUR INTELLECTUAL MEDIOCRITY and START ENJOYING LIFE! or see a therapist.
Flag this comment
Jet
May 8, 2009 8:37 AM CST
Duh. How long before people wake up to reality. The ‘big law’ model is as flawed as the megabanks. I have seen so much abuse of ‘running the meter’ that these big firms do it’s disgusting and has helped reflect the low regard in which the profession his held. In over 30 years of practice, I have kicked the behind of those with ‘elite degrees’ many times over through simply out working them. Those of us who, for many reasons, couldn’t go with the ‘high priced spread’, but really ‘wanted’ to practice law as opposed to just making money, know that persistence and hard work will win out more times than not. Corporate America with its unrealistic valuation of services fueled the problems we face today with the ‘entitlement’ mindset to a lavish lifestyle. Having a “JD” after your name should entitle you to nothing. We see the same problem with other professions. We must return to the ‘old fashioned’ way of getting respect, status and income. Earn it. People don’t appreciate the value of anything handed to them. They know its price, but have no appreciation. Rant over.
Flag this comment
Stone
May 8, 2009 8:44 AM CST
To all the disenfranchised slaves to the bs rankings, go start your own firms. Hire only people from “value” schools.
Flag this comment
Ross
May 8, 2009 8:58 AM CST
You know, the comments are interesting. I’m from a midwestern state and made LSAT score in the high 160s. Money, and trying to avoid debt, were big issues for me, so I chose a full ride to a T2 state school over higher-ranked regional schools (Texas, Chicago, etc.) I got out with zero debt and now am making 90+ as a third year associate at a small boutique firm in the Midwest. The quality of life (working 50 hours per week rather than 80) and cost of living more than make up for the salary difference between here and BigLaw.
When I see these articles and the comments touting the “biggest of the big” positions, I am simply confused. I get to do complex IP litigation and prosecution, get to go home at 6:30, etc. I wouldn’t trade it for 140K and 80 (billable) hours a week in a million years. It’s still about happiness, people.
Flag this comment
Furry
May 8, 2009 9:07 AM CST
#28
There’s still a lot of suckers in executive offices. Big Law means something to these guys/gals, even if the results aren’t very good compared boutiques and solos that kill or be killed. As with law schools and hiring, the name brand is still a short-hand for confidence.
Flag this comment
T4 3L
May 8, 2009 9:12 AM CST
All you T4 haters out there are just afraid of losing your entitlements to a lowly T4. Good. Be afraid. You are probably overpaid and ridiculously pompous anyway, so I will be amused by your debacle. My T4 school has very good bar passage rates when compared to the other 9 law schools in our state and has produced a number of BigLaw associates as well as other jobs of considerable merit. We also have an extremely good Moot Court program that performs exceptionally well, both nationally and internationally. Just like with anything else, people attending T4 schools will reap no more than they sow, and closing the doors to these institutions would prevent a number of would-be talented lawyers from ever seeing the court room. What are you worried about anyway, if all the T4 graduates are so inept, then you should relish the prospect of taking them to the cleaners for your clients.
Flag this comment
Marc
May 8, 2009 9:23 AM CST
No wonder people hate lawyers. I am amazed to see people gloating about their high LSAT scores as if this demonstrates some sort of intellectualy superiority. Give me a break! The LSAT is just another standardized test that places an emphasis on being able to take the test. I have taken several different standardized tests in my life, including the LSAT, the GRE, and a test for the National Security Agency. The LSAT is far from the most difficult. You people that think your high LSAT scores make you some intellectual heavyweight (or a better lawyer) need to get your heads out of your asses; you are either incredibly insecure or a child.
Flag this comment
Bubba
May 8, 2009 9:23 AM CST
Might I suggest that any college professor who uses the egregious grammatical blunder “general concensus” is not someone whose opinions deserve much respect?
Flag this comment
Pessa
May 8, 2009 9:43 AM CST
Hard work always pays off, no matter where you are.
Flag this comment
Grey
May 8, 2009 9:44 AM CST
All these comments from those who attended Tier 1 schools has only solidified my opinion about these schools and their students and reminded me that my decision to attend Tier 4 to avoid these high maintenance, pompous idiots was the right one.
I did fantastic in school and when interviewing recently, all I heard was how firms didn’t want to hire those big firm attorneys that have recently been laid off because they only know one little teensy tiny part of their practice area (due to the brilliant specialization model in big firms), instead of approaching law with a holistic view. So, unless you have a solid work history behind you, top tiers, if you’re laid off I’d say, you’re screwed!
I just landed a great job with a small firm that pays well and has a very prestigous reputation. My grades and work history got me in. These are the things that stick with you over time and impress employers, not a degree with a pretty brand name school written on it.
High maintenance is out - hard-working, dedicated, and passionate is in. Sorry, trust fund babies, it’s time to actually start working!
Flag this comment
Barbara Res
May 8, 2009 9:49 AM CST
I predicted this. Too bad it took a recession. Next you will see clients realizing they dont need to pay the ridiculous fees being charged. Read the Associate, not a great book, but an eye opener to anyone who has never seen a million dollar bill for legal fees.
True story - 15 minutes charge for reading message that I called certain california big law guy. That is for reading the pink piece of paper they used to use when calls came in. He charged separately for the call. 15 minute minimum I was told. This has to stop sometime.
Flag this comment
Citizen
May 8, 2009 9:57 AM CST
The thing that kept me reading through all these comments was a lurid fascination—like an accident gawker—at how many seemed flip, arrogant or appallingly egocentric, and the hope that I would find one that was well considered; one with a broader perspective, nuance and insight. It took me to (at that time) the last entry, but thank you number 30.
As a legal employer, regardless of the shine or lack thereof of the law schools attended by any entry writers above, I would hire 30 in a flash, but few others would survive the first cut.
Flag this comment
Jeff
May 8, 2009 10:11 AM CST
Wow. The elitism displayed by some on this board knock my socks off. I went to a tier 4 school (hint, it’s the one in Chicago that James bashes above), and came out of school far better prepared for the world of law than my friends who went to U of Chicago or Northwestern. But they wrote a fascinating, yet useless law review article, so big whoop for them. These tier 1 elitists are exactly the reason our profession is broken.
I obtained my job at a mid-sized firm because I worked hard, networked harder, and interview well. And fyi, I would rather sweep up hair at a beauty shop than work at Big Law.
Flag this comment
Wall Street in house
May 8, 2009 10:22 AM CST
The article is simply not correct. Any time an analysis comes from a “law school professor,” you have to question its accuracy - profs often don’t know what they’re talking about, because they eschew contact with the business lawyers who make the economic decisons.
I’m in house at one of the prominent Wall Street firms. When we need a deal done, we need it done as quickly and accurately as can be, with every ounce of clever that can be brought to bear. We are HAPPY to pay a few $10K’s extra to get an extra 0.5% return on a many $100-million deal. For that, we pay for the smartest lawyers who can get the job done bestest and quickest. The BigLaw top 25, who recruit from the top 15-20 law schools, will survive just fine, because they deliver the work product we need. Yes, their business model will change, but not all that much.
Flag this comment
Leo
May 8, 2009 10:26 AM CST
Marc- I’ve taken the GRE, GMAT, and LSAT, and the LSAT was easily the hardest of the three. I had to study much harder for the LSAT to do well on that test. I didn’t score high enough to go to an elite school, but I do think it’s an accomplishment to score in the high 160s on the LSAT. However, someone who tells everyone else how well they did is clearly insecure. You can always take solace in the fact that the people who brag are usually ugly nerds.
I don’t understand why people keep referring to Tier 1 schools, which includes the top 50. There is no difference between some Big Ten school ranked between 30 and 40 and Tier 2 big city schools ranked between 50 and 80. Some Tier 2 schools actually have higher median LSATs then schools ranked between 30 and 50. When people say that there is the top 14 and the rest, there is some validity to this. There may be some slight variation. For example at UIUC (top 25), I’ve heard that big law will go into the top third there. I think beyond the top 30, though, you need to be top 10%, whether you’re at a school ranked 40 or 80.
Flag this comment
Proud John Marshall grad
May 8, 2009 10:26 AM CST
To James #13
While your “buddy” may have had a bad experience after transferring from John Marshall, I do not think he is in the majority. I and several of my classmates from JMLS got jobs at “Big Law” firms after graduation because, believe it or not, many of the firms realize that there are excellent lawyers there. True, we are in the minority and we all finished in the top five of our class; however, just because you went to John Marshall does not mean you cannot get a job with a so called “top” firm. John Marshall grads work at virtually every Big Law firm. While I was not enamored with the firm where I started and moved on to a smaller litigation firm after several years, others are still at the Big Law firms where they started, and are now full partners. My current firm (over 70 attorneys) has a high percentage of JMLS grads as partners, all of whom do quite well. As a member of the hiring committee at our firm, I can proudly say that we routinely hire JMLS grads (as well as Illinois, Michigan, ND, Northwestern, Wisconsin, etc. grads) for our summer program and as full time associates. Most are excellent. I do not know of any of my classmates who are out of the law (although we had a big class and I do not know what all are doing). Most are partners in mid size to smaller firms or have their own smaller firms, several work in house in the legal departments of various corporations, and several are judges. In fact, if you look at the hundreds of judges in Cook County, I would not be surprised if there are more John Marshall grads than from any other law school. (One statistic I saw stated that almost 20 percent of all Illinois judges - trial, appellate, and supreme court - are JMLS graduates, which is quite a statistic given that there are nine law schools in the state).
I don’t know about any of the other schools which you may think of as “diploma mills;” however, I can assure you that John Marshall is not one of them. It has been around for 110 years and has produced thousands and thousands of excellent lawyers, judges, and legislators. ANYONE who has graduated from college and is willing to work hard can be one of them.
Flag this comment
R
May 8, 2009 10:30 AM CST
Well said Jeff.
I went to a Tier 1 school and did well there. But if I’d viewed my Tier 1 education as some sort of ticket to a privileged life I’d have been sorely mistaken. After 25 years as a lawyer - the last 20 in government practice - I’m earning just over $100K a year - and the local media still considers rates like that to be ridiculously overpaid (which they may be, compared to the hardworking judges, prosecutors and public defenders who sometimes earn only half that even after 20 years or more in practice). But I love my job and the notion of public service. And I don’t have to rainmake.
Abe Lincoln didn’t attend a Tier 1 school.
Flag this comment
bac59447
May 8, 2009 10:34 AM CST
The Downturn’s Losers are all lawyers and law schools? Really? Perhaps it’s their own fault but I would say long before this that clients were the losers. Getting billed $450 per hour for associates, multiple lawyers billing to the same matters to have unending meetings with each other, outrageous paralegal fees. Perhaps these firms could spend a bit less time looking inward and feeling sorry for themselves and a bit more time looking outward at their clients and asking simple questions such as “why am I in this profession?”, “whose interests am I really supposed to be serving?” “and just how much money is enough in return for quality legal services?”. I won’t hold my breath though.
Flag this comment
Garp
May 8, 2009 10:36 AM CST
I’m always amused by these T1 v T4 discussions. I went to a T3 school because I was looking to law as a second career (the first being very respectable) and because the school was the only one in my area that offered a night program. While I’m sure if I went to Hahvard, I would have been so much more marketable, but you know, my previous real-world professional experience made me marketable regardless of my inadequate schooling. My job search was all of about 3 months after bar passage. Tier 3/4’s fit a need in my case and I don’t think my case is rare.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
May 8, 2009 12:13 PM CST
When I went off to law school, the ranking had not yet been invented, and LSAT scores were reported as a two-digit number. I regularly go to one or two bar functions a month, and things like LSAT scores and the rankings or tiers of our various law schools are simply never a topic of discussion among attendees. Graduates of a couple of schools that enjoy a friendly rivalry sometimes mention their schools’ relative bar pass rates, but that is as far as it goes. When I first saw the tier-bagging and LSAT-bragging that goes on with the posts on this site, I actually had to do some research to understand the terms posters were using for the “tier” discussion (and why the LSAT numbers were so high). Once lawyers are in practice for awhile, these things are just irrelevant (or at least they should be). For a lawyer 10 or 20 years out to claim superiority based on his or her LSAT (or GPA or relative tier rankings) frankly just looks bad. It’s on the same level as pointing out a “citizenship award” received as a senior in high school. It leaves the impression that the LSAT, GPA or school ranking is being mentioned because that was the apex of the lawyer’s life accomplishments, and everything since has been too mediocre to mention.
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.